Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-09-20 Bd Comm minutesMINUTES APPROVED IOWA CITY PUBLIC ART ADVISORY COMMITTEE THURSDAY, JULY 7, 2005, 3:30 P.M. LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL Members Present: Charles Felling, Rick Fosse, James Hemsley, Mark Seabold Terry Trueblood, Emily Carter Walsh Members Absent: Emily Martin Staff Present: Karin Franklin, Marcia Klingaman Visitors: Beth Koppes Call to Order Seabold called the meeting to order at 3:35 p.m. Public discussion of any item not on the agenda No items were presented for discussion by the committee members. Consideration of the Minutes of May 5, 2005 Meeting Trueblood gave a correction for the minutes at Kicker's Park, that there are six min~ soccer fields for younger age groups, six medium fields, and five full-sized soccer fields. MOTION: Helmsley moved to accept the minutes as amended. Fosse seconded, and the motion was passed unanimously. Updates Iowa Sculptors Showcase Seabold reported that the showcase dedication went well, except for the weather. He said he heard good feedback regarding the public art promotional installation, which gave very good exposure. There were many positive comments about the sculpture as well. Klingaman distributed updated public art brochures and programs from the dedication ceremony. Seabold said he plans to display the promotional kiosk in different locations, along with additional brochures, to generate interest in and knowledge about public art. Peninsula Sculptors Showcase Klingaman reported that installation of the sculpture by Seth Godard along to the trail to the pedestrian bridge across the dam had to be postponed because the dam project has not been completed because of high water, impacting the adjacent projects. She spoke to Seth about alternate locations, and he chose Willow Creek Park. It will be set near the trail by the northwest corner in a grove of trees, visible from Benton Street. The pad is poured, and Godard plans to install the wire frame within the week. The concrete will be poured on site. Once it is all done she will take some pictures. Klingaman noted that Godard also had two sculptures selected for "Sculptures on Second" in Cedar Rapids. Review of slides for potential Art in Parks commission The committee members viewed slides and selected several with pieces or themes that seemed appropriate for parks. Klingaman said that since the photos are several years old, the individual pieces might no longer be available. Franklin arrived at this point. Iowa City Public Art Advisory Committee Minutes July 7, 2005 Page 2 Selection of park site for Art in Park proiect for FY06 Klingaman suggested going through the slides again to see if any are suited to a particular park on the list. Martin noted that Willow Creek Park would soon have Godard's sculpture, and asked if that park should be removed from the list. Helmsley asked if all the artists displayed in the slides are local. Klingaman said no. Seabold agreed that Willow Creek could be removed from consideration. Martin suggested deciding which park is most suitable for a piece, based on the slides. Fosse asked how much funding is available for this project. Franklin said $35K. Fosse asked if the committee should pick a park to give priority, or pick a particular piece. Seabold suggested all committee members explain which parks they would choose first to receive a piece. He said his two top choices are the Sycamore Greenway because of the setting, and Kicker's Soccer Park because of its visibility. Martin agreed with those two choices. Seabold added that Hunter's Run would be a good choice for spreading art throughout the city, and that City Park already has several points of interest. Fosse also agreed with those choices. Helmsley said he chose Kicker's first because of the visibility, and the Greenway second. Felling agreed that either the Greenway or Kicker's are good choices, and said he has no strong feeling about either one. Trueblood said that the Greenway is a nice area, though it would likely have the least visibility. Martin inquired whether there would be more development in the any of the areas. Trueblood said there is no more planned development for Hunter's Run in the near future. The north end of Kicker's will be made more park-like with a shelter, but it will be intended to accommodate the soccer people rather than be a destination park. He added that Kicker's is high traffic, but at limited times, especially the spring and fall. He said that Upper City Park would have the greatest visibility. Fosse suggested that Hunter's Run would be visible from Highway 218. Trueblood said the piece would have to be big enough, and would still offer limited visibility from the highway. Seabold said a piece there might be hard to find if people wanted to see it up close, because of the location of the park. Trueblood said he has no favorite parks, though he suggested that the book tornado piece could be placed by the library. Then "Ties That Bind" could be located at Kicker's, along with several other small pieces, because Ties is small. Seabold said it seemed that the Greenway and Kicker's are the parks the committee members would like to focus on, and suggested reviewing the slides again with those two locations in mind. The committee members viewed the slides again, and designated possible locations for each piece or style. Klingaman organized the slides into different categories. Seabold asked for the tally of slides in each category. Klingaman said there are 11 for the Greenway, 9 for Kicker's, and 8 suited for both locations. Seabold asked if the next step should be to call the artists to see if they are interested or if any of the pieces are still available. Martin suggested sending a description of the project or locations to the artists, to see if they have anything that would fit. Franklin agreed that the settings should be described, then the artists could express interest and make suggestions. Her office will send out letters to the selected artists. Discussion of Neighborhood art proiects Wetherby Friends & Neighbors NA Klingaman explained that Koppes is the coordinator for the Wetherby Friends and Neighbors Association. Koppes distributed copies of a letter summarizing the ideas and schedule for the public art project. She reported that she held a meeting at her house recently to discuss possible neighborhood art projects. Interest narrowed down to a project in Wetherby Park. Suggestions included a nontraditional and decorative weathervane, a new artistic railing for the shelter, a mural for the shelter ceiling, along with a plaque with information about Isaac Wetherby in the shelter if possible. Fosse and Martin agreed those are all good ideas. Martin added that enhancement of the shelter would be good. Felling liked the idea of including neighborhood information and history in the plaque. Klingaman Iowa City Public Art Advisory Committee Minutes July 7, 2005 Page 3 said that the next step would be for the committee to give the okay to proceed with contacting artists. Seabold said that the neighborhood association is free to proceed. Seabold asked if the committee needs to formally send a recommendation or forward the letter. Franklin said no. Melrose NA Franklin reported that the association would like to do historic markers similar to the ones in Longfellow, to be designed by Will Thompson. Each marker will cost approximately $935.00, and there will be 8 to 10 markers, leading to an initial estimate of approximately $9K. She noted that amount is Iow compared to other neighborhoods, and added that the association is also looking into possible projects for Brookland Park. However, at this time the focus is on the markers. She said she is concerned that the association would like to install the markers along Melrose Avenue, which may increase the installation cost due to removal of bricks to get to the concrete below. Seabold asked if there would be a problem with game traffic in the area. Martin noted that the markers would have to be sturdier because of the area, and asked if they would be bolted to the bricks. Franklin said the bricks would be removed, then holes drilled into the concrete below where the markers would be set, then the bricks would be replaced. She does not anticipate that complication would stop the project. Fosse asked if the markers would comply with clear zone requirements. Franklin agreed that that consideration might lead to changes in location. Fosse added that the conditions for the federal reconstruction grant needed to be considered, which includes a ten-foot clear zone. Klingaman suggested orienting the markers differently, perhaps parallel to the street. Seabold suggested placing the markers only in historically significant locations, rather than as a line along the street. Franklin said that there are no revenue issues for this project, and the plan was to do installation during this fiscal year. Felling asked if the artist would be able to work directly with Franklin's office to ensure compliance with the placement requirements. Franklin said yes. Fosse said that the markers would be difficult to place, regardless of the orientation. Klingaman asked if placing on private property could be considered. Franklin said it is possible, though more complicated, since covenants to maintain the piece would be needed. Franklin asked if there were any other concerns from the committee about pursuing the project, apart from the issues already discussed. No concerns were expressed by committee members. Trueblood said a master plan would be developed for Brooklyn Park, so some ideas might be generated for public art to be incorporated into the park. Benton Hill Entryway Franklin reported that the project is progressing. Installation is now planned for the week of August 1, to accommodate the park dedication on August 6 at 4:00 p.m. She said the event would have food and music. Klingaman said the ceremony would probably begin at 4:30. Committee time/Other business Franklin asked if the revolving artist venue will remain in Willow Creek Park, or if only Godard's piece would be put there, and suggested having more discussion on that topic at a later date. She asked whether purchasing Godard's piece was discussed. Klingaman said no, but that the piece would likely be destroyed during any attempt to remove it. She told Godard that at the end of the display year, the committee would decide whether or not to keep the sculpture. If not, he would be required to remove it. Adjournment There being no further business to come before the committee, Walsh moved to adjourn and Fosse seconded. The meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m. s:lpcdlminuteslPublicArtl2OO51OT-O7-O5.doc Public Art Advisory Committee Attendance Record 2005 Term Name Expires 1/06 2/02 3/02 4/07 5/05 7/07 8/04 9/01 10/06 11/03 12/01 Emily Carter Walsh 01/01/08 CW X O X X X Charles Felling 01/01/06 CW X X X O/E X James Hemsley 01/01/06 CW O/E X X X X Emily Martin 01/01/08 CW X O/E O/E X O/E Mark Seabold 01/01/07 CW X X X X Rick Fosse CW O/E X X X X Terry Trueblood CW O/E X X X X Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM -- No Meeting CW -- Cancelled due to Weather - Not a Member MINUTES FINAL PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION July 13, 2005 MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Gustaveson, Judith Klink, Margaret Loomer, Ryan O'Leary, Matt Pacha, Jerry Raaz, Phil Reisetter, John Westefeld MEMBERS ABSENT: Sara Walz STAFF PRESENT: Terry Trueblood, Mike Moran, Terry Robinson GUESTS PRESENT: Bruce Titus, Bridget Titus FORMAL ACTION TAKEN Moved by Westefeld, seconded by Raaz to approve the June 8~ 2005 minutes as written. Unanimous. Moved by Pacha, seconded by O'Leary to approve the placement of the Angel of Hope Statue in City Park located north of the main parking lot~ that the size (including the base) not exceed 6'9"~ and that the text of the inscription be approved as submitted, however~ commission would like the dates of the event moved to the back side of the statue. Passed 6-1 (Klink voting no) with 1 abstention (Reisetter) Moved by Reisetter, seconded by Loomer to accept the name Harlocke Hill Park~ as suggested by the Weeber-Harlocke Neighborhood Association, for the parcel located adjacent to Harlocke Street about one block south of Benton Street. Unanimous. PUBLIC DISCUSSION No public discussion. CONSIDER A MOTION TO APPROVE PLACEMENT OF THE "ANGEL OF HOPE" STATUE IN CITY PARK: Trueblood distributed a memo from Eleanor Dilkes, City Attorney, to the Commission. It is Dilkes' findings that it would not be unconstitutional to place this statue in City Park, however, she urged the Parks and Recreation Commission to develop a policy that governs the placement of permanent structures in a park. Trueblood stated that he would look at the policy the city has regarding the placement of banners as a possible model for this policy. The Commission has already endorsed the concept of placing of this statue in a park subject to legal opinion, location, size and inscription. Titus submitted the inscription as follows: "For all who are grieving the loss of a child this Angel of Hope is dedicated on December 6, 2005. Annual candle light vigil December 6, 7:00 p.m." Dilkes approves of the proposed inscription. Titus and Trueblood met and toured possible locations for the statue. It was determined by both Parks and Recreation Commission July 13, 2005 Page 2 of 6 of them that City Park is the best location for this statue. Titus announced that in meeting with the group, they have decided that they prefer the area near the amusement rides due to the ample parking available for the annual ceremony, that it is easily accessible and is well utilized by children. Moved by Pacha, seconded by O'Leary to approve the placement of the Angel of Hope Statue in City Park located north of the main parking lot, that the size (including the base) not exceed 6'9", and with the inscription as submitted by Titus. Klink stated that while she is sympathetic to the families who have lost children and knows how traumatic this experience is for them, as she herself has been close to three families who have lost a child, she still opposes the idea of placing this statue in a city park for the following reasons: 1) She does see it as a conflict of church and state as she feels it is a religious symbol and that the majority of people would initially see it as such; and 2) she does not personally find it an aesthetically appealing work of art. Raaz stated that he is in agreement with the City Attorney -- that the Commission needs to develop a policy regarding these types of requests in the future. Westefeld stated that he too had some concerns about the church and state issue, however, after reading the memo from the City Attorney his concerns have been mitigated. In regards to the statue being aesthetically pleasing, this is a personal preference. O'Leary stated that he appreciates the convictions of this group. Loomer asked Titus the significance of the dates as part of the inscription and asked if it was necessary to include those in the text. Titus answered that the date is significant as this is the date of the candlelight vigil held annually on National Children's Day. O'Leary asked if it was possible to inscribe the dates on another part of the statue. A friendly amendment to the original motion was accepted to add the words... "however~ commission would like the dates moved to the back side of the statue." Passed 6-1 (Klink voting no) with 1 abstention {Reisetter) The Commission requested that Mr. Titus and staff work together to coordinate moving and placement of the statue, and with regard to the inscription. CONSIDER A MOTION TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE WEEBER-HARLOCKE NEIGHBORItOOD ASSOCIATION TO NAME THEIR NEW PARK "HARLOCKE HILL PARK" Marcia Klingaman, Neighborhood Services Coordinator, polled the neighborhood to the extent possible to get suggestions for naming the park. Harlocke Hill Park is their recommendation and is now brought to Commission for approval. This will then go to City Council for adoption. Klink shared photos of the park that were taken on May 22. Parks and Recreation Commission July 13, 2005 Page 3 of 6 Moved by Reisetter~ seconded by Loomer to accept the name Harlocke Hill Park~ as suggested by the Weeber-Harlocke Neighborhood Association~ for the parcel located adjacent to Harlocke Street about one block south of Benton Street. Unanimous. COMMISSION TIME: Pacha discussed his concerns regarding the delay in completion of the Boys Baseball concession building. He suggested that we give them a deadline to finish the project and if not complete by that date that the City will take over the project. Besides the fact that it is taking too long, he is concerned that is presents a safety hazard. He also mentioned that he has concerns regarding the Boys Baseball program and would like some of the Commission members and staff to meet with the Boys Baseball Board and discuss these concerns. Both Gustaveson and Westefeld mentioned past experiences with this organization. Some discussion ensued between Commission members and it is general consensus that these issues are longstanding and need to be addressed. O'Leary stated that the Iowa City Optimist Club donated $10,000 to the Iowa City Girls Softball organization on Thursday, July 7. Iowa City Boys Baseball will also be receiving a $10,000 donation on Thursday, July 14 at 6:15 p.m. O'Leary stated that he is also frustrated with some of the concerns he has heard regarding this organization and also supports the idea of meeting with their board. O'Leary also mentioned that as Iowa City is losing a golf course, he would like Commission to look at other cities that have a municipal golf course and keep this idea in mind for the future. Trueblood mentioned that Iowa City is the largest city in Iowa without a municipal golf course. Loomer asked Trueblood if Iowa City has jurisdiction over Plum Grove. Trueblood said that we do not. No further discussion, other than her comment that she is disappointed in its appearance. Raaz agrees with Pacha that there is a need to meet with Iowa City Boys Baseball Board regarding concerns. Klink mentioned that she had a chance to review the program for the upcoming Iowa Parks and Recreation Association's Fall Workshop. In doing so she noticed that many of the programs being offered, particularly those relating to natural areas and the environment, are regarding ideas that Iowa City has already implemented. Reisetter mentioned that he had the opportunity to play Bocce ball recently so has a better understanding of the sport. CHAIRS REPORT Gustaveson announced that in his position as Director of the Friday Night Concert Series, that he made a request that the Weatherdance Fountain be shut off during these events. He stated that he has received very positive feedback on this as it allows the public to get closer to the performers, allows a better view of the bands and allows for more interaction with them. Parks and Recreation Commission July 13, 2005 Page 4 of 6 DIRECTORS REPORT Benton Hill Park Dedication: Trueblood distributed a handout regarding the Benton Hill Park Dedication scheduled for Saturday, August 6, 4-7 p.m. They have received a number of food and refreshment donations to date. Trueblood announced that he might not be able to attend this event, as it might be necessary for him to be out of the state. He also mentioned that the signage/public art might not be installed in time for the dedication. Family Playground Nights: Joyce Carroll and Marcia Klingaman have developed "Family Playground" events held at four parks in Iowa City to date. On June 23ra they held their first event at Fairmeadows Park. An estimated 110 children and parents attended. Similar events were held at Kiwanis Park (130 attendees), and North Market Square (55 attendees). Future events will be held at Oak Grove Park and Wetherby Park. This program is funded through the Recreation Playground budget and donations. Disc Golf: Trueblood had forwarded an email to Commission Members from Jeff Harper. Since then Trueblood and Harper and another gentleman went on a tour of the South Sycamore Greenway. It was determined that this area will not work. They did like the area of city-owned land north of the Wastewater Treatment Plant. It was later determined, however, that this area will not work. They have also toured City Park and the Penninsula Parkland. Harper felt that Peninsula Parkland held most promise and that there is some promise in City Park, but due to the high traffic City Park might not be the most feasible choice. Trueblood asked Commission for their thoughts about these possible locations. Commission all agreed that City Park is too busy. Other areas were discussed between members, including property near the landfill. General consensus is that they would like to see a specific proposal from Harper before making a recommendation. Bocce Ball: The Director has discussed possible locations with Bruce Walker and Ron Grasse. They looked at City Park and initially liked the area inside the train tracks, but due to the liability this area will not work. They are also looking at Mercer Park and other areas of City Park. The group has received $170.00 in donations to date. Their hope is to build two courts side by side, with their preferred location near shelter #5 in City Park. Walnut Ridge/Cardinal Ridge: Staff met with the President of the Walnut Ridge Homeowners Association who indicated he would discuss the trail proposal with his board. If they agree the City can then acquire land from Cardinal Ridge and gain permission from the University to construct a connector trail to the Clear Creek Trail. Dog Park: It was mentioned at the last meeting that City Council has agreed to loan DogPAC money for the dog park. Trueblood noted that this now needs to go through the City bidding process. Parks and Recreation Commission July 13, 2005 Page 5 of 6 Parks & Recreation Master Plan: Trueblood announced that this item is at the top of his priority list to pursue and will be working on a request for proposal in upcoming weeks. Willow Creek Sculpture: The sculpture originally intended to be placed on the Peninsula Parkland will now be placed in Willow Creek Park due to the fact that the new bridge is taking so long to complete. O'Leary mentioned that the money donated to the Girls Softball and Boys Baseball organizations comes from the Optimist Club sale of pine trees in the fall/winter. Commission members encouraged Trueblood to write a thank you letter to the Optimist club on behalf of the Commission. Moved by Reisetter, seconded by Raaz to adjourn the meeting at 6:30 p.m. Unanimous. Parks and Recreation Commission July 13, 2005 Page 6 of 6 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2005 TERM NAME EXPIRES 1/12 2/16 3/9 4/13 5/11 6/8 7/13 8/10 9/14 10/12 11/19 12/14 Craig Gustaveson 1/1/07 NM X X X X X X Judith Klink 1/1/07 NM X X X X O/E X Margaret Loomer 1/1/08 NM X X X X X X Ryan O'Leary 1/1/06 NM X X O/E X O/E X Matt Pacha 1/1/05 NM X X O/E X O/E X Jerry Raaz 1/1/08 ...... X X X X X Phil Reisetter 1/1/09 NM X X O/E X X X Sarah Walz 1/1/07 NM X X X X X O/E John Westefeld 1/1/06 NM X X X X X X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting LQ = No meeting due to lack of quorum .... Not a Member MINUTES Final Iowa City Airport Commission August 11, 2005 Iowa City Airport Terminal - 5:45 PM Members Present: Randy Hartwig, Chair; Greg Farris; Howard Horan; Dan Clay (advisory member) Members Absent: Carl Williams, John Staley Staff Present: Sue Dulek, Michael Tharp Others Present: Dave Hughes, Earth Tech; Bruce Ahrens, Farmers National Company; Harry Wolf, Iowa Realty DETERMINE QUORUM: Chairperson Hartwig called the meeting to order at 5:47 PM. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM JULY 14, JULY 27, AND AUGUST 8, 2005 MEETINGS: Chairperson Hartwig asked if there were any additions or changes to the above-named minutes. Horan moved to accept the minutes of the July 14, July 27, and August 8, 2005 meeting as submitted; seconded by Farris. Motion passed 3-0 (Staley and Williams absent). PUBLIC DISCUSSION: None. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION: A. Runway 07 Project - Earth Tech 1. Update - Hartwig stated that last Friday morning, the FAA called and stated that Congress did not appropriate enough funds to cover all of the projects the FAA had planned. Consequently, the Runway 7/25 project did not receive all the funds we were expecting for this year, which means a delay. Hughes then discussed the box culvert and grading/earthwork projects that Earth Tech is involved in. The box culvert work should start in September, according to Hughes, but the grading/earthwork project will need to be delayed until the FAA. provides additional funding. 2. Farris moved to rescind Resolution No. A-05-15, passed on August 11, 2005, re: construction of earthwork (Phase 2); seconded by Horan. Resolution No. A-05-15 was rescinded on a roll call vote, 3-0 (Staley and Williams absent). 3. Farris moved the resolution approving Consultant Agreement with Earth Tech for general professional services with each project to be approved Airport Commission August 11, 2005 Page 2 via a "project task order;" seconded by Horan. Resolution No. A-05-17 passed on a roll call vote, 3-0 (Staley and Williams absent). 4. Hartwig moved the resolution approving "Project Task Order No. 1" for t- hangar floor installation in buildings B and C; seconded by Farris. Resolution No. A-05-18 passed on a roll call vote, 3-0 (Staley and Williams absen0. 5. Horan moved the resolution approving "Project Task Order No. 2" for pavement rehabilitation in north t-hangar taxi lanes and west terminal apron; seconded by Farris. Resolution No. A-05-19 passed on a roll call vote, 3-0 (Staley and Williams absent). B. Farmers National Company - consider renewing agreement. Bruce Ahrens of Farmers National Company spoke briefly with the Commission members about the relationship of Farmers National Company, previously known as Doane- Western, with the City of Iowa City and the Airport to manage the agricultural land at the Airport. The 1982 agreement is renewed automatically unless the Commission provides notice by the end of September. He spoke of the different crops that have been planted on this land. Ahrens stated that he would prefer to enter into a new agreement with the same terms as the 1982 agreement. Hartwig asked that this issue be put on the September meeting agenda. C. Aviation Commerce Park - Harry Wolf with Iowa Realty showed the members the proposed re-platting of the Commerce Park. He said the land has been rezoned to commercial, and that Planning and Zoning is reviewing the proposed platting. This takes into account the proposed Super Wal-Mart and the various changes that will take place with that project. The conversation turned to the appraisal values, and the need to make some decisions before Wolf starts marketing this remaining land. The members discussed various ideas on how to handle the sale or lease of this land, and asked questions in regards to the Wal- Mart project, timeframes, etc. (TAPE ENDS) Wolf told the members that in the next few weeks, he hopes to be back to the Commission with a formal recommendation for their approval regarding pricing. D. Sertoma Fly-in - Hartwig stated that this is the last of the month, and he hoped that others could make it. Hartwig made the motion to move Item G- Parcel of Land (Parcel No. 1020177001) to the next place on the agenda; seconded by Horan. Motion carried 3-0 (Staley and Williams absent). G. Parcel of Land: Parcel No. 1020177001 (the "Hagen parcel" located on Highway 1 between land owned by Patricia Wade and Ann Hargrave) - Hartwig stated that the issue here is that they need to decide if they want to pursue some use of this land, whether it be to sell or to lease. Members discussed the issue of having the F.A.A. approve something like this, as they would need their approval in order to sell this land. The discussion turned to the parcel of land, the size of it, and what Airport Commission August 11, 2005 Page 3 the value of it would be. The issue of selling versus leasing was also discussed at length. There was a consensus to obtain the FAA's permission to sell or enter into a long term ground lease. Hartwig will keep this item on the agenda and will contact the FAA. E. Airport "Operations": Strategic Plan-Implementation; Budget; and Airport Management - Clay spoke to the members about creating an Annual Report for presentation to the City Council. He and Tharp are working on this, and he will share this with the members once they have a working draft. Clay stated that he hopes:they have something for the members to review by the next meeting. The discussion next turned to the issue of hiring an employee, most likely a half- time employee, to provide support services to the Airport. Tharp is currently doing most of these tasks. Clay and Hartwig met with Sylvia Mejia, the City personnel director to work on a job description. A discussion ensued regarding how this job will be structured, type of experience needed, and the duties/responsibilities. Clay stated that he would go ahead and make the changes that Sylvia Mejia suggested, and then he would pass a draft of the job description to the Commission members for their input. Tharp suggested the title be Airport Operations Specialist, and that the position should have some authority (i.e., pay bills, make phone calls for work order-type jobs, etc.) as well as be a three- quarter-time position versus half-time. Clay also stated that the University of Dubuque is interested in continuing their internship program with the Airport. F. Obstruction Mitigation Project - Stanley Consultants - Hartwig stated that they need a summary report on what has been done, and they can then send that to the F.A.A. G. Subcommittees - update of current and establishment of new ones - Hartwig stated that he would like to set up a couple subcommittees, but that maybe they should wait until the employee position is filled. Ideas for subcommittees, so far, are: finance, infrastructure, and marketing/PR committee. Hartwig also stated that he would like to have some type of committee that deals with the various leases, and could keep up-to-date on these types of things. The discussion turned to various ideas, including a land-use committee. Hartwig stated that he would like to set up a finance committee and an infrastructure committee first. (TAPE ENDS) CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT: None. COMMISSION MEMBERS' REPORT: None. STAFF REPORT: None. Airport Commission August 11, 2005 Page 4 SET NEXT REGULAR MEETING FOR: September 8, 2005 at 5:45 P.M. ADJOURN: Meeting adjourned at 7:28 P.M. Airport Commission August 11, 2005 Page 5 Airport Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2005 TERM 1/13 2/10 2/16 3/10 4/14 5/12 6/9 7/14 8/11 NAME EXP. Daniel Clay 3/1/08 O/E X X X X ...... O --- Randy 3/1/09 X X X X X X X x X Hartwig Greg Farris 3/1/07 ..................... X X John Staley 3/1/06 X X X X X x x x 0 Carl 3/1/10 x x x x x x x 0 0 Williams Howard 3/1/08 ..................... X X Horan KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting .... Not a Member MINUTES APPROVED PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 2005 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Beth Koppes, Wally Plahutnik, Bob Brooks, Ann Freerks, Dean Shannon MEMBERS ABSENT: Terry Smith and Don Anciaux STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Karen Howard, Mitch Behr OTHERS PRESENT: Paula Brandt, Dennis Nowotny, Mark McCallum, Armond Pagliai, Nila Haug, Eric Bochner RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: Recommended approval by a vote of 4-1 (Shannon voting in the negative, Anciaux/Smith absent) the proposed draft Zoning Code as printed on 2/22/05 with the amendments that the Commission had reviewed, approved and voted on at the 6/27/05 and 8/18/05 Commission meetings. REZ05-00014 a rezoning from Central Business Service (CB-2) Zone to Central Business Support (CB- 5) Zone, Mixed Use (MU) Zone, High Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-44) Zone, and Public (P) for all property currently zoned CB-2 located south of Jefferson Street and east of Gilbert Street as depicted on the map. Recommended deferral to 9/1/05 by a vote of 4-0 (Plahutnik recused self, Anciaux/Smith absent) REZ05- 00015, a rezoning from Central Business Service (CB-2) Zone to Central Business Support (CB-5) Zone, Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1) Zone and Mixed Use (MU) Zone for all property currently zoned CB-2 located south of Davenport Street and north of Jefferson Street. Recommended approval by a vote of 5-0 (Anciaux/Smith absent) REZ05-00016, a rezoning from Central Business Service (CB-2) Zone to Central Business Support (CB-5) Zone and Planned High Density Multi- Family Residential (PRM) Zone for all property currently zoned CB-2 located south of Burlington Street and west of Linn Street. Recommended approval by a vote of 5-0 (Anciaux/Smith absent) REZ05-00017, a rezoning from Residential Factory Built Housing (RFBH) to Planned Development Housing Overlay (OPDH-12) for all properties currently zoned RFBH, including Saddlebrook, Bon-Aire, Hilltop, Baculis, Forrest View, Thatcher Mobile Home Parks and property located at 1705 Prairie Du Chien Road. Recommended approval by a vote of 5-0 (Anciaux/Smith absent) REZ05-00010, a rezoning from Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) to Planned Development Housing Overlay, Medium Density Single- Family (OPDH-8) for property located on Longfellow Place within the Longfellow Manor Subdivision. Recommended approval by a vote of 5-0 (Anciaux/Smith absent) REZ05-00011, a rezoning from Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) to High Density Single-Family (RS-12) for property located on Dodge Street Court within the Jacob Ricord's Subdivision. Recommended approval by a vote of 5-0 (Anciaux/Smith absent) REZ05-00012, a rezoning from Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) to High Density Single-Family (RS-12) for property located on Catskill Court within the East Hill Subdivision. Recommended approval by a vote of 5-0 (Anciaux/Smith absent) REZ05-00013, a rezoning from Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) to High Density Single-Family (RS-12) for property located south and east of Whispering Meadows Drive within the Whispering Meadows Subdivision. CALL TO ORDER: Brooks called the meeting to order at 7:34 pm. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes August 18, 2005 Page 2 PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. DEVELOPMENT CODE - PROPOSED NEW ZONING CODE (CITY CODE: TITLE 14): Brooks said this would be the last meeting for public input on the proposed revisions to the revised Zoning Code. Revising of the City's Zoning Code had been a two-year process which had included several formal open houses hosted by City Staff and the Commission where the public could meet one- on-one with staff to discuss concerns and ask questions; a series of meetings with various civic and community groups where Staff had given presentations on the proposed revisions; several public hearings before the Planning and Zoning Commission; and numerous opportunities in various formats for the public to provide written comments and input to Staff and the Commission regarding the proposed revisions to the Code. At this point in the process the Commission was ready to vote on the proposed revised Zoning Code and make their recommendation to City Council. After receiving the Commission's recommendation and a final draft copy of the revised Zoning Code, the Council would then have a number of work sessions with the Commission to discuss the proposed changes. After that there would be several public hearings held before the Council and then the Council would vote on the proposed revised Zoning Code. Brooks said that the Commission had heard and reviewed a lot of input both in person and in writing. He requested that during this public input session new items and issues be presented to the Commission. Miklo said there were a series of rezoning items associated with the Code listed on the agenda. Public input on these items had been received at previous Commission meetings so they would not be opened for public input however if someone wished to address them during public input for the Development Code they were welcome to do so. Brooks said as a result of the last public hearing regarding the proposed revised Zoning Code there had been several proposals / ideas put forth by the public. These included: · Change the maximum allowed density in the multi-family zones so that a developer is allowed to develop more apartments per acre if the apartments have fewer bedrooms. · Provide a density bonus for handicapped accessible dwelling units that contain a small number of bedrooms. · Incorporate inclusionary zoning provisions into the zoning code that would require developers to build a certain percentage of units within each new development that would be affordable to those at or below area median income. · Table 5A-2 Minimum Parking Requirements: Reconsider the proposal in the new code that would increase the parking requirements in the PRM Zone for apartments with large numbers of bedrooms. · 14-4E-5E and 14-4E-6C: Increase the allowable damage for nonconforming structures from 70% to 75%. The draft specifies that nonconforming structures damaged beyond 70% of the assessed value of the structure may not be rebuilt without bringing the structure and the use into compliance with the Code. Request is to increase this figure to 75%. · Make some allowance for cottage-type industries to locate within retail commercial zones in the City. Clear up any ambiguity in the Code in this regard. Brooks asked the Commissioners if they wished to make any motion(s) to direct staff to include any of the proposed amendments to the draft Code prior to opening the public hearing session. Motion: Freerks made a motion to include proposed amendment #55, to make some allowance for cottage-type industries to locate within retail commercial zones in the City and clear up any ambiguity in the Code in this regard." Koppes seconded the motion. Howard said this was a grey area in the Zoning Code. Currently there were broad use categories which allowed certain uses in certain zones. The cottage-type industries frequently had a small-scale manufacturing type component but a very important retail component to their business so they needed to locate in commercial zones as they needed exposure from a retail district. Typically when they started out the manufacturing component was fairly small. It would include incubator type small cottage industries Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes August 18, 2005 Page 3 such as bakeries, candy manufacturing, furniture and small consumer items. There might also be some wholesale trade associated with the business. Currently in the Code it was a grey area because it was not well spelled out and Staff had to make a judgment call for each type of thing that came in which made it very frustrating for both Staff and the business owner. Staff wished to make it clear in the new Zoning Code that these types of businesses would be allowed in the commercial areas. Behr said the Rezoning Items under Section D of the agenda would not have separate public hearings tonight because they resulted from the new Code. If people had comments with new and different information about them they should make those comments during the public hearing time for the new Code. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. (Anciaux and Smith absent) Motion: Plahutnik made a motion to include language for proposed amendment #54, "Increase the allowable damage for nonconforming structures from 70% to 75% for nonconforming structures damaged beyond 75% of the assessed value of the structure may not be rebuilt without bringing the structure and the use into compliance with the Code." Shannon seconded the motion. Howard said this was standard in the Code for non-conforming uses. Currently the Code allowed a structure that had been damaged by fire or acts of God to be rebuilt for that same non-conforming use. There was a percentage that the structure had to be damaged before it could be rebuilt. In the proposed Code the percentage of damage had been reduced from 100% to 70% based research done by Staff. They had found that in a number of different zoning codes the typical range was between 50% and 75%. Freerks said she felt the current Code's 100% figure was an anomaly as it had not been found anywhere else when Staff had researched it. She was comfortable with 70% as it fell fairly between 50% and 75%. Koppes said she was also comfortable with 70% so she would not be able to support the motion. Plahutnik said in many instances these were people's businesses that they relied upon for their livelihood. Any damage to them, rebuilding a conforming structure many times would prove economically unfeasible so he wanted to give whatever leeway the Commission could to help the people out. The motion passed on a vote of 3-2 (Freerks and Koppes voted in the negative; Anciaux and Smith absent). Behr said with respect to the last motion prior to public hearing, the Bi-Laws provided that it took four (4) votes for a positive recommendation on a substantial amendment to the zoning chapter. For the new Code it would most definitely require four votes. With respect to the question of whether the 3-2 vote on the change from 70% to 75% was substantial or not, Behr said Legal Council would like to reserve judgment on that. Substantial was the key language. Public discussion was opened. Brooks said if there were new items or new information relating to the Code and/or as the Code related to the proposed zoning changes the Commission would receive public input at this time. Paula Brandt., 824 N. Gilbert Street, said the Northside Neighborhood Association did not meet during the summer so they had not previously spoken about the CB-2 zones that affect their neighborhood. However, the Steering Committee had met to discuss the proposed zoning changes for the Northside Market area. They appreciated the work of the City planning staff to further the City's Comprehensive Plan which was developed with the input of the citizens of Iowa City. It was a challenge to balance the needs and desires of residents and historic preservationists and business people and visitors and economic development and parking and aesthetics while still seeing that property owners received a fair return on their investment. Brandt said the Committee believed that the proposed zoning changes for the Northside Market area struck that balance by supporting the Comprehensive Plan and preserving the Iow scale houses and businesses that helped make the neighborhood a viable, attractive and enjoyable area in which to live and visit and by keeping the higher buildings with higher densities downtown and south of Burlington Street. The Steering Committee wished to believe that the owners of the immediately affected properties shared their enthusiasm for their neighborhood even if they didn't reside there. The Steering Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes August 18, 2005 Page 4 Committee urged the Commission to consider the greater good of Iowa City and the neighborhood and would support the proposed changes to the Zoning Code. Dennis Nowotn¥, 517 E. Washington Street, said at one time he had stated that the new Code had doubled in length from the current Code. It had been pointed out to him that the type setting was different. The City of Des Moines' Code was approximately 137 pages versus Iowa City's 400+ pages. Their densities started at somewhat more dense than Iowa City's. In their high density areas, Des Moines multi- family dwellings started at 850-square feet per dwelling unit, about 25-square feet less than Iowa City's PRM. Des Moines square foot of lots 2,000 vs. Iowa City's 5,000 in the PRM areas. Mark McCallum 811 East College Street, provided a copy of the editorial opinion he'd had published in the Press Citizen in July, 2005. He said he was a member of the Historic Preservation Commission for the College Green area. McCallum said he was trying to advocate a few good ideas, the editorial had given the context for the mind set he'd had when he'd proposed them. McCallum said he appreciated the Commission's consideration of his proposals. He'd been trying to follow the Commission's meeting minutes and work sessions on the internet; but the May 23 and June 20 meetings were not available on the internet yet. It was his understanding that his proposals had been discussed during the August 1 work session. Given the visibility that he'd put himself in he would have liked to have had the opportunity to sit in on that work session to respond to any questions the Commission had at that time and to have gotten a consensus as to how they had been thinking. McCallum said he'd gotten a lot of positive feedback on his ideas, particularly from wanna-be politicians who were running for City Council at this time. One City Councilor had asked for copies of all of his proposals. There was interest at the Council level for his ideas. McCallum said he was aware that his historic preservation idea had been a little controversial; the multi- family one was just good common sense. If the City was going to try to effect and create a diverse mix of housing downtown, the Commission needed to do something other than what it was doing right now. He was at a loss why a community that espoused the values that the City said it did, would be against offering a density bonus for handicap housing. McCallum asked if the work session meeting minutes were available, would they be put on the internet and could he ask for a copy? Miklo said the work session minutes were available to the public but typically were not put on-line. He was welcome to stop by the Planning Office to pick up copies. In terms of the bonuses for handicap accessible apartments, because of the ADA, all new apartments/any new buildings were required to be handicap accessible on the ground floor. McCallum said in his analysis of College Street, the issue he was presenting was that he'd spoken with the owner of the property in the 300-block of College Street who'd built over 60-units. He'd asked the property owner if he would build more smaller units if there was an incentive. The property owner had said yes of course he would. McCallum said developers were very simple creatures. They did what the zoning code allowed them and tended to want to maximize their return on investment. Current ADA only required that handicap accessible units be built in new buildings, they didn't specify the mix. In some of the new areas that had been developed in the last 10-years, they were seeing handicap units being built out in 4 or 5 bedroom units. McCallum said to him it seemed they were meeting the minimum standards of the goals of the ADA law but were really not creating a housing mix that was in the spirit of the people who really needed it. Armond Pa.qliai, 302 E. Bloomington Street, said in the current zoning of CB-2, if they put up a new building, what would their occupancy be; could they build a higher occupancy; what could they build now and how many people could they hold for a restaurant. Howard said the occupancy load would only be limited by the parking requirements. Their current occupancy load was 113 persons, by special exception they could achieve up to 125 persons. The occupancy load was based on a number of factors which included the number of bathrooms, the amount of parking, the amount of space available for seating, how many exits all determined the occupancy load of a restaurant. He could consult Housing and Inspection Services for specifics. Pagliai asked in CB-5 or CB-2 how many people could they seat. Was it limited? Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes August 18, 2005 Page 5 Howard said again it would be based on all the Code factors. Although there was not a specific occupancy cap in the CB-5 or CB-2 zones, it would be limited by the amount of parking, configuration of the building and other zoning factors. Pagliai said if they did have the required parking available, there still would be the potential for not being able to expand as big as they wished to. Miklo said that was correct, the size of their lot would determine parking and if they added apartments above, parking spaces would have to be provided for the residential as well. Nila Hauq, 517 E. Washington, said she'd spoken her mind before so the Commission knew how she felt. One of the things that seemed to be important in the downzoning or which prohibited the upzoning from CB-2 to CB-5 was the parking. It seemed to her that everyone who was in that area had explained that they could get the parking. Haug asked if the area were upzoned to CB-5, would the Commission consider that parking be made available. In the other CB-5 areas parking was not required, but in this case would the Commission consider an amendment which would require that all the CB-2 areas upzoned to CB-5 be required to provide parking. Freerks said at the last meeting she had requested Staff to provide information regarding parking space availability in the downtown ramps. The Commission had received those numbers. The Chauncey Swan parking ramp had 475 parking spots and currently there were 400 parking permits issued which left only 75 available spaces for paying customers. She didn't think that was enough to meet the needs of the area Haug was referring to. Haug said Pagliais had said that they could provide parking, she and the other property owners had plenty of parking or they could provide it on their properties. She said if it was made a requirement, however, if they had to do it they would have to do it. Miklo clarified that Haug was suggesting that there be an amendment to the CB-5 zone to require parking in these particular areas. Haug said that was correct - just because they could do it. Miklo said that would require some study by the City and a separate amendment to go forward with that idea. Eric Bochner, Bochner Chocolates, 50 Sumac Court, said he believed that the proposed amendment #55, allowance for cottage type industries, was based on commentary by him. He wanted to clarify some of the issues that he'd had when he had tried to establish his business in CC-2 zoning as well as in CI zoning and make sure that there was also clarity not just so that he could have put his business with manufacturing and retail in a CC-2 zone but he also had a problem in the C1-1 zone in that he couldn't establish retail presence. He wanted to make sure that the new Code allowed both retail and manufacturing. When he had started his business it had been hard because he had no established retail business so what was the driving force - retail as accessory use or retail as a primary use. They had ended up with it being easy to say "which ever one you want the answer to be" and he'd found out that he was no where. Bochner said he wished to clarify that at least the C1-1 zones should be able to accommodate the same sort of business in the same clear way as well as CC-2 zoning and allow the business owner based on cost and economic issues to be able to locate the business where ever they wanted. He also wanted to raise the issue that he'd previously discussed with Howard regarding the same thing was actually true for the R&D zoning. Some of the same kinds of manufacturing that he did at his business could also be appropriately located in an R&D zone. To identify the larger issue for him, he always tried to find the most number of places that he could accomplish his business purposes within the city bounds and what he'd found was that there was no clear zone for light manufacturing. Possibly an R&D zone with the buildings with their cooling and their infrastructure might be just as good for him but per the R&D uses he was not allowed to locate in that zone either. Bochner said for businesses such as himself he wanted to make sure that there were at least a few choices that made sense consistent with use whether it would be CC-2 or C1-1 or R&D zones that would allow a variety of uses. It was his understanding that attracting light manufacturing to the city was of high importance. He wanted to make sure that if there were other people like him, that they would be able to establish their businesses very easily. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes August 18, 2005 Page 6 Howard said she felt it had been clarified in the C1-1 zone so that it specifically called out provisions to allow a certain amount of retail as a principle use which had been done earlier. In the current Code there were not use categories so it was a grey area. Howard said with the amendments that Bochner had just discussed it should help in the retail commercial zones of CC-2, CB-5 and CB-10. With regard to the RDP zone, those were originally intended for high tech sorts of businesses so they had been written in that fashion. Without looking at the Code, she was not sure whether an amendment would need to be made to the uses for light manufacturing to allow those types of businesses in RDP and ORP zones. Bochner said the reason he raised that issue was when he'd been looking to expand his manufacturing and locate it somewhere else, the research & development parks whether they were used for pharmaceutical manufacturing or light manufacturing of electronics, etc, had all seemed to be identified ok to be in research & development parks but doing a high tech food manufacturing had not been allowed under the current Code. The infrastructure of those parks, whether it be for trucks or for having office space and being able to do high tech manufacturing, those spaces were actually perfect for his kind of use but under his reading of the Code and his discussions with Staff several years ago had said that those were off limits for him. Bochner said to allow that flexibility as well would be consistent with the use of what those types of spaces and the land uses are done for right now. Howard said the distinction with the RDP and the ORP zones, they were intended for larger uses. There was a l-acre lot minimum in the RDP zone and a 7-acre lot minimum in the ORP zone. That didn't seem quite consistent with a cottage industry type, maybe incubator business type, but a bakery or something like that probably would not fit in there although the market would tend not to encourage a bakery to locate in the RDP. Miklo said when Staff were talking about a research and development park, they were talking about locations such as ACT, NCS Pearson, Northgate Corporate Park, areas of a little different character than a C1-1 or retail zones. Miklo said on page 183 under #16, the C1-1 zone specifically allowed the type of retail that was requested by Bochner. Plahutnik asked if the current provisions prohibited retail in the R&D parks? Howard said retail was allowed always as an accessory use, there were always businesses that had a mix of things - wholesale, retail, a small retail component but it was intended to be accessory to the larger principle use. In any commercial zone you could have any type of accessory use that would be typical for that kind of a business. That was not specifically called out, it was more of a judgment call, was it something that was accessory or was it a principle use of a property. That was where in the current Code it was ambiguous because there was no use categories to be able to determine which was principle and which was accessory. Howard said Staff felt in the proposed Code it was a little more clear exactly what was a principle use, the accessory uses would still be a judgment call. Howard referred to page 153, the definitions of manufacturing zones, industrial manufacturing categories. Looking at Technical Light Manufacturing, she didn't know if chocolate manufacturing would fall under general manufacturing and not light manufacturing. In the RDP and the ORP zones, only light manufacturing was allowed, so it would require an amendment to those two zones. Miklo said what was important was when looking as the proposed Code compared to the current Code, the proposed Code allowed a far broader number of zones that would allow the sort of manufacturing / retail combination being discussed. Brooks said knowing the plight that Bochner had gone through trying to locate his business, it had been the Commission's hope that they were opening things up to allow that type of business and operation to locate in a broader range of areas. The Code might not have gone as far as Bochner would have hoped, but it would clearly allow such businesses in several more zones when compared to the current code. Bochner said he wished to point out that the proposed amendments would not help him now but he wanted to be sure to do this for others who were like him. Bochner said what was actually happening in his business now was because of the place they'd had to go the retail was actually separating off from the manufacturing. Now looking at his business going forward and forwarding thinking about light manufacturing, was if he wanted to relocate his manufacturing to another location, what kinds of locations would he like for a business like his. An R&D area would be significantly better if the space was available in a park like that to be putting his manufacturing operations, just as if he were manufacturing Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes August 18, 2005 Page 7 pharmaceuticals or bio-tech. Even though it was a lower tech product than what people were used to, that · was the kind of industry the city wanted. He could do very well manufacturing in that type of park and imagined that other people who didn't make a computer or other type of bio-tech device typically recognized as high-tech, they too could successfully be located in those areas assuming the economics worked out and assuming the infrastructure was right. Bochner said he knew for his particular business, a research and development park developer would have already spent a lot of money on the types of things that would be useful for him and he could do manufacturing in that location. Bochner said he could identify several businesses for which a research and development park might be an appropriate place to locate. Persons might not wish to spend that much money per square foot, but he at least wished to have the opportunity to consider locating there. Howard said to clarify for the record, these types of businesses would be allowed in the CC-2, CB-5 and CB-10, C1-1 zone and if the retail was accessory it would be allowed in the I-1 zone which allowed general manufacturing. Regarding RDP zoning, there was not much of this type of zoning in the city and most was already developed. There were a lot of ORP zones but it was a minimum 7-acre lot so a small manufacturer would probably not fit in that zone. Nowotny said he wished to speak for the people who were being down zoned essentially from the CB-2 to MU, essentially 9 lots east of the downtown area. They'd had their signatures notarized as not wanting their properties to be devalued. Down zoning to them was devaluation. Brooks said the Commission had received copies of the signature lists. Public discussion was closed. Miklo said there were a couple of decisions that the Commission needed to make before voting on the entire Zoning Code package. The proposal now, as the draft was written, was to eliminate the CB-2 zone and then rezone the various CB-2 areas to other zones. If the Commission decided not to eliminate the CB-2 zone, then they would need to decide that before they voted on some of the other proposals. If they decided to eliminate it, then they would need to vote on the other agenda items after they voted on the proposed Code rewrite. Motion: Freerks made a motion to approve the proposed draft Zoning Code as printed on 2/22/05 with the amendments that the Commission had reviewed, approved and voted on at the 6/27/05 and 8/18/05 Commission meetings. Koppes seconded the motion. Freerks said this had been a huge process. She felt pretty comfortable with the Zoning Code they had come forward with. You couldn't please everyone all the time with everything. It was about a vision for the community and how to try to create growth yet have it be something that really fit with Iowa City and with the Comprehensive Plan. They were not a political body, they looked at the vision that they had for a community and felt comfortable with getting rid of the CB-2 zone. She felt it was not really a zone that fit that particular area of Iowa City, it was a zone of tall thin buildings surrounded by parking lots, which was not what was needed in those areas. Freerks said she felt they could do better with those areas and it would be discussed later when the Commission voted on the individual development items. Freerks said the Commission was going to have a couple of meetings with the City Council, discuss it with them and the public would have the opportunity to speak with the City Council about the proposed Code rewrite again. Shannon said with this one vote they would be doing away with the CB-2 zone and'that would be shutting the door in people's face that had hoped that they could hang on to the CB-2 zone. If the Commission voted to eliminate the CB-2 zone that would make it a done deal, for the people and owners who'd spoken before the Commission at the last 2 or 3 meetings, then they would have to take their cause to the City Council. Behr said if the Commission made a positive recommendation on the Code as a whole without CB-2 zones, the Commission would need to rezone those CB-2 properties which could be done yet this evening. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes August 18, 2005 Page 8 Freerks said she was not saying that she didn't think that maybe even some of the areas that the Commission was thinking of rezoning might not be better in CB-5 at some point but it might not be tonight. It could and would be discussed later. Shannon said he was not comfortable doing away with something that that many property owners felt they needed to have for their property to run their businesses or for their values. He liked to listen to people who were actually involved and owned the property. He was opposed to doing away with the CB- 2, he felt it was awfully iffy to tell the people to come back before the Commission and maybe we'll let you have something and maybe we won't. Right now they had the CB-2, maybe it was not a good thing to keep, but apparently at this time they felt it was. Maybe the people didn't understand but maybe they did. Koppes said one of their goals had been to simplify the Zoning Code. She felt by eliminating one zone it would help. It had been a long drawn out process and she had been in it since the beginning. Koppes said she actually understood everyone's concerns but at City Council was where the politics had to be worked out. The Commission was recommending what they thought the City should do, she was going to support the proposed Code without the CB-2. Plahutnik said he'd come later to the process but every single item that the Commission had voted on since he'd been a Commission member had been hammered out item by item, the Commission had taken every bit of public comment into their consideration and then in the end voted and tried to do what they thought was best for Iowa City. In terms of this being the final slamming of the door on the CB-2 areas, it was not. The Commission had not come to the final zoning of the areas being considered and what exactly they would be. What the Commission was talking about was eliminating the CB-2 zone and there was still recourse with the City Council. Every other week the Commission met and people presented them with rezoning applications. Nearly invariable since he'd sat on the Commission in one way or another the applications had been approved. It was not slamming the door, it was an obstacle, but the Commission had worked it all out item by item and given it as much thoughtful consideration as they possibly could and had worked very hard on the Code rewrite. Plahutnik said he was strongly in favor of supporting the proposed Code draft. Brooks said he agreed as had been mentioned earlier that this was somewhat of a balancing act. Having not been involved in the writing from the very beginning but having gone back and read through all the information, minutes, communications and discussion that had gone on from the beginning, it was pretty obvious that there had been a lot of give and take in the process. There had been comments made that a lot of it was being pushed down their throats by Staff, which was the farthest thing from the truth. The Commission had had a very active role in reviewing and working out a whole draft of different options and different directions to go. It was a balancing act and they were there to try to present to the Council a document that was a useful tool in implementing the City's Comprehensive Plan. What they had and what they would be taking forward to them hopefully was going to be a good tool for many years to come. That didn't mean that there couldn't be some tweaking and modification in the coming years as new trends and new things became evident but he felt that they'd come up with a very good document for Iowa City and Iowa City was different than almost any other community in the state of Iowa. That was why we all loved it here and was why we liked to be here. Brooks said he felt very strongly that what they had was a very good document and hoped that as it proceeded through the Council hearings there would be good open discussions with the Council. The motion passed on a vote of 4-1 (Shannon voted in the negative; Anciaux and Smith absent). Brooks said he had had a meeting earlier in the day with the City Clerk regarding the timing of when the Council would receive the Code draft and when they'd have work sessions with the Commission prior to the public hearings. At this point the Planning Staff would need to get the amendments incorporated into the draft Code, get the draft re-printed and sent out. They potentially were looking at mid-September before the final draft would go to the Council and then there would be a series of work sessions with the Council and open to the public to review the proposed Zoning Code with them. It would then be totally in the Council's hands to decide when they would set public hearings. Brooks thanked everyone for their input. It was always important to the Commission to hear what the public had to say and to have dialogue with them. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes August 18, 2005 Page 9 REZONING ITEMS: REZ05-00014, consideration of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Central Business Service (CB-2) Zone to Central Business Support (CB-5) Zone, Mixed Use (MU) Zone, High Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-44) Zone, and Public (P) for all property currently zoned CB-2 located south of Jefferson Street and east of Gilbert Street. Motion: Koppes made a motion to approve REZ05-00014 as depicted on the map. Plahutnik seconded the motion. Freerks said right now she felt these were the best zones for these areas for the future as she saw it. The Commission was not political, she was looking at it in terms of planning and what she saw as being the best thing for the city in those areas. In the future there could be the possibility that some of those areas could be rezoned, when and what that might be she was not sure. She felt very comfortable with the zones, as currently proposed and what the future held for them. She would support the motion. Plahutnik said currently this area was almost self-zoned, there was not a single building that had been built to the maximum limits of CB-2. The area itself had kind of accepted and built up at lower densities and lower heights than CB-2 allowed. If at some point in the future it became economically viable to build to the densities of CB-5, then there would be the time for rezoning. He would vote in favor of the motion. Freerks said she felt this was a wonderful area, it did well as it was. Change was necessary sometimes, but it was a really beautiful, vibrant part of Iowa City as it was right now too. Shannon said it was a nice area. He was having a hard time following why the Commission felt the need to change something that seemed to be doing quite well for the case of simplification. If it was a good area, why did the Commission wish to tweak it. Brooks said he supported the proposed changes. He'd been convinced that because of the lot sizes and the requirements of CB-2 zone, the vision that some people had for development would never be reality, because there just wasn't the space for parking and the other amenities that were required. What the Commission was proposing as a transition zone between areas to the East and the downtown was reasonable. He would vote to support the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 4-1 (Shannon voting in the negative.) REZ05-00015, consideration of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Central Business Service (CB-2) Zone to Central Business Support (CB-5) Zone, Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1) Zone and Mixed Use (MU) Zone for all property currently zoned CB-2 located south of Davenport Street and north of Jefferson Street. Howard said at the Commission's last meeting, the Commission had requested a different map indicating that the northern portion along Bloomington Street be included with the CN-1 designation. The newly drawn map had been distributed to the public and to the Commissioners at this meeting. Plahutnik recused himself citing a possible conflict of interest due to his employer owning property in this area. Motion: Koppes made a motion to approve REZ05-00015 as depicted in the 'new' map distributed 8/18/05 and to zone the area to the North as CN-1 rather than MU. Freerks seconded the motion. Motion withdrawn by Koppes, second withdrawn by Freerks. Motion: Koppes made a motion to defer the vote on REZ05-00015 to the 9/1/05 meeting. The motion to defer passed on a vote of 4-0. Behr said for the public's information, at the 9/1/05 meeting there would be no additional public discussion on REZ05-00015, it would just be for consideration before the Commission. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes August 18, 2005 Page 10 REZ05-00016, consideration of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Central Business Service (CB-2) Zone to Central Business Support (CB-5) Zone and Planned High Density Multi-Family Residential (PRM) Zone for all property currently zoned CB-2 located south of Burlington Street and west of Linn Street. Motion: Koppes made a motion to approve REZ05-00016, as depicted on the map. Freerks seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. REZ05-00017, consideration of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Residential Factory Built Housing (RFBH) to Planned Development Housing Overlay (OPDH-12) for all properties currently zoned RFBH, including Saddlebrook, Bon-Aire, Hilltop, Baculis, Forrest View, Thatcher Mobile Home Parks and property located at 1705 Prairie Du Chien Road. Motion: Koppes made a motion to approve REZ05-00017. Plahutnik seconded the motion. Miklo said the proposal was to eliminate the RFBH zone and to zone the existing RFBH zones to OPDH- 12. OPDH stood for Overlay Planned Development Housing. The draft Code included the manufactured housing standards in the OPDH zone so in effect the existing parks would continue as they were now. If there was a proposal to expand them they would need to amend the OPDH plan or add additional land to the OPDH plan. Today in the current RFBH zone they would have to amend the manufactured housing site plan or add to the manufactured housing zoning area if they wished to expand the mobile home park. It was more of a housekeeping matter than a significant zoning change and would not change existing parks. A concern had been heard from the public that an OPDH zone would also allow, if approved as part of a zoning ordinance, townhouses, single-family, duplexes and apartment buildings. There had been a concern that those buildings could be built in these zones and displace the manufactured housing. He said that was not the case unless there was action by the City Council after receiving the Commission's recommendation to approve an amended OPDH plan. Brooks said it would still all be part of a planned development process whether it was a residential factory built housing plan or an OPDH. This would collapse all of that into one name and one zone. Freerks said it was not the Commission's desire to eliminate manufactured housing at all. Howard said the original intent had been to make it more fair for new manufactured housing parks not to have to go through a separate special process. They were a type of planned development and would be treated in the same manner as other types of planned developments. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. REZ05-00010, consideration of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) to Planned Development Housing Overlay - Medium Density Single-Family (OPDH-8) for property located on Longfellow Place within the Longfellow Manor Subdivision. Miklo said on Tuesday evening at 5:00 p.m. there had been 5 individuals from the Longfellow neighborhood who'd met with Staff who'd had some questions trying to clarify what was happening with this rezoning. The area that was currently zoned RS~8 would be rezoned OPDH-8, which would allow the remaining vacant lots to be built with single-family or duplex structures depending on the property owners choice. Early on there had been some confusion regarding the original proposal. There still might be some concern on the part of some of the persons who'd attended the meeting but in general Staff had received indications of support for what was being done. Brooks said the rezoning was intended to facilitate allowing what had been started to be completed. Motion: Plahutnik made a motion to approve REZ05-00010. Freerks seconded the motion. Freerks said she felt this would help to continue with what had been planned and platted; people already had plans so they could continue with what they had prepared. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes August 18, 2005 Page 11 Koppes said she hoped the public would understand that the Commission was not taking away what they could do, it was exactly the same as when they started. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. REZ05-00011, consideration of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) to High Density Single-Family (RS-12) for property located on Dodge Street Court within the Jacob Ricord's Subdivision. Brooks said this was mainly an effort to try to keep what was started in compliance with the proposed new Code. Miklo said there were two vacant lots there. Motion: Koppes made a motion to approve REZ05-00011. Plahutnik seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. REZ05-00012, consideration of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) to High Density Single-Family (RS-12) for property located on Catskill Court within the East Hill Subdivision. Brooks said this was a housekeeping item to allow the City to keep the trend for what had been planned for that area, given the new Zoning Code. Miklo said there were four vacant lots there. Motion: Freerks made a motion to approve REZ05-00012. Plahutnik seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. REZ05-0001:~, consideration of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from iVledium Density Single-Family (RS-8) to High Density Single-Family (RS-12) for property located south and east of Whispering Meadows Drive within the Whispering Meadows Subdivision. Brooks said this was a housekeeping matter to keep things in compliance with the new Code and allow the development to proceed as was originally planned. Motion: Plahutnik made a motion to approve REZ05-00013. Koppes seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. CONSIDERATION OF THE AUGUST 4, 2005 MEETING MINUTES: Motion: Koppes made a motion to approve the minutes as typed and corrected. Freerks seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. OTHER ITEMS: Brooks said he and Miklo had met with Marian Karr, the City Clerk, earlier in the day. Dates to keep reserved for potential meetings with Council were September 19 and September 26 to September 29 for two two-hour work sessions. There would be one meeting for a one-hour introduction to acquaint the Council with the Code and not deal with specific questions and answers. The next meeting would be discussion of commercial zones or residential zones and the third meeting would be to discuss what had not been discussed at the previous meeting. Attendance was not mandatory but Commissioner attendance/support was strongly recommended. Brooks thanked everyone for their hard work putting the draft Code together, it had not been an easy undertaking. They needed to go forward as a Commission with their consensus on their position on the proposed Code and work with the Council. Brooks said he and Staff had also discussed opportunities to educate the public and the Commission regarding the proposed Code rewrite. Possibilities included a Letter to the Editor, Editorial or Video that Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes August 18, 2005 Page 12 would be shown on the public access channel to explain what direction the Commission had gone with the Code. He felt it would be best to address the few hot-button issues up front and start to talk about them early. He and Staff would be working on this over the next few weeks and come back with some ideas of how they might take this to the public in terms of what they had finally agreed upon and what was being presented to the Council Miklo asked if there was a consensus with the Commission that it was not a significant change regarding the earlier vote and the proposed Code amendment change from 70% to 75%. The Commissioner's agreed that it was not a significant change and that the 3-2 vote was sufficient to approve it. ADJOURNMENT: Motion: Plahutnik made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:03 pm. Freerks seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:03 pm. Elizabeth Koppes, Secretary Minutes submitted by Candy Barnhill s : lpcdlmi nuteslp&zJ2005108-18-OS, doc Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission Attendance Record 2OO5 FORMAL MEETING Term Name Expires 1/6 1/20 2/3 2/17 3/3 3/17 4/7 4/21 5/5 6/16 6/27 7/6 7/21 8/4 8/18 D. Anciaux 05/06 X X X X X O/E X X X X O/E X X O/E O B. Brooks 05/10 X X X X X X X X X O/E X O/E X X X A. Freerks 05/08 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X E. Koppes 05/07 O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X X X W Plahutnik 05/10 ................................ X X X X O/E O/E X D. Shannon 05/08 X X X O/E O/E X X X O/E X O/E X X X X T. Smith 05/06 ................................ X X X X X X O/E INFORMAL MEETING Term Name Expires 1/3 2/14 2/28 3/14 4/4 4/18 5/2 6/13 7/18 8/1 8/15 D. Anciaux 05/06 CW X X O/E X X X X X O/E X B. Brooks 05/10 CW X X X X X X X X X X A. Freerks 05/08 CW X X X O/E X O/E X X X X E. Koppes 05/07 CW X X X O/E X X X X X X W Plahutnik 05/10 CW .................... O/E X O/E O/E X D. Shannon 05/08 CW O/E O/E X X X X X X X X T. Smith 05/06 ............................ X X X X Key; X = Present 0 = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused N/M= No Meeting FINAL~APPROVED POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD MINUTES - AUGUST 16, 2005 CALL TO ORDER: Vice-Chair Greg Roth called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Candy Barnhill, Greg Roth, and Roger Williams MEMBERS ABSENT: Loren Horton, and Elizabeth Engel STAFF PRESENT: Legal Counsel Catherine Pugh and Staff Kellie Tuttle present OTHERS PRESENT: Capt. Tom Widmer of the ICPD CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by Barnhill and seconded by Williams to adopt the consent calendar. · Minutes of the meeting on 06/14/05 · ICPD General Order 00-01 (Search and Seizure) · ICPD General Order 00-02 (Harassment and Sexual Harassment) · ICPD Use of Force Report- June 2005 Motion carried, 3/0, Horton and Engel absent. OLD BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS None. PUBLIC DISCUSSION None. BOARD INFORMATION Roth summarized to the Board the Council meeting he had attended in July regarding the PCRB's two year review. During the review the Council expressed their appreciation to the members. It was mentioned replacing the Board with an Ombudsperson Review so that there was an office or group that could receive concerns, recommendations, complaints, regarding the City in general, but there was not a majority of Council interested. STAFF INFORMATION TUttle reported to the Board that there has been a gentleman from Urbana, Illinois interested in the budget for the PCRB and that he has been provided with those figures. EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion by Barnhill and seconded by Williams to adjourn into Executive Session based on Section 21.5(1)(a) of the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records which are required or authorized by state or federal law to be kept confidential or to be kept confidential as a condition for that government body's possession or continued receipt of federal funds, and 22.7(11 ) personal information in confidential personnel records of public bodies including but not limited to cities, boards of supervisors and school districts, and 22-7(5) police officer investigative reports, except where disclosure is authorized elsewhere in the Code; and PCRB August 16, 2005 Page 2 22.7(18) Communications not required by law, rule or procedure that are made to a government body or to any of its employees by identified persons outside of government, to the extent that the government body receiving those communications from such persons outside of government could reasonably believe that those persons would be discouraged from making them to that government body if they were available for general public examination. Motion carried, 3/0, Horton and Engel absent. Open session adjourned at 7:09 P.M. REGULAR SESSION Returned to open session at 7:20 P.M. Motion by Barnhill and seconded by Williams to set the level of review for PCRB #05-02 at 8-8-7(B)(1)(a), on the record with no additional investigation. Motion carried, 3/0, Horton and Engel absent. MEETING SCHEDULE · September 13, 2005, 7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room · October 11, 2005, 7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room · November $, 2005, 7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room · December 13, 2005, 7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room Barnhill possibly has a conflict with future meeting dates. But would let staff know as soon as possible. This was the last meeting for Board member Williams and he stated that he had enjoyed his time on the Board and working with the other members. ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Williams and seconded by Barnhill. Motion carried, 3/0, Horton and Engel absent. Meeting adjourned at 7:26. POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2005 (Meetin TERM 1/11 2/8 3/8 4/12 5/10 6/14 7/12 8/16- 9/1'3 10/11 11/8 12/13 NAME EXP. Candy 9/1/07 NM X X NM X X NM X Barnhill Elizabeth 9/1/08 NM X X NM X X NM O/E Engel Loren 9/1/08 NM X X NM X X NM O/E Horton Greg Roth 9/1/05 NM X X NM X X NM X Roger 9/1/05 NM X X NM X O/E NM X .............................. Williams KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting - Not a Member MINUTES APPROVED IOWA CITY BOAP,D OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 10, 2005 EMMA J. HAP, VAT HALL-IOWA CITY, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Alexander, Karen Leigh, Vincent Maurer, Michael Wright MEMBERS ABSENT: Ned Wood STAFF PRESENT: Robert Miklo, Sarah Holecek OTHERS PRESENT: Jeff Clark, Jim Clark CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Maurer called the meeting to order at 5:02 pm. CONSIDERATION OF THE JULY 13, 2005 BOARD MINUTES MOTION: Wright moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Alexander seconded the motion. Motion passed 4:0, SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: EXC05-00014 Discussion of an application submitted by Uptown Properties for a special exception to allow off-street parking for property located at 320-322 S. Johnson Street on a separate lot at 317 South Dodge Street in order to allow additional roomers in the Neighborhood Conservation Residential (RNC- 20) zone at 320-322 South Johnson Street. Before presenting the staff report Miklo showed the site location of the two properties, pictures with the location of the properties and the existing parking spaces. Miklo said that there are seven specific standards that apply to this type of special exception. First, he said that a special location plan shall be filed with the Board by the owners of the entire land area to be included within the special location plan. The plan shall contain such information deemed necessary to comply with the requirements and evidence of ownership shall be provided. Miklo said that a location map of Johnson Street was submitted and shows that there is little space to provide parking. He added that a site plan for Dodge Street was submitted and presents how the proposed parking spaces would be arranged. However, he said, the required legal agreement that would specify that in the long term the proposed parking spaces would always be available for the tenants at 320-322 S. Johnson Street was not received. Second, the parking spaces have to be within three hundred feet of the use being served. He mentioned that although 317 South Dodge Street is 110 feet east of 320-322 S. Johnson Street, there is an intervening property. He noted that because there is no easement over the intervening property connecting the two properties in this application, residents of the duplex would have to follow the public sidewalk south to Court Street and around to the other side of the block, a distance of approximately 650 feet. He said that in staff's opinion the proposed parking would invite trespassing across the backyards of neighboring properties. He added that a retaining wall located along the east side will also hinder the tenants' direct access to parking. Miklo said that another likely result will be that the additional tenants will still park on the streets. Miklo said that where two or more uses jointly use off-street parking, the number of parking spaces shall equal the sum of total of off-street parking required for each use. He mentioned that in this case the single-family residence at 317 South Dodge Street is required to have 3 spaces. If the duplex is to have a total of ten occupants, 6 spaces are required. Currently, there a're 3 off-street parking spaces of 317 South Dodge Street. Miklo said that the applicant had submitted a plan showing the 9 parking spaces, but they do not comply with the dimensional requirements of the zoning code. Miklo mentioned that a written agreement, properly executed by the owners within the area of the special location plan, assuring their successors and assigns, shall be submitted with the special location plan as a covenant running with the land. He said that the applicant had not submitted the written agreement. He noted that this document is required to assure that if the properties come under separate ownership, the occupants of 320-322 South Johnson Street will have access to the parking area at 317 South Dodge Street. Iowa City Board Of Adjustment Minutes August 10, 2005 Page 2 Miklo stated that in assessing an application for a special exception, the Board shall consider the desirability of the location of off-street parking and stacking spaces, aisles and drives on a lot separate from the use served in terms of pedestrian and vehicular traffic safety; any detrimental effects on adjacent property; the appearance of the streetscape as a consequence of the off-street parking; and in the case of non-required parking, the need for additional off-street parking. He said that locating the parking lot at 317 South Dodge Street might result in some adverse effects on adjacent properties, or on the general public. Miklo continued the staff report saying that the special exception must be in accordance to the general standards. Miklo said that the specific proposed exception should not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. He mentioned that as noted, the location of the parking may result in trespassing on a neighbors' property or greater demand for on-street parking in this already congested area. Miklo stated that the proposed exception should not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. He said that the issue of trespassing would apply in this particular case. Miklo continued by saying that the establishment of the specific proposed exception should not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the zone in which such property is located. He added that it would not affect the redevelopment of other properties in the area. Miklo said that adequate measures should be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. He added that the addition of 2 additional tenants might slightly increase the congestion in this already congested area. Staff has inventoried on-street parking in this general area and found that very little is available. Parking is likely to be even in shorter supply when the University of Iowa is in session. Miklo said that except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception being considered, the specific exception, must conform to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is located. He mentioned that the site plan submitted shows 9 parking spaces, but they do not comply with the dimensional requirements. Next, Miklo said that the proposed use should be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. He said that the Comprehensive Plan designates the area as being appropriate for relatively dense residential development, so this particular test would not be an issue. Staff recommends that EXC05-00014 an application submitted by Uptown Properties for a special exception to allow off-street parking for property located at 320-322 S. Johnson Street on a separate lot at 317 South Dodge Street in order to allow additional roomers in the Neighborhood Conservation Residential (RNC-20) zone at 320-322 South Johnson Street be denied. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED Jeff Clark, 414 East Market Street, presented a new site plan. He said that in the new site plan there is a change in the arrangement of parking spaces. He said he believed that the new plan complies with the dimensional standards of the code. Miklo said that he would like to have the new site plan reviewed by the Housing Department prior to making any opinion regarding the compliance with the code. Alexander asked if by using the new site plan, the person parking in the proposed space 4 would block the person parked in space 3. Clark said that usually the people live in the same unit. He said that the 320-322 South Johnson Street does not have any parking. He said that the lot goes back approximately 100 feet from the 317 South Dodge property. He added that the duplex exists, and there are 5 rooms in each unit already in place. He said that he would not add any rooms to the building, but he is trying to take care of the parking issue. Iowa City Board Of Adjustment Minutes August 10, 2005 Page 3 Going through the staff report, and referring to the first specific standard, Clark said that the new proposed site plan should comply with the requirements. For number two, Clark said that the proposed parking is only 100 feet away. He said that the ordinance does not describe which way should the distance from units be measured. He added that when applying for the Special Exception they are required to get addresses of people living 300 feet ordering the property. He said that he followed what the Zoning Ordinance asked for the application. He mentioned that he discussed with City Staff and determined that legal document could be submitted later. Regarding the issue of trespassing, Clark said that students will take the safest path. He added that they would pick their own path, and that is not an issue that could be controlled. Maurer asked if in the Johnson Street property there are currently 4 tenants, and where do they currently park. Clark said that they park on the street. Maurer asked if they are cutting through and parking on the Dodge Street property. Clark said that the tenants do not park there. Maurer asked how would they get to the Dodge Street parking spaces if the application would be approved. Clark said that they would have to go down the Dodge Street. Maurer asked who owns the property that would be used as a path to get to the parking lot, and if that would be an issue for the owners. Clark said that he does not know the owner personally. He added that he considers that there would be little or no concern about students passing by, however, he said that he did not feel proper for him to ask for an easement because it could restrict them in the future. Clark said that each side of the duplex has 5 existing habitual bedrooms. He said that 4 people can still live in that place, but there is no parking. He said that false occupancy is an issue. He said that students would say that the fifth room is for guests, and guests have the right to stay for 30 days. He said that he would like to clean up the situation and make it ok for 5 people to live in legally. He said he would only add 2 roomers, but would add 6 parking spaces. He noted that in this way he is taking 6 spaces off the street. He said that the parking in the area is more and more congested. Clark said that student would use off street parking 2 or 3 blocks away, because there is not enough parking in the area. He added that student store their cars. Clark said that they would park the cars and not use them for weeks; however, they need a place to store them. Clark said that he owns another property across the street from 320-322 South Johnson Street that has space for additional parking, but the two properties are zoned differently, and it would be against the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance to plat the parking for Johnson Street there. Clark said that approving of the application would be an improvement for the area. Jim Clark, 414 East Market Street, said that the building is existing, and they do not require any additions to the property. He said that they would get rid of the gravel drive on Dodge Street property which will turn into a paved driveway, and concrete in the back. He said that in Iowa City everybody walks wherever they want without having a permanent easing. He said that it would open up South Johnson Street with 6 parking spaces. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Holecek said that however the motion would be formulated she would ask to include two contingences, the legal document that needs to be supplied, and the construction of the parking lot in accordance with an approved site plan. Alexander said that they might consider deferring the application until the site plan was reviewed. Holecek added that another issue that needed to resolved was whether the parking for the duplex could be stacked. Miklo said that the intent of allowing stacking for single family and duplexes is that the residents live together, and can move the cars easily; however, when there is a distance as in this case it would not be easy to have the cars moved around. MOTION: Leigh moved that EXC05-00014 Discussion of an application submitted by Uptown Properties for a special exception to allow off-street parking for property located at 320-322 South Johnson Street on a separate lot at 317 South Dodge Street in order to allow additional roomers in the Neighborhood Conservation Residential (RNC-20) zone at 320-322 South Johnson Street be Iowa City Board Of Adjustment Minutes August 10, 2005 Page 4 approved subject to submission of an approved site plan and submission of a legal document specifying that the proposed off-street parking spaces at 317 South Dodge shall be reserved for the occupants of 320-322 South Johnson Street in perpetuity. Wright would vote against the application. He said that if the properties would be contiguous it would not be an issue. He said that the application meets some of the specific standards. He added that although the Zoning Ordinance specifies the required distance between properties as being 300 feet, he does not believe that it means within 300 feet crossing someone else's property. Wright said that he has question for both site plans that were submitted. He said that the proposed application would make the property located on Dodge Street less desirable because the tenants will live in top of the parking lot. He said that it would not make substantial difference in the amount of traffic in the neighborhood. Talking about the general standards Wright said that the application should not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. He said that he believes that it would endanger the public welfare due to the lack of a clear path between the parking area and the duplex. In terms of being injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood, Wright said that trespassing would still be an issue. He said the specific proposed exception would not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties. He added that it would not have a major impact on public streets. Alexander said that it is a creative plan, and the goals are laudable. She said that for the reasons already stated she will vote against the application. She said that the distance is too great, and it is the intent of the ordinance that should be considered and it would be hard to consider that the intent was to encourage trespassing. She mentioned that her bigger concern is about the actual parking lot. She said that it is impossible to imagine how the stacking will work with properties that are distant from each other. Maurer would vote in favor of the motion. Maurer said that looking from a practical stand point there are 4 occupants on the Johnson property who are currently parking on the over parked street. He said that if some off street parking could be legally created, even if there is no easement, he prefers to have more off-street parking assured. He said that the City and community would benefit from this due to the fact that there are only two additional tenants, and 6 off-street parking spaces provided. Leigh said that she would vote against the motion for the reasons already stated. She said that the most important reason is the issue of trespassing. She said that people do care if students are trespassing on their properties. She added that if people put up barriers to keep students going across the parking lot that does not release them from the liability issues involved if people or properties are injured when people are trespassing. Motion failed with a vote of 1:3, with Leigh, Alexander, and Wright against the application. OTHER Holecek said that she would send a memo on the recent litigations regarding the Board of Adjustment decision to allow the auto and truck oriented uses at Wal Mart's proposed site. Alexander asked if there is any update on he Shelter House case. Holecek said that they are proceeding to brief to the Supreme Court. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION NONE ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Alexander moved to adjourn. Leigh seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at 6:02. s:lpcd/minuteslBON2OO5.iO8-O5~)S doc Board of Adjustment Attendance Record 2005 Term Name Expires 01/12 02/09 03/09 04/13 05/11 06/08 07/13 08/10 09/14 10/12 11/09 12/14 Carol Alexander 01/01/08 X X X NM X X X X Ned Wood 01/01/10 .... X X NM X X X O/E Karen Leigh 01/01/07 X O/E X NM X X X X Vincent Maurer 01/01/06 X O/E X NM X X X X Michael Wright 01/01/09 X X X NM X X X X Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E : Absent/Excused NM = No Meeting ..... Not a Member