Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-04-18 Bd Comm minutes MINUTES IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WEDNESDAY, MARCH 8, 2000- 5 P.M. CIVIC CENTER- COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Lowell Brandt, T.J. Brandt, Kate Corcoran, Dennis Keitel, Mike Paul MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Melody Rockwell, Dennis Mitchell OTHERS PRESENT: Tom Anthony, R.L. Maske, Jay Christensen-Szalanski, George Haskell, Jean Walker, CALL TO ORDER: Acting Chairperson T.J. Brandt called the meeting to order at 5:05 P.M. ROLL CALL: T.J. Brandt, Keitel and Paul were present at roll call; L. Brandt and Corcoran arrived later in the meeting. SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS EXC00-0001. Public hearing on an application submitted by Leo Maske for a special exception to permit two principal structures to be placed on separate nonconforming lots for property located in the Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) zone at 1021 and 1023 Highland Avenue. Rockwell said the applicant, Leo Maske, owns adjoining lots that were platted in 1908 as Lots 1 and 2, Block 8, Sunnyside Addition. She said these original lots were 50 feet- by 125 feet with the depth of the lots running east-west. She said the two existing residences on the property were both located on Lot 1 facing Highland Street. She noted that the house addressed as 1021 Highland Avenue was constructed around 1928 and the residence addressed 1023 Highland Avenue was constructed in 1946. She said Lot 2 is vacant and currently functions as the back yard for the two residences located on Lot 1. Rockwell said the owner would like to reconfigure the lot line to run north and south between the two houses so that each residence would then be located on a separate lot. Rockwell noted that platted or recorded lots established prior to 1983 are considered established "lots of record" and are generally regarded as legal building lots in the RS-5 zone. She said however, when lots of record are adjacent to each other and come under one ownership, the lots become one parcel. She said. the zoning ordinance does not allow one parcel of land to be split or sold, unless the resulting parcels meet the dimensional requirements of the zone in which they were located. She said neither the original lots nor the proposed lots meet the dimensional requirements of the RS-5 zone. Rockwell said the applicant is requesting a special exceptior~ to allow a split of the singularly-owned parcel into two lots that do not meet the dimensional requirements of the RS-5 zone, but would improve the existing situation. Rockwell said the RS-5 zone dimensional requirements require a 60-foot lot width and a minimum of 8,000 square feet of lot area per residential lot. She said in this case, one of the proposed lots would not meet the lot width requirement and neither lot would meet the lot area requirements. She said the east lot (1023 Highland Avenue) is proposed to be 66 feet wide so it Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes March 8, 2000 Page 2 would meet the lot width requirement. She said to maintain a five-foot side yard setback for the residence at 1023 Highland Avenue, the lot width of the proposed west lot would be .58 feet wide, instead of 60 feet. She said both of the proposed lots have less than the required 8,000 square foot lot area; 1021 Highland Avenue is proposed to be 5,794 square feet and 1023 Highland Avenue is sized at 6,681 square feet. Rockwell said the Board may grant a special exception to permit a single family dwelling and accessory buildings to be installed on a lot of record, notwithstanding a failure to meet the requirements of the zone for lot area or lot width, provided the granting of the specific requested exception results in appropriate, compatible development with surrounding residential development, the lot of record is at least forty feet (40') in width, and the request would meet all of the requirements of the Zoning Chapter including setback and frontage requirements. Rockwell stated that staff felt the spirit and intent of this provision of the Zoning Chapter would be met by allowing the existing single-family structures to be located on reconfigured lots of record. She said by doing so, the situation would be brought into a higher level of conformance with requirements of the RS-5 zone. She noted that in single-family residential zones, such as the RS-5 zone, the Zoning Chapter prohibits more than one principal structure (residence) from being located on one lot. She said the requested exception would locate each residence on one lot, instead of having two residences on one lot. She said each lot would exceed the minimum 40-foot lot width. Rockwell also noted that the requested solution would allow for the required 20-foot rear yard setback, and would make clear, at least technically, that the front yard would be located in front of the houses and the rear yard to the rear of the residences. She said there would be no question that Lot 2 should not have a single-family residence constructed on it. She said staff views approval of the requested special exception as the least disruptive, most compatible solution for the neighborhood as well as for the property owner. Rockwell said staff recommends that EXC00-0001, a special exception to allow the lot split proposed to be platted as Auditor's Parcels 99107 and 99108, as shown on the site plan submitted by Landmark on February 10, 2000, for property located in the RS-5 zone at 1021 and 1023 Highland Avenue/Lots I & 2, Block 8, Sunnyside Addition, Iowa City, Iowa, be approved. Keitel inquired if the owners wanted to add further building additions to the new rear yard, would that be permitted. Rockwell explained that residential additions could be done in the future, but must meet all setback requirements. She pointed out that the plat shows where building additions and accessory structures could be located within the new lots and still meet the setback requirements. She said for construction to occur outside the permitted area, the owner would be required to go before the Board for a special exception to reduce the setback requirement. Keitel then verified that the existing service utilities were located at the front of the property. Public hearing opened. Tom Anthony of Landmark said he was representing Leo Maske in his application and spoke in favor of the exception. He stated that this is a technical situation with a relatively simple solution that tries to resolve many constraints while meeting the setback requirements of the RS-5 zone. He said in everyone's judgment, this appeared to be the least nonconforming solution to fix the problem. He said the property cannot be sold as it is now with two residences on one single property. Robert Maske, son of Leo Maske, stated that as long as the property remains in its current state that nothing could be done with the property. He said the family decided that something should Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes March 8, 2000 Page 3 be done to correct the problem. He asked the Board to approve the special exception as requested. Public hearing closed. Paul commented that after driving past the property, he was convinced that the exception should be approved as a common sense solution. He said City staff felt confident about the setback requirements and how the buildings are positioned on the property. He said he did not see any concerns regarding safety or the neighbors' use of their land. He said it also seemed that the situation would be brought into a greater level of conformance by granting the special exception. He said it was the least disruptive solution for all concerned. He stated he would vote in favor of the special exception. Keitel stated that he agreed with Paul's comments and would vote in favor of the exception. Keitel confirmed that larger buildings could not be added due to the setback requirements of the RS-5 zone. T.J. Brandt stated that one of his concerns was how provisional uses in the RS-5 zone would be handled. He said he realized that it would be difficult to put more structures within the area without having to come before the Board to meet the setback requirements. He also concurred with Paul that this is the best solution for the property and said he would also vote in favor of the exception. MOTION: Paul moved that the Board approve EXG00-0001, a special exception to allow the lot split proposed to be platted as Auditor's Parcels 99107 and 99108, as shown on the site plan submitted by Landmark on February 10, 2000 for property located at 1021 and 1023 Highland Avenue/Lots I & 2, Block 8, Sunnyside Addition, Iowa City, Iowa. Keitel seconded the motion. By a vote of 3-0, the Board approved the motion. L. Brandt joined the Board meeting at this point and chaired the remainder of the meeting. EXC95-0011. Public hearing on an application submitted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints for a special exception to expand a religious institution use for property located in the Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) zone at 503 Melrose Avenue. Rockwell presented Board members with additional information and letters pertaining to the case. She noted that a full copy of the September 8, 1999 Board decision was available for the Board to review. She said a copy of a letter from George Haskell had been received after the Board mailing. She said Haskell notes in his letter that he does not represent that he speaks for all the neighbors, but was giving what he hoped would be a representative opinion of the neighborhood's views concerning the parking situation on Lucon Drive. Rockwell noted that Haskell said in the letter that he expected other neighbors would be at the meeting to make their own reports. Rockwell also noted a copy of a letter from Linda Annis, an administrative assistant for the University of Iowa. She said this letter discusses the cooperative efforts between the church and the University in dealing with the Sprout House (daycare) parking. Rockwell said on September 8, 1999, the Iowa City Board of Adjustment approved the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints' request for congregational worship at its center located in the Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) zone at 503 Melrose Avenue. The Board made its approval conditional "through the Board's March 2000 meeting, at which meeting the neighbors and church would report back to the Board on the measures being taken to eliminate parking congestion on the church's property along Lucon Drive, and the effectiveness of those measures. Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes March 8, 2000 Page 4 Rockwell said Jay Christensen-Szalanski, Branch President of the church ward located at 503 Melrose Avenue, had submitted a repod on the measures the church had taken to address the parking situation along Lucon Drive. She said the repod addressed more than the effect of congregational worship on parking congestion. She said the church had actively worked with the neighboring University daycare, the Sprout House, to ameliorate parking congestion concerns as well as to limit parking that had been occurring in the front yard on University property. She said these measures to improve the overall parking situation along Lucon Drive go well beyond what could be required of the church under the Board's authority in this case. Rockwell said that staff cautioned that as the Board evaluates the case, it should focus on the request by the church for congregational worship and determine specifically whether the church has addressed the parking congestion concerns that arise from the use of the properly at 503 Melrose Avenue for congregational worship. She said it is staff's view that the applicant's report clearly documents that the church has addressed this specific parking situation. She said because of the monitoring and notification measures the church has taken, it appears that in the rare instance when spillover parking onto Lucon Drive had occurred as a consequence of the use of the facility for congregation worship, it was promptly reported and remedied. Rockwell said staff recommends that EXC95-0011, the September 8, 1999, Board of Adjustment decision to allow congregational worship as part of the religious institution use for property located in the RS-5 zone at 503 Melrose Avenue be upheld, subject to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints continuing its practice of monitoring, notification and providing alternative parking to prevent spillover parking on Lucon Drive during the use of its facility for congregational worship. Public hearing opened. Jay Christensen-Szalanski spoke on behalf of the church and referenced the letter that he had written and that was included in the Board packet. He noted the issues that had been addressed were those noted as concerns at the September 8, 1999 Board meeting. He said all activities that are held at the church were addressed. He noted that the church took twelve different actions during these past few months. Christensen-Szalanski commented that the actions were not as important as how effective they have been. He said he believed that they have been effective with only one instance of any infraction. He said even in this case, emergency vehicles could pass through the area and the church made sure that the vehicle was promptly moved. Christensen-Szalanski commented that in the past, he felt the church and their neighbors were talking to the Board instead of to each other about the issues. He said since the September 8 Board meeting, the church and its neighbors have met with the church initiating several meetings. He said in doing so, it became evident that there were different perceptions of the ideal. He said the church ideally prefers to concentrate its efforts on ministering to its members and not on monitoring parking. Christensen-Szalanski said neighboring property owner George Haskell had commented, however, that in his ideal, the religious efforts would fail, the church would leave the building and it would be taken over as a private residence. He said he thought this was not meant to be negative towards the church, it was simply Haskell's preference to have a single-family home next door. Christensen-Szalanski also noted in talking to the neighbors, that even though there were different perceptions of the ideal, they have demonstrated a willingness to respect each other's perception of the reality. Christensen-Szalanski went on to say other issues had arisen. He said football parking had been one of the issues. He said since the last Board meeting, it had been the church's policy to assure that there was zero tolerance for using alcohol and tailgating when the church parks cars as a student fundraising project. He said they feel they have been very successful with it and will continue to work to improve the situation. He said as of Tuesday, the church had notified the Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes March 8, 2000 Page 5 University that they would not be using the Sprout House property for parking cars during the football season. Christensen-Szalanski noted that the small amount of funds generated were not worth the cost it was having upon issues important to the neighbors. Christensen-Szalanski said another issue he addressed in his letter was the congestion in the church parking lot by parents who use the Sprout House. He said he mentioned this, because the letters included in the packet have contradictory comments. He said he did speak to the University daycare employees and they do try to put the gate up for parents to use during the drop-off period in the morning. He said the daycare staff have the keys and take care of keeping the gate up for times when their people use the church parking area. Christensen-Szalanski said the final issue was the problem stated by Haskell in the final paragraph of his letter. Christensen-Szalanski said that if the problems do indeed exist, he felt certain that not one member of the church is involved in any of them. George Haskell stated that he was not speaking in opposition, but did want to address some issues. He clarified that he really did not think that the church would fail and go away. He said there was a discussion about issues and he did not think that there had been a football game since the meeting. Haskell said it was not unlike what happened at the University lot before it was converted to non-alcohol. He said pad of the problem appeared to be that as soon as the last car is parked, people in charge of parking the cars tend to leave the area. Haskell noted that he polled the Lucon neighbors and some of them clearly found the situation offensive. Haskell said special events, not congregational worship, created most of the parking concerns for the neighborhood. He said he learned at the open house held by the church, that the property is available to church members for special events. He said he was told that if these people make an application to use the facility, they are held responsible for the parking situation. Haskell noted that the greatest single problems have been at special events, and there have been few of those so far. He stated that he would like to have some language in the exception to limit the use of non-scheduled special events so that the property does not become like an Isaac Walton League. He said he was concerned that as more and more people use the property for wedding receptions, etc., this type of usage might become more appealing. In closing, Haskell stated that in general, the neighborhood feels there has been good effort on the part of the church to ameliorate the parking problem and to be good neighbors. Haskell said he hoped these efforts would continue. Corcoran joined the Board meeting at 5:35 p.m. Jean Walker stated that she was not specifically speaking in opposition of the exception. She noted that she is for congregational worship, but there were some issues she felt merited discussion. She said she agreed with what was stated in Haskell's letter. She said one of the main issues for her was the blocking of Lucon Drive. She said she has had the personal experience of needing an emergency vehicle. She said recently there was a blockage in the street, which was not due to the Institute [church]. She said it took ten minutes for the car to be removed. She said if it is a life and death situation like she has had, that would be too long a period of time to leave the street blocked. Walker concurred that the church had done a lot of work to try to alleviate the parking problem on Lucon Drive, but there were some small items that needed fine-tuning. She said as stated in Haskell's letter, she felt there needed to be better supervision during the football parking days. She said she had seen drinking at both the Sprout House and on the church lot. She said one day when she came home during a football game, cars were pouring out of the church lot and Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes March 8, 2000 Page 6 blocked the street so that she could not pass through. She said in her opinion, this sort of thing points to needing better supervision. Walker said she was concerned about the future. She was also concerned about communication. She said she would like the church and neighbors to continue to communicate about things to do with Lucon Drive with regard to the church and the Sprout House. She said she would also like to see that the number of cars parking at the church does not increase. She said bikes and the use of the bus system should be encouraged. She noted that she had seen students park in the lot and then walk off towards the University. In summary, Walker said it had not been an entirely smooth process. She noted, however, that the church had made a good effort towards addressing the parking issue. Christensen-Szalanski spoke again to assure the neighbors that the church leaders agree with Walker that there should be full-time supervision of the football parking and it would be done next season. He went on to extend an open invitation if the neighbors would like to come to any of the Institute's meetings concerning use of its facilities. Christensen-Szalanski commented that there had been several special events and the policy has been changed to require that no one can get the keys to the gate unless they comply with the parking policy to keep vehicles off Lucon Drive. He said this criteria has been met for special events as it has been for congregational worship. Public hearing closed. Paul inquired if the exception were to pass and violations occurred in the future, what recourse would the neighbors have. Rockwell stated that the staff recommendation included a condition of approval to require continued monitoring and notification to prevent spillover parking onto Lucon Drive. She said enforcement would be done by the Housing and Inspection Services Department. She suggested that if there was a complaint, she hoped the neighbors would try to resolve it with the church first. MOTION: T,J. Brandt moved that EXC95-0011, a September 8, 1999, Board of Adjustment decision to allow congregational worship as part of a religious institution use for property located in the RS-5 zone at 503 Melrose Avenue be upheld, subject to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints continuing its practice of monitoring, notification and providing alternative parking to prevent spillover parking onto Lucon Drive during the use of its facility for congregation worship. Paul seconded the motion. T.J. Brandt stated that he would vote in favor of the exception as the church clearly showed in the last six months that they were willing to work and continue to work at improving neighborhood relationships with its neighbors. He said the church seemed to be doing a good job of monitoring and removing some of the parking problems that were raised as concerns back in September. He said the church had clearly shown that they wanted to communicate with the neighbors. He said if the church continues to grow, it could seek to lease more parking from the University. He said they had worked to keep the neighborhood as intact as possible and he would vote in favor of the exception. Corcoran stated that she would vote in favor of the exception. She apologized for coming late to the meeting. She said that she had read all of the material in the packet, was at the September meeting and drove over to view the property. She commented that she thought the log was a great idea. She complimented the church and its leadership for what she viewed as their sensitivity to the neighbors and their good faith effort to execute and carry out the Board's mandate at the last meeting. She said she felt what the church has done has gone beyond the mandate and she felt certain that the church would continue to supervise and stay on top of the situation. Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes March 8, 2000 Page 7 Keitel noted that he did not have a lot of history on this issue, but was familiar with the property. He believed the changes made when it came under the church's ownership had improved the property considerably. He said he believed the church would continue to prevent parking problems along Lucon Drive. He stated he would vote in favor of the exception. Paul stated he is familiar with the property as he had grown up in the area. He said he is very sensitive to the concerns of the neighbors of Lucon Drive as more of the University encroaches into the area. He said it is a unique neighborhood. He noted that the parking situation had come a long way in six months. He congratulated the neighbors and the church. He said in general, there seemed to be agreement that the steps that have been taken by the church have addressed the situation effectively. He said his feeling having grown up in the area and being in the area presently during football Saturdays is that these events will continue to take place. He noted that living in this area you expect and deal with this six times a year. He said controlling the drinking associated with the football parking should help this situation. He stated the neighbors and church were making progress and he hoped they would continue to work together on the parking issue. He said he would vote in favor of the exception. L. Brandt stated that it is his fifth year of being on the Board and there have been a few instances where the Board has tried to work with the applicants and neighbors to resolve problems. He said this was one of the more significant attempts to resolve problems and he complimented the parties concerned. He said based on his own observations of issues brought in the past to the Board, he felt very pleased that the church and its neighbors were able to have discussions and be able to work well with each other. He said there have been troubling circumstances in other neighborhoods where this has not been the case. He noted that he lives in an older neighborhood that has parking congestion problems. He said he does have sympathy for the kinds of issues that have been dealt with in this case. He said in this particular application, he applauded the church for making an extremely good faith effort. He said he was pleased to hear that despite some ongoing concerns, the neighbors were saying some positive things in regard to the church as a neighbor. He said he feels very satisfied with the effort being made by the church and noted that he would vote in favor of the exception. The motion carried on a 5-0 vote. CONSIDERATION OF THE JANUARY 12, 2000 BOARD MINUTES: The Board was not able to approve the minutes as no copy of the minutes had been forwarded to the Board for its review. These minutes will be considered at the Board's April 12, 2000, meeting. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION Attorney Mitchell noted that Keitel had asked for a summary of variance cases that were cited on the City's variance application form. He said that there have not been more recent cases before the Iowa Supreme Court beyond those noted. Mitchell said the general explanation on the variance application form points out that the power for the Board of Adjustment to grant an adjustment is set out in the Iowa Code. He said variances can be granted only where unnecessary hardship will result. He noted that unnecessary hardship can be shown by establishing all of the following elements: 1 ) the land in question cannot yield a reasonable return if used only for a purpose allowed in the zone in which it is located, 2) the plight of the owner is not due to general conditions in the neighborhood which may reflect the unreasonableness of the zoning ordinance itself, and 3) the use to be authorized by the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes March 8, 2000 Page 8 Mitchell then highlighted cases as follows: Deardoff v. Board of Adjustment of Foal Dodge, 254 Iowa 380, 118 N.W. 2d 78 ('1962) Mitchell said in the Deardoff case, some property owners had planned to build an apartment house on a particular lot. He said the height limitation for the zone was for three stories and the owners wanted to build an apartment house that was seven stories high. He said the owners attempted to get a building permit and it had been denied, so they went before the Board of Adjustment. He said despite the fact that about fifteen residents objected to the proposed height of the apartment building, the Board approved the variance. Mitchell said in this case, the court noted that the Board made no finding that the denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship to the applicant, but simply found that it would be a good use of the lot. He said the court went on to cite the three requirements for establishing hardship, including that the land in question could not yield the reasonable return if used only for a purpose allowed in the zone. He said the uniqueness test failed when applied in this case, because the situation fit the general conditions in the neighborhood. Mitchell said it was not demonstrated that the use authorized in the variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. He said the court found that none of the requirements had been met and overturned the variance. Board of Adjustment v. Ruble. 193 N.W. 2d 497 (Iowa 1974) Mitchell noted the facts are somewhat hazy. The house had been built on a lot with two lots under the same ownership. He said subsequently, there had been changes to the ordinance such that the second lot was not big enough that a house could be built on it. He said someone purchased both lots and had sold the one with the house on it. He said they then attempted to build a house on the second lot. 'He said initially they were granted a building permit to build on it; however the zoning enforcement authority had later determined that the lot was not big enough to build on. He said they could not claim to have had a prior nonconforming use to be able to build a house on the second lot. Mitchell said the builder had appealed to the Board of Adjustment and it had granted the variance. He said the court found that basically there was not enough evidence to show that the property owner had met all three requirements. He said the court looked particularly at the unique circumstances test and determined that the ordinance applied to everybody in the zone; therefore the hardship was not unique. Mitchell said the Board of Adjustment decision was overturned. Lowell Brandt asked if private citizens who opposed the decision in this case had filed the litigation. Mitchell confirmed that the neighbors had filed the petition with the court. Corcoran then inquired if the case had gone to the district court. Mitchell verified that was the case, and said the district court had overturned the Board of Adjustment's decision, which was then appealed to the Supreme Court. Graciano v. Board of Adjustment, City of Des Moines. 323 N.W. 2d 233 (Iowa 1982) In this case, Mitchell noted that when the neighbors appealed to the district court, it upheld the decision of the Board granting the variance. He said the Supreme Court eventually overturned the decision. Mitchell said this case involved a property in Des Moines that was zoned R-2, which permitted duplexes and single-family dwellings. He said the duplexes had to comply with setbacks, minimum lot size and rear yard restrictions. He said the applicant wanted to build a duplex and could not meet the requirements. He said the Board of Adjustment granted the variance. Mitchell noted that the Supreme Court ruled the hardship test had not been met, because there was no evidence that a single-family dwelling could not be built on the lot and make a reasonable return. He said the Board's decision was overturned by the Supreme Court. Mitchell said in this case, the court pointed out that it was not the Board of Adjustment's place to be legislating. He said the court noted that the Board is a quasi-judicial body and is supposed to look at facts and interpret ordinances, not change the law. He said the court cautioned that if the ordinance needs to be changed, it is a legislative matter. Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes March 8, 2000 Page 9 Greenwalt v. Board of Adjustment, City of Davenport, 345 N.W. 2d 537 ('Iowa 1984) In this case, the Board of Adjustment denied a request for a variance. He said this case involved a request to install a six-foot high fence. He said the property owner had an expensive home on a large-sized lot. Mitchell noted that there had been problems with break-ins in the neighborhood. He said the owner had received a letter from the insurance company indicating that he needed to install alarms and put up a fence of a height that was enough to dissuade amateur vandals from coming onto the property. He said the letter did not specify the height of the fence needed. Mitchell related that when the owner talked to the zoning officials, he said he had heard from a neighbor that there was a 42" height limitation on fences. He said, however, the zoning officials had assured him that the fence could be built. When the fence was about 90% complete, the City sent the property owner a letter that the fence height exceeded the allowed limit. Mitchell said the Board of Adjustment denied that application since the application did not meet the three tests. He said the court agreed with the Board and had looked particularly at the reasonable return test. He said although the court was somewhat troubled about the owner's ability to insure the property, the court felt the owner had not provided any evidence as to whether a smaller fence would do or that he could not be insured if he did not have the fence. The decision was upheld. Mitchell then noted that there was a case in 1991 that was decided by the Court of Appeals. He said in Dallas County, a property owner wanted to build a dog kennel and the immediate neighbors were opposed to it. He said at the initial public hearing, one of the neighbors was asked to leave by the county zoning official. He said the Board also decided to meet at the property owner's property and continued the public hearing there. Mitchell said however, the neighbors opposed to it were not allowed on the property. He said at the subsequent meeting, the Board granted the variance. He said the Board was challenged on the variance approval and on a violation of the Iowa open meetings requirement. He said at the district court level, there was not evidence to support the variance due both to failure to meet the reasonable return test and the violation of the open meetings requirements. He said the Board was responsible for court costs. Mitchell noted that the Court of Appeals upheld the ruling. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: T.J Brandt moved to adjourn with the second by Paul. The meeting adjourned at 6:15 p.m. Lowell Brandt, Board Chairperson Melody Rockwell, Board Secretary Minutes submitted by Le Ann Dunne-Tyson ppdadnVminrooa3-8-OO.doc IOWA CITY BOARD OF AD.11J,.qTMENT MEETING WEDNE..qDA Y, MARCH 8, 2000 -,5 P. M. Civic Center Council Chambers SIGN IN SHEET ~,- 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 1.Z, 12, 1~3. 1.,c, 16, .IT. .ZB, .Z9, .20, MINUTES IOWA CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION CIVIC CENTER, LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM MARCH 28, 2000 MEMBERS PRESENT: Sue Dulek, Mike Kennedy STAFF PRESENT: Sylvia Mejia, Karen Jennings, R.J. Winkelhake, Andy Rocca OTHERS PRESENT: None RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY MANAGER AND STAFF: Commissioners instructed staff to conduct entry level testing for the positions of Firefighter and Police Officer. RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: None. SUMMARY OF RELEVANT DISCUSSION: Kennedy called the meeting to order at 8:30 AM. The first order of business was the Firefighter entry test. Mejia identified a correction to the memo outlining the entry level fire test, Iowa Code allows a list of up to 40 people to be certified. She further clarified that only those candidates who pass all tests including the interview process and the background check will be placed on the list. Dulek requested a copy of the oral interview questions. Kennedy moved and Dulek seconded a motion that the process be approved as presented in the memo the Commission dated March 20, 2000. Motion carried unanimously. The second order of business was the Police Officer entry test. Mejia provided a memo outlining the entry level Police Officer test and explained that the process was the same as it has been in the past. She did, however, note that Dr. Sines from the University of Iowa had been used in the past for the psychological test may no longer be available. Mejia will be asking the ILEA for direction as to who may be used for this portion of the testing process. Kennedy moved and Dulek seconded that the process for entry level Police Officer be approved. Motion carried unanimously. Old Business: None. New Business: Mejia notified commission that a request for a recommendation on promotional testing for the positions of Police Lieutenant and Police Captain would be forthcoming. The process would be finalized and proposed to the commission at a later date. Mejia also asked the Commission for clarification on when they wished to receive documentation of employee discipline. Past practice has been to provide the information at the meeting held to schedule an appeal hearing. Dulek and Kennedy agreed that they wished to continue that practice. Kennedy moved and Dulek seconded the motion to adjourn. Motion passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 8:55AM. PRELIMINA IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2000, 5:30 PM Subject to Approval CITY MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Lars Anderson, Richard Carlson, Frank Gersh Mike Gunn, Doris Malkmus, Pam Michaud, Sue Licht, Marc Mills, Michaelanne Widness MEMBERS ABSENT: Linda Shope STAFF PRESENT: Scott Kugler OTHERS PRESENT: None CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Anderson called the meeting to order at 5:30PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA None DISCUSSION OF HISTORIC AND CONSERVATION DISTRICT APPROVAL PROCESS Kugler began by reminding the Commission that at the last meeting they had discussed having a special meeting if all of the pieces of the guidelines and Conservation District Report could be pulled together. However, after the last meeting he, Gunn and Malkmus met to talk quite a bit about how things were progressing. It occurred to them that the two items should be brought forward separately. They thought it would be best to first deal with the Iowa City design guidelines, to be adopted by Council by resolution, and once that is done the conservation district discussion would be much less confusing. At that point the Commission could say that guidelines are in place that apply to all historic and conservation districts. In Governor Street and Lucas Street the extra guidelines could be presented that are specific to the area. If this could be separated out they would be less confusing for those who need to review and perhaps approve them. Gunn noted that he has heard from a number of sources that there has been some serious effort to stop the down zoning effort in the Governor-Lucas area. He said that it came through the Longfellow Neighborhood. One advantage of not moving it all forward at once would be that it might be better if it does not appear to be all aimed towards the Governor/Lucas effort. Gunn noted a neighborhood meeting coming up that he would be attending. He understood that there may be a number of people attending the meeting who would be against the down zoning. He felt that the Commission needed to be clear on irs multi-family guidelines. Kugler noted that most of the area is zoned RM-12. Kugler clarified that the down zoning effort is an application filed by residents in the Governor- Lucas area to down-zone property on their streets. This is not something the Commission has been dealing with. Kugler suggested that with the design guidelines there needs to be some public meeting where residents of the historic districts are invited to give them a chance to comment. Once the Commission decides to send them on they go to Council for approval by resolution. There would probably one public hearing at the Council level, as well. The conservation district is a zoning action that needs a public hearing before this Commission, then it goes to Planning and Zoning Commission for at least two meetings, and then on to the Council for a public hearing and three votes. Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission Minutes February 28, 2000 Page 2 Anderson then confirmed the guidelines for multi-family dwellings could be done sometime in April or May, but with the conservation district the process could take three to four months. The Commission agreed on the proposed timeline for the guidelines and the conservation district, REVIEW OF FINAL DRAFT OF IOWA CITY GUIDELINES Malkmus noted that the Commission owed Gunn a debt of gratitude for all of the work that he had done on the guidelines. She said that she was slightly confused because it was not in the form of the design book. Although the neighborhood design book talks about the guidelines the public perception could be different. Gunn concurred that this was a reasonable argument. Anderson suggested titling them the Iowa City Neighborhood Guidelines. It was decide that the title would be the Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines. Widness suggested some information on the background of the Historic Preservation Commission be included in the guidelines. She felt that this should precede the mission statement. She felt it should include the chronology and the Commission's purpose. This would then lead into the guidelines. The Commission agreed to make the adjustments as discussed, On Page 4 under the category of Contributing Structure, Malkmus thought that it would be better to include what has been and has not been determined to be contributing. She did not want it to be vague. Malkmus inquired about the street elevation definition being visible from the street might not work. She said that it should reference the architectural front elevation. She suggested wall and roof planes facing the streets. Michaud inquired about an L-shaped building, and Gunn replied that that would be part of the street elevation. It was decided to re-word this definition. On page three the word "landmarks" was added to the first sentence of the first paragraph starting with "These guidelines .... ". Kugler noted that it was possible that this document could go to the Council before the item referenced on Page 3 was given a public hearing. He said this could be one stumbling block that may need alternative language. The definition of alteration was changed to "a modification to the exterior of a building that does not increase its size." Carlson inquired about the setback addition. Kugler clarified that the street elevation of the building would not change in the architectural drawing. Gunn said that he could change the term to architectural elevation. He thought this could remove the confusion about standing and walking by the house and an architectural drawing of a house. He said he would work on this area to clarify it. In the first paragraph under categories the wording stating "this makes it possible for owner and contractors to concentrate on only those guidelines .... "He suggested the word "concentrate" to "identify". In the following sentence the words "necessary for" were changed to ~pplicable to". Licht joined the meeting at 6:10PM. Widness inquired about the last two categories on Page 5. She was not clear on the difference between the two. They both seemed to apply to new structures within a historic and conservation districts. Gunn noted without an example in place it would not be as clear. He said the architecture category applies only to new buildings, and deals with building design and style. The site and scale category applies to all buildings. He assured the Commission that nowhere would they overlap. The architectural guidelines in this section would rarely apply. Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission Minutes February 28. 2000 Page 3 On Page 8 under the wording for "these exceptions are intended to make it easier and cheaper .... "The word "cheaper" was changed to "less expensive." The following bullet was changed to read: "However, since the exceptions define only the minimum .... "The last line of that bullet was deleted". "Iowa City Guidelines"; the second item was changed to read: "Most guideline categories include a section that applies .... ". It will continue to read "the exceptions are intended to make it easier and less expensive to undertake projects that do not directly affect the appearance of the structures". On Page 9 under "Exceptions for the Category I1" it was decided to highlight the area with a border and preface it by saying: "The following apply to Category II, Iowa City Guidelines with Exceptions:" This will make it clear that this only applies to that one category. Anderson then went back to Page 3 under Alternative Designs. He asked for clarification of the intention of the word of "practical". Kugler suggested the language "it is determined that the alternative solution is consistent with the intent of the Iowa City Guidelines." Anderson then suggested starting the paragraph with "The guidelines are presumed .... "He went on to say that the intent was that what is included is presumed to be what is required. Exceptions would be allowed if the applicant could demonstrate that it would not be practical. Anderson then proposed stating that increased cost alone does not constitute a demonstration that complying with the guidelines is not practical. Licht said the wording was a problem for her. Malkmus then suggested using the statement "when compliance with a specific guideline would result in a structure that is not consistent with the intent of the Historic Preservation guidelines." It was decided to address this issue at a later time. On Page 10 under "Exceptions for the Category I1" the second sentence was changed to read: "The siding type must be appropriate to the age of the original building." On Page 13 the term "special exception" was discussed. Kugler noted that according to the zoning ordinance a "special exception" needs to go before the Board of Adjustment. It was changed to "Siding Exception". On Page 20 Malkmus addressed the handicap accessibility section. She noted that the word "modifications" should be used to include all alterations, additions and structures that accommodate disabled occupants. The final line in that section was changed to read "The Historic Preservation Commission will work with applicants to find designs that will accommodate their needs consistent with the historic character of the building." Licht then commented on the demolition section regarding the certificate of appropriateness for any contributing structure. She said that it would not take much for a building to be considered structurally unsound. There is a clause in the UBC that defines unsound buildings. Most buildings that are of this vintage, particularly a commercial building, do not meet these structural codes. All that would be needed from a structural engineer would be a certificate that would say that it does not meet the code. It was decided to take out the portion regarding the economic hardship in this section. Gunn noted that it was written for landmark or key structures. This section then increased all buildings to this level. Licht stated that she simply wanted to make sure that there were not loopholes in the language. Widness asked the group if there were provisions that are unenforceable then what the point is in having them. Malkmus said it looks like the intent is to save every building. Licht then noted that for some developers demolition is simply the cost of doing business. Anderson commented that most of the ordinances that he has seen with economic hardship provisions go into some detail about what constitutes an economic hardship and how it is proven. The provision for Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission Minutes February 28, 2000 Page 4 economic hardship was deleted from the guidelines. Gunn said he thought this item would be a real problem for some developers. Gunn then asked if the multi-family document needed to be addressed. He felt with the neighborhood meeting coming up that issue needed to be addressed. The group then moved on to the multi-family building design standards. Anderson began talking about the proposed apartment infill guidelines, and described the mandatory and point system. He then said that this Commission was working on addressing these structures for conservation or historic districts. One idea was to require that the new buildings within historical and conservation districts get more points, and the other was to modify them for use in these districts by moving more items to the mandatory category. Kugler then noted that Gunn was proposing to move four items from the design point to the mandatory. These items are building height, modulation, mass and roofline. Malkmus proposed to move those items as well as the porches and building styles guidelines to mandatory. Kugler then commented that one problem he saw with more items was that it left only thirty-three to thirty-five points that are possible under category "b". He said that it made it a very high standard compared to the infill standards that require thirty points out of eighty-eight. Malkmus then said that the way that she looked at it was as a strong dis-incentive for new multi-family buildings within historic districts. She said she did not see a place for these types of units in these districts. Anderson then suggested adopting her proposals for historic districts and Gunn's for conservation districts. He felt that it would make sense to have two different standards. Kugler said that the issue remains the same; that of fitting a new large building in to that kind of environment. He said that he thought maybe making guideline that would apply everywhere could be an option. This might be better than dealing with points. Malkmus commented that she would not care so much about the points or what was mandatory if it was very clear that in general these items would never apply to the historic district. Gunn felt that there was a real issue of these guidelines being intended to stop the building of large apartments when the zone says that they can be built. If so, it needs to be addressed clearly. A property owner should be allowed to use the full amount of the zoning unless it specifically states to the contrary. Anderson said that he felt that it indicated that buildings could not be demolished and replaced with apartment buildings in conservation districts. Kugler said he is not sure that demolition can be denied in conservation districts. Within historic district there are court decisions to back up the whole idea of historic preservation as a public good. There is a public purpose in retaining the buildings. In a conservation district it would be an area by definition that does not meet the requirements for a historic district. Anderson said that a building could be torn down with the Commission having rfO'input, but then new buildings would have to be designed in historic fashion. He did not think it made sense. Kugler then said that the Commission's decision to not allow a demolition in a conservation district could be appealed and may not be upheld, unless of course the building is also designated as a historic landmark. He said the design guidelines would make it less attractive for demolition. Malkmus said that she felt that once there was a preponderance of multi-family dwellings then people really won't care that much about the historic buildings. She felt that the attempts to Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission Minutes February 28, 2000 Page 5 make the definitions are ridiculous if there was not the intent to preserve enough of the historic resources to maintain the historic character of the district. Malkmus said that she would like to go for the idea of preserving the contributing structure in conservation districts by not allowing demolition. Anderson suggested running the definition of conservation district by the City's legal department to see if they would think it would be a constitutionally invalid position to take. Malkmus then said that she felt there was no point in having a conservation district if demolition cannot be regulated the guidelines end up being identical to the infill guidelines every other central planning area. Kugler noted the Summit Street Subdivision where the duplex was built. He said some Commission Members wanted to take a stand against the subdivision, but the Commission ended up making a neutral statement. He said it was clear from the Council at the time that they did not feel the historic preservation ordinance was meant to deal with the use of the property or anything outside of building design. He said he suspected that that had not changed; although Councils change over time. Gunn said that he felt these issues would have to be dealt with as soon as someone decided to build apartment buildings in College Green or East College. Licht agreed that this would come up sooner or later. She felt these two areas were especially at risk. Gunn also felt that if a hard line was taken on the attempt to supercede the zoning, there will not be a Governor/Lucas District to be concerned with. He projected there would be strong opposition raised. The down- zoning would fail and the conservation district would fail if the Commission did not make it clear that the guidelines would allow what the zoning allows. Anderson felt that the demolition of contributing structures was a major issue. Gunn said that some architectural decisions had to be made and then the guidelines would be ready. Gunn then confirmed that the issue of demolition remained in the conservation district. Anderson said that the way it read at that point was that demolition would not be allowed of any contributing structure. It was decided to wait on a legal opinion. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:35 PM. Submitted by Le Ann Dunne-Tyson ppdadrn/rnin/hpc2-28-OO.doc PRELIMI IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 2000 - 5:30 P.M. 8Ub,16Ct tO Approval CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS ~ MEMBERS PRESENT: Lars Anderson, Richard Carlson, Frank Gersh, Mike Gunn, Sue Licht, Doris Malkmus, Mark Mills, Linda Shope, Michaelanne Widness MEMBERS ABSENT: Pam Michaud STAFF PRESENT: Scott Kugler OTHERS PRESENT: James Enloe, Peter Jochimsen CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Anderson called the meeting to order at 5:40 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: Commissioners introduced themselves to James Enloe and Peter Jochimsen, new commissioners to be starting in April. SECTION 106 REVIEW: 1211 SHERIDAN AVENUE: Kugler said the one-story bungalow was previously reviewed and determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register as part of the proposed Longfellow Historic District. The property owner wishes to add canvas awnings over the windows. The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) has been asked to make sure the improvements meet the Secretary of the Interior's standards. MOTION: Malkmus moved that because the awnings are removable, they are in keeping with the Secretary of the Interior's standards for Section 106. Widness seconded the motion. The motion was carried by a vote of 7-0. DISCUSSION OF AWARD PROGRAM: 1. Award Nominations Kugler showed slides of potential award nominees for the May 17 Recognition Program. Of the properties reviewed, 10 were placed in the Paint/Exterior Finishes category (with 3 possible additions that need further review), 5 were placed in the Additions/New Construction category (with I possible addition), and 6 in the Rehabilitation category (with 1 possible addition). (Licht arrived at 6:00 p.m.) Anderson asked everyone to think about possibilities for the Stewardship category. Commissioners agreed that they would discuss the Nowysz Award at the April meeting. 2. Program Location Commissioners determined that the location of the program should be the Johnson County Courthouse. 3. Other Issues Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission Minutes March 9, 2000 - 5:30 p.m. Page 2 DISCUSSION OF DESIGN GUIDELINES: (Gunn arrived at 6:25 p.m.) Gunn had revised the proposed Iowa City Guidelines as discussed at the February 28th meeting. He said that he had made a few changes since the previous meeting. Commissioners suggested additional revisions, including changing the name of the publication. Commissioners discussed how they would review the potential demolition of contributing structures, the definition of street elevation, and what they would recommend for windows. Anderson asked Kugler what the next step should be for the Commission. Kugler suggested that the HPC finalize the guidelines and distribute the information to all residents in historic districts along with a cover letter explaining changes to the guidelines and inviting participation at an upcoming meeting. Gunn and Widness agreed to work on a cover letter for residents that would be distributed along with the materials. A notice of the public hearing would be published and the information would be sent in time to have a public hearing at the April meeting. Kugler noted that they still needed to finish up review of the guidelines for multi-family buildings. Malkmus and Gunn both had ideas for how to modify the guidelines to fit with the Historic and Conservation Districts. Malkmus said her idea for adding the porch guideline under "mandatory" stemmed from the thought that every older house on the street has a front porch, and this becomes a main feature of the streetscape. However, she realizes that she's actually asking for big buildings to look like single-family housing. Malkmus said she understood Gunn's point that they may be better served to let people construct buildings that do not try to mimic a residential house. Gersh asked for a summary of the two points of view. Malkmus said that both she and Gunn want to see some restrictions on what could be built. Both also agree that a good way to do this would be to make the roof lines, modulations of the buildings, and the windows look the same. The only differences between the two points of view are porches and building styles. Malkmus said that she had been thinking of having building styles specific to the districts. Anderson said that he was uncomfortable with porches because there could be a conservation district where porches are not necessarily common. Licht said that she noticed from the slides they reviewed that most people end up enclosing the front porch, so she would prefer to see porches as an option. Plus, most of the houses from the '30s and '40s did not have large porches. Licht asked if the conservation guidelines would supersede the other guidelines. Kugler said the guidelines currently being considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission would not apply in any areas that are covered by the Historic Preservation ordinance, with the idea that the document would be modified in one of two ways to apply to new apartment buildings in conservation and historic districts. Anderson clarified that the multi-family construction guidelines are part of the "handbook' they had been discussing. Anderson asked if the Commission wished to have one set of multi-family guidelines for all conservation districts and historic districts or different sets of specific guidelines for each district. Gunn said that after people have met all of the other guidelines, they should ask people to do something to make the construction fit in, but he is hesitant to state specifically what they need to do. Malkmus said she was not saying that all buildings must have porches. She just noticed that without a welcoming entrance, large walls on a building may seem alien to the neighborhood. Gersh said a large porch would look odd on an apartment building. Malkmus said in that case they could have multiple entrances. Kugler asked if the building orientation guideline could meet this need because it mandates having entrances face the street as well as architectural emphasis on the front of the building. Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission Minutes March 9, 2000 - 5:30 p.m. Page 3 Malkmus said that if they defined the specific building styles in each district, then they could ask for those design elements to be incorporated. She said that under building styles, the handbook could ask that, "Design elements from existing architectural styles found within the surrounding neighborhood be incorporated." Licht said she did not see a problem with mentioning building styles, but disagreed with requiring porches. Licht said if a porch was part of the predominant architectural style, then the builder should add one. Commissioners agreed that incorporating styles from contributing structures in the district should be mandatory. The predominant styles for the district would be evident from the appendices included with the handbook. Commissioners had also reviewed the system for assigning points. They agreed that the use of double-hung windows would be awarded points under architectural details. Kugler suggested that the Commission send the design handbook forward to the City Council, and then follow up with the guidelines for multifamily buildings, which will be similar to the infill guidelines. The Commission felt that if possible they should go together. If the draft can be finalized in time, the Commission will hold a public hearing on the package at its' April 13 meeting. DISCUSSION OF GOVERNOR/LUCAS STREET CONSERVATION DISTRICT: Gersh said he wrote a different introduction. Kugler said he then wrote a description to go along with Gersh's text but did not have it ready for this meeting. Commissioners agreed that this combination would make the document clearer. A draft of the Conservation District Report will be available for review at the April meeting. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FROM THE JANUARY 24, 31 AND FEBRUARY 10, 2000 MEETINGS: Commissioners agreed to defer discussion of the minutes until the April 13th meeting. COMMISSION INFORMATION/DISCUSSION: Commission Time Widness asked what happened with the airport. Malkmus said the work was almost done and it looked great. Save America's Treasures FY2000 Grant Funds Iowa Historic Preservation Alliance "Preservation at its Best 2000" Nomination Form Letter from State Historical Society of Iowa regarding Emma J. Harvat - Mary E Stach House National Register Nomination Cultural Tourism News, Winter 2000 " ADJOURNMENT: MOTION: Widness moved to adjourn the meeting. Gersh seconded the motion. The motion was carried by a vote of 9-0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Minutes submitted by Wendy Larive. ppdadm/min/hpc3-9-00,doc MINUTES PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MARCH 8, 2000 MEMBERS PRESENT: Toni Click, Barbara Endel, Craig Gustaveson, James Moxley, Matt Pacha, Rex Pruess, A1 Stroh MEMBERS ABSENT: Bruce Maurer, Kathy Wallace STAFF PRESENT: Marilyn Bennett, Bill Blanchard, Joyce Carroll, Cindy Coffin, Pat Johnston, Mike Moran, Steve Roberts, Terry Trueblood GUESTS: Mike Cilek, Dave Hintze, Chuck Johnston FORMAL ACTION TAKEN Moved by Stroh, seconded by Endel, to approve the February 8, 2000 minutes as written. Unanimous. Moved by Pruess, seconded by Gustaveson, to recommend to the City Council that Outlot B of Village Green XIV (.35 acre-parcel) be sold to the developer if the City does not own the 1.26 acres located to the south of this parcel. Cilek indicated she would be abstaining due to a potential conflict of interest. Ayes: Endel, Gustaveson, Moxley, Pacha, Pruess, Stroh. Abstentions: Cilek. The motion carried. SPECIAL RECOGNITION Pacha recognized Pat Johnston, Office Coordinator, who is retiring after 31+ years of dedicated service to the Iowa City Recreation Division. He presented her with a resolution declaring March 1 ~th as "St. Pat's Day" at the Recreation Center. VILLAGE GREEN SOUTH Mike Cilek and Dave Hintze addressed the commission with respect to purchasing a .35 acre-parcel of open space (Outlot B of Village Green XIV) previously dedicated to the city under the Neighborhood Open Space Plan. Mike Cilek stated Village Partners want to acquire the land for the sum of $4,050. The sum is based on an appraisal value of $6,595 for a .57 acre parcel in Village Green XIV. He stated Outlot B was key to their overall plan for the development, which has changed since the parcel was dedicated to the City. Pacha asked if there was a deficit or surplus of neighborhood open space in this area. Trueblood stated based on the formula used to determine neighborhood open space, the sale of this parcel would not affect the deficit or surplus. Trueblood noted the only reason the Commission accepted this parcel was to tie into the 1.26 acres of land immediately to the south. He stated it was unclear as to whether the 1.26 acres was ever dedicated to the City or if it was part of a previous concept plan, which never materialized. Mike Click stated he did not believe this parcel was ever dedicated. He also noted their plans include construction of a walkway around the pond, which will connect to Village Road. Endel noted the appraisal referred to had been completed in 1997, and questioned the parcers worth based on today's value. Hintze felt the value had not changed a lot, with the possibility that it may cost more to obtain another appraisal. After discussion, the Commission conditionally agreed to sell the .35 acres if the City did not own the 1.26 acres to the south, with final action to be taken by the City Council. Moved by Parks and Recreation Commission March 8, 2000 Page 2 of 3 Pruess, seconded by Gustaveson, to recommend to the City Council that Outlot B (.35 acre-parcel) be sold to the developer if the City does not own the 1.26 acres located to the south of this parcel Cilek indicated she would be abstaining due to a potential conflict of interest. Ayes: Endel, Gustaveson, Moxley, Paeha, Pruess, Stroh. Abstentions: Cilek. The motion carried. The Commission deferred to staff to negotiate the selling price. JOINT MEETING CITY COUNCIL Trueblood noted the date for this meeting has not been set, but anticipated it would be sometime in April. Pacha and Endel indicated they would like this meeting to coincide with a regular commission meeting. Trueblood stated he would determine if the meeting could be held at the next Commission meeting of April 12. He noted the primary purpose of the meeting is to discuss future direction of the department, particularly as it relates to increases in parkland, trails, etc. without like increases in personnel, and whether staff should proceed with a parks and recreation master plan which is budgeted for this year. The City Manager would like staff to pull information together on parkland history, trails and personnel. Stroh suggested developing a map of the trail system for Iowa City and Coralville, with overlays depicting what is currently in place, what is planned, and areas that fall under the department's responsibility. Trueblood indicated he would work with staff to develop it. Stroh noted the ideal outcome would be to establish a five-year plan that constitutes a shared vision. FY2001 BUDGET AND CIP PROJECTS Trueblood updated the commission on the operating budget; noting approval was received for an additional one-half time program supervisor. With respect to the following CIP projects, Trueblood reported: construction of the Riverside Festival stage is on schedule; the Cemetery expansion will be completed next spring; the soccer buildings at the Iowa City Kickers Soccer Park have been completed; resurfacing and re-fencing of the Mercer Park tennis courts will be completed this spring; the Wetherby Park renovation will be finished this spring/early summer, with a ribbon cutting ceremony tentatively planned around the first part of July; the Kiwanis Park project has been nearly completed, with Russ Bennett hired to complete the prairie grass portions; the Willow Creek Trail Hospice Memorial has nearly been completed; the study to complete the Highway 1 underpass to extend the Willow Creek Trail is in its final stages; development of the Ned Ashton Park will be going out to bid and completed this spring; and the Walden Woods neighborhood would like the open space developed into a passive park. Also, planning stages have begun on the skate park at Terrell Mill Park and construction of the Babe Ruth building and relighting of field #3 at Mercer Park; staff met with Marcia Klingaman and a small group of neighbors to discuss development of the Miller/Orchard parcel purchased by the City; and a consultant will be hired this summer to complete the design work for Hunters Run. COMMISSION TIME Cilek asked if the present skate park components would be removed from Mercer Park when the Terrell Mill skate park is completed. Trueblood noted at staff level the plan is to leave the components in place unless they are not being used. She noted the current facility is heavily used by youth that are not old enough to drive or go to the other side of town, and she would like to see the components !eft at Mercer Park for their use. Pruess asked if some people were strongly opposed to this. Trueblood indicated at the public meetings Parks and Recreation Commission March 8, 2000 Page 3 of 3 it had been made known that it was the City's intent to leave the components at Mercer Park, at least for the time being, to give skateboarders two options. Moxley asked the location of the 58 acres that is actual parkland in Hickory Hill Park. Trueblood noted there was 17.5 acres at the southern end and the former Woods parcel consisting of 40 acres (the north shelter and surrounding area-mostly to the east). DIRECTOR'S REPORT Trueblood reported on the following: Pat Johnston's Open House - will be held on March 10 from 1-4 p.m. in the Social Hall. GLRC Meeting - Iowa City will be hosting the Great Lakes Regional Council meeting set for July 20-22. The GLRC is an eight-state region of the national association, and Commission members may wish to participate. Dog Park - A memo to the City Council from the City Manager re citizen interest in development of a "dog park" was included in the packet. This may be placed on the commission's agenda for next month's meeting. Staff will provide a packet of correspondence that has been received to date. The meeting adjoumed at 6:10 p.m. COUNCIL (LISA, I SIDED) _. IINAR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION THURSDAY, MARCH 16, 2000 - 7:30 P.M CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS ) Approval MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Bovbjerg, Pam Ehrhardt, Dick Gibson, Marilyn Schintler, Dean Shannon, Lea Supple MEMBERS ABSENT: Benjamin Chait STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Holecek, Bob Miklo, Melody Rockwell, John Yapp OTHERS PRESENT: Susan Baskett, Larry Schnittjer, Molly Senneff, Michael Helms, Lorraine Huneke-Bowans, Ann Freerks, John Shaw, Jim Brenneman, Julie Campbell, Greg Allen, Derrick Abromeit, Cole Chase, Rudy Kuenzli, Diana Velez, Gary Hughes, Howard Weinberg, Anna Buss, Steve Chadton, Mary Durfee, Michael McLaughlin, Brenda Christner RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: Recommended approval, by a vote of 6-0, of the Central Planning District Multi-Family Residential Design Standards and related amendments. Recommended, by a vote of 6-0, that the City Council establish a public hearing on REZ00- 0007, so that the Commission can have time to devote proper attention and hear adequate input from both sides on this issue. Recommended, by a vote of 6-0, that the City Council amend Chapter 6, entitled "Zoning," Article O, entitled "Sign Regulations," to allow identification banner signs in large parking lots as recommended by staff. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Supple called the meeting to order at 7:36 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: Susan Joy Baskett, 1100 Arthur Street, D5, said she is concerned about the four houses in the Dubuque Street and Linn Street area that are scheduled for possible demolition and replacement by apartment buildings. She said those houses are beautiful and are part of the atmosphere of this town, and she is very concerned about losing them. Baskerr asked if anything could be done to rezone the area to preserve the old houses. Miklo responded that a site plan approval has been granted for that site. He said the property has been zoned for a fairly high density, probably since the early 1960s. Baskett asked if anything could be done about that now. Holecek said if a site plan has already been approved and demolition has been approved, there is not anything that can be done for those four houses. Baskett asked who gives approval. Holecek said it would go through an administrative process through Housing and Inspection Services that would check out the site plan for appropriate side yards and setbacks to be in compliance with the zoning ordinance as it is now. She said if someone has already obtained the approval, it cannot be taken away by going through a zoning process subsequent to the approval. Baskett asked if something can be done to preserve the rest of the neighborhood. Holecek said an application could be made to rezone that area. She said an application could be obtained from the City Clerk's Office. Bovbjerg said several properties in the north area were designated as Neighborhood Conservation Residential (RNC) zones recently. Miklo said that did not include this specific Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes March 16, 2000 Page 2 area. He said the property on both sides of Dubuque Street and the west side of Dubuque Street over to Clinton is zoned RM-44, which is high density, multi-family, and also Planned High Density Multi-Family Residential (PRM). Miklo said it has not been downzoned and unlike the other areas on the Comprehensive Plan, has been shown as high density for a number of years. Bovbjerg said that is along the Dubuque Street corridor, and Miklo confirmed this. He said the properties fronting on Dubuque Street, the first lots on the east side, are zoned RM-44. He said beyond that to the east, it is zoned Neighborhood Conservation Residential (RNC-12). Bovbjerg said while this demolition and larger buildings could happen on Dubuque Street, it could not go on east of the RM-44 zoning boundary. Miklo said that is correct. ANNOUNCEMENT OF VACANCIES ON CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: Supple invited those at the meeting to participate in the progress of the City by serving on a board or commission. She said it can be very educational and gives an opportunity to have input into how the City progresses. Supple said applications may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office. CHANGE OF AGENDA ORDER: The consensus of the Commission was to consider the two developmentJrezoning items regarding Village Green and Village Green South first, REZONING/DEVELOPMENT ITEMS: REZ00-0002/SUB00-0002. Public discussion of an application submitted by Village Partners for a rezoning from Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) to Planned Development Housing Overlay (OPDH-5) zone and a preliminary plat of Village Green Parts 18-20, a 19.6- acre, 10-lot, 60-unit, planned development with one outlot. (45-day limitation period expires March 16, 2000) Yapp said this proposal for Village Green Parts 18-20 would include 60 condominium units and three single-family lots on approximately 19.9 acres, for an overall density of 3.81 units per acre. He said the City has received a letter of deferral from the applicant, as them are still some platting issues to resolve. Yapp said staff therefore recommends that this item be deferred. Yapp noted that an overall plan of how Village Green and Village Green South relate to each other was distributed to Commission members before the meeting. Public discussion: Larry Schnittier, 1917 South Gilbert Street, said he was available to answer any questions regarding this application. Molly Senneff, 3351 Winter.Green Drive, asked where the plat for Village Partners ends. Yapp said everything north of Wintergreen Drive is Village Partners and will be condominiums similar in style to the Wellington Condominiums to the north. He said everything south of Wintergreen Drive is Glasgow Williams Real Estate and is proposed as single-family residential. Yapp clarified that the Glasgow Willlares development is also located along North Jamie Lane. Senneff asked if the three new lots where the street is being taken out and the one directly south are single-family residential lots and if that is the only part Glasgow Williams has besides south of Wintergreen. Yapp said that is correct. Senneff asked if the pond south of Part 4B and west of Part 4A is to be maintained by the City. She said it is currently not being maintained very well. Senneff said the people living there were under the impression that either the City or the developer would maintain the pond. Rockwell said when that part of Village Green South was platted in 1993-94, there was a conditional zoning agreement provision that once 90% of the lots around the green area and pond were constructed upon, the open space area could be dedicated to the City as a park. Senneff said Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes March 16, 2000 Page 3 the City should get going on that then, because that could really be a beautiful area, and right now it is pretty stagnant and overgrown. She said it also is a dangerous area for kids. Supple asked what the procedure would be to get that started. Holecek said once 90% of the lots in the area are built out, the City would then consider taking the dedication. She said when it is in the early stages of development, the theory is that it is not proper for the City to accept the open space, because it is not serving a large enough portion of citizens to justify doing so. Rockwell said also there is still a lot of grading around the pond to be done, and until that is completed and the area is planted, the City does not want to take it on as a responsibility. Bovbjerg asked if it is then the responsibility of the owner. Holecek agreed that it is the responsibility of the subdivider. Bovbjerg said there is not supposed to be erosion and siltation, and there should not be stagnant water and materials there. Holecek said either the subdivider or homeowners' association would have responsibility for maintenance, although she had not recently reviewed the legal papers to know which entity is responsible. She said Senneff could get an answer to that from the Recorder's Office, the City Attorney's Office, the City Clerk's Office, or the Public Works Department. Senneff said this could be a beautiful area. She said Village Partners has done a beautiful job in the Wellington Condominiums area with their ponds. Senneff said if something similar to that could be done here, it would be great. Public discussion closed. MOTION: Gibson moved to defer REZ00-00021SUB00~0002, an application submitted by Village Partners for a rezoning from Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) to Planned Development Housing Overlay (OPDH-5) zone and a preliminary plat of Village Green Parts 18-20, a 19.6-acre, 10-lot, 60-unit, planned development with one outlot, to the April 6, 2000 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Shannon seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. REZ00-0009/SUB00-0001. Public discussion of an application submitted by Glasgow Willjams Real Estate for a rezoning to amend the OPDH Plan for Village Green South - Part 3A and for a preliminary plat of Village Green South - Part 5, a Resubdivision of a portion of Village Green South - Part 3A, a 12-lot, 3.33-acre residential subdivision for property located at Wintergreen Drive east of Scott Boulevard. (45-day limitation period expires March 16, 2000) Rockwell said this proposal is for a preliminary plat and PDH amendment to end North Jamie Lane at Jennifer Jane Court, instead of having it loop back to Wintergreen Drive. She said, as proposed, Jennifer Jane Court would be renamed North Jamie Lane. Rockwell said the plat proposes to keep the same density in place; to retain large single-family lots. She said staff recommends approval, but because this is a rezoning item, the Commission would likely want to defer. Rockwell said the applicant has submitted a letter of waiver. Public discussion: Mike Helms, 31 Pondview Court, said he lives in this general area and has real concerns about what is happening there, because he really is not aware of what is being proposed. He asked for a summary of the plans. Helms said he would be opposed to apartment buildings in the area, but would not be opposed to condominiums like the Wellington Condominiums. He said he would like information about what is proposed and what avenues he would have to object, should he be in disagreement with what is proposed. Rockwell stated that so far, condominiums are proposed to the west and north of Wintergreen Drive for the portion owned by Village Partners. She said for the portion aligned along North Jamie Lane and the south side of Wintergreen Drive, larger single-family lots are proposed. Rockwell said no apartments are being proposed. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes March 16, 2000 Page 4 Helms asked if once the zoning has been changed, the developer could build whatever he wants to there. Rockwell said the zoning is not being changed so much as amended. She said this is a planned development, and the developer is amending the plan. Rockwell said instead of having North Jamie Lane loop up to the north and then around back to the south to Wintergreen Drive, the street is proposed to end in a looped cul-de-sac where Jennifer Jane Court is now. She stated there is one additional single-family lot proposed in the subdivision. Rockwell said this is simply an amendment to the plan that was approved in 1994. Helms asked what type of condominiums there would be to the north, specifically how many condominiums to a building. Yapp said it would be a combination of two, three, and four-unit condominiums. He said if there is ever a proposal for anything different from what is approved, it would need to go through another rezoning, a public process, and the neighborhood would be notified of that. Helms asked staff, regarding the pond, what area needed to be 90% developed before the pond was given over to the City. Rockwell said the 90% refers to the lots adjacent to the green area surrounding the pond. Helms asked what percentage is developed at this point. Rockwell said she did not know the exact percentage, but asked Helms to contact her at the Planning and Community Development Office. She said she would contact the Housing and Inspection Services Office to see how many of the lots are built on at this point. Bovbjerg asked if the only reason this is an application for a rezoning is because this was originally an OPDH, and now the developer wants to truncate a street and move some lot lines. Rockwell confirmed this. Bovbjerg said that could have been done without coming before the Commission, except that this whole thing is a PDH, and Rockwell said that was correct in terms of the rezoning. Bovbjerg said this is not changing style, size, or land use. Molly Senneff asked if there were any requirement for fencing around the proposed pond to the north of Wintergreen, as was done on the pond to the north. She said it is a safety issue to protect children in the neighborhood, as well as those coming over from the mobile home park. Supple said she did not believe fencing is a requirement, although it was a condition on one application. Yapp stated that with a previous pond, fencing was a condition of the zoning. He said it could be a condition with this also, if the Commission and City Council would want to approve it that way. Senneff said it would be a very wise decision to make fencing of the pond a requirement, considering the number of children in the neighborhood, the surrounding schools, and the trailer courts. Public discussion closed. MOTION: Gibson moved to defer REZ00-0009/SUB00-000t, an application submitted by Glasgow Williams Real Estate for a rezoning to amend the OPDH Plan for Village Green South - Part 3A and for a preliminary plat of Village Green South - Part 5, a Resubdivision of a portion of Village Green South - Part 3A, a 12-lot, 3.33-acre residential subdivision for property located at Wintergreen Drive east of Scott Boulevard, to the April 6, 2000 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Bovbjerg seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. Bovbjerg asked that staff and the applicant discuss fencing for the pond similar to that to the north. Gibson asked if the staff recommendation implied that the Commission should consider not requiring fencing. Yapp said staff mentioned that previously to the north a fence was required. He said fencing has not been required in other parts of the city. Yapp said staff mentioned it to bring it to the Commission's attention as something to be discussed, but staff did not make a recommendation one way or the other. Bovbjerg said the Commission should discuss the pros and cons of fencing at the next meeting. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes March 16, 2000 Page 5 SITE PLAN REVIEW ITEM: Public discussion of proposed Multi-Family Residential Desi.qn Standards for Infill Development within the Central Plannin.q District and related amendments: Miklo said staff gave a full report on this item at the last meeting. He noted that there have been minor revisions made by staff. Miklo said the title has been clarified to read, "The Central Planning District Multi-Family Residential Design Standards." Miklo said the points available for architectural detail have been increased from seven to ten, which was the intent of the Committee all along. He said the provision regarding how building modulation was to be determined has been made clearer. Bovbjerg asked if staff received any correspondence from interested parties regarding this. Miklo said staff received a number of letters from people expressing support for the proposal, and those were passed along to the Commission. He said this was sent in February to the Home Builders Association and apartment builders who are active in this area, but there has been no response to date. Miklo said apartment builders, neighborhood residents, and apartment owners were on the committee that drafted these guidelines. Public discussion: There was none. Public discussion closed. MOTION: Schintler moved to recommend approval of the Central Planning District Multi- Family Residential Design Standards and related amendments. Bovbjerg seconded the motion. Supple complimented staff and the committee members, as this was obviously a great deal of work to put together and turned out quite impressively. Ehrhardt said she is very much in favor of this. She said it is a very sad day when an older structure is demolished, but an even sadder day when what is built in its place does not respect the character of the neighborhood. Ehrhardt said this is a big step toward imposing that design standard. Ehrhardt said she learned a lot from being on this committee. She said prior to being on the Committee, she thought the developers that built buildings inconsistent with the neighborhood just lacked respect for the neighborhood and the residents who live there. Ehrhardt said she has come to see there are other factors influencing that design, one being financial constraints. She said the eye of the beholder is certainly a factor. She said she has talked with one of the owners of the property on College and Summit Streets that prompted this process. Ehrhardt said the owner sees that building as beautiful with its simple lines, and even though many people feel that the building does not add to the neighborhood, he does. She said she thinks these standards therefore have to be imposed; developers cannot be relied on to do what may be right for the neighborhood. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. REZONING ITEM: REZ00-0007. Public discussion of an application from Ann Freerks and Lorraine Huneke- Bowans to rezone properties located in the Low Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-12) zone south of Burlington Street along the 300-600 blocks of Governor Street and a portion of the 800-900 blocks of Bowery Street to Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS-8), and to rezone properties located in the RM-12 zone along the 300-600 blocks of Lucas Street and a Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes March 16, 2000 Page 6 portion of the 700-800 blocks of Bowery Street to Neighborhood Conservation Residential (RNC-12). (45-day limitation period expires March 27, 2000) Rockwell said the first page of the staff report should be addressed to the Planning and Zoning Commission, not the Board of Adjustment, as this is a rezoning item. She said letters of support as well as additional protest forms submitted since Monday have been distributed to Commission members. Rockwell said there is also a letter from her to property owners in the neighborhood attempting to explain the ramifications of the RS-8 zone in terms of roomers and how RS-8 zoning would affect the properties in that area. She said there is also a memo from Karin Franklin and a memo from the applicants to the City Council requesting that the City Council set a public hearing on the rezoning. Rockwell said if the City Council sets the public hearing for April 18 at its March 21 meeting, which would initiate a moratorium on any building in the area that would be in conflict with the proposed zoning. She said staff also received a letter from the applicants waiving the 45-day limitation period. Rockwell said according to the applicants, the requested downzoning is intended to preserve the character and historic integrity of the neighborhood. She said the neighborhood does have a mix of rental and owner-occupied structures, as well as a range of residential uses, including single-family residences, duplexes, apartments, and rooming houses. Rockwell said the applicants have indicated a desire to retain this mix of uses, the affordable housing stock, and the diverse population of the neighborhood as it is. She said through the rezoning, they hope to reduce the pressure for new construction, which results in older structures being demolished. Rockwell said the requested downzoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in terms of the density of zoning being requested and in the effort to stabilize this type of neighborhood. She said the Comprehensive Plan calls for the City to strive to preserve the identity and character of the community and to encourage diversity in the population in housing and in jobs. She said the Plan indicates that the City has made a commitment to preserve this type of neighborhood. Rockwell said the Comprehensive Plan further calls for developing neighborhood plans that help ensure the continuation of a balance of housing types in neighborhoods, particularly in the older parts of the city. She said it also recognizes through the Historic Preservation Plan, that there are areas in the City where the current zoning does not seem to support the goals to protect the character of older neighborhoods. She said the Historic Preservation Plan also calls for reviewing and revising underlying zoning classifications for areas involving historic districts, conservation districts, and significant numbers of individual landmarks. Rockwell said the historic preservation surveys have shown that this area is deserving of conservation district designation, and it is also recognized as a potential buffer between the spreading new construction of large apartment complexes to the west and the established neighborhood farther to the east. As noted in the report, Rockwell said although many of these houses in both areas requested for rezoning have been converted to rental housing, the predominantly single-family residential appearance of the area has remained intact. She said only three of these properties contain structures that were built as apartment buildings in the Governo~Bowery Street area. Rockwell said one property does contain an apartment addition, which was added to a single-family house. She said over 90% of the properties in the area contain buildings that were originally built as single-family houses. Rockwell said in the Lucas/Bowery Street area the percentage is somewhat less, but still nearly 90% of the properties along the Lucas and Bowery streetscapes have a predominantly single-family residential appearance. Rockwell said staff evaluated existing land uses in the Governo~Bowery and the Lucas/Bowery areas to come up with what exists there now and what would happen if the rezonings were to occur. Rockwell said in the Governor/Bowery area that has the RS-8 rezoning request, many of the properties contain single-family or duplex residential uses, and over half of the houses used as single-family residences are owner occupied, as are four of the rental structures. She said approximately 17% of the lots contain multi-family uses. Rockwell said two lots contain single- Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes March 16, 2000 Page 7 family houses with rooming uses, one lot contains a religious institution, the AME Church, and there is also a vacant lot. Rockwell said the survey information indicates that the general use of the area Governor/Bowery Street area is that of a single-family and duplex neighborhood with some apartments. She said over 90% of the structures were originally single-family homes, and although there is a mix of housing types within the area, the predominant visual character of the area is one of a single-family residential neighborhood, rather than a neighborhood of apartment complexes. Rockwell said in the RM-12 zone, which allows multi-family structures, there are requirements for lot width and lot area in terms of whether a lot can be converted to a duplex or multi-family structure. She said in the Governor/Bowery area, 59% of the properties are essentially already maxed out. Rockwell said 38% of the properties are single-family properties now and because of lot width and/or lot area could only be single-family properties under the current RM-12 zoning as well as the proposed RS-8 zoning. She said there is also 21% of the properties that are nonconforming now and could not be expanded to higher densities under the RM-12 zoning or the RS-8 zoning. Rockwell said such properties are considered nonconforming properties now and would be nonconforming properties whether the zoning continues as RM-12 or is changed to RS-8. Rockwell said although the existing nonconforming uses or uses that become nonconforming uses if the RS-8 zoning is approved can continue in place, the number of roomers permitted per unit is not allowed to continue as part of the nonconforming use. She said in the RM-12 zone, essentially four unrelated persons are permitted per unit. Rockwell said in the RS-8 zone, only three unrelated persons are permitted per unit. She said because of this, staff recommends that instead of RS-8, it would be more appropriate for an RNC-12 zone to be considered for the Governor/Bowery area. Rockwell said staff feels the RNC-12 zone would have nearly the same stabilizing effect as an RS-8 rezoning, but would not have as much impact on the existing rental housing, because it would allow the number of roomers to remain constant. With regard to the Lucas/Bowery area, Rockwell said there is a higher percentage of rental properties there. However, she said there is a clear majority of properties containing single- family or duplex uses. Rockwell said approximately one-third of the houses used as single- family residences are owner-occupied, and one of the rental structures is owner-occupied. She said approximately one-third of the properties contain rooming houses or multi-family uses. Rockwell said the survey information indicates a general pattern of use in the area - that of a single-family and duplex neighborhood with some apartments. She stated that nearly 90% of the structures were originally single-family homes, and the predominant visual character is one of a single-family residential neighborhood. Rockwell said 68% of the properties in the Lucas/Bowery rezoning request area are essentially maxed out in that they are at the limit of what they can be under RM-12 zoning. She said 39% of the single-family houses are single-family now and could only be single-family houses under either RM-12 or RNC-12 zoning. Rockwell said 29% of multi-family uses are already nonconforming now under the RM-12 zoning and would continue to be nonconforming under either the RM-12 or RNC-12 zoning designation. Rockwell noted that in the Lucas/Bowery area, there is one property, a new apartment building that is being constructed, that is considered conforming under the current RM-12 regulations. Rockwell said an ordinance provision says that any legal conforming use can continue as a legal conforming use in the RNC-12 zone if constructed prior to 1993. She said staff is proposing that the ordinance be amended to allow the four-plex, a legal conforming use to continue as a legal conforming use if this area is rezoned as RNC-12. Gibson asked if the ordinance amendment would apply to the single property or citywide. Rockwell said it would apply citywide. She said staff feels it is important to allow structures that are legal and Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes March 16, 2000 Page 8 conforming under the RM-12 zone to continue to be considered legal and conforming in the RNC-12 zone whether they were built recently or prior to 1993. Regarding the request for the RS-8 zoning for the Governor/Bowery area, Rockwell said staff recognizes the merit of the applicants' request to rezone that area to RS-8. She said because staff feels the RNC-12 zoning would achieve nearly the same level of conservation within the neighborhood without creating non-conforming situations, staff recommends this area be rezoned from RM-12 to RNC-12, instead of RS-8. Rockwell said staff also recommends that the request to rezone the properties along Lucas and Bowery to RNC-12 be approved. Rockwell showed a map that she made in response to a request from a person, who is protesting this rezoning. She said the orange on the map designates properties that are protest properties. Rockwell said in fairness, she should probably also make a map for the next meeting to show the properties of people sending in letters of support. Gibson said it would be helpful to label the properties as to whether they are owner-occupied or owned by absentee landlords for both the protest property map and the support property map. Ehrhardt said she lives in the Longfellow Neighborhood and has been involved in the Neighborhood Association, although she is not currently on the Board. She said she knows the applicants personally. Ehrhardt said she was involved in preliminary discussions when the applicants discussed having this area be designated by the Historic Preservation Commission as a conservation district. She said she talked with Holecek after the initial Historic Preservation Commission meetings to get that started, and Holecek advised Ehrhardt to withdraw from any further activity with this, because it would be coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission. Ehrhardt said she has had conversations with the applicants, but they have centered mostly on procedural questions. Holecek said Ehrhardt's involvement was early on with respect to the Historic Preservation Commission and involved a different issue than what is currently before the Commission. Ehrhardt said the statistic that 59% of the properties are maxed out does not take into account the possibility of taking two or three properties and combining them. Rockwell said that is correct and is only the case if the properties are left intact. She said it appears that the only way to convert a majority of these properties to a higher density would be to aggregate the properties; that is more than one property would be needed to have enough lot area or lot width to increase the density. Rockwell said at least 45 feet of lot width is needed to have a duplex and 60 feet of lot width is needed to have a multi-family structure in the current RM-12 zone. Ehrhardt said it was her understanding that in the RNC-12 zone, lots could be combined only to make a duplex, at most. Rockwell said that is correct. She said the RNC-12 zone does not prevent lots from being combined, but does reduce the incentive to do so. Ehrhardt referred to page five of the staff report where it states that most of the rental properties have fewer tenants than the maximum currently permitted under the RM-12 zoning regulations. She asked how that was determined. Rockwell said that information was based on the number of bedrooms referenced on the City rental permits. Ehrhardt referred to page six in the third sentence starting with, "However..." and asked if the word "not" was missing there. Rockwell said it is correct as stated. She said in the Governor/Bowery area under RNC-12 zoning, three more properties could convert to duplexes than could do so in the RS-8 zone. Public discussion: Ann Freerks, 443 South Governor Street, presented slides of homes in the area. She said many of those who support this rezoning application were unable to attend the meeting because of spring break, but they would be making comments at the next meeting. Freerks said they proposed this application, because there are two very different forces at work in the neighborhood. She said there is recent pressure for increased density and new construction by some absentee landlords. Freerks said just this week she learned of four requests for usage change or construction permits in the area proposed for rezoning. She said this push to Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes March 16, 2000 Page 9 increase density and rental units during the time the applicants are asking the Commission to consider this request underscores the need for the rezoning. Freerks said the Commission is being asked to help determine the future of this area and of the people who live here and hopefully strike a balance with the best interests of the neighborhood at heart. Freerks said the purpose of the proposed zoning change is to preserve the character and historic integrity of the neighborhood. She said this is needed to maintain the healthy mix of single and multi-family uses, creating a diverse and rich population. Freerks said they do not want to remove the rental component, but would like to keep the area's historic integrity for owner-occupied as well as rental housing. Freerks said residents see the rapid changes occurring and want to preserve the architecture and balance in the neighborhood. Freerks said her research supports the fact that older neighborhoods offer housing choices for people in all economic stages of their lives. She said this a very positive thing that is also reflected in the Peninsula project that the City has been involved in. Freerks said for many people there is much at stake here, much more than a speculative monetary gain. She said they cannot remove the emotion, but there is a great deal of rationale and clear thinking behind this proposal. Freerks said the residential structures in this neighborhood are their homes, places that they love, places they have raised and are raising their children. She said for her husband and herself, the neighborhood offers important links to history, nature and beauty and once destroyed, it cannot be replicated. Freerks said this part of the Longfellow Neighborhood in Iowa City deserves to be preserved for future generations to enjoy. Freerks said rezoning has been a topic of discussion for this part of the Longfellow Neighborhood area for some time. She said before taking on this project, she and Huneke- Bowans had the support of other neighbors, landlords, tenants, and the Longfellow Neighborhood Association. Freerks said she and Huneke-Bowans spent many years as renters before purchasing their homes. She said they revisited that period in their lives as they took petitions around and talked with neighbors about why they have chosen this place to live. Freerks said they spent many hours talking with people in the neighborhood, those who own their homes, those who rent houses or parts of houses, and people who live in apartments. She said the overwhelming majority have sought out this neighborhood, because it has a natural beauty with many mature trees, green space, ample lots with spaces for gardens, beautiful and historic architecture, proximity to the downtown area, public transportation, playgrounds, parks, and the school system, and most importantly, its feeling of community. Freerks said these are things that make the neighborhood special and things the neighbors take pride in. Freerks said this neighborhood offers affordable options for people purchasing homes that offer character and a sense of space not found in new construction in this price range. She said these homes may be project homes that involve sweat equity, but these are things that people are seeking out. Freerks said there are many young professionals and people who are not in the market to purchase a home, but want to live in a neighborhood. She said students want to have this option as well. Freerks said there is a great demand for these homes, and they are a much sought after alternative to apartments. She said these are the things that make the neighborhood, as it currently exists, an asset to the Iowa City community. Freerks said people she spoke with were deeply concerned about the future of the neighborhood. She said a group of students who rent a home on Lucas Street talked with her at length about their concerns. Freerks said they don't want additional new construction on the street, giving the reason that they would never live on South Johnson, and they would like to see Lucas protected. Lorraine Huneke-Bowans, 510 South Governor Street, said she has done much of the research with regard to the properties' historical value. She said a brief summary was distributed to the Commission about the historical area. Huneke-Bowans said she did not have a lot of information on Lucas Street due to time constraints, but could supply the Commission with more information if Commission members would like. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes March 16, 2000 Page 10 Huneke-Bowans said she purchased her home in 1987. She said at that time, Governor was probably 80% rental with very few owner-occupied houses left. Huneke-Bowans said she and her husband took a chance on their house, because it is a beautiful home and they saw its potential. She said it sat on the market for over a year as a duplex. Huneke-Bowans said she and her neighbors have done a tremendous amount of work on their properties, because of their love of the neighborhood, the big trees and yards, the elderly neighbors, and renters as well. Huneke-Bowans said the neighborhood is now about a 50/50 split between rentals and owner- occupied properties. She said this is an area that is coming back to life, and she would hate to see it turn around and go the other way. Huneke-Bowans said the figure is around 10,000 units for apartment buildings in Iowa City and around 1,800 units for smaller duplexes. She said there were approximately 400 applications since June of last year for new rental apartment buildings coming in. Huneke-Bowans said she could not find all her documentation, so those figures are approximate. She said the person who did research on the University enrollment told her the University estimate is for 4,000 fewer students next year. Huneke-Bowans said she just wants to preserve her neighborhood. She said property values mean more than just the monetary value of the property. Huneke-Bowans said it means the safety and security of the neighborhood. She said vandalism and similar things are higher on Johnson and Van Buren Streets where it is a higher density area. Huneke-Bowans said she wants to preserve this area for her children and also for the City. She said the City in the past few years has had a great rebirth by making more and more historic districts and by rezoning areas to save the older homes. Huneke-Bowans said she would like to see that trend continue. She stated that the City has spent a lot of money revitalizing College Green Park, and the majority of the houses in that area are now coming back to life and being rehabbed. Huneke- Bowans said the City has spent a lot of money rehabbing the downtown plaza to bring back that old time appeal and is also working on the Englert Theater to save that. She said the City is giving out messages that it wants to preserve its history, and there is a lot of history in this neighborhood. Huneke-Bowans said she has numerous articles that show that the trend is now for people to come back to the heart of the city from the suburbs to enjoy all the benefits the city has to offer. She said those articles were available if anyone on the Commission would like to read them. Huneke-Bowans said she talked with several realtors in the City as well as with Casey Cook, a real estate appraiser. Huneke-Bowans said Cook gave her information about what would happen to the monetary values of properties. She said if the proposed area is rezoned, the majority of property values will most likely remain unchanged. Huneke-Bowans stated that only the properties purchased for future expansion to larger multi-units would most likely not increase as much as if they were allowed to expand. She said since this rental area has a low vacancy rate, no rental properties should decrease in value. Huneke-Bowans said this might also broaden the scope of potential buyers to include owner-occupied as well as investment buyers. She said if the proposed area is rezoned and made into a conservation district, values would most likely increase, because of the high demand for historical properties and homes in historic districts. Huneke-Bowans said no accurate figures could be obtained on how much values would be increased, because this would be the first conservation district in Iowa City. She said a conservation district would be similar to a historic district, but is not as restrictive on the property owners. Huneke-Bowans said if the proposed area is not rezoned and large, multi-unit buildings, such as the one being built at 534 South Lucas are permitted, these larger buildings will probably need more than one lot, and that would take at least two of the existing houses out of the market. She said if several of these larger units were built, the property values of the single- family homes or duplexes would drop, and the property owners of the larger units would most likely see an increase in their values. Huneke-Bowans said if the proposed area is not rezoned and the majority of properties become large, multi-unit apartment buildings, any older single- Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes March 16, 2000 Page 11 family homes or duplexes would most likely decrease in value if larger buildings surround them. She said the property values of the larger units would increase greatly, and this would no longer be considered a residential neighborhood, but a high volume rental area, which is not the definition of an RM-12. Regarding the building that is currently under construction, Huneke- Bowans said RM-12 is for low density, multi-family use, but to her, sixteen bedrooms is not low density on an 80-foot wide lot. Huneke-Bowans gave figures she obtained from the courthouse as examples of activity on these properties in the last five years. She gave examples from Governor and Lucas Streets for properties that had either been sold for much more than purchased or were assessed at significantly higher values. She said many of these properties had been rehabilitated or were soon to be. Huneke-Bowans described other recent activities in the neighborhood in the last year and a half involving seven properties all purchased for rental properties. She said these properties are all affordable housing stock, and if this were made a more attractive area by rezoning, this would be wonderful, affordable housing for new families getting started and would revitalize the downtown area. Huneke-Bowans thanked Commission members for taking the time to go through all of the documentation provided by the applicants. Ann Freerks said the historic AME church is a source of great pride for many of the neighbors. She said people she talked with wanted to ensure the zoning change would not have a negative impact on the church, and the welfare of the church has been a concern of the applicants from the beginning. Freerks said it would be a great loss to someday see the church dwarfed by large apartment complexes. She said she spoke with members of the church over the past weekend, and they were interested in becoming involved in the rezoning process. Freerks said when Governor was zoned RM-12, it was thought the action would afford the protection necessary to maintain the character in this area. She said now this issue is being revisited. Freerks said loopholes can be found, and densities pushed over the maximum. She urged the Commission to look further into the future along Governor Street and take the additional step to RS-8. Freerks said for the most part, it is true there is a lower population density in homes, duplexes, and apartments on Governor, that many of the rental units have few bedrooms and most landlords she had spoken with are careful to see that their properties are not over-occupied. She said this is not because of the roomer rule, but because they care about the properties and want to offer a quality living environment. Freerks said an important difference between RS-8 and RNC-12 is the lot size required for a duplex. She said in RS-8, 8,700 square feet are needed, while only 6,000 square feet is needed in the RNC-12 zone. Freerks said if the only reason the Commission sees not to approve RS-8 is the number of roomers allowed, she would ask the Commission to look at the matter more closely. She stated that the roomer rule has proved to be unenforceable, as inspectors are scheduled in advance, and landlords and tenants are given two weeks notice before their arrival, ample time to temporarily change a living situation. Freerks said she lives next door to a three-bedroom, single-family rental. She said because the rent is so high, there were six tenants in the house last August, and there are currently five. Freerks said this is not the only property in the area with this problem. She said this overcrowding would not be seen as one drives or walks through the area, but those living there deal with it daily. Freerks said unless there is something that can be easily and consistently enforced, the roomer argument should not be given as much consideration. Freerks said by preserving the current mix of housing, the homes can fluctuate between owner- occupied and rental properties, and real estate development flexibility is an important element. She said maintaining as many options as possible is a wise choice, and that is what this zoning change would do. Freerks said when a home is left a home or a duplex, there are these options, because once a structure is removed to be replaced by a multi-unit apartment, these options no longer exist. She said if there are too many steps in this direction, the fate of the Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes March 16, 2000 Page 12 neighborhood is sealed. Freerks said like the fibers of a fabric, removing too many pieces causes weakness and deterioration. She said although the infill guidelines would be helpful in creating multi-family structures that blend with the neighborhood, that is an issue of size, scale, and design. Freerks said the applicants are asking to maintain the balance and the mix that is currently in the neighborhood and preserve a sense of community, as well as the architecture. Freerks said if more multi-unit complexes are allowed in the area, the neighborhood would lose its sense of community, and families would flee the area. She said most lots are currently at or over their maximum density so that to increase density would require the aggregation of lots and demolition of multiple structures. Freerks said this illustrates the reason that rezoning is so impodant. She said the neighborhood needs to be protected by reducing the pressure for new construction in a highly desirable area with many contributing structures. She said the aggregation of lots and potential for demolition are real fears for the people in these neighborhoods and landlords who want to maintain the character in the area. Freerks said the Comprehensive Plan and the Historic Preservation Plan support the case for a zoning change, and there is strength in the numbers found in the staff report. She said Governor Street shares an alley with the Summit Street Historic District, which is zoned RS-5. She said a section of Governor, from Bowery south, is already RS-8. Freerks said the requested zoning change would provide a gradual stepping in the zone changes from Dodge to Summit, creating a property buffer zone. Freerks said many of the letters of support for this application deserve quoting, and she urged Commission members to read all of them. She said the letters give different perspectives and reasons as to why the rezoning should occur. Freerks said one resident property owner in the area stated that if the City did not support a zoning change in this area, it would send a clear message to families and long-term residents that they are not wanted here. She said this shows how strongly people feel about the need for change. Freerks said they are not asking for funding or money from the City to do these things, just protection for the neighborhood. Freerks said one doesn't have to be a lover of older homes to be in favor of this rezoning, just a lover of community, neighborhood, and all of the wonderful things that go with that. She asked the Commission to see the passion neighbors have for their homes, city, and neighborhood. She further asked the Commission to see what a positive long-term impact this would have on Iowa City. Freerks said it is the applicants' wish to work together to maintain the character that makes this neighborhood such a desirable place to live. Gibson said a statement made by Huneke-Bowans was incorrect. He stated that he has not reviewed the precise enrollment projections for the University, but a loss of 4,000 students would be catastrophic to the community. Gibson said the trend is upward enrollment at the University, not down, and he said the person who gave that information should further research his facts. John Shaw, 437 South Summit Street, said he owns rental properties at 332 and 336 South Governor. He said this rezoning issue transcends individual rental property rights and individual economic concerns. Shaw said he served on the Community Housing Forum Target Group Subcommittee with Cathy Minette, who works for NCS, and Bob Elliott, who at that time worked for ACT. Shaw said both of them were involved with recruitment and hiring new employees, and both stated that one of the greatest obstacles in their recruitment and hiring efforts was the limited availability and relative high cost of older homes in traditional neighborhoods. He said people felt that to move to Iowa City from communities such as Ottumwa or Waterloo, they would actually have to step down their standard of living, although they were moving to a higher paying job. Shaw said the City is currently planning the Peninsula project based on design principles found in the neighborhood being discussed. He said one of the strategies to differentiate the central business district from the Coral Ridge Mall is to emphasize Iowa City's historic qualities and Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes March 16, 2000 Page 13 nature. Shaw said the Comprehensive Plan supports the conservation of these neighborhoods. He said the established traditional neighborhoods are an economic asset to the entire community and transcend individual economic concerns. Shaw said tearing down existing older structures so they may replaced with out of scale, inappropriate, and insensitive, new structures decimates the fabric, context, and quality of life in our existing neighborhoods and in the community overall. He said he owns two properties on Governor Street and strongly supports the rezoning of this neighborhood to RNC-12. Jim Brenneman, 1728 Louis Place, said he has been a real estate agent in Iowa City for the past 13 years and during that time has come to specialize not only in selling single-family owner-occupied homes, but also close-in single-family and duplex rental properties that provide housing to many students attending The University of Iowa. Brenneman said he and his partner, Greg Allen, have purchased many older, distressed properties and rehabbed them to provide safe, affordable housing for mostly undergraduate students. He said the value of the properties they purchase is determined to a great degree by the zoning in which the property is located. Brenneman said in addition to his own properties, he has sold several properties to various customers with specific zoning requirements, some of them in this area under discussion. He stated that these customers were looking for properties they could duplex or add on to, in order to maximize their return on investment. Brenneman said the value of these properties is largely determined by size of lot and zoning, not the current structure on the lot. Brenneman said when purchasing these properties, buyers generally assume that the zoning of a particular piece of property, while not set in stone, is reasonably stable and will not generally be changed unless there is some specific public good that would be derived from rezoning, a public good that would outweigh all the investment of time and money made by many different individuals. He stated that the request to downzone Lucas, Governor, and Bowery, an area with a very high ratio of rental property, does not seem to him and many others to meet this high standard. Brenneman quoted the stated goals of the rezoning as, "to preserve the character and historical integrity of the neighborhood." He said when balanced with the implied social contract of a reasonably stable zoning environment in which businesspersons can make intelligent, long-term financial decisions, this request just doesn't add up. Brenneman said what is real and unavoidable is the money that has been invested in this neighborhood by landlords who rely on the good faith of City government not to decrease property value and future income potential that will result from the downzoning of this area. Regarding this process, Brenneman said landlords certainly would have appreciated the same kind of early and ongoing assistance from City staff in understanding how this matter would impact them and their investments as those groups in favor of this proposal seem to have received. He said City staff had little or no understanding of how this request would impact landlords. Brenneman said staff spent little or no time researching his point of view, but spent hours with representatives of the Longfellow Association. He said early information he was given regarding grandfathering in existing properties turned out to be inaccurate, as was information regarding the 20% threshold of property owners needed to protest this action and require a supermajority of City Council to enact this change. Brenneman said this request to downzone Lucas, Governor, and Bowery will fix a problem that is perceived only by a relative handful of people. He said it will reduce property values for landlords, will result in less money available to be invested in the upkeep of these properties, and eventually create an even more unsightly neighborhood than before. He said landlords and other business people will perceive this as yet another reason not to do business in Iowa City and will move their business to Coralville, North Liberty and elsewhere. Brenneman said downzoning should be reserved for those situations in which there is a clear danger to the community because of existing zoning regulations. He stated that this proposal falls far short of that mark. Julie Campbell, 426 South Governor Street, said she agreed with much of what Freerks said and said she is an example of that. Campbell said she moved here from Chicago, but is from Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes March 16, 2000 Page 14 Detroit, and her husband is from Los Angeles. She said she really like this thing called community. Campbell said it means a lot to her, and she did not mean monetarily. Campbell said to her preservation means preservation of the beautiful homes and the community, and she would like to see those things stay. She said she enjoys the renters next door, but does not look forward to having large rental properties on her street. Campbell said she wrote a letter regarding this to the City and asked Commission members to read it. Gre.cl Allen, Hi.qhway 6, Tiffin, said he is Jim Brenneman's partner. Allen said he owns eight houses on these two streets, six of which were in the slides shown in the applicants' presentation. He said they have bought them and restored them. Allen said they do this in the RM-12 zoning, which is about the lowest zoning that will allow a landlord to buy a property and restore it. He said the RS-8 zoning results in a maximum of three roomers so that the landlord has to sell the property, not maintain it, or rent it illegally. Allen said they do not have a lot of intentions to take these rental houses and turn them into multi-units and duplexes. He said some of the houses they buy are condemnable. Allen said they see the insides of them that passersby don't see. He said the foundations are falling in, or the electrical wiring is inadequate. Allen said these houses cannot be rehabbed in the RS-8 zoning. Allen said he had heard there would be 660 more University students than last year. He said that translates into about 120 five-bedroom houses. He said this zoning now only allows four people per unit, which would mean even more units would be needed. Allen said we are seeing a huge shortage of rental property for students, who pay the landlords who pay the taxes. He said he has rented all his properties in February, because of the shortage. Allen said a lot of this has been spoken of as an historic zone. He said they did do their own study to see if this qualifies as an historic area, and it does not. Allen stated that it may qualify as a neighborhood conservation area, but most of the recommendation from the Council says this is historical. He said the houses that they listed are not currently registered as historical houses, although some of them may qualify. Allen said the applicants are using information that is not in evidence at this time. Regarding the timing of this, Allen said there were three letters sent about this item. He said .the first one did not explain any of the zoning, and the second one incorrectly explained the zoning. Allen said he had several meetings with Rockwell and Karin Franklin and got them to send out a third letter. Allen said the third letter very correctly explains the zoning, but includes a staff recommendation to City Council that this zoning be RNC-12, not RS-8, for the Governor Street area. He said the RNC-12 makes much more sense for this area, but he has been working hard to gather protesters and now is having problems with them not understanding what the issue is. Allen said there has been a lot of confusion on this issue. He said that, coupled with the fact that they just got the letter yesterday, has resulted in only one day to prepare for this meeting with the correct information. Allen said now there has been a petition for the City Council to set a date for the public hearing on Tuesday, in only four days, which doesn't even give them time to get together and discuss this. He said it seems they are trying to push this through without even giving those in opposition any time or help. Allen said staff has been very helpful in working with the Longfellow people, but has offered those with the requests for protests no help at all. He said there is nothing in the entire report on the side of those protesting this, although they are very large in numbers. Allen said staff's statistics are grossly misrepresented on the overhead diagrams. He said to have 20% on Lucas Street, he would need 78,820 square feet. Allen said that is 20% of the amount Rockwell has listed as the total area. He said he has 220,000 square feet of that lot area that he already has protests back on. Allen said that is 60% of the area on Lucas Street that is under protest of this rezoning. He said Rockwell informed him that the number is more like 28%. Allen said he found that the reason this number is so low is that the entire area, including the streets, is included. He said that means the streets, by default, vote against the protesters. He said they have 60% of the amount of areas of lots that are protesting the rezoning, but it only shows as 28% because of the streets. Allen said on Lucas Street there are seven or eight owner-occupied on Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes March 16, 2000 Page 15 the entire street, and he knows that two of those people are against this rezoning. He said on Lucas Street, there is very little reason for people to want to have this zoning changed; it is about 90% rental. Allen said Rockwell is correct in that about 90% of the homes were originally built as single- family, but about 40% have already had additions built on to them, been changed, modified, and turned into rooming houses, and a lot of them are no longer what they were built as. Allen said even though they are 90% single-family structures, they are still being used as rental properties that are going to be affected by this zoning. Allen asked the Commission to look at the affect this would have on the landlords in this neighborhood. Bovbjerg said Allen did a comparison of values for the possibility of the area being rezoned to RS-8 and asked if he had done any analysis for the potential of going to RNC-12 for the area that was proposed for RS-8. Allen said that for the landlords, RNC-12 would slow the building, which on Governor, he is not in disagreement that that would be a good thing to do. He said RNC-12 would not be an insurmountable burden. Allen said RNC-12 would allow what the landlords have to stay as it is, but RS-8 would remove bedrooms. He said it is very difficult with the three bedrooms in an RS-8, while an RNC-12 will allow those uses to stay the same without causing a burden on the landlords. Bovbjerg asked how many living there it takes to have enough money to maintain and retain the property in that use and. also to return the investment. Allen said it generally takes a minimum of four renters. He said a lot of these houses were originally five-bedrooms, but in 1980 when the City downzoned citywide, it took away one bedroom and made it illegal to rent to five or more persons in a single-family house. Allen said that if the landlord has to maintain a very large house with three renters on an income of $900 to $1,000 a month, paying a mortgage and taxes is very difficult to do. Shannon asked if Allen was refused support from City staff and how he felt City staff had not supported him. Allen said he has had a hard time getting information from staff. He said the statistics given to people who called in were incorrect. Allen said City staff told people who have come to fill out protests that they were not in this zone, so it would not affect them. He said City staff neglected to tell them they were still in the 200 foot radius outside that zone that goes toward a 20% protest so that those people had to go back and do it again. Allen said there may have been people he does not know about who have been turned away, and one or two could make a difference in trying to come up with 20%. Miklo said he was not aware of that happening and asked Allen who on the City staff he was referring to. Allen said he would put the information in a letter. Rockwell said she has spent hours with Allen listening and providing information. Rockwell said she believed the statistics Allen referred to have to do with the calculations for the amount of area of protest. Rockwell said it is a complicated issue, because there are two zones and two areas of the 200-foot radius. She said she was given misinformation by the person who calculated the area of protest, and in trying to pass on information ir~ a timely manner, she had given a preliminary, incorrect figure to Brenneman. Rockwell apologized for that, but said she is trying to correct that and verify the accurate numbers for the protest area. She said the calculations include the entire area and do include the street, as well as the lots. Rockwell said looking at just the lots would result in the percentage Allen has calculated, but the way the calculations have always been done to determine the protest amount is by looking at the total area that is being considered for rezoning. Rockwell said the information on protest area is usually not calculated at this point, because protest forms can come in up until the time that the public hearing before the City Council is closed. She said however, at the request of Mr. Brenneman, staff has been doing the calculations much earlier than usual. Bovbjerg said the protest form specifies 20% or more of the area of the property included in the proposed zoning change or the owners of 20% or more of the property which is located within 200 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed. She said that makes it somewhat complicated. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes March 16, 2000 Page 16 Allen said the square footage numbers that Rockwell has provided to the Commission are the numbers, as it says, for the square footages of lots. Allen stated that he has been trying to get from staff the numbers of the amount of area in the 200-foot outside area and the number for the inside area including the streets so that he can get the actual percentages that will be used to calculate the 20% needed for the protest. He said at this time, he still has not been able to get those numbers. Miklo said the protest petition applies at the City Council level, and those calculations are generally not done until after the Planning and Zoning Commission has voted. He said staff has moved things up at the request of Mr. Brenneman and Mr. Allen. Allen said the applicants have also tried to move up the date for the City Council to set a date for a public hearing. He said if the City Council sets the date on Tuesday, that will be before the protesters have the information they need to go to that meeting and have a discussion about whether or not that should be done. Supple said at that time the City Council will set a date for the hearing, but will not be holding the hearing. She added the Planning and Zoning Commission will have another hearing on this rezoning item on April 6. Allen said that would be after City Council sets the date. He said he was told absolutely by Karin Franklin that the date for the City Council's public hearing would not be set until after two Planning and Zoning Commission meetings. Allen said Franklin told him the Planning and Zoning Commission may even hold three meetings on this so that the earliest the date would be set would be on April 18, and now the setting of the public hearing has been moved up to only four days from now. Derrick Abromeit, 625 South Governor Street, said he did not want to deprive someone of his income, but he owns one of the project houses. He said his house was built in 1890, and he has worked on it for six years. Abromeit said it was a duplex when he moved in, and no one would believe he wanted to change it to a single-family home. Abromeit said this is a really nice neighborhood. He said the pictures don't tell the entire story. Abromeit said there are insides to those houses, and some of them are in pretty rough shape, but there are people out there who are willing to fix them up. He said we don't have to rely on developers to rehab properties, because people like himself will do it. Abromeit said he bought the house for $69,000 six years ago, and a recent appraisal valued it at $126,000. He said that is a pretty substantial increase on his investment. Abromeit said others have done work on their homes in this area, and that has made a difference. Abromeit said RS-8 zoning would be ideal, but he understood that people need enough renters to make a livelihood. He said the RNC-12 is really the minimum required for the Commission to do the right thing to preserve the way Iowa City is, at least in his part of town. Abromeit said he moved to Iowa City from Colorado, and he finds Iowa City is not like a lot of other places for a lot of reasons. He said Iowa City is a special place, and this would be one little step that the Commission could take to preserve it. Cole Chase, 325 East Washin.qton, said he represents the Homebuilders' Association of Iowa City. He said both proponents and opponents of this application have stated that this is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Chase said there are a number of elements in the Comprehensive Plan with regard to this particular issue that are in conflict. He said those elements include preservation of existing neighborhoods and encouraging a mix of housing types in traditionally older neighborhoods. Chase said the current zoning would allow for this mix of housing. He said the introduction of apartment complexes into this could be mitigated by the use of the urban infill design standards so that they could meet many of the needs of the community. Chase said he has not had time to consider this thoroughly and urged the Commission to defer this significant decision. Regarding the in~ll standards, Ehrhardt said they do not in any way affect the mass of a building or the amount of paving that can go in the backyards. Chase said one of the perceptions is that apartment buildings cannot be part of the community, and he feels that is a disingenuous statement. Ehrhardt said the applicants have indicated that the diversity that is Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes March 16, 2000 Page 17 already in the area is something they do want. Chase said 90% single-family is not significant diversity and certainly not the type of diversity the Commission is encouraging in the Peninsula and that was encouraged in the Northeast District Plan. Rud¥ Kuenzli, 705 South Summit Street, said he has lived in the Longfellow Neighborhood for 27 years and is a former member of the Historic Preservation Commission. He said he fully supports the application requesting that South Governor Street be downzoned to RS-8 or RNC- 12. Regarding South Lucas Street, Kuenzli said that due to the proposed downzoning, he has driven down 8outh Lucas Street, a street most of us probably do not know very well, in the past two weeks. He said taking Lucas from Burlington to Bowery was indeed a discovery. Kuenzli said he cannot think of many Iowa City streets that have as much charm and historic integrity as South Lucas, with its mature trees on both sides and surprisingly well maintained single- family houses that are, with only a few exceptions, all close to 100 years old. Kuenzli said South Lucas is narrow and quiet, with almost no through traffic. He stated that it is close to downtown and to Longfellow Elementary School. Kuenzli said it is clear to him now that Lucas Street should have been proposed as a historic district ten years ago, as it is one of the most unusual streets in Iowa City. Kuenzli said it has taken the very recent bulldozing of one of these old houses and the building of an apartment house with 16 bedrooms that in no way fits the character of the street that makes one realize what the City might lose if the current zoning stands. Kuenzli said he has also driven in the past two weeks up and down South Johnson Street, and it takes very little imagination to visualize what could become of South Lucas, without the requested downzoning. Kuenzli urged the Commission to downzone South Lucas from RM-12 to RNC-12. He said this downzoning would stabilize the future of this street. Kuenzli said this would encourage homeowners to make improvements in these houses and will attract families to this rather unique, historic street. He said the downzoning would certainly increase the value of these houses. Kuenzli said downzoning South Lucas is closely linked to downzoning South Governor Street, because if South Lucas is not downzoned, it will not be very attractive to live on South Governor Street. Kuenzli said the downzoning would also be very welcomed by the families who live on the east side of South Dodge Street. He urged the Commission to downzone South Lucas and South Governor to preserve and revitalize a great historic area close to downtown Iowa City. Diana Velez, 627 South Governor, said her property is not in the area being considered for rezoning, but she is in favor of the rezoning. Velez said there are basically two groups with an interest here: the landlords, some of whom are absentee landlords, and the people who occupy the properties that they own. She said for those who occupy the properties they own and have a commitment to the community, it is important to have clean, safe, relatively noise free streets. Velez said this is what makes for quality of life. Velez said that is something that is lost when the density of a neighborhood is increased. Velez said having a house be owner-occupied is in some sense a guarantee that the property will be maintained. She said it does not have to be owned by a landlord, and while a responsible landlord is nice, not all landlords are responsible. Velez said certainly absentee landlords in her neighborhood are known for their irresponsibility. Gary Hu.clhes, P.O. Box 2612, said he is against this downzoning. He said he is the developer who tore down the house at 534 South Lucas. Hughes said he is not building four apartments there, but is building four condominiums. He said he tore down a house that was structurally unsound, as the back half of the duplex and the front porch were falling off, there was no floor on the front porch, the roof was falling off, trash had built up for years, and it was an eyesore. Hughes said he has heard comments from staff indicating they are upset, because the proposed building is to be large. He agreed it would be large, but said he did not know how anyone else knows what it will look like when he himself does not yet know what it will look like. Hughes said he does want the building to fit in the neighborhood. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes March 16, 2000 Page 18 Hughes said he has been rehabbing houses in this area for fifteen years. He said he has torn down two houses in that time, but there was no option of saving either one of them. Hughes said they were both in the process of being condemned, and structural engineers had looked at both of them. Hughes said he has rehabbed many houses, and one good example of his work is the old fraternity house at the corner of Burlington and Dodge. He said it was deteriorating, and he completely gutted it, rewired it, and put on everything from new windows to siding. Hughes said he does not tear the houses down unless he has no other choice. Hughes said for the areas that are requested to be downzoned, he did not really see any reason for it. He said Lucas Street is 80% rentals, and if the houses were going to be torn down, they would have been torn down years ago. Hughes stated that it is not cost effective for him or anyone else to tear down a good, existing house. He said if they can be rehabbed, he does it and does a good job of it. Hughes said 98% of the houses he has worked on, and he has probably done over 40 of them in Iowa City in the last 15 years, have to be rehabbed because of wiring. He said they are basically firetraps because of the knob and tube fuses, and the first thing he does is have an electrician go through the house to make it safe. Hughes said if there was a reason for this rezoning, those houses would have been torn down a long time ago. He said economically it couldn't be done; the only way it can be done is if there is a building that is not safe and is not structurally sound. Hughes said when he completes the new building, it will be larger than some of them, but will be an asset to the community and to the area. Hughes said he did not understand the hurry with regard to this, and it seems this is being railroaded through. He asked the Commission to defer this so that there is more time to put information together and so that the Commission can have more information regarding this downzoning. Bovbjerg asked, whether the building is made up of apartments or condominiums, if the number of bedrooms that has been noted is correct. Hughes said that is correct. He said there would be four bedrooms in each unit. He said these are not cheap units and they will be energy efficient. Hughes said they will be large, but they will be nicely done inside and outside. Howard Weinber.cl, 520 South Governor #1, said he supports this downzoning. He said he is a tenant in this area and lives next to Huneke-Bowans. Weinberg said he grew up in New York and fell in love with Iowa City when he came here as an undergraduate. He said the reason for that is community. Weinberg said he has lived many places trying to find a better idea of community, but has not found one. He said about three years ago he and his wife moved into this area, and they love the neighborhood. Weinberg said he has seen many houses torn down, and many young people upset about these demolitions. He said multi-unit buildings with sixteen bedrooms, whether apartments or condominiums, produce large buildings that are hard to live in. Weinberg said you can hear your neighbors all the time in these buildings. He said it can be tolerated for the few years it takes to graduate, but these structures are not homes. He stated that they are machines for extracting money from other people's children. Weinberg asked the Commission, if our heritage and neighborhoods are squandered, where are your children going to go. Anna Buss, 525 West Benton Street, said she is on the Board of Appeals, is President of the Iowa City Landlords' Association, is a landlord, and a property manager. She said she is also a licensed real estate broker and has been around a very long time. Buss said she has been in a lot of these houses in various capacities. She said this is a very emotional issue for a lot of people. Buss said she does not own property in this neighborhood, but does own properties in other older neighborhoods. She said many times there is a perception that because a property is old, it should be on the historical society, but she differs with that opinion. Buss stated that a number of the houses that have been torn down in Iowa City recently should probably have been torn down ten years ago. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes March 16, 2000 Page 19 Buss said people who are using them for investment have purchased a lot of the properties. She said they have gone in and improved the properties twofold. Buss said they have done things to properties like rewiring and tearing out and replacing bathrooms that were virtually unusable, making these houses a decent place to live, rather than haphazardly put together. Buss said she was in a number of houses shown in the slides and was in three of them within the last seven days. She said a lot of the electrical wiring in these houses is a fire hazard. Buss said an owner-occupied house does not have an inspection every two to three years, while a rental unit does. She said she is in a lot of these houses from a rental standpoint and from a Board of Appeals standpoint. Buss said she has seen people who have bought these houses come in to fight for and get changes to improve these properties. She said she is adamantly against this rezoning. Buss said she has discussed this rezoning with a number of people who own property involved in this issue, and they are very confused by the information that has been given out. She said they are not sure of what they are getting and need more help and time to assess what is proposed. Buss asked the Commission to prolong this and talk about it with some of the owners. She asked the Commission to give the rental property owners as much time as the applicants have received. Steve Charlton, 430 South Lucas, said he purchased his house at 430 South Lucas Street in 1992. He said since then, that house has become his home, because of the people there and the way it looks. Chadton said he wants to raise a family here and would like this area to remain as it is for his children to grow up in. Mary Durfee, 1412 East Court, said she and her husband own two rental properties on Governor Street, but they are not part of the landlords opposing this rezoning. She said they live in the neighborhood on Court Street, and she moved here from St. Paul. Durfee said they want their renters to have homes and don't want to see huge packs of motel-like student housing. Durfee said keeping neighborhoods established is really important. She said many cities the same size as Iowa City have suffered from decisions that blight out neighborhoods, and once they're gone, they're gone. Durfee said RS-8 zoning would be better, even though it would impact her finances. Michael McLau.qhlin, 614 Pine Ridge Road, Coralville, said he owns property in and around the area proposed for rezoning. He said there are common agreements from both sides, including the fact that people like the mix of the area. McLaughlin said whether it be resident owners or landlords, in general, both groups see it necessary as responsible property owners to maintain the houses and make them attractive. McLaughlin said he has owned a property at 730 Bowery Street for seven years and invited anyone interested to look at that property. He said he has done major renovations there, including a new roof, gutters, downspouts, paved driveway, restoration of the wood floors, painting inside and out, and shoring up the porch. McLaughlin said the property is well maintained, and he has invested thousands of dollars in its restoration. McLaughlin said that property is currently not at its capacity for what the zoning is. He said he has planned to add a fourth bedroom at certain times, but other renovation needs had to be taken care of first. McLaughlin said with the significant number of landlord owners in the area, it is of consideration that the property values therefore reflect some influence based on what kind of rental income can be obtained, whether it be an existing rental or owner-occupied home. He said a rough estimate for an RM-12 zoned house legal for four bedrooms that could possibly be rented at $1,200 per month, roughly gives the property a value of around $120,000. McLaughlin said that certainly would influence any other properties of similar construction in that area, and he would question whether that would be the case without that rental influence. He said if that is not the case without the rental influence, the property values may be more in the $100,000 to $105,000 range. He said whether the difference is $10,000, $15,000 or $20,000 per house in value, essentially the investment requested by the proposed rezoning, in order to achieve the restoration character and historical integrity of the neighborhood .... Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes March 16, 2000 Page 20 McLaughlin asked the Commission to give various consideration, whether it be $10,000, $15,000 or $20,000 a property, to whether that is really a fair investment from each and every property owner in order to maintain and preserve the character and historical integrity of the neighborhood. McLaughlin said a sector that has not been represented is the student population. He questioned what the effect would be upon the students if a rezoning did occur. McLaughlin said he doubted that anything drastic would happen, although he anticipated property values would go down somewhat. He said landlord owners, if they wanted to sell their properties, would either have a significant reduction on their return on investment or possibly lose money so that they would not have a lot of choice other than to hold on to the properties, and if at all possible, raise rents. McLaughlin said that gets passed along to the customers and asked if that were fair to them. He said he thought there would be less affordable housing. McLaughlin asked the Commission to look at a more agreeable option, as opposed to rezoning the area, something that would be more agreeable to both sides. Brenda Christher, 806 Bowerr Street, said she lives in and owns her home. She said her home backs up to the one that has caused a lot of controversy. Christner said there would now be 16 additional cars going in and out of a one-lane alley. She said under the best circumstances, the alley only lasts for a month when the City regrades it, because of the amount of traffic going through there. Christner said the new building would instigate a lot more additional traffic. She said with a lot of properties expanding in the neighborhood, perhaps it should be considered that the alleys need to be improved. She said additional care needs to be taken in how things are handled, as far as additional building in that locality. Derrick Abromeit said this is emotional for half the people at the meeting, and that should be taken into account. He said this is not just a business decision; it can also be an emotional one, and it should be acceptable to decide on emotional grounds. Abromeit asked why it is not possible to grandfather in the roomers that are currently allowed. Miklo said that would affect properties citywide. He said there was a conscious decision by the City in 1983 not to grandfather in roomers, because there was an attempt then to stabilize some areas by downzoning them. Abromeit asked if there were a process for revisiting that. Miklo said it could be revisited. He said with the RNC-12 zone, they are grandfathered in, and that is why staff is recommending RNC-12. Abromeit said if the number of roomers could be grandfathered in under RS-8, it would seem to solve the problems of everyone at the meeting. Miklo said it would raise implications in other RS-8 neighborhoods and set a precedent. Abromeit asked if the City Council could make an exception in this neighborhood in this rezoning. Holecek said they could not. She said what Abromeit is asking is to change the character of the RS-8 zoning. Holecek said the difference between the RS-8 zoning and the RNC-12 zoning is not only the uses that are permitted, but also the number of roomers. She said changing the zoning character of RS-8 could not apply to just one neighborhood; it would have to change for all RS-8 zones throughout the City, Holecek said it is not just setting a precedent, but is an analysis that would have to be done citywide to figure out what the effects would be before making that type of a change. She said some of that analysis would involve RS-8 which allows duplexes and single-family. She said it is close to a single-family type of zone, as compared to the character of an RNC-12 or RM-12 zone. Holecek said where the line is drawn would be one of the things to be considered in the analysis. Gre.cl Allen said he has spent the last ten years being committed to buying and restoring houses in this zone that is under consideration. He said this is also an emotional decision for some of the landlords who have been very committed and spent a lot of time working on some of these houses. Diana Velez said the quality of life issue she brought up earlier is the big issue. She said she walked through the neighborhoods where the development is just west of her on Johnson Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes March 16, 2000 Page 21 Street and Van Buren Street. Velez said there is quite a big difference there, and we really are on a battle zone here. She said this neighborhood is a marginal line between this and very heavy development, as shown on the transparency that illustrated the density of population just a block and a half away, and it is necessary to hold the line on that kind of development. Velez said one way to do that is to downzone. Velez said there is no easy solution to this, because the interests really are opposite interests. She said the interests of the City have to be the interests of people who have a commitment to living here, not absentee landlords, Velez said she has a commitment to staying in Iowa City and has lived here for 18 years. She said she plans not to move from her house and would like to see the neighborhood maintained and, if not maintained, improved, but definitely not to go downhill. Velez said her block is a mixed block with a couple of large apartment buildings on it, and there is definitely a difference between the area where there is an apartment complex and the area where there are owner- occupied houses. She said even the speed with which cars pull into the streets is different between renters and owners, mostly because the renters don't have the kind of commitment that people who own and live in their houses have to the quality of the neighborhood. Velez said the City has to take into account who is going to be here. Anna Buss said Johnson Street has been RM-44 for a very long time. She said this is not an RM-44 zone issue. Buss said the downzoning to an RS-8 will impact these properties, and that has been made clear by both sides. She said Johnson Street has not a lot to do with this issue. Buss said she believes that if Allen or Hughes went in and applied for a RM-44 zoning for this area, they would be laughed out of the City Clerk's Office. She said regarding the constant comparison to Johnson Street, the City has made major changes since that happened, and those need to be looked at. Buss asked for more time on this application. RudV Kuenzli invited Commission members to go down South Lucas Street and discover the street. He said there is no other street in Iowa City with as much charm and character as South Lucas Street. Gary Hu.qhes said he agreed with Kuenzli's comments. He said that is because 80% of those houses are owned by people like Brenneman, Allen, and himself. Hughes said they have rehabbed those houses. He said he owns 319 South Lucas, 325 South Lucas and sold another property at 317 South Lucas. Hughes said it looks so good, because they have rehabbed those houses and have done a good job. Hughes said a previous speaker alluded to the people who will be here. Hughes said he was born and raised in Iowa City and has the interests of Iowa City at heart. Huneke-Bowans said she has heard from the landlords that they want to rehab these houses and keep the character. he said she is confused then as to why they are so opposed to the RNC-12, because that is what the goal of it would be. Huneke-Bowans said the RNC-12 is an attempt to maintain the historic look of the homes. She said quite a few of the properties are already maxed out so that by rezoning, it keeps the neighborhood as it is and keeps their property values steady. Huneke-Bowans said if by chance this should become a conservation district, that would only increase their property values as shown by a history pattern in this town. She said in the Summit Street area, College Street area, and any area that has become a historic district, the property values have increased. Huneke-Bowans said landlords were unhappy that they did not have enough time and that incorrect information was given out. She said she had many people calling her to find out the intent of this, and she directed them to City staff to have their questions answered. Huneke- Bowans said this is a difficult issue to understand, so there is a chance that some of the protests may have been protesting because of misinformation provided by some of the protesters of the rezoning. She asked if the staff report could be sent to all the protesters so that they would have correct and accurate information. Public discussion closed. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes March 16, 2000 Page 22 MOTION: Bovbjerg moved to defer REZ00-0007, an application from Ann Freerks and Lorraine Huneke-Bowans to rezone properties located in the Low Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-12) zone south of Burlington Street along the 300-600 blocks of Governor Street and a portion of the 800-900 blocks of Bowery Street to Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS-8), and to rezone properties located in the RM-12 zone along the 300-600 blocks of Lucas Street and a portion of the 700-800 blocks of Bowery Street to Neighborhood Conservation Residential (RNC-12), to the April 6, 2000 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Shannon seconded the motion. Bovbjerg thanked all those who participated in the meeting. Gibson said this is a controversial issue, and it would be very difficult to ever get something that would satisfy both sides. He said the landlords have asked that this be deferred. Gibson said he believes the neighbors bringing this petition would be willing to have it deferred if there were some assurance there won't be any more houses torn down and apartment houses built in the meantime. He said he would like to recommend that the City Council take action to establish a public hearing for this project so that activity on that street is deferred, and this can be worked out in a timely manner without the pressure of somebody coming in and bulldozing another house. Holecek said she believed that it is on the City Council's agenda for March 21 to set the public hearing on this matter for April 18. She said they could decline to set the public hearing, and Gibson said he is suggesting the Commission recommend to them that they set the hearing at their March 21 meeting. Holecek said Gibson could put such a motion on the floor after the current motion is voted on. Ehrhardt said there has been discussion making this sound like apartment building owners versus homeowners. She said that is not the issue, and the applicants have made it clear that they are not opposed to rental property. Holecek said it is important to note that although there have been discussions about neighbors, neighborhoods and that sometimes renters are not good neighbors, that is not the basis for the Commission to make a decision. She said the Commission makes its decision based on land use and whether this is an appropriate zoning for this particular area of the City, not based on who is going to live in the properties. Gibson said there were many statements on the part of developers that were somewhat defensive, and he did not think it was necessary for them to be defensive. He said he agreed that Lucas Street is a gorgeous, little street. Gibson said these are all single-family homes in appearance, and most of them look to be quite well kept. He said some credit is due to the landlords and developers who are renting those properties if that is in fact the outcome. Gibson said that is not really the issue, and hopefully this discussion will stay away from that being the issue, either defensively or offensively. Gibson said the issue is changing the character of that neighborhood. He said the question is whether the character of this neighborhood should be preserved or should there be a lot of big box apartments or condominiums on these streets. Gibson said it comes down to whether we want to preserve this as some sort of memorial of what Iowa City might have been like 100 years ago, or in fact, we don't care and feel what is more important is to house a bunch of students on those two streets. He said that is the issue, not whether or not there are responsible landlords. Gibson said there is a great number of responsible landlords who have done a great job of keeping up with the growth of the University. He said the issue to be looked at is whether we have to sacrifice the few areas of the community that retain their old character to this particular need. Gibson said character issues should not be involved. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes March 16, 2000 Page 23 MOTION: Gibson moved to recommend that the City Council establish a public hearing on REZ00-0007, so that the Commission can have time to devote proper attention and hear adequate input from both sides on this issue. Bovbjerg seconded the motion. Supple asked why that is necessary to give the Commission enough time to consider this. Holecek said when a public hearing is established, no building permits or change of use can occur on the property which is subject to the public hearing being considered for a period of 60 days. She said it is essentially a moratorium on the issuance of building permits. Holecek said the setting of a public hearing by the City Council is the mechanism by which the moratorium is established. Supple asked if the City Council set the public hearing for April 18 if they would then have their first public hearing at that time. Holecek said that is the intent that would be expressed. Supple asked what the procedure would be if the Commission were still taking input at that time. Holecek said the City Council then would not have its first hearing at that time; the City Council has to have a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. She said the moratorium would still be in effect for 60 days from the date of the establishment of the public hearing. Supple said there are people opposed to this rezoning who feel that this is being rushed through. She said whether true or not, she did not want them to feel that way. Supple asked if the Commission is projecting the appearance that it is rushing this through by virtue of this motion. Gibson said this motion is encouraging that time be established to give this due consideration. Ehrhardt asked how the City Council would be notified of this, and Miklo responded that if the motion passed, Karin Franklin would notify the City Council on Monday at its work session. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. Supple said she is confident that everyone is getting a great deal of cooperation from staff; however, there are some people who think they are not. She asked if there could be some kind of outreach program in that regard. Rockwell replied that she has done the best she can and has given hours of time. She said it is a very complicated issue, and she would just keep trying to explain it and to help everyone get the information they need. Gibson agreed this is very complex and said there are bound to be some wrong answers given out under the best of circumstances. He said, however, that it is clear that the staff recommendation is not to approve what the applicants have asked for. Gibson said staff has recommended a change from that, and it is very clear that the change was put in there to give some attention to the interests of landlords and people who want to make use of these properties as rental properties. He said that was the reason for recommending RNC-12 instead of RS-8 - to retain that fourth roomer instead of just the three allowed under the RS-8. Gibson said it is a mischaracterization to say that the landlords have not received attention from staff, because staff has certainly been listening. Miklo said the basis of Rockwell's recommendation came partially from discussions she had with Allen. Bovbjerg said this is a good reason to defer this so that everyone feels they are operating with complete information. Gibson said there is some confusion that surfaces from the fact that there are now essentially three proposals on the table. He said it is inescapable that that will lead to some confusion, but it represents some attempt on the part of staff to give the Commission some alternatives. CODE AMENDMENT ITEM: Public discussion of amendments to Chapter 6, Zonin~ Article O, Si.cln Re.clulations, to allow banner si.clns. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes March 16, 2000 Page 24 Miklo said staff recommends changes to the sign regulations allowing banner signs, as outlined in the staff report. MOTION: Gibson moved to recommend that the City Council amend Chapter 6, entitled "Zoning," Article O, entitled "Sign Regulations," to allow identification banner signs as recommended by staff. Bovbjerg said this allows what was proposed before, but not too many banners. Miklo said it would provide for a minimum spacing requirement of 80 feet, whereas the previous recommendation allowed a banner sign on any light pole. Ehrhardt said the ordinance says the sign is to be permanently affixed, and she said seasonal signs would be on a temporary basis. Miklo said the sign is permanently affixed in that it is not waving in the wind. He said it would be affixed both on the top and bottom. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. CONSIDERATION OF THE MARCH 2, 2000 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES: MOTION: Shannon moved to approve the March 2, 2000 minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, as amended at the informal meeting. Ehrhardt seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. OTHER: Gibson said he has been quoted twice in the newspaper as having said the Planning and Zoning Commission is not necessary if the City Council is going to overrule it. He said he responded to a question from the Mayor, who asked how we can talk with these developers, work with them, and change their plans, and then bring it to the Planning and Zoning Commission and have them refuse it. Gibson said he believes he stated that if the Planning and Zoning Commission has to agree with staff under those circumstances, then you don't need a Planning and Zoning Commission, because that negotiation is going to occur on every project. Supple said someone asked her if Gibson had said that. She said she responded that if he did, he must have said it away from the meeting, because he did not say it in the meeting when she was present. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 10:38 p.m. Dean Shannon, Secmtary Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte ppdadrnmin~p&z3-16~)0.doc IOWA CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING THURSDA Y, --Jo / (a. 0r5 _ 7.'30 P.M CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS SIGN IN SHEET ,,~ Name Address 2. lr~\~t,~,~\7-~¢-~'~'~' "~;~,~ ",,~,.-~-~-~,'-~'- ,/. ~ IOWA CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING THURSDAY, - 7:30 P.M. CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS SIGN IN SHEET Name Address 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 'pRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Subject to/ ,pproval THURSDAY, APRIL 6, 2000 - 7:30 P.M. CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Bovbjerg. Benjamin Chait, Pam Ehrhardt, Dick Gibson. Marilyn Schintler, Dean Shannon, Lea Supple MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Holecek, Scott Kugler, Bob Miklo, Dennis Mitchell, Melody Rockwell, John Yapp OTHERS PRESENT: Ann Freerks, Greg Allen, Martha Greer. Tom Beers, Jim Brenneman, Charlie Eastham, Diana Velez, Ginny Blair, Joseph Patrick, Natasa Durovicova, Gwen Johnson, Cher Marchael, Cecile Kuenzli, Lorraine Huneke-Bowans, Rudy Kuenzli. Larry Zuber, Paula Brandt, Gary Hughes, Alan Ross, Ellie Peters, Sue Travis, Bob Miller. Phyllis Tucker, Larry Schnittjer RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: Recommended against approval, by a vote of 0-7, of REZ00-0007, an application submitted by Ann Freerks and Lorraine Huneke-Bowans to rezone properties located in the Low Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-12) zone south of Burlington Street along the 300-600 blocks of Governor Street and a portion of the 800-900 blocks of Bowery Street to Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS-8). Recommended approval, by a vote of 4-3, with Schintler, Shannon, and Supple voting no, to rezone properties located in the Low Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-12) zone south of Burlington Street along the 300-600 blocks of Governor Street and a portion of the 800-900 blocks of Bowery Street to Neighborhood Conservation Residential (RNC-12). Recommended approval, by a vote of 4-3. with Schintler, Shannon. and Supple voting no, of REZ00-0011, an application submitted by Ann Freerks and Lorraine Huneke-Bowans to rezone properties located in the RM-12 zone along the 300-600 blocks of Lucas Street and a portion of the 700-800 blocks of Bowery Street to Neighborhood Conservation Residential (RNC-12). Recommended approval, by a.vote of 7-0. of an amendment to Zoning Chapter 14-6D-5G1 the special provisions section of the RNC-12 zone to read as follows: All uses or buildings which were conforming to the requirements of Section 14-6D-7 of this Article, Low Density Multi- Family Residential Zone (RM-12) , at the time the property is rezoned to Neighborhood Conservation Residential Zone (RNC-12), shall be considered conforming under this chapter. Recommended approval, by a vote of 7-0, of REZ00-0002/SUB00-0002, an application submitted by Village Partners for a rezoning from Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) to Planned Development Housing Overlay (OPDH-5) zone and a preliminary plat of Village Green Parts 18-20, a 19.6-acre, 10-lot. 63-unit planned development with one outlot, subject to the City conveying Outlot B, a .35-acre area of dedicated open space. back to Village Partners and subject to the City receiving a copy of a temporary construction easement from the Iowa City Planning &Zoning Commission ;, April 6, 2000 Page 2 property owner to the west and south, Glasgow Willlares Real Estate, to allow grading activity associated with Village Green Parts 18-20, specifically associated with the construction of Wintergreen Drive. Recommended approval, by a vote of 7-0, of REZ00-0009/SUB00-0001NAC00-0003, an application from Glasgow Willjams Real Estate Co. for a rezoning to amend the OPDH Plan for Village Green South - Part 3A and for a preliminary plat of Village Green South-Part 5, a Resubdivision of a portion of Village Green South Part 3A, a 12-1ot, 3.33-acre residential subdivision for property located at Wintergreen Drive east of Scott Boulevard and the vacation of a portion of north Jamie Lane. Recommended approval, by a vote of 7-0, of SUB00-0007, a preliminary plat of Woodland Ridge Subdivision, Part Three, a 22.32-acre, 7-lot residential subdivision with one outlot located at the east terminus of Meadowview Lane. Recommended against, by a vote of 2-5, with Bovbjerg, Ehrhardt, Gibson, Schintler, and Supple voting no, changing the Code to allow freestanding signs to be a maximum of 26 feet in height. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Supple called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. ANNOUNCEMENT OF VACANCIES ON CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: Supple invited those at the meeting to serve on a board or commission. She said it is an opportunity to have a voice in what happens in Iowa City, and citizen participation in invaluable to the City. Supple said applications can be obtained from the City Clerk's Office. REZONING ITEM: REZ00-O007/REZ00-0011. Public discussion of an application submitted by Ann Freerks and Lorraine Huneke-Bowans to rezone properties located in the Low Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-12) zone south of Burlington Street along the 300-600 blocks of Governor Street and a portion of the 800-900 blocks of Bowery Street to Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS-8), and to rezone properties located in the RM-12 zone along the 300-600 blocks of Lucas Street and a portion of the 700-800 blocks of Bowery Street to Neighborhood Conservation Residential (RNC-12). (45-day limitation period expires April 6, 2000) Rockwell said these two cases have been entered as one application but have been treated as rezonings in two separate areas. She stated that therefore each request area has been assigned a separate case number so that it is clear that consideration by the Commission and the City Council will be on two separate rezoning requests: REZ00-0007 for the Governor/Bowery area from RM-12 to RS-8 and REZ00-0011 for the Lucas Bowery area from RM-12 to RNC-12. Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission April 6, 2000 Page 3 Regarding density, Rockwell said at the Commission's March 16 meeting there was information presented on properties being "maxed out" under the RM-12 zoning regulations that residential densities on those lots could not be increased, even if the requested rezonings were not approved. She said some have argued that if the rezoning requests are approved, propedies in the area will be devalued. Rockwell said this is somewhat overstated, although it may apply to some properties. She said several building permits have been applied for to increase the density of properties in the rezoning area, and these were made after the rezoning application was filed and prior to the moratorium being set by the City Council on March 21. Rockwell said three of these permits were for rooming houses and were denied under the current RM-12 zoning requirements because they did not meet the lot area requirements for rooming houses in the current zone. Rockwell said one of the permit applications involved the demolition of an existing single-family residence to construct a duplex, and it was denied because the lot had insufficient lot dimensions for a duplex in the RM-12 zone. She said one permit application is pending to determine whether sufficient parking can be provided on the site to support an additional bedroom in a single-family house. Rockwell said if the parking can be provided, this permit could be issued even under the moratorium because it meets the regulations under the RM-12 and the zone being proposed, the RNC-12 zone. Rockwell said in one case Jim AIberhasky, was checking with the Housing and Inspection Services Department to see what he could do with his property and was told that he could not tear the house down in front and create another apartment building. Rockwell said this is because he already had nine units on the property, and under the RM-12 zoning regulations, it is permitted only five. She said therefore it is a non-conforming use at this point and would continue as a non-conforming use under RNC-12 zoning. Rockwell said many of the properties involved in formal protest of the rezoning as of March 30 are either currently non-conforming, exceeding the density permitted in the RM-12 zone, or they have attained the maximum density that is permitted in the RM-12 zone. She said the RS-8 rezoning request could have an impact on property owners in terms of limiting the number of roomers permitted, but RNC-12 zoning allows what exists to remain in place as a continuing use. Rockwell said a summary of the protest properties shows that 75% of the 12 properties that are protesting along Governor/Bowery exceed or are at maximum density, so those properties would continue as non-conforming properties; they are non-conforming now and would continue as such under any of the zoning classifications. She said regarding the conforming and increased density possible, there are three of the protest properties that qualify. Rockwell said two of those properties could have five unit buildings on them, and one could increase to a duplex level. For the Lucas/Bowery area, Rockwell said there are 27 properties that are currently protesting as of lat~ last week. She said 19 of those, 70%, exceed or are at maximum density. Rockwell said eight of those, 30%, could increase density. Rockwell said at the last informal meeting, someone asked about the statement that 80% of the properties would be grandfathered in so that it would be better not to have a rezoning if that would be the result. Rockwell said she researched the information. She said that of the 47 properties along Governor and Bowery, 59% are maxed out. Rockwell said 18 properties, 38%, are single-family now and can only be single-family because of the size or width of the property. Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission April 6, 2000 Page 4 She said ten properties, 21% of the total number of properties in that zone, are already non- conforming and would continue as non-conforming uses. On Lucas/Bowery, Rockwell said there are 56 properties, and 68%, 38 of the properties, are already maxed out. She said 22 of them, 39%, can be single-family only. Rockwell said 29%, 16 properties, are already non-conforming and would continue as non-conforming. She said if something is already grandfathered in or is conforming now it would continue to be conforming but could not increase the density. It is an overstatement to say that all of this would be grandfathered in as a result of a rezoning, particularly the RNC-12 rezoning recommended. Rockwell said there were charges against staff at the last meeting, and she wanted to clarify those impressions. She said one charge was that inadequate notice had been made. Rockwell said for this rezoning there has been more than the average notification provided. She said there was a standard notice letter giving the time and place of the first public meeting sent on February 16. Rockwell said because this is a fairly complicated case, staff requested more time to assess the existing land use and potential affects of the rezoning. She said the applicants allowed for more time so that a second notice letter was sent out to inform people that the meeting would be on March 16, not March 2. Rockwell said because there were so many questions about the RM-12 zone and how it compares with the RS-8 zone, staff provided general information on those zoning classifications in a letter sent out on February 24. She said a third letter was sent out on March 14 at the request of opponents to the rezoning to provide more detail on the affect of roomers in the RS-8 zone and what that affect would be if the RS-8 zoning were approved. Rockwell said this type of information is generally presented at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, not in notification letters. In addition, Rockwell said the applicants circulated a letter to the same mailing list, one they had generated through hours of work at the City Assessors' Office, and more than 250 households were notified. She said the applicants held a public meeting about the rezoning on March 1st and circulated a petition in the neighborhood. Rockwell said the opponents of the rezoning mailed a letter questioning the rezoning and included protest forms to the same mailing list, which was provided freely to them. Rockwell said the charge was also made that staff provided little or no assistance to the opponents of the rezoning and gave much more to the applicants. She said this is an error in perception. Rockwell said much more time and assistance was given by staff to those opposing the rezoning. She said she spent hours of time in meetings and on the phone and providing multiple copies of information. Rockwell said while the applicants were providing information, as they should, about properties, ownership, and land use in the area, the opponents were requesting and receiving information, including calculations of protest petitions, which was begun prior to the first Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on the case, instead of at the time it is usually done, when the case is being forwarded to City Council. Rockwe~ said she wanted to make it clear she does not mind providing information to people about cases coming before the Commission; that is a part of her job she values and she does not stint on that. Rockwell said she does not knowingly lead or mislead people who call in for information. She said it is not her job to show favoritism but to try to fairly evaluate a case and make an informed recommendation as part of a team of other staff members. Rockwell said she believes the staff recommendation is true to the vision of the Comprehensive Plan and is the most equitable solution for all involved. Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission April 6, 2000 Page 5 Schintler asked if an RMo12 non-conforming property is torn down and someone wants a permit to build, then the building has to conform to the RM-12 regulations. Rockwell confirmed this. Schintler asked what would happen if the zone were changed to RNC-12. Rockwell said if a property exists now as a multi-family or duplex use, it can continue as a non-conforming use under the RNC-12 zoning. Holecek said if the structure is razed, that does change the analysis. Rockwell said the RNC-12 does allow a property owner to take the building down and reconstruct it at the use that was permitted, if it was a conforming use. Ehrhardt asked, if the Commission approved something different than the application, possibly the RNC-12 for the Governor/Bowery Area, how the protest petitions that are protesting RS-8 there are affected. Holecek said those protest petitions could be re-signed and resubmitted by those objecting to RS-8 to address the RNC-12 zoning or any other zone. She said when the protest petition form is filled out, it specifically asks what type of zoning question is being protested; the specificity is required to make it a good protest. Holecek said to make things clear, the protesters would want to re-up the petitions before the close of the public hearing, if the recommendation were different than the application. Bovbjerg said the protest petitions do not affect the Commission but have an affect at the City Council level. Holecek said under the State statute, they have a legal effect of requiring a supermajority vote of the City Council. She said she would not say they do not affect the Commission, because the Commission takes into consideration public comment. Holecek said it is not outside the realm to use that as a method of assessing the relative public comment on the applications. Bovbjerg said it is certainly good public comment, but does not affect the requirements for a Commission vote. She said between the Commission's vote and whenever the City Council votes, that is when the protest numbers and the accurate wording on the protests would be considered. Holecek confirmed this. Bovbjerg said non-conforming does not mean illegal. Holecek said those properties are generally referred to as legal, non-conforming. Rockwell said a non-conforming use is acceptable and no one will force a change to that; it is just that it cannot be expanded because a non-conforming use cannot be increased in density. Supple said it is possible that regardless of the Commission vote, the applicants could go forward to the City Council, and it would be appropriate for the protesters to have protest forms for one or both zones. She said even if the Commission recommends denial of the RS-8 zoning, the application might go forward proposing RS-8. Holecek confirmed this. Supple said the protesters should then have a protest form for R~-8 and RNC-I 2, if that is what they are opposed to. Holecek said she had not seen enough of the protest petitions to see whether they encompass both the RS-8 and the staff recommendation for RNC-12. Rockwell stated that most of the protest forms are very general in protesting rezoning of the areas. She said very few of them mention a specific zone so that they may be generic enough that they would apply to both z~nes. Supple asked if a zone had to be specified on a protest form. Holecek said she did not believe so, although in past protests she has seen many forms that were specific to one zone. Public discussion: Ann Freerks, 443 South Governor Street, said the purpose of the proposed zoning change is to preserve the character and historic integrity of this neighborhood. She said this is needed to maintain the healthy mix of single and multi-family use, creating a diverse and rich population. Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission April 6, 2000 Page 6 She said she does not want to remove the rental component in this area. Freerks said the neighborhood offers housing choices for people in all economic stages of their lives, and she wants to preserve and encourage this. Freerks said this application comes from the people, the owner-occupiers of homes, the landlords, and tenants, who believe in the quality of life that Iowa City has to offer and have chosen to be near the heart of the community. She asked the Commission to help determine the future of this area and the people who live here and hopefully strike a balance with the best interests of the neighborhood at heart. Freerks said these are their homes, the places that they love, and places where they have raised and are raising their children. She said she feels that this part of the Longfellow Neighborhood in Iowa City deserves to be preserved for future generations to enjoy. Freerks said the downzoning of this area will be an excellent way to achieve balancing and will protect the older and historic neighborhood by reducing the pressure for new construction in a highly desirable area. She said this will have a positive long-term impact on Iowa City. Freerks said people who own their homes and rent houses or parts of houses and people who live in apartments have sought out this neighborhood because of its natural beauty, with many mature trees, green space, ample lots, spaces for gardens, beautiful and historic architecture, proximity to downtown, public transportation, playgrounds, parks, strong school system, and most importantly, the feeling of community. She said there are many people who are not in the market to purchase a home but want to live in the neighborhood. Freerks said there is great demand for these homes, as they are much sought after alternatives to apartments, and these are things that make the neighborhood, as it currently exists, an asset to the Iowa City community. Freerks said by preserving the current mix of housing, the homes can fluctuate between owner- occupied and rental properties. She said maintaining as many options as possible is a wise choice. Freerks said that is what the zoning change would do; when a home is left a home or a duplex, there are options. 8he said once a structure is removed and replaced with a multi-unit apartment building, the options no longer exist. Freerks said the main difference between RM-12 and RNC-12 is disallowing additional multi- family construction. She stated in the RNC-12 or RS-8 zones, if new construction does take place, it can then be compatible with the neighboring existing structures in terms of scale and density. Freerks said most lots in this area are already at or over their maximum density. She said this rezoning would preserve more than the structures but would preserve a way of life - the special interactions of a diverse group of people who call themselves neighbors along these streets. Freerks said a vote for a change in zoning supports this diversity and is backed by the Comprehensive Plan. Freerks ~;aid there have been a lot of positive things happening in this neighborhood. She said many homes that were run-down rentals are being reclaimed and back brought to life by the hard work of people looking for affordable housing with character. Freerks said it is up to the Commission to plan for the community. She said most of the structures have been here for 100 years, and with care they can be here a lot longer. Freerks said each apartment that is put up forever changes the landscape and appeal of the homes around it. She said it is a simple fact that the closer a home is to the apartment, the less appealing the home becomes, especially for resale. Freerks said a change in zoning will prevent the aggregation of lots that would create rows of apartments, as is permissible in the current RM-12 zone. She said this was not the Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission April 6, 2000 Page 7 original intent of the RM-12 zone and is part of the reason the RNC-12 zone was created. Freerks said in researching the RM-44 area of Dodge and Van Buren, many of the older apartments have an average of three bedrooms per unit. She said the trend in new construction on Lucas is for a maximum density of four bedrooms per unit so that there is a trend toward a higher population density in the RM-12 zone. Freerks said those opposed to the rezoning have stressed the need for student housing. She said students are not the only ones in need of affordable housing. She said if no change in zoning occurs, you will see a community dissolved. Freerks said people will be forced by the change in their environment, the addition of new apartment structures, to move. She said it will be difficult to find the quality of life that is currently there: affordable homes with charm and character, a beautiful environment, and, most importantly, a beautiful mix of people. Freerks said we should capitalize on the character of the neighborhood, not the potential profits from lot sizes. Freerks said with this zone change, Commission members will be able to travel these streets ten years from now and know they did the right thing. She said there will be a positive legacy of tree-lined streets with families, and long-term tenants will be happy to stay in the area. Freerks said the narrow vision of those opposed to this does not contain these images but rather rows of apartment complexes with bright lights beaming out at night into bedroom windows, paved back yards, dumpsters, traffic, and parking nightmares. She said she wants to preserve the sense of community, as well as the architecture, and it is her wish to work together to maintain the character that makes this neighborhood such a desirable way to live. Freerks said the best way to achieve this is through downzoning and urged the Commission members to vote in favor of this. Gre.q Allen, 2427 Hi.clhwav 6 N.W., Tiffin, said he stated that in RS-8 zoning, 80% of these properties would become non-conforming. He said Rockwell compared it to RNC-12, which does result in less of them. He said still clearly in both areas, a lot of them are already non- conforming. Allen said Rockwell did not point out that with these units that are over built already in RM-12 or RNC-12, if they are torn down, one cannot rebuild what was there but can only rebuild what that zoning allows. He said if a landlord had a 12-unit building that was put in years ago when this was RM-44 and it is torn down, it can only be replaced with, in an RNC-12, a three-bedroom/three-bedroom duplex. Allen said Freerks stated it was necessary to downzone to preserve this neighborhood and the predominant mix of people there. He said on Governor Street in the 20 years since the RM-12 zoning, not one building has been torn down. Allen said the RM-12 zoning has encouraged people to buy these and allows enough roomers to support them. He said it does not encourage tearing down buildings, and there is no proof to support that. Allen said on Lucas Street, which has been RM-12 for 20 years, this is the second property that has been torn down. He said the building,Was condemnable, and he could not even get a valid rental permit for it. Allen said RNC-12 would have resulted in that building sitting there. He added that a lot of the houses that are owner-occupied also have renters, and in RM-12, some of those will disappear. Allen said Rockwell stated that she had a meeting with the Longfellow people. He showed a petition, saying that it covers a huge area since they petitioned all the way over from Mercer Park across town, including Highway Six. Allen said there are only eight people who signed the petition that he found to live in this zone. He showed a stack of papers the Commission received in support of this rezoning from people who do not live in this zone. Allen showed a Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission April 6, 2000 Page 8 different stack of papers from people who own property in this zone. He said there are ten of these. Allen said, as nearly as he can tell, there are ten properties who are for this on Governor Street. He said he already has 26% objection there. Allen said on Lucas Street there are three owners who are for this. He said he already has 68% petitioned against this on Lucas Street with three properties who are for it. Allen said initially it appears that people are overwhelmingly for this, but when you look at people who actually own property in the areas, it is nowhere close. Allen said the staff report, which is very slanted, makes references to the historical neighborhood. Allen said it is not there. He said on the sheet that Rockwell submitted to the Commission, she wrote contributing historical structure over many of the properties. Allen said he owns some of those structures, so he was somewhat surprised. He said he found out that basically means the house is over 50 years old, regardless of the condition of the house. Referring to the statistics, Allen read that 43 of 47 properties on Governor Street, over 90%, are single-family homes. He said in fact, by Rockwell's own sheet, there are really only 31 so that the nearly 90% is actually 66%. Allen said on Lucas Street there are 56 properties. He said the sheet states that nearly 90% of these properties have streetscapes which are predominantly single-family residential in appearance. Allen stated that must mean the developers are doing a good job of making them look like single-family homes, because there are really only 58% of those that are single-family houses. Allen said the staff report should be thrown out in its entirety. He said he prepared a report using the same numbers that Rockwell used, and he distributed the report to Commission members. Allen said the report shows the property uses by square footage. He said Rockwell did her report by the number of properties, because she counted the number of single-family homes and the number of rentals, which gives a single-family lot with 3,000 square feet the same amount as one of the old houses with twelve units and 22,000 square feet. Allen said his report also deals with the percentages of rental, which on Lucas Street is 85%. He said 48% of the houses are single-family, which means 52% of these are already not single-family so that an RNC-12 cannot protect something that is not there. Supple said she believed the reason Rockwell counted by number of properties was at Supple's request. Ehrhardt said, according to the Code, any building of conforming use in the RNCo12 zone may be torn down and rebuilt to its present density or density of this zone, whichever is greater. She asked if that were contrary to what Allen said, since he claimed a building could not be rebuilt at that current density. Rockwell said that is true if it is a conforming use at this time. She said if it is a non-conforming use, whether under RM-12 or RNC-12, Allen is correct that it could be built at the density that is permitted in the zone. Ehrhardt asked if a building that is currently conforming, perhaps a six-unit building, would still be conforming in the RNC-12 zone. Rockwell confirmed this, saying it could be torn down and rebuilt at that density. Gibson asked if Rockwell knew the number of non-conforming properties in the two-block area under current zoning. Rockwell said the figure is 26 non-conforming properties in the two street area. Gibson asked how many would be non-conforming if the suggested changes occur. Rockwell said if both areas go to RNC-12, three or four properties along Governor would become non-conforming. She said there is a total of 103 properties in the areas. Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission April 6, 2000 Page 9 Rockwell said the discussion regarding 90% of the structures being originally single-family is accurate. She said the staff report also discusses the usage of some of those structures that were built as single-family homes as current duplexes or triplexes. Rockwell said the staff report discusses the number and percentages of the different uses as well as the fact that a lot of the original single-family structures have been maintained, even though they have different densities of uses within them. Martha Greer, 530 South Governor Street, said her home was built in 1920, and she is only the fourth owner of her home. She said she has family connections to at least two of the previous owners. Greer said historical value does not have to mean going back 150 years but can refer to the history of this community. She said she feels strongly about the history of the community. Greer said she moved to the Longfellow area very purposefully, because she wanted her son to grow up in a very diverse area. She said she loves the character of the old homes and the neighborhood itself. Greer said, in addressing who the protests are coming from, this is a community issue, not necessarily strictly a neighborhood one and should be looked at as such. Greer said she knows a lot of single-family owners who do put in a lot of work on their homes, and this is one of the few areas where an affordable home can still be purchased. She said it is important to preserve a piece of Iowa City that has been standing for a long time. She said she feels strongly that the needs of the community are met by keeping a neighborhood intact, and if this does anything toward that, it should happen. Tom Beers, 1412 East Court Street, said he and his wife own three rental properties: two on South Governor Street in the area being considered for rezoning and one on Bowery just outside of that area. He said as a landlord, he feels that the long-term value of the property is tied much more strongly to maintaining the character of the neighborhoods than to the number of roomers that can be put into those units. Beers said the City cannot rely entirely on the developers to maintain that same interest. He said the fact that a lot of the petitions were signed by people outside of the area relates to the fact that this is a city-wide issue. Beers said the community is relying on the Commission and the City Council to take the long view, and as a landlord, he urged the Commission to support the downzoning. Jim Brenneman, 1728 Louise Place, said there is a lot of emotion on the applicants' side here. Brenneman said, according to staff's figure, owners of 52% of the land in the Lucas Street area are protesting the rezoning. He said that is a majority of people who own the land and do not want this. He said currently owners of 26% of the land on Governor Street are protesting, and he expects more to come in. Brenneman said since the downzoning over 20 years ago, there has not been a house torn down on Governor Street. He said if it isn't broken, don't fix it. Charlie Eastham, 1152 East Court, said all three of his children have attended Longfellow Elementary School, and all three are better citizens for their experiences there. He said if this rezoning is not approved, it is quite possible that the continuing development along Lucas and eventually along Governor will result in fewer family housing units being available along those streets, because most of the development is occurring to provide housing for students. Eastham said that will result in fewer students at Longfellow School and less opportunity for Longfellow to remain a viable neighborhood school. He said as a resident of the Longfellow Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission April 6, 2000 Page 10 Neighborhood who does not live in the application area, he has a very real interest in what happens to this application, and he urged the Commission to support it. Diana Velez, 627 South Governor, said she does not want it to get lost in the details of this discussion that this is a neighborhood versus absentee landlord issue. She asked if the community puts profits above the concerns of the people who actually live here and constitute and contribute to the growth of the community in more than just economic ways. Velez said her property is not directly affected, but she can see a distinct difference between neighborhood and places where people live temporarily. She said what is starting to happen and what makes people nervous is exemplified by the big building that was constructed on south Lucas and is the beginning of things to come. Velez said this does not happen overnight; it happens gradually. She said eventually you turn around and no longer have a neighborhood. Velez said if we as a community really care about Iowa City and maintaining Iowa City the way we like to think it is, this downzoning should be passed. She said if the downzoning is not approved, the quality of life in this particular neighborhood will go down. Velez said, regarding the arguments for people who have an interest in maintaining their profits and increasing their profit margin versus the people who actually live in this neighborhood and are building it slowly and through sweat equity, it is one or the other. She said this is an issue in which someone cannot be on both sides. Velez said the Commission has to stand with the neighborhood against the absentee landlords who have one thing in mind - maximizing their profits. She asked if we were going to go with them as a community or with the people who actually are interested in building Iowa City. Ginny Blair, 650 South Governor, said she lives just outside the affected area. She said she purchased her house specifically because of the zoning and did research before she moved in to ensure the neighborhood would not be at risk for tear-downs and apartments mushrooming. Blair said she does not regard that as a good investment, and she would like that same honor to be bestowed to her neighbors up the street who are now facing what looks to be a serious threat. She said she is very much a neighborhood resident with an eye to community and has little sympathy with the landlords who do not live in the neighborhood. Joseph Patrick, 1190 East Court Street, said he lives just outside the areas considered for downzoning. He said he strongly supports the downzoning as a member of the larger Iowa City community and as a member of the Longfellow Area. Patrick said he moved to Iowa City in 1965 to teach at The University of Iowa and moved into a beautiful, small, modest, charming 19th century house on a large lot at 534 South Lucas Street. He said a few weeks ago he realized the house is no longer there, and bulldozers were carving out the basement of a very large new building. Patrick s. pid it brought back memories from that time of what a great place this is to live and what a great city this is to live in. He said he loved that neighborhood, and when he bought a house, it was nearby. He said he fears for the community as a whole when little honor is given to what made Iowa City that town that he moved into 35 years ago. Patrick said he is saddened by the homogenization of this town and the way it is beginning to look like the other towns he passes by across the country, not like the Iowa City he moved to 35 years ago. He said part of that is because the little house at 534 South Lucas Street will now be replaced by many apartments. Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission April 6, 2000 Page 11 Patrick said it is a different town that he lives in now, but it doesn't have to become increasingly that way. He said it could stop now. Patrick said there are plenty of places where large apartment buildings to satisfy the needs of the renters can be built. He said they don't have to be built in 19th century, early 20th century, or family neighborhoods in the Longfellow District. Natasa Durovicova, 419 South Summit, said she lives to the east of the alley immediately outside of the area in question. Durovicova said it has been six years since she purchased her 1876 house, and they have repainted and restored it. She said the day before she was working outside, and a car came tearing through the alley at 40 miles an hour, parking in a cloud of dust behind one of the multi-plexes. Durovicova said that when Allen's building on the other side of the alley goes, as it soon will because it is clearly not being maintained, there are two possibilities. She said one possibility is to have it restored and repainted to rejoin the ranks of the nice, old houses that harbor rental units, people from very different backgrounds, or single- families. Durovicova said the other possibility is that it will be torn down and be replaced by a multi-plex as is now going up on the Burlington side of her block. She said if that happens, it is clear the very edges of that lot will be filled, and the edges of that property will come straight on the alley. Durovicova said basically the spillover from such an outsized structure will affect not just that property but also the people who live on the block as a whole. She said although she may not own one of the properties in question, she nonetheless is directly, immediately, and very concretely in her daily life affected by the decisions made by the Commission regarding this issue. Durovicova said the argument that there is a right to speak only if you are a direct owner does not apply. Durovicova said, regarding the argument that if it isn't broken, don't fix it, she is watching these structures, and some of them are on their way to being broken, and some one is going to be fixing them. She said the question will be how they will be fixing them. She said that is exactly the question for a long-term planning commission. Durovicova said it is a question to see whether the decrepit and charming house on a big, charming lot with slightly loud but generally pleasant students will be replaced by a large apartment building that will stick into the alley. She said then you won't even see or hear the people anymore, because it will just be parking and air conditioners and people will just come to sleep. Durovicova said that is because there won't be any backyard anymore, and there won't be any place for these people to hang out and become in some implicit way part of the community. She stated the question is how one is going to define the overall character of the neighborhood, and that is a question to which people who live in that neighborhood are entitled to speak, as much the people who own that chunk of land on which the building will be erected. Gwen Johnson, 803 Lon.qfellow Place, said she lives in a vinyl-sided, newly constructed house in a historic neighborhood on Longfellow Place. She said she moved here from Memphis and did not realize there was a lot of dissension because of the new construction. JohnsorLsaid problems in her area have been dealt with as a neighborhood. She said the same arguments the neighborhood is making in favor of this she would make in opposition. Johnson said her neighborhood was rezoned and clearly put into a more restrictive environment for building, etc. She said because of that, there has been a stigma attached to her cul-de-sac, and the property values have been directly affected because of that. Johnson asked the Commission to look at this with a thought to what will happen if these two streets become more restrictive. She said because of a more restrictive environment and because the neighborhood didn't want her house there, it has caused problems. Johnson said Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission April 6, 2000 Page 12 only in the last six months to a year has she become an accepted part of the neighborhood. She said it is important that everyone speak and has the right to discuss what the impact will be and that all angles are looked at. Johnson said she loves Longfellow, but when you do high density or have restrictive zoning issues, it impacts all the values all the way around. Cher Marchael, 648 South Lucas, said she lives just outside the boundary for this application. She said she bought a 110-year old farmhouse and has slowly been fixing it up. Marchael said she is very concerned about the congestion in the area and the lack of parking. She said across the street from her are a 12-plex, an 8-plex, and another 12-plex, so she is used to sharing with students, but there is no room to park on the street. Marchael said all of the parking lots behind the individual buildings are filled with the cars of those living there. She said the area is very congested, and the corner of Lucas/Bowery is congested and can be dangerous. Marchael said she moved to this area to raise her child to go to Longfellow. She said she is fine with students and sharing, but if there is interest in getting a good idea of what the neighborhood is like, people should come after 10 p.m., because that gives a good idea of the kind of parking problems that exist and the activity level. Cecile Kuenzli, 705 South Summit, said she is a resident of the Longfellow Neighborhood and Vice President of the Longfellow Neighborhood Association. She said Allen showed the thick packet of forms that came from outside the immediately affected area and were in support of the downzoning. Kuenzli said that is proof of the fact that Lucas Street and Governor Street are part of the neighborhood and are valued even by people who don't live on those streets, and what happens there affects everyone in the neighborhood and all the neighbors care about it. Kuenzli said Johnson is very welcome in the neighborhood but would probably not be living there now if the neighborhood had not become involved with the original plans for Longfellow Place, which included construction of concrete mini-storage units or very high density, high-rise apartments. Regarding the arguments for the priority of private property owner's rights, Kuenzli said the Commission exists to oversee and ensure the appropriate development and orderly growth of the entire City. She said this is really a community issue. Kuenzli said when what is best for one or two private property owners who are absentee landlords comes into conflict with what is best for Iowa City, which many construe as strong neighborhoods, it is the latter which should take precedence. Kuenzli said the Planning Commission exist to serve the interest of the public at large. She said the question comes down to what is best for Iowa City. Kuenzli asked if it is in the city's interest to sacrifice an area like south Lucas and Governor Street, which already in 1990 the City had identified as being worthy of designation as an historic district, an area that has a distinct neighbor. hood character and charm, or is it in the best interests of the city to allow this area to become another narrow street lined with oversized, overscaled apartment buildings where no one would want to live for any long period of time. She asked if it is in the best interest of the city to preserve this in its present state as a neighborhood street, reflecting the co-existence of many different ages and lifestyles. Kuenzli said larger cities all over the country are discovering the drawing power of older, inner-city neighborhoods and asked if Iowa City would be counted among them. Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission April 6, 2000 Page 13 Lorraine Huneke-Bowans, 510 South Governor Street, said she is one of the co-applicants for this rezoning. She referred to the six pillars of character as part of "Character Counts". She read, "A person of character is trustworthy, treats people with respect, is responsible, is fair, is caring, and is a good citizen." Huneke-Bowans said the reason she filed this application was to maintain the neighborhood as it is. She said she is not against rental properties or landlords, although she may be against big developers. Huneke-Bowans said she helped bring the petition, eleven pages signed by people from all over. She said the petition was signed by parents of Longfellow students, and that is why it is signed by people from all over. Huneke-Bowans said the Longfellow School is the heart of the Longfellow Neighborhood. She said there is talk of possibly closing a school in the next few years. Huneke-Bowans said should the area lose more homes to be replaced by larger rental units with fewer families, the chances of Longfellow being considered one of those schools to be closed is pretty strong. She stated there are no area churches and no park, so the school is the heart of the neighborhood. Huneke-Bowans said she is also concerned about the traffic. She said each of her children was almost hit by a car at the intersection of Bowery and Summit, a four-way stop. She said the traffic there is heavy. Huneke-Bowans said her properly value is different than that of Allen. She said she values her property for the safety she feels in the neighborhood. Huneke-Bowans said if a building with 24 bedrooms went up next to her home, it would greatly diminish the value of her property, not so much in dollars and cents as in her privacy and her community. Huneke-Bowans said she bought her house 13 years ago when Governor was about 80% rental. She stated it is now about 50/50. Huneke-Bowans said she has seen the neighborhood blossom again. She said these 60-year old properties may be not the best properties to use as rental property. She said they do need lots of TLC. Huneke-Bowans said for heavy rental use, maybe a 100-year old property isn't the most ideal investment. She said it is probably much more economical to tear it down and build something new, but it is a piece of Iowa City history. Owner occupants are more likely to invest in keeping these properties in good condition. Huneke-Bowans said the history is there, and it should be preserved. She said she would like to see the neighborhood atmosphere maintained also. Huneke-Bowans stated the developers, not the landlords, say they plan to maintain the neighborhood as it is. She said if that is the case, she does not understand why they are fighting the downzoning so much, because their properties will still be legal and still conforming. Rudy Kuenzli, 705 South Summit Street, stated he has lived in the Longfellow area for 27 years and is a former member of the Historic Preservation Commission. He said at the first formal meeting, he discussed his surprise in discovering the unique historic integrity of south Lucas Street add encouraged as many as possible to see this street. Kuenzli said he thought both streets should have been surveyed years ago for possible historic districts. He said since that first meeting, he found a survey of the area done in 1990 by Molly Naumann, an architectural historian who did many surveys of the older part of Iowa City and was instrumental in establishing historic districts for the City. He quoted from the 1990 report, "Lucas, from Burlington to Bowery, should receive an intensive level survey, with an eye to possible National Historic Register Nomination. There is a sense of time and place about this narrow tree-lined street that should be preserved." Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission April 6, 2000 Page 14 Kuenzli said the report recommends the same intensive level survey for south Governor Street for possible National Historic Register nomination. He said the report concludes, "The sense of time and place found on these two streets is very similar to that found in the Summit Street Historic District. Irs just that the houses along Lucas and Governor are somewhat smaller and not so grand." Kuenzli said these two streets are special and deserve to be kept as they are. He urged the Commission to keep the density at its current level. Kuenzli said Lucas Street was not built for higher density nor was it built for an apartment house that will house 16 people. He said the only way to maintain the current density is by changing the zoning from RM-12 to RNC-12. Larry Zuber, 310 South Governor, said he owns a property at 310 South Governor. He said the property is right at the upper tip that sticks out. Zuber said if one looked at his proper~y and saw what is behind him, in front, and on the side, it would make no sense for his property to be something different from that. He invited those at the meeting to visit his property. Zuber said he has owned the house for 15 years and tries to keep it up and be a good neighbor. He stated that the Commission should think very hard before it changes zoning like this, because it affects landlords like himself. Zuber said he is not a big developer but owns this house and one small house on Benton Street, and this is his retirement. He said this affects him very much. Zuber said the Commission has to take this into consideration. Bovbjerg asked Zuber about his comment that his property is not like the ones next to him. Zuber said his property is across the street from the sorority on Governor. Zuber said there is no way someone could live on his property as a single-family house. He said he is not for this zoning change, because people made investments based on certain assumptions. Zuber said at least this should go in a straight line and not leave someone out on what is almost an island like this. He said he has multiple unit buildings all around him except on one side. Ehrhardt asked Zuber if, should that street be rezoned to RNC-12, he would have objections to maintaining the house as it is now with the same number of roomers and the same density. Zuber stated his only problem is that he believes it will hurt the property value. He said if the zoning were not changed, eventually the lot would probably be engulfed by those other places in the next 50 to 100 years. Paula Brandt, 824 North Gilbert, stated that she is President of Friends for Historic Preservation (FHP). She said her organization supports the RNC-12 rezoning of these streets for several reasons. Brandt said houses have a great deal of flexibility, whether they are rental properties or whether they are owner-occupied, and they offer the best opportunity for diversity and the kind of balance we want in the older neighborhoods. Secondly, Brandt said FHP wants to discourage people who don't like old houses from buying several 9djacent properties and demolishing them and building apartment buildings. She said people should buy houses because they like the houses. Thirdly, Brandt said they want to encourage people who own these homes to maintain, rehab, and restore these houses and to do so without worrying about what will happen to the property next door and what a neighboring multi-plex would do to the investment they have in their own homes. Fourth, Brandt stated older neighborhoods such as this one are among the few in Iowa City that really do provide affordable housing for owners and tenants. She said this rezoning is positive for the neighborhood and for those who live in Iowa City. Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission April 6, 2000 Page 15 Gary Hughes, P.O. Box 2612, said he is not an absentee landlord. He said he lives here and has lived here all his life. Regarding the Lucas Street downzoning specifically, Hughes said he either owns or has an interest in five properties there. He said four of them have been rehabbed and redone, and he has spent a great deal of money on them. Hughes said there is one property at 534 South Lucas that he had several contractors look at and discussed with the City Housing Department at length. He stated that everyone agreed that there was no way feasibly that the house could be saved. Hughes said structurally it was unsound, was unlived in, and was an eyesore. He said it was in bad shape, so he did tear it down and is building four four-bedroom condominiums there. Hughes said the assessed value of the land where he is building is $130,000 for the land only so that he could not really afford to build one house there. Regarding Lucas Street, Hughes said 85% of the houses on that street have been rehabbed by people like him. He said over 68% of those owning houses on the street are protesting the rezoning. Hughes said this is still America where property owners still have some rights. He requested that the Commission deny this application. Allen Ross, 627 South Governor, said he is also a property owner. He said his sense of the value of his property diminishes when within sight of it he can see a multi-unit apartment building going up where there used to be a smaller house. Ross said for those who live there, the population density in the area is a key issue. He urged the Commission to support the downzoning of the area. Ellie Peters, 12 Bella Vista, said she owns the three-plex at 433 South Governor and has owned it for 25 years. She said she enjoys the neighborhood very much, as do the tenants who have rented from her. Peters said she spends so much time there maintaining the property that she feels like a neighbor there. Peters urged the Commission to downzone the area to maintain the neighborhood as it is. Public discussion closed. MOTION: Chait moved to approve REZ00o0007, an application submitted by Ann Freerks and Lorraine Huneke-Bowans to rezone properties located in the Low Density Multi- Family Residential (RM-12) zone south of Burlington Street along the 300-600 blocks of Governor Street and a portion of the 800-900 blocks of Bowery Street to Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS-8). Ehrhardt seconded the motion. Bovbjerg asked if the Commission should vote on the text amendment item first. Holecek said the text amendment is being recommended regardless of the vote on either of the two rezoning applications. Bovbjerg said the idea of downzoning is sound. She said there are restrictions on RS-8 that directly affect the property values of people who live there and also people who are renting there. Bovbjerg said while she is in favor of changing the zone, she is not in favor of RS-8 and would therefore be voting against this for the RS-8 zoning. Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission April 6, 2000 Page 16 Ehrhardt said she heard one comment that if the City Council were to approve the design review guidelines, it would address a lot of the issues that have been raised. She pointed out that those guidelines would not address the mass of new construction. She said it might force some architectural details but would not address the mass. Ehrhardt said it also does not address the density. She said from what she hears from builders and developers, they would continue to build apartment buildings in this manner with the large number of bedrooms per unit. Ehrhardt said this means in the future, the incentive will be there to remove the older homes and put up new construction. She said that is the issue here, not who occupies the structures. Ehrhardt said if the important thing is to maintain the housing stock and the integrity of the neighborhood, removing the incentive to demolish these homes makes it important to have a minimum of at least the RNC-12 zoning. Ehrhardt said she sees one major problem with the RNC-12 zoning, and that deals with the incentive. She said if someone has converted a single-family home into a four-plex, there is incentive there to tear the house down in the RNC-12 zone and replace it with a new structure that has a four-plex with four bedrooms each. Ehrhardt said that can be done in an RNC-12 zone. She said as a neighbor in that neighborhood, she would strongly support RS-8, but as a Commission member she has to look at the total picture and look at the owners of the property who don't live in the neighborhood as well as the neighbors. Ehrhardt said even though she sees the problem with the incentive to tear buildings down still existing, she would suppod the RNC-12 for both areas. Schintler asked if the incentive to tear down, even if this were left RM-12 would be there because there is more to lose, because a lot of the properties are non-conforming. Supple said it probably has more to do with individual owners. Rockwell said one of the concerns is if a person owns more than one lot adjacent to each other, then he can gain enough lot area and width to have a multi-family unit. She said existing houses can be demolished to be replaced with multi-family units under RM-12. Rockwell said under RNC-12, what is there can stay, but aggregation of lots to create multi-family units could not occur. The motion failed on a vote of 0-7. MOTION: Bovbjerg moved to amend REZ00-0007, an application submitted by Ann Freerks and Lorraine Huneke-Bowans to rezone properties located in the Low Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-12) zone south of Burlington Street along the 300-600 blocks of Governor Street and a portion of the 800-900 blocks of Bowery Street to Neighborhood Conservation Residential (RNC-12). Ehrhardt seconded the motion. Bovbjerg said she would vote for this because it speaks to the way it is now, speaks to the people who are living here, and speaks also to the responsible landlords who have been responsible with their property. She said some people have done a very good job, whether they are living in their properties or renting them out. Bovbjerg said there is a consideration for people and property here, and this will be encouraging to everyone. She said it is encouraging to people who will buy for rental and also validates those people who have already done that. Bovbjerg said what this is is an RNC neighborhood, and it just needs a new label. Gibson said he voted against the RS-8 and intends to vote for the RNC-12 for exactly the same reasons Bovbjerg presented. He said the RNC-12 is a compromise toward the landlords' interests but at the same time will do about as much to preserve the character of the Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission April 6, 2000 Page 17 neighborhood, which is very important. Gibson said his motivation in this is an attempt to find a reasonable compromise in this neighborhood. Ehrhardt said what we have here on Lucas and Governor is exactly what the City is trying to do, per the Comprehensive Plan, on the Peninsula, with the alleys and the mix of rental and single- family properties. She said we have that right here, and to not address and preserve this would be a giant mistake. Regarding comments from Zuber and other property owners, Ehrhardt stated that as a result of the RNC-12 zoning, stabilizing the neighborhood will actually increase property values. Gibson said there have been more numbers on this application than on any other proposal reviewed by the Commission. He said that is great, and people have done an incredible amount of work, but unfortunately this may have created more heat than light. Gibson said one can take these numbers and make just about any point you care to make with them. He said he appreciates Allen's work but it is biased in a way, as staff's numbers are probably biased too. Gibson said you can push the numbers any way you want to to increase the spread. He said we have to be careful with how the numbers are used. Gibson said what impresses him about the neighborhood is what is seen when one drives down the street. He said there is an incredibly high proportion of the original housing stock still there; it doesn't really make any difference what is behind those doors. Gibson said we have an incredible history on one side of what we're talking about that is very unusual in Iowa City. He said there is clearly a strong sense of neighborhood here, and there is a very high aesthetic value to preserve here that could be allowed to deteriorate very easily and rapidly. On the other side of this issue, Gibson said there are dollars signs, which seems to be the only motivation. He said there is nothing wrong with dollar signs; they drive our society, although sometimes they drive our society in the wrong direction. Gibson said the dollar is seen as being more important than anything else. He said how we live our daily lives is what is really important, whether we're comfortable and happy and get along with our neighbors or whether we want more dollars to go do something else. Gibson said he does not have any difficulty, ethically or morally, making a choice when this kind of issue is raised. He said he does not think landlords will suffer under this, because the compromise has already been made to take this to RNC-12, and they can still make a buck out there. Gibson stated what is at stake concerns the people who have invested probably a much higher percentage of their net worth in their homes and are living there, and that is, relatively speaking, far more important to him. Gibson said new housing, even if something has to be torn down to put up something new, does not have to be ugly. He said the apartment that just went up on Dubuque Street is beautiful and would fit into this neighborhood as if it had been here for 50 years. Gibson said it can be done, but not with a building with no front door on the street that seems to have no architectgral character to it at all. Gibson said Hughes commented that he didn't even know what the building is going to look like, yet the building is there and up; it is not going to change significantly from what it is. Gibson said it is not a matter of just tacking on some brick. Gibson said that is what the response is against here. He stated that most landlords have been very responsive and responsible in terms of what has been done on those two streets. Gibson said unfortunately there is no guarantee they will continue to develop in this manner, and he has a fear that once it starts, it will go very rapidly. Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission April 6, 2000 Page 18 Gibson said Iowa City is not in any shortage of places to build apartments like this. He said there is clearly a place for them and clearly a need for them. Gibson said we don't have to go in and destroy what remnants we have of historical Iowa City, particularly when it is in such good shape, as this is. He said he supports this zoning and appreciates what the neighbors have done in bringing this before the Commission and hopes the City Council will respond in the same way he believed the Commission would respond. Supple said she is a strong supporter of private property rights, and she believes downzoning diminishes those rights. She said some of the investors, those opposed to the downzoning, have spoken that they are concerned about reduced property values. Supple said the concern about reduced values actually better lies with the applicants or others in the neighborhood. She said if a six-plex is built next to a charming, little house, it is the charming, little house that is going to suffer the reduced value. Supple said this neighborhood has a history, yet it has not been designated as historically significant. She said this is an older neighborhood with a lot of charm, but sometimes old houses need to be torn down. Supple said she looked to the Comprehensive Plan for guidance. She said the Comprehensive Plan calls for diversity as well as maintaining neighborhoods, two things that are in conflict here. Supple said there is a need for housing within walking distance to downtown, so perhaps it is appropriate to have some denser housing in this area. She said she has not found an answer and can argue both sides of this. Supple said she believes that what is really needed is a change in the ordinance. She said there is a new proposed ordinance containing infill guidelines that has to do with the design of the outside of a building in a neighborhood such as this. Supple said it requires a builder to design his building in a fashion that meets criteria chosen from a menu, and it helps maintain the appearance of a building so it is compatible with the neighborhood. However, she stated it does not address the mass of a building and does not address the parking required. Supple said she believed the RNC-12 zone requires I 1/2 spaces per unit. She said if someone is building a four-bedroom unit, which seems to be the current trend, it requires I 1/2 parking spaces per unit, nine spaces for a six-plex, but if there are four bedrooms there are 24 sleeping areas but still only nine parking spaces required. Supple said the Code does not address adequately the recent trend to build these large apartment buildings. Supple said the Code should also address the mass of the building in relationship to the land. She said the size of the buildings should be related to the size of the land so that some green space and tree space is left and so that buildings are not being massed onto these lots. Supple said she had decided to hold out for the Code change, a change to address the trend to build four and five-bedroom units, and would vote no on this rezoning. Gibson m. entioned Supple's issue of a conflict between diversity and maintaining the integrity of a neighborhood. Gibson said he did not see that as a conflict. He said the neighborhood has diversity in it right now, as he understood diversity. Gibson said he thought it would be terrible if it were the objective, in terms of diversity, to have a variety of big housing form differences with small houses next to big apartment buildings. He said he thought the diversity we've been after is the diversity between home ownership, rental, and maybe multiple-family but in a context that is not greatly different from the housing stock or the main character of the housing or buildings in that area. Gibson said he feels that is still diversity. Although it might not be seen by driving down the street, he said different living opportunities are provided for different segments of the Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission April 6, 2000 Page 19 population, and that is what we are really after. Gibson said no one wants to have their single- family home next to a four-story duplex. He said that would be a terrible kind of diversity, and he hoped that was not the objective. He stated that we need some compatibility in terms of scale and character with the buildings in our environment. Supple said she did not disagree with Gibson at all. The motion carried on a vote of 4-3, with Schintler, Shannon, and Supple voting no. MOTION: Ehrhardt moved to approve REZ00-O01'I, an application submitted by Ann Freerks and Lorraine Huneke-Bowans to rezone properties located in the RM-'I2 zone along the 300-600 blocks of Lucas Street and a portion of the 700-800 blocks of Bowery Street to Neighborhood Conservation Residential (RNC-12). Gibson seconded the motion. Gibson said the same comments he made for the previous rezoning would apply to this vote as well. The motion carried on a vote of 4-3, with Schintler, Shannon, and Supple votin_~ no. Supple said this item will be on the City Council's agenda on April 18. She thanked those in attendance for participating. MOTION: Bovbjerg moved to recommend an amendment to Zoning Chapter 'I4-6D-SG1 the special provisions Section of the RNC-12 zone to read as follows: All uses or buildings which were conforming to the requirements of Section 14-6D-7 of this Article, Low Density Multi-Family Residential Zone (RM-'I2), at the time the property is rezoned to Neighborhood Conservation Residential Zone (RNC-12), shall be considered conforming under this chapter. Chait seconded the motion. Ehrhardt asked what would happen if this amendment were not passed. Rockwell said any use that was in place that was constructed after 1993 and is conforming now under RM-12 would not be considered conforming under RNC-12 if this amendment were not passed. Ehrhardt referred to the north side and asked if this would affect those RNC-12 zones on the north side. Rockwell said it would not, because this is tied to the time they were rezoned so that anything that is built subsequently will have to abide by the RNC-12 zoning. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. VACATION ITEM: VAC00-0001. Public discussion of an application from Sue Travis requesting a vacation of the northernrhost 80 feet of alley along the west property line of 405 South Summit. Yapp said Trayis, who lives at 405 South Summit Street, has requested the vacation of 80 feet of the alley which dead ends behind 405 South Summit Street. He stated that Phyllis Tucker, who owns the property at 338 South Governor Street, has submitted an e-mail, which he distributed to Commission members, requesting deferral of this item to the Commission's next meeting to allow her time to do some research on the property. Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission April 6, 2000 Page 20 Yapp said when the apartment building at 338 South Governor was developed, much of this area in the alley was paved, and it is used for parking and has been used for parking for some time. He said it was discovered by staff that this area was not private property but was in fact public alley right-of-way. Given that part of this area is used as parking for a private property, and part of it is covered with vegetation, Yapp said staff does not feel the area is needed by the general public, and the northern 60 feet of it should be vacated. He said staff does not recommend vacating the entire 80 feet, because it is important for the private drive between the two apartment buildings to have access to the alley via the lower 20 feet of that 80 feet. Bovbjerg asked if the paved part of the alley has been considered part of the required parking space or if it is used as a swing area. Yapp said the original building permit for this property was based on the lot area, not including the alley. He said apparently the original paving contractor paved all the way into the alley because it was a dead end alley, and he may have believed it was part of the lot at that time. Yapp said it does appear there is enough room behind the property to reconfigure the parking, and there would still be adequate parking. Bovbjerg asked if it were possible that the whole 80 feet could be vacated by the City, with part of it given to the Summit Street address and part given to the Governor Street address to maintain their parking as it is. Yapp said it would have to be shifted a little bit. He said if ten feet went to each, the parking used by the apartment building tenants would have to shift five or ten feet to the west. Bovbjerg said some kind of land compromise would be possible. Yapp confirmed this, stating that staff typically recommends that half the right-of-way, ten feet in this case, go to each property owner. Holecek reminded the Commission that staff is recommending that the northern 60 feet be vacated. Bovbjerg said then the southern 20 would still be public right-of-way and could still be used by the apartment house however it is being used. Holecek responded that it would not be legitimate parking and is not part of the parking required for the apartment building. She said unless there is a complaint, generally that type of use does not get enforced. Supple asked how far the driveway, the parking lot, goes into the alley. Yapp said it goes more than ten feet into the alley. Public discussion: Sue Travis, 405 South Summit Street, said she is interested in having the City vacate this land solely because she would like to enlarge her back yard. She said this area is a dead end of an alley that is not used by the City but is only used for parking, so she would like to push her back fence back to have more play area for her kids and more garden area. Travis said staffs recommendation to only vacate the northern 60 feet and leave the other 20 feet is acceptable to her. She,said if the property owners decide to split the vacated portion in half, that would certainly be an option for her. Travis said she is flexible and would simply like a bigger back yard. Phyllis Tucker, 3425 South Jamie Lane, said she owns the property at 338 South Governor. She said she has a contract to buy the property, which was constructed in 1972. Tucker commented that it is taking her some time to discover if there is anything in the abstract that would shed light on why the alley was blacktopped all the way to the fence and is still alley. Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission Apdl 6, 2000 Page 21 Tucker said she is trying to figure all that out so that she can then work with Travis on what the solution will be. Tucker said she and Yapp believe there is still enough parking for twelve spaces without some of that parking area, but she is still not sure how that will work out. She asked if, since this could possibly be in an RNC-12 zone, how it would affect her parking requirements and if she would need to have 18 spaces, I 1/2 per unit. Rockwell said the Code has been changed so that parking is more reliant on the number of bedrooms now. She said one-bedroom units would require one space per unit. Tucker said she has no intentions of ever making the building any larger or changing it. Chair asked if the alley in fact is City property, would Tucker have any problem purchasing half of the right-of-way, given the opportunity. Tucker said she would have no problem and would actually prefer to purchase the entire segment of that alley if that were agreeable. Chait said that alley would be disposed of by offedng half to each property owner. He said it sounds like Tucker's property is now using the entire alley. He asked Tucker if she has a problem giving up the half she is using now that she is not entitled to. Tucker said she is concerned about that because of the space, and she does not want to put cars back on the street. Chair asked Tucker if she understood the fact that if the property is actually an alley that Tucker has no right to any of it the way it is being used, and with the vacation she would at least have half of it. Tucker said she has learned that through this process. She said that would be acceptable to her. Bob Miller, 324 Koser, said he owns the property at 404 South Governor. He said when he purchased the property, the back parking lot in the alley was paved. Miller said the people off of the Governor Street alley come on his property, down his driveway, and out on Governor Street. He said as a kind of exchange, he has parked on the alley, and they came in off the driveway so that they could get onto his lot; otherwise they cannot get on his property to get out. Miller stated, being a good neighbor, he felt that was a good exchange, and it has been no problem for 28 years. He said he would like to see at least the paved portion remain, which would be 40 feet of the north part of the alley. Miller said the north 40 feet isn't developed, and he wouldn't have any problem with that (the vacation?). He said the south 40 feet is paved, and he would like to leave it that way. Miller said he gets people off the street who park in his lot, because it is full out there, and he doesn't have a problem with that. Supple asked Miller if he owns the property just south of Tucker's property. Miller replied that they share the ddveway and share the parking lot. Supple asked about the 40 feet Miller would like to see remain paved. Miller responded that it is the south 40 feet of what is being discussed behind the 338 South Governor Street property. Public discussion closed. MOTION: Ehrhardt moved to defer VAC00-0001, an application from Sue Trayis requesting a vacation of the northernmost 80 feet of the alley along the west property line of 405 South Summit to the April 20, 2000 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Chair seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. REZONING ITEM: Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission April 6, 2000 Page 22 REZ00-0005. Public discussion of an application submitted by Walden Wood Associates II, L.L.P. for an amended preliminary sensitive areas development plan for Walden Hills, Lot 52, a 4.89 acre, 31-unit residential development plan for property located in the Sensitive Areas Overlay (OSA-8) zone on the west side of Shannon Drive, south of Willow Creek. (45-day limitation period expires April 24, 2000) Kugler said this is basically an application for a revised plan for Lot 52 of Walden Hills, the last of the remaining development parcels within the Walden Hills Development. He stated that when Walden Hills was approved, density was basically transferred from the eastern portion of the property to the western portion of the site. Because this was looked at earlier, Kugler said that issues such as traffic, street design, infrastructure, etc., have already been evaluated. Kugler said staff has been concentrating on the proposed revised design. He showed the original site plan, which has a configuration very close to what is currently proposed; however, the building orientation was different. Kugler said the center space was essentially a pedestrian courtyard that led to what were proposed as the fronts of the units. He stated that the rear looped drive was essentially an alley providing vehicular access to the backs of the units. Kugler showed the building elevations. He distributed a picture similar to what the original proposal was for, with the top photo representing a development that is very similar to what is being proposed in the revised application. Kugler showed the building elevations for the revised application, stating that the pedestrian courtyard in the center has now been eliminated to leave a backyard-type of space. He said both the vehicular and pedestrian entrances would be at the front so that now the building orientation is to the outside of the looped drive. Chair asked about the picture that was distributed. He said the lower picture represents the pedestrian entrance to the unit, which was originally off the courtyard, but the vehicular entrance to the unit was a wall of parking garage doors. Chait said what is being proposed is not just a wall of garage doors but the picture on top. Kugler said the staff report states that the rear of the units originally proposed was not given a lot of design consideration, and it would have been basically just garage doors, but the pedestrian orientation was toward the courtyard in the middle. Chait said there may still be an entrance off that courtyard, even though it would not be the front door. He said the fact is that most of the people who go to that unit are people who live there, and they will be going there in their cars. Chair asked if you want to look at the top picture or look at the row of garage doors. Kugler said the staff report points out that this is a situation where the building elevation along the looped drive has been improved with the new design. Chair said clearly the bottom picture is the preferred front of the building, but it never was the front from the street. Kugler said he was providing that as an example of the original design. Gibson said it gets down to having these things jammed in so tightly and still providing two garage spaces. He said it is probably inescapable on the street side. Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission April 6, 2000 Page 23 Bovbjerg said the orientation of the garages was never changed, although the orientation to the center has been changed. She said it is important to have some relationship of the unit to the green area in the center. Ehrhardt asked if there would be a sidewalk in the center area. Kugler said there was a sidewalk in the original plan. Ehrhardt asked how people get from one unit to another. Kugler replied that the current plan illustrates a sidewalk along the inside of the looped drive right on the curb. He said staff recommends there be some separation between the vehicular drive and the sidewalk. Kugler said it results in a better situation for pedestrians. He said the applicant has pointed out that there are parking spaces in front of the garages, and if the sidewalk is moved back, the buildings also will have to be moved back to keep vehicles from hanging out over the sidewalk. Kugler said in that case, the open space being provided would be reduced a bit. He said in many situations, buildings would be too close to each other to meet Code, which might result in a loss of some dwelling units to keep the buildings separated. Kugler said staff would like to examine the sidewalk issue more closely and hopes to be able to address that issue at the next meeting one way or the other. Kugler said in general staff recommends approval subject to, at this point, separation of the sidewalk from the travel lanes, and staff would also like to work with the applicant to improve the streetscape along the looped drive to minimize the amount of paving in the front yards and soften the appearance of the garage doors. Bovbjerg said if there were a requirement or strong recommendation to have a sidewalk setback, then a person designing for this space would have to reduce the building somehow. She said the change in the sidewalk impacting the buildings doesn't disturb her so much, because if that were a requirement and that was the outcome, then it would have to be done in order for the development to pass muster. Kugler said if this were the original plan shown and staff looked at the sidewalk issue, staff may very well have recommended a separation at that point, which may have resulted in a fewer number of units approved here originally. Public discussion: Larry Schnittier, 1917 South Gilbert Street, said he was available to answer questions from the Commission. Public discussion closed. MOTION: Ehrhardt moved to defer REZ00-0005, an application submitted by Walden Wood Associates II, L.L.P. for an amended preliminary sensitive areas development plan for Walden Hills, Lot 52, a 4.89-acre, 31-unit residential development plan for property located in the Sensitive Areas Overlay (OSA-8) zone on the west side of Shannon Drive, south o.~ Willow Creek, to the April 20, 2000 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Chait seconded the motion. Supple said she prefers this design to the original. She said it is better looking from the street, and she sees a lot of congeniality in the center section that may not have been there the way it was originally configured. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission April 6, 2000 Page 24 REZONING/DEVELOPMENT ITEMS: REZ00-0002/SUB00-0002. Public discussion of an application submitted by Village Partners for a rezoning from Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) to Planned Development Housing Overlay (OPDH-5) zone and a preliminary plat of Village Green Part 18-20, a 19'6- acre, 10-lot, 63-unit planned development with one outlot. (45-day limitation period expires April 6, 2000) Yapp said all the deficiencies relating to this application have been resolved. He said the area is 19.6 acres, as opposed to the 19.9 in the written recommendation. Yapp said this proposal is for 60 condominium units surrounding a proposed pond clustered off of private drives and for three single-family lots off of Wintergreen Drive. He stated this would include the extension of Wintergreen Drive to the point where Village Green South Part Five would begin. Yapp said staff recommends approval, subject to the City conveying Outlot B, a .35-acre area of dedicated open space, back to Village Partners, as recommended by the Parks and Recreation Commission. He said the City Council is expected to consider that concurrently with its consideration of this rezoning and subdivision. Yapp said staff also recommends this be subject to the City receiving a copy of a temporary construction easement from the property owner to the west and south, Glasgow Willjams Real Estate, to allow grading activity associated with Village Green Parts 18-20, specifically associated with the construction of Wintergreen Drive. He said staff has received a draft of that construction easement and expects the details to be finalized by the time this is forwarded to City Council. Public discussion: There was none. Public discussion closed. MOTION: Shannon moved to approve REZ00-0002/SUB00-0002, an application submitted by Village Partners for a rezoning from Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) to Planned Development Housing Overlay (OPDH-5) zone and a preliminary plat of Village Green Parts 18-20, a 19.6-acre, '10-1ot, 63-unit planned development with one outlot, subject to the City conveying Outlot B, a .35-acre area of dedicated open space, back to Village Partners and subject to the City receiving a copy of a temporary construction easement from the property owner to the west and south, Glasgow Williams Real Estate, to allow grading activity associated with Village Green Parts 18-20, specifically associated with the construction of Wintergreen Drive. Schintler seconded the motion. Supple said her term on the Commission is up after one more formal meeting. She said if Village Partners owns more land to the north, they may be considering more development like this. Supple said she likes these condominiums very much, as they are attractive, well built, and popular. She said enough is enough however, and it is time for Village Partners to move on to something else and not build any more of these condominiums in this neighborhood. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission April 6, 2000 Page 25 REZ00-0010/SUB00-O009. Public discussion of an application submitted by Glasgow Williams Real Estate Co. for a preliminary plat of Village Green South Part 6, an 8.69-acre, 35-1ot residential development with one outlot and a rezoning to re-approve a Planned Development Housing Overlay (OPDH-5) Plan for property located at Wintergreen Drive, west of South Jamie Lane. (45-day limitation period expires April 6, 2000) Yapp stated this proposal is for 34 lots: four single-family lots fronting on Wintergreen Drive and 30 zero-lot line lots around a new looped street on the west side of the proposed open space. He showed the greenway leading down to a pond and about nine acres of open space on the map. Yapp said there is about eleven acres of open space in total and a connection to the open space. Yapp said all the technical deficiencies have been resolved with this plat. He said this plat was originally proposed in 1993, and this plat is identical to what was approved in 1993. Yapp said a plat expires after two years, and because this was never developed, staff looks at this as a re- approval of a planned development housing, and it has to follow the same rezoning and platting procedures as other preliminary plats. Yapp said staff recommends approval subject to a new conditional zoning agreement being entered into which will address the same things as the original conditional zoning agreement regarding wetland documentation, trail design, open space, landscaping and dedication, subsurface drainage and basements, grading and erosion control, and the connection of Wintergreen Drive to Village Road. He said as with the previous plat, Wintergreen Drive is proposed to connect to Village Road. Yapp said staff also recommends as a condition that the final plat not be approved until Wintergreen Drive is final platted; otherwise the final plat would be approved without access to it, Yapp said staff expects Wintergreen Drive to be final platted up to this southern point at the time that Village Green Parts 18-20 is final platted, and when Village Green South Part Five is final platted, it will be platted all the way through. Yapp said it is a common sense thing that a developer cannot build in an area until there is access, but because there is a different property owner for Village Green Parts 18-20 than for this plat, staff wants that condition to be noted. Public discussion: Larry Schnittier, 1917 South Gilbert Street, said he was available to answer questions. Public discussion closed. MOTION: Bovbjerg moved to defer REZ00-0010/SUB00-0009, an application submitted by Glasgow Willjams Real Estate Co. for a preliminary plat of Village Green South Part 6, a 8.69-acre, 35-1ot residential development with one outlot and a rezoning to re-approve a Planned Development Housing Overlay (OPDH-5) Plan for property located at Wintergreen Drive, west of South Jamie Lane, to the April 20, 2000 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Ehrhardt seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. REZ00-0009/SUB00-0001NAC00-0003. Public discussion of an application from Glasgow Williams Real Estate Co. for a rezoning to amend the OPDH Plan for Village Green South - Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission April 6, 2000 Page 26 Part 3A and for a preliminary plat of Village Green South-Part 5, a Resubdivision of a portion of Village Green South Part 3A, a 12-1ot, 3.33-acre residential subdivision for property located at Wintergreen Drive east of Scott Boulevard and the vacation of a portion of north Jamie Lane. (45-day limitation period expires April 6, 2000) Rockwell said the subdivision and rezoning for Village Green Part Five has been discussed, and that subdivision and rezoning is contingent upon the vacation of north Jamie Lane to allow a portion of north Jamie Lane to be removed and then replaced with a single-family lot. She said staff has received notice from the utility companies saying that they will work out the easements needed with the property owner. Rockwell said staff therefore recommends approval of the subdivision, the rezoning, and the vacation. Public discussion: Larry Schnittjer, 1917 South Gilbert Street, said he was available to answer the Commission's questions. Public discussion closed. MOTION: Bovbjerg moved to approve REZ00-0009/SUB00-0001NAC00-0003, an application from Glasgow Willjams Real Estate Co. for a rezoning to amend the OPDH Plan for Village Green South - Part 3A and for a preliminary plat of Village Green South- Part S, a Resubdivision of a portion of Village Green South Part 3A, a 12-1ot, 3.33-acre residential subdivision for property located at Wintergreen Drive east of Scott Boulevard and the vacation of a portion of north Jamie Lane. Chait seconded the motion...The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. REZ00-0008/SUB00-0006. Public discussion of an application submitted by Washington Park Partners for a preliminary plat of Washington Park Addition Part 11, a 10.1-acre, 8-lot residential subdivision and a rezoning from Planned Development Housing Overlay (OPDH-8) to Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) zone for 2.01 acres for property north of Washington Street and east of Green Mountain Drive. (45-day limitation period expires April 20, 2000) Miklo said the area is currently zoned PDH; however the plan has expired. He stated the applicant is proposing to rezone the property adjacent to Green Mountain to RS-5 and to subdivide that into seven single-family lots. Miklo said the remainder of the tract would be available for a future planned development, which would require City approval at a later date. He said that would be accessed from an existing private street, Arbor Hill. Miklo said staff recommends approval of this, but because it is a rezoning, the Commission will want to defer it for a second meeting. Public discussion: Larry Schnittier, 1917 South Gilbert Street, said he was available to answer any questions. Public discussion closed. Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission April 6, 2000 Page 27 MOTION: Chait moved to defer REZ00-00081SUB00-0006, an application submitted by Washington Park Partners for a preliminary plat of Washington Park Addition Part 11, a 10.1-acre, 8-lot residential subdivision and a rezoning from Planned Development Housing Overlay (OPDH-8) to Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) zone for 2.01 acres for property north of Washington Street and east of Green Mountain Drive, to the April 20, 2000 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Shannon seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. REZ99-0001/SUB00-0001. Public discussion of a City-initiated application for a preliminary plat of North Airport Development, a 57.1-acre, 17-1ot commercial subdivision with three outlots, a preliminary Sensitive Areas Development Plan and a rezoning of 54 acres from Public/Intensive Commercial (CC-2) to Sensitive Areas Overlay-Public (OSA-P) for property located in the north part of the airport property, west of Riverside Drive. (45-day limitation period not applicable) Rockwell said this proposal is for a commercial park on property that is at the north portion of the airport. She said this has a layering of flood plain on it as well as some wetlands that can be relocated. She stated that all of the deficiencies have been taken care of. Bovbjerg said she is truly concerned about flood plains, wetlands, and taking wetlands somewhere else, either on paper or literally. She asked about the extent of the flood plains and how safe it is to do this in a development like this. Mitchell responded that this is safe to do. He said he discovered throughout this process that there are two small areas of low-quality wetlands comprising about two acres total. Mitchell said as part of the South Sycamore Regional Green Space and Stormwater Project, the City is creating or enhancing about 80 acres of wetlands and is only eliminating about eight acres. He stated what is being done is to roll the two acres needed to be mitigated here, along with some other projects, into the South Sycamore Project. Mitchell said there is a ratio of creating or enhancing ten acres for every acre that is being eliminated. Chait asked if it is simply a bureaucratic, federally mandated thing that says if you take wetlands out of where they are, they have to be created somewhere else. He said it is just a bureaucratic thing; water is not being taken from here and placed over there, and it is just complying with the letter of the law. Mitchell said that is correct. He said wetlands cannot be mitigated on airport property, and the City has to use another location to mitigate the wetlands. Bovbjerg said while it has become a bureaucratic concern, it has a basis in nature. She stated if there is water there and things get soggy, structures get flooded, or wildlife comes in to disturb aircraft, there are problems with water on land when you try to build. Mitchell agreed and said obviously anything that is built there will have to be at least one foot above the flood plain, in compliance with the building codes. Bovbjerg asked about the north/south runway. Mitchell said it has been pulled back now and is scheduled to be removed at some point in the future. Public discussion: There was none. Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission April 6, 2000 Page 28 Public discussion closed. MOTION: Chair moved to defer REZ99-0001/SUB00-0001, a City-initiated application for a preliminary plat of North Airport Development, a 57.t-acre, 17-1ot commercial subdivision with three outlots, a preliminary Sensitive Areas Development Plan and a rezoning of 54 acres from Public/Intensive Commercial (CC-2) to Sensitive Areas Overlay-Public (OSA-P) for property located in the north part of the airport property, west of Riverside Drive, to the April 20, 2000 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Ehrhardt seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. DEVELOPMENT ITEM: SUB00-0007. Public discussion of an application from Jeff and Jennifer Maxwell for a preliminary plat of Woodland Ridge Subdivision, Part Three a 22.32-acre, 7-lot residential subdivision with one outlot located at the east terminus of Meadowview Lane. (45-day limitation period expires April 9, 2000) Kugler said all deficiencies associated with this plat have been taken care of, and staff recommends approval. He added that the plat has been approved by the Hills Fire Department. Public discussion: Larry Schnittjer, 1917 South Gilbert Street, said he was available to answer questions from the Commission. Public discussion closed. MOTION: Gibson moved to approve SUB00-0007, a preliminary plat of Woodland Ridge Subdivision, Part Three, a 22.32-acre, 7-lot residential subdivision with one outlot located at the east terminus of Meadowview Lane. Chair seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. CODE AMENDMENT ITEM: Public discussion of ordinance amendments to allow the use of wide-base si.qns in the CH-1 and C1-1 zones. Miklo said the Commission recommended approval of allowing wide-base signs. He said there was some discussion about the height of those signs, and staff recommended the height be limited to 25 feet, as with other freestanding signs. Miklo said City Council reviewed this and asked that the Commission relook at the height issue. Miklo said staff recommends the limit be left at 25 feet, along with all other freestanding signs. He stated if it is to be changed, staff recommends that the height for all freestanding signs be changed to 26 feet, because the wide-base signs are actually larger, in square footage, than other freestanding signs and there does not appear to be a reason to give them special treatment. Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission April 6, 2000 Page 29 Miklo said staff feels if this is approved at 26 feet, then the next auto dealer may want 27 feet and will ask for another amendment. He said the 25-foot height limit for freestanding signs has basically been in place since 1983, and staff sees no reason to change it. Miklo said staff would not recommend a change, but if the Commission agrees with the City Council's concern, then a change could certainly be recommended, Public discussion: There was none. Public discussion closed. MOTION: Chait moved to recommend changing the Code to allow a height maximum of 26 feet for freestanding signs. Shannon seconded the motion. Bovbjerg said this is escalation by inches. She suggested staying with 25 feet. Ehrhardt also questioned what would come after this. Bovbjerg said people making personal economic decisions can figure this out. Shannon said it has been a long time since the 25-foot maximum was put into place. Gibson said the fact that this has not been changed for a long period does not mean that signs have to get taller over time. Supple said Holecek informed her that the Board of Adjustment cannot grant a variance unless the applicant proves financial hardship. Holecek responded that the standard is not necessarily financial hardship, but the applicant has to prove a very high standard of hardship, substantial hardship, and the hardship has to be not of their own making. She said that is the State law and City Code. Supple asked if there is legally any other way to add some flexibility to the sign ordinance, such as a sign design review board, to which someone could appeal and not have to prove hardship. Holecek replied that the other altemative would be to amend the Code to allow for some type of modification basis. She said to do that legally without bringing in arbitrary and capricious determinations by the person doing the review, guidelines need to be established so that there are certain criteria to be met. Holecek said so that there is not an influx of applications with everyone claiming to meet the criteria, adding a minor modification procedure to the Code would not necessarily be the best approach to take. Supple asked who would make such a ruling. Chait said whatever body the Commission created to deal with the sign issue would make the rulings. Holecek confirmed this. She said the Commission might want it to be handled in house administratively by City staff. Supple said she feels tha~ puts too much pressure on City staff. Holecek said to avoid the appearance of arbitrariness, it is very important that clear guidelines be set, and the hardship issue is one that would probably be recommended under that, much like what the Board of Adjustment looks at for granting a variance. Bovbjerg said she would anticipate that the applicant would come back and state that when the original variance was applied for, no one said anything about the nine inches, and they therefore assumed the nine inches was acceptable. She said that should not be a valid Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission April 6, 2000 Page 30 argument, because, as she understands it from the applicant and other sources, this was never truly addressed. Bovbjerg said it is not that someone looked at it and said it was no problem, but no one even looked at it. Holecek added that zoning code amendments are not passed for one specific applicant. Chair said he would vote in favor of this because of his belief that most people could not tell the difference between a 26-foot sign and a 25-foot sign. Gibson said he agreed, but then why not make it 27, 28, or 30 feet. He asked why this should be changed with no solid reason other than the fact that Chezik-Sayers wants a nine-inch higher sign. Chair said he just wanted to bring it to the floor and take a position and then be done with this. Supple said she thinks the Honda sign is good looking and sees no reason why they should not be allowed to put it up. She said the Board of Adjustment could not allow them to do it by law, but she would like to see some flexibility in the sign ordinance that makes some allowance for things that are just slightly different. Supple said she would vote for the 26-foot height except that she does not like franchises telling the City of Iowa City what to do. She said she would vote no on this. The motion failed on a vote of 2-5, with Bovbjer.~, Ehrhardt, Gibson, Schintler, and Supple votin,cl no. CONSIDERATION OF THE MARCH 16, 2000 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES: MOTION: Bovbjerg moved to approve the minutes of the March 16, 2000 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, as amended at the informal meeting. Shannon seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. ELECTION OF OFFICERS: Supple suggested Commission members be prepared to stay for five minutes after the next informal meeting to discuss what to do in this regard. She suggested that the Commission then vote for officers at the next formal meeting. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m. Dean Shannon, Secretary Minutes §ubmitted by Anne Schulte ppdadminVnins~p&z4-16.doc IOWA CJ'I3' PL4NNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDA Y, APRIL 6, 2000 -.~ P. M. Civic Center Coundl Chambers SIGN IN SHEET 22. 23. 24. 28. 26. 2~. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32.' 33. 34. 35. 36. 3~. POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD MINUTES - March 28, 2000 CALL TO ORDER Chair J. Watson called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ATTENDANCE Board members present: L. Cohen, P. Farrant, P. Hoffey, J. Stratton and J. Watson. Staff present: Legal Counsel C. Pugh and PCRB Assistant S. Bauer. Chief of Police R.J. Winkelhake was also in attendance. CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by P. Hoffey and seconded by P. Farrant to adopt the Consent Calendar, to include: a. Minutes of the 3/14/00 meeting; b. ICPD Use of Force Report - February 2000 Motion carried, 5/0, all members present. RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL None NEW BUSINESS Chief Winkelhake distributed the 1999 ICPD Year End Report to Board members. OLD BUSINESS None PRESENTATION Chief of Police R.J. Winkelhake presented the Board with an update on the process of data collection on race-based traffic stops. Although Chief Winkelhkake offered to show the Board members the preliminary data, it was the consensus of the Board that they would like to see this when a year's worth of data has been accumulated which would show a better reflection of what is going OR, Chair also suggested that when Iowa City Police Officer Sgt. Sid Jackson returns from his 12 weeks studying at the Southern Police Institute at the University of Louisville, he attend a PCRB meeting to speak about his research project. REVIEW SOP'S The PCRB Standard Operating Procedures were reviewed to see if any amendments or changes need to be made at this time. Under Section VI. A, it was agreed that the Board would more regularly review police policies, procedures and practices. Nothing further needs to be done at this time. PUBLIC DISCUSSION None MEETING SCHEDULE · Regular Meeting April 11, 2000 · Special Meeting April 25, 2000 · Regular Meeting May 11, 2000 P. Hoffey reported he will be absent from April 18 until after May 10, 2000. BOARD INFORMATION None STAFF INFORMATION None EXECUTIVE -- ~ SESSION Motion by John Stratton and seconded by P. Hoffey 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 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, 5/0, all members present. Open session adjourned at 7:55 P.M. REGULAR SESSION Regular meeting resumed at 8:48 P.M. Motion by L. Cohen and seconded by P. Hoffey to grant the Chief an extension to April 17, 2000 to complete his report on PCRB #99-09 so as to comply with all information requested, and directing Chair to correspond with the Chief regarding this matter. Motion carried, 5/0, all members present. Motion by L. Cohen and seconded by P. Farrant to grant the Chief on extension to April 17, 2000 to complete his report on PCRB #99-10, and directing Chair to correspond with the Chief regarding this matter. Motion carried, 5/0, all members present. A brief discussion was held regarding report-writing committees. ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by L. Cohen and seconded by P. Farrant. Motion carried, 5/0, all members present. Meeting adjourned at 9:05 P.M.