Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-03-20 Bd Comm minutesMINUTES IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION THURSDAY FEBRUARY 8, 2001 - 5:45 P.M. IOWA CITY AIRPORT TERMINAL MEMBERS PRESENT: Rick Mascari, Howard Heran, Mark Anderson, Alan Ellis STAFF PRESENT: Sue Dulek, Ron O'Neil CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Mascari called the meeting to order at 5:45 p .m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Dulek said the fourth sentence of Subparagraph (d) of the January minutes should be struck in its entirety and the following sentence substituted: "Dulek said the Commission and the Council may have differences regarding the terms of the agreement". The minutes of the January 11,2001, Commission meeting were approved with the change. AUTHORIZATION OF EXPENDITURES: Mascari asked why two different companies worked on the fumace in hangar ~35. OqSleil said the first company corrected part of the problem but could not completely solve the problem. The second company fixed the problem. Dulek suggested the final payment to SWA be removed from the list of bills. The Commission agreed. Anderson made a motion to approve the bills. Heran seconded the motion and the hills were approved 4 - 0. PUBLIC DISCUSSION - ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA: Dick Blum, from H.R. Green, circulated a study done by Iowa State University, concerning the economic impact of aviation in the State of Iowa. Of the counties that do not have a commercial service airport, Johnson County ranks as the third highest county in the State as it pertain to economic impact from aviation. It is higher than two coonties that have commercial service. Blum gave a copy of the study to OqNleil and he will forward the report to the City Council. Blum said it today was Aviation Day at the Capital in Des Moines. He said he talked with several legislators about aviation issues. Dennis Gordon circulated a request to provide fueling and mechanic services at the Airport. If he can negoftate a lease with the Comnnssion, he would like to build a 30' addition to Building H. The Commission will have this as an agenda item at the March 8¢ meeting. Mascari said he and Anderson would meet with Gordon before the next meeting to discuss his proposal. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION: a. Building K - final acceptance - Mascari said them is an issue regarding water flowing through the braiding. Oqqeil said there are several roof leaks and the concrete on the east side of the building does not slope away from the building in some areas. He said that until the recent rain, he did nut realize the extent of the problem. Some of the water is flowing almost all the way through the building. Tom Werderitsch, from SWA, said the concrete grade was set by the site plan. O~Neil said the last ten feet of apron is not poured properly. Werderitsch said he cant replace the concrete this time of year, but he will look a~ the project. Maseari asked Werderitsch to contact O~ei[ after he has surveyed the problem. The vote to give SWA their retainage for the project will be delayed until the problem is fixed. b. North Commercial area 1. Marketing- Ellis said the Commission should have asked for more information from the two firms. He suggested pulling together a list of questions and having the subcommittee meet with the two marketing tinns. Mascari and Ellis will meet and compose a list of questions and send them to the two marketing rirms. The Commission will meet sometime during the week of February 26~ to try to make a selection. Maseari said he would like to get this done as soon as possible. 2. Other issues- O~leil said he spoke with Dennis Mitchell about reviewing agreements for the NCA. Mitchell said his company thought there was a possibility of a conflict of interest and he would have to decline. O~leil said David Brown has airport experience or there are other attomeys that specialize in contract law. Maseari said he is against using an outside attomey instead of using the City Attomey's office. O~Neil said the subcommittee should meet first and decide the additional questions to send to Coldwell and Prudential. After a marketing firm is selected, the Council/Commission subcommittee should meet to discuss what would be happening next for the NCA. c. Fly Iowa 2001- Anderson reported on curre,it plans. He said the Fly Iowa committee is meeting on a regular basis and everyone is moving forward with their individual assignments. He and Dick Blum will meet with the State Fly Iowa Committee next week. d. Hangar leases - #31 & #33- O~leil said he has sent the leases to John Ruyle and Hany Hinckley and has not heard back from them. There were several questions raised about the insurance requirements in the lease. Dulek suggested having someone from the City's Finance Department at the next meeting to explain what the City would like to require for insurance. e. FAA AIP grant 3-19-0047-09- O~eil said the Commission has received a grant offer of $500,000 from the FAA to reimburse the City for property purchased for the RPZ for Runway 06. Anderson made a motion for a resolution to accept the grant offer, Ellis seconded the motion, and at roll call vote, the resolution passed 4 - 0, with Ruyle being absent. f. State FY 1001 All' funding- O~Neil said this was the application to the IDOT for AIP projects for FY 2002. Maseari suggested this be on the agenda for the March meeting. O~Neil suggested the Commission make a list of projects they would like to apply for through the IDOT. Anderson made a motion to move to executive session to discuss pending litigation. Ellis seconded the motion and at roll call vote, the motion passed 4 - 0, with Ruyle being absent. g. FBO lease- O~Neil said the Commission had received a proposal from ICFS for terminating their lease. The Commission discussed the proposal in executive session. Horan made a motion to send a response to ICFS, outlining the Commission's discussion from the executive session. Ellis seconded the motion and it passed 4 - 0. Dulek will draf~ the letter and send it tomorrow. CBAIRPERSON'S REPORT: Mascari said he spoke with the mayor and the mayor would like to see a park at the Airport. This will be on the agenda For the next meeting. Council member Kanner would like the Commission to discuss the meeting room policy for the second floor of the Terminal Building. Mascari said he invited Kanner to the next Commission meeting and asked that this be an agenda item. Mascari said Kanner also had concerns about the revenue from the NCA. Mascari said he gave him information about the AIP grant assurances and he has not received a reply back from him. COMMISSION MEMBERS' REPORTS: Horan said he was still interested in the idea of constructing a turf nmway and in making autogas available. O~Neil said a turf runway would have to be marked and maintained as an active runway. Anderson said someone was going to call the Science Center and see if they still had an interest in the NCA. Mascari said he hadn~ called Jim Larew yet. O~Neil said the last correspondence with the Science Center was a letter Mascari se~t, explaining that the Commission was suppo~ive of a Science Center but that the property in the NCA would be leased at fair market value. There was no response from the Science Center. Anderson said there is a hangar in Building K that seems to be being used as a shop and not an airplane hangar. He suggested sending a letter to the tenant ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: O~Neil reminded the Commission that they have a meeting on Febman/22 to receive and act on bids for the new fuel tanks. The ~ost of having Midwest Janltorial clean the office and bathroom for hangar #32 would be $15.58 per time. Since it would need to be cleaned at least once a week, it would cost about $62.00 per month. O~Neil said the Commission had suggested raising hangar rents to provide this service. No money is budgeted in FY 2002 to expand the cleaning service. This will be on the agenda at a future meeting. There was a request from a developer to lease land from the Airport just south of Menards to construct a water detention area. The Commission said they did not want to do anything that would attract birds and would not be in favor of discussing the issue any further. O~eil said there was a letter in the packet about building A & B being obstructions and they would need to be lighted. A copy of the tank management fee was included m the packet for the underground tank between buildings G & H The Council budget heating for FY 2002 is scheduled for February 20, 2001 at 4:00 p.m. There has been a request to temporarily store medical supplies m the United hangar. The Commission said that in keeping with their policy of trying to lease to aviation uses only, they would not be interested in leasing space. Access to the hangar would have to be across an active taxiway and through the north t-hangar area. SET NEXT MEETING: The next regular Airport Commission meeting is scheduled for March 8, 2001,at 5:45 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: The me~ting was adjourned at 8:06 Rick Maseari, Chairperson MINUTES IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 10, 2001 -5 P.M. CIVIC CENTER- COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Mike Paul, T.J. Brandt, Vincent Maurer, Dennis Keitel, Kate Corcoran MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Karen Heward, Sarah Holocek OTHERS PRESENT: None CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chairperson Corcoran called the meeting to order at 5:03 P.M. ROLL CALL: Maurer, T.J. Brandt, Paul, Corcoran and Keitel present. CONSIDERATION OF THE DECEMBER 13, 2000, BOARD MINUTES: Corcoran noted that the meeting was started at 5:15PM as reflected by the draft of the minutes. indicated that T.J. Brandt was absent. Corceran stated that she also would have been absent for the roll call vote and for the review of the minutes. Paul stated that he seconded the motion to approve the minutes and it would have been approved on a 3-0 vote. Motion: Paul moved to approve the December 2000, minutes as amended and re-confirmed from the tape. Keitel seconded with the motion being carried on a vote of 3-0. Maurer and T.Jo Brandt abstained, as they were not present at the December meeting. ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON AND VICE CHAIRPERSON: MOTION: Keitel nominated Corcoran to serve as the chairperson with a second by Paul. The motion passed unopposed on a 5-0 vote. MOTION: Paul nominated Brandt to serve as the vice-chairperson with a second by Corcoran. The motion passed unopposed on a 5-0 vote. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION: Consideration of a letter received from Thomas Gelman requesting reconsideration of the decision made during the December board meeting to deny AP00-0001, am appeal of a decision of the Building Official to deny a minor site plan submitted by Bloomington Properties, LLP for a medical office building and associated parking lot located at 510/512 East Bloomington Street in the Commemial Office (CO1) zone. Attorney Holocek explained that according to Robert's Rules of Order, duly adopted by the Iowa City Board of Appeals, where there are not rules of procedure explicitly setout in the bylaws, the Board of Adjustment procedurelly follows Robert's Rules of Order. Pursuant to this, a motion to reconsider must be made by someone on the prevailing side or who voted on the prevailing side. As there was a 2-2 vote, the prevailing side would be to deny the appeal because statutorily per Iowa Code three members of a five member board is required to overturn a decision of a lower official. In this case it is the building official The prevailing side was the denial. The two persons voting to deny the appeal were Corcoran and Lowell Brandt. Mr. Brandt's term has expired; therefore Corcoran is the only person who can make the motion to reconsider. However, it does not preclude other members from making statements as to why or why not it would not be in the best interest of all to reconsider the matter, short of debate. Chairperson Corcoran offered the opportunity for the board members to make their statements as to why or why not the matter should or should not be reconsidered. -Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes January 10, 2001 Page 2 Paul stated that the Board went through a lengthy process of listening to pros and cons as well as explanations by the staff and Mr. Gelman. Given the process that the city and the Bloomington Partners have gone through up to this point he said he felt it was a shame that the fifth member was not present. It is nothing against the fifth member. His presence could have made the difference one way or another. He stated that he is in favor of re-hearing the case. It was very worthwhile and informative. He stated he felt it would serve justice to hear the comments again Keitel inquired if the applicant has indicated to the Planning Department if they intended to make any changes since the letter was written. Howard stated that she was not aware of any changes. Brandt offered a deep apology to all parties involved as well as the board. Due to business problems he was not able to attend the meeting. Had he been present it would have been decided one way or another. He would be in favor of the reconsideration as the fifth member for his own sake, as well as the applicant's sake. Comoran stated that she had really struggled with this issue as she expected this action to occur Respectfully she declined to make the motion to reconsider. She stated that she believed in the two and one-half hours that the board considered the appeal there was a full and fair exchange of information. It received a very good review by the board. She realized that there were only four board members present and she was four minutes late to the meeting. In the procedural rules, Article 6, Section 4, it is stated that a quorum for the board is three members and four were present. She stated that she would stand by the findings that she gave as the basis for voting against the appeal. She said that she believed that the building official had the discretion. In the site plan review the preamble as well as the rest of the additional sections provided for discretion, The building official in denying this site plan did not abuse his discretion There was a reasonable basis to deny the site plan that was submitted by Bloomington Properties. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION The next meeting is scheduled for February 14, 2001. ADJOURNMENT Keitel moved to adjourn with the second by Brandt. The meeting adjourned at 5:17 PM. Board Chairperson Board Secretary Minutes Submitted By Le Ann Dunne-Tyson IOWA CITY BOARD OF APPEALS MONDAY, JANUARY 08, 2001,4:30 PM CIVIC CENTER LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Anna Buss, Gary Haman, Tim Fehr, Wayne Maas, John Roffman, Tom Werderitsch, Doug DuCharme MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Tim Hermes (Sr. Building Inspector), Sue Dulek (Asst City Attorney) OTHERS PRESENT: Eugene Nissley (Frantz Construction Company) RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: None. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Roffman called the meeting to order at 4:35PM. ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR YEAR 2001: MOTION: Maas moved for Roffman to serve as chair and Werderitsch to serve as vice- chairman and the Haman seconded the motion. Motion passed unopposed on a 7-0 vote. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES: Meeting minutes from the November 6, 2000, meeting were reviewed. MOTION: Maas motioned to approve with a second by Haman. Motion passed unopposed on a 7-0 vote. ReQuest for Modification of Section 310.1 of the UBC (1528 Churchill Place, 1478 Cromwell Place, and all other 3-Unit Wellinclton Condominiums in Villacle Green SubdivisionS. Prior to the discussion, Maas stated that he is employed by Frantz Construction Co. and that there may have been a conflict of interest. Dulek agreed that Maas had a conflict, and she advised the Board that Maas should not participate in the debate and should not vote on the matter because he is employed by Frantz Construction Co. Hennes began by stating that in the previous adoption of the Code there was a local amendment to eliminate the requirement for natural light in the R-3 occupancies, which are duplexes or single-family dwellings. Frantz Construction has been constructing the three unit townhouse style residential units and has asked for that not to be required in these types of units as well. The Building Inspection Division could not justify it because it is an R-1 occupancy with three or more units. However, with the introduction of the 2000 International Residential Code, this would fall within those parameters that it would be allowed to use artificial light to provide the minimum light required. Hennes stated that he would like to make the request for an alternate method of construction in lieu of a request for modification if approved by the appellant. Eugene Nissley of Frantz Construction did not object and proceeded by presenting the blueprints to the Board for consideration. Hennes commented that the existing design of the family room did have the correct amount of natural light. Frantz Construction is asking that the room be allowed to extend over to the stairs. Hennes clarified that there are two versions of the Code, the international Building Code (IBC) and the International Residential Code (IRC). They are two distinct documents that may have one referencing the other. The Board will be reviewing both Codes in the future. Hennes said that if one is adopted then likely both would be adopted. Hennes stated that the requirement in the new code states that there would not be any requirement for natural light as long as light could be provided artificially. He said that the requirement would be to provide six-foot candies at thirty inches above the floor over the area of the room. Maas did not participate in the discussion. MOTION: Werderitsch moved to accept the alternate method of construction to meet the lighting requirements as requested for all townhouse units with a second by Buss. The motion passed unopposed on a 6-0 vote. Maas abstained. OTHER BUSINESS: 426 BaVard St.: The city met with Attorney Diaz who represented Lewis Investment. Lewis Investment is considering forfeiting the contract. In February the attorneys meet to set a court date to try the case. The court filed an injunction to prevent the city from tearing down the house and the garage. 13 South Linn St.: An appeal was filed to the State Board of Review. This is a state entity that is not used very often. There has been a change of use over the years so the handicap rules do apply. The issue may have to be appealed before the Board again. The next meeting is set for February 5, 2001 ADJOURNMENT: Maas moved to adjourn the meeting with a second by Haman. The meeting adjourned at 4:55PM. h 0 aoffmn, Bb~.t.tta;d~ .5-' (} ~'' (3 / peals Chair Date hisbldg/minjboal ~01 doc IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2001 - 5:30 P.M. CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Michaelanne Widness, Peter Jochimsen, James Enloe, Richard Carlson, Michael Gunn, Marc Mills, Doris Malkmus and Ann Freerks MEMBERS ABSENT: Sue Licht and Loret Mast STAFF PRESENT: Robert Miklo OTHERS PRESENT: Shannon Kennedy and Ted Herman CALL TO ORDER: Gunn Called the meeting to order at 5:35. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS REVIEW: 801 BROWN STREET: Shannon Kennedy said that she wanted to enclose one half of her two car garage to allow it to be used as an artist studio. Her application included a photograph of how the house would look after the closure. She would use siding to match the existing siding on the house and a window that was similar to the exiting windows. The Commission discussed the application and determined that it met the guidelines for a non-contributing structure within a historic district provided that the siding and window trim matches the existing siding and the window frames and sashes are of a paintable surface. MOTION: Widness made a motion to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the work as shown on the application for 801 Brown Street, subject to the siding and window trim matching the existing and the window frames and sashes being a paintable surface. Malkmus seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS REViEW: 526 SUMMIT STREET: Ted Herman said that he wanted to re-roof the house with a standing seam metal roof, install sky lights and enclose an open breezeway with windows. His application included illustrations and photographs of the proposed alterations. The Commission discussed whether a metal roofwas appropriate for a house built in the1960's. It was concluded that this was a non-contributing structure within the Summit Street Historic District and the guidelines would permit a metal roof. The Commission expressed a preference for a dark colored roof but agreed not to require this as a condition of approval. Miklo suggested that the Commission approve an asphalt shingle roof as an altemative since Mr. Herman had indicated he was not sure he had a contractor that would do a metal roof at a reasonable price. The Commission agreed. Malkmus question the configuration of the windows proposed in the breezeway. After discussion it was decided that Mr. Herman should submit an illustration of the window configuration for approval by the subcomittee. MOTION: Widness made a motion to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the work as shown on the application for 526 Summit Street including installation of a standing seam mental roof, skylights and enclosure of the breezeway subject to the siding and window trim matching the existing and the window configuration being approved by a subcommittee consisting of Enloe, Gunn and Licht. The Commission recommends that the metal roof be a dark color. As an alternative to the metal roof an asphalt shingle roof is acceptable. Malkmus seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of S-0. DISCUSSION OF DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ANALYSIS: Miklo said the City has been working with Duncan and Associates, a planning consultant, on an analysis of development codes, including zoning, subdivision, site plan and related regulations. The analysis focused on several issues including identifying unnecessary regulations that may increase the cost of development; compliance with state and federal regulations pertaining to zoning and land development matters; consistency with the City's comprehensive plan; and consistency with "state-of-the-art" development practices. This report is the first step in amending or redrafting the development codes to correct deficiencies and to make the codes more "user friendly". The review included an analysis the Historic Preservation/Conservation sections of the Zoning Code. He said this is the Commission's opportunity to comment on the report if there are any issues of concern. Gunn said that he would like the consultant to address the possibility of including an economic hardship provision in the preservation regulations. Otherwise he was satisfied with the comments about the historic preservation regulations that are in the report. The Commission agreed. Miklo said that he would advise the consultant of the need to include an economic hardship provision in revisions to the preservation regulations. DISCUSSION OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION WEEK PREPARATION: Miklo said that it was time to begin preparation for preservation week. He said that because of the staffing situation Commissioners are needed to volunteer to work on the program. Malkmus said that she would make arrangements to use the Johnson County Court House as the location for the program. She would also contact the National Trust to determine the dates for preservation week. Widness volunteered to seek donations from one of the banks for catering of refreshments. Carlson agreed to take the photographs and slides. It was suggested that Marlys Svendsen present the downtown survey as part of the program. Miklo said he would ask her. DISCUSSION OF COMMISSION PROCEDURES AND POLICIES: The Commission discussed proper procedures for discussions that occur outside of public meetings. The procedures used by the Planning and Zoning Commission were reviewed. It was decided that the Commission would follow a similar procedure. Any conversations outside of the meeting would be reported at the public meeting. It was also agreed that ira Commissioner spoke to an applicant about a project, the Commissioner would indicate that as an individual they did not have the authority to approve a design but that must be done by the full Commission. REVIEW OF MINUTES FROM DECEMBER 14, 2000 AND JANUARY 11, 2001: Carlson has not had an opportunity to review the minutes yet so he will submit his corrections at a later date. Gunn asked for any discussion. There was none. MOTION: The motion carried unopposed. COMMISSION iNFORMATION/DISCUSSION: Malkmus had some questions relating to the downtown discussion and the HRDP grant written for the January 15 deadline. The three Northside districts chosen were Jefferson Street, Gilbert, and Linn (excluding Ronalds and Dubuque). Miklo stated that February 15th iS the meeting with the Planning and Zoning Commission on the Lucas and Governor Street Conservation District. The HPC will be the first item on their agenda at 7:30 PM in the Civic Center Council Chambers. The informal meeting will be on the 12th, the Monday before. It would be helpful for some to attend to get a sense of any issues that they may be concerned about. That will be held in the Civic Center Council Chambers as well. The Thursday meeting is the most important. The member present should be prepared for several questions. Gunn feels that the last presentation was a little long (nearly 20 minutes), but he doesn't feel that he dwelled on any point, but it's still too long. Miklo thinks that there might be public participation at this meeting. The Longfellow neighborhood association will be in support at this meeting, according to Gunn. Gunn wants to address those who will be opposed to this designation. Gunn continued that on average a property comes before this Commission once every 15 years, so it's not very often. Historic Preservation may cost the property owner a little bit of money, but the value of the property is increased through this designation and that is well documented. Malkmus added that it's most significant objective is to make new construction or infill construction compatible with the existing character of the neighborhood. Gunn stated that there are two controversial issues: demolition and siding. Gunn feels that the Commission has an obligation to address those issues. As it reads now, if it passes now, demolition will be blocked unless the structure is irretrievable. On the contributing structures, as it reads now, vinyl siding will be disallowed but other siding types have been allowed (i.e. hardy plank). Freerks feels that 10 minutes is reasonable for the presentation. Miklo stated that the P&Z will have the Historic Preservation Commission present their case before opening it up to the general public. Miklo stated that the Commission received a CLG grant and the State Historical Society will be presenting those on February 22nd in a ceremony where they are encouraging local members to attend to accept a ceremonial check. Miklo added that the Commission will not receive the money until the work is completed. At the same time the local legislators will be involved in order to show them how important preservation is at the local level. This is for the Longfellow national registry. Please notify Bob as soon as possible if you are able to attend. Malkmus will call Betty to see if she is able to attend. Miklo stated that several months ago a property at 903 Iowa Avenue was reviewed by the Commission for a Housing Rehab project. There was a question regarding it's eligibility for the National Registry. The Commission determined that it was and the issue then became lead based paint and whether they would cover this building with vinyl siding. This was sent to the State Historic Preservation Officer in Des Moines where Ralph Christian the Architectural Historian there has questioned whether it is eligible. This has been a real issue with the rehab people, because they will have difficulty completing the project if it is eligible. Does the Commission want to do more investigation of the property or take Ralph Christian's word (based on the information that he has) that it's not eligible for the National Register? Carlson feels that it definitely is eligiable. Malkmus stated that it is a huge process to put the siding on. Ralph does have the authority to make the determination unless the Commission provides ample evidence. Malkmus feels that the State needs the advocacy of local groups to push this. All the Commission needs to do is convince Ralph. Carlson feels that they could provide enough information without hiring someone to survey the whole area. Gunn feels that the Commission can make the case. The alternative to siding is the waiver that means they wouldn't have to encapsulate the house. Freerks asked about the Shaumbaugh Honors House. Miklo said the University has stated that they will move it. Once a building is moved it loses its registry status. Malkmus feels that if they moved it up a block and a half that it wouldn't hurt Iowa City. Meeting Adjourned. MINUTES IOWA CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES THURSDAY, - 4:30 PM Members Present: Winston Barclay, Linda Dellsperger, Mary McMurray, Shaner Magalh~es, Mark Madin, Lisa Parker, Jesse Singerman (arrived 5:15 p.m.) Staff Present: Barb Black, Maeve Clark, Susan Craig, Larry Eckholt, Debb Green, Heidi Lauritzen, Madha Lubaroff, Liz Nichols, Others: CALL TO ORDER: President Madin called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION None APPROVAL OF MINUTES: A motion was made by Magalh~es and seconded by Parker to approve both the regular minutes of January 25, 2001 and the special Board meeting of February 6, 2001. The motion was carried unanimously. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Building Project: The process to be used to provide input on art in the expanded library building was discussed. Craig included the Board policy that describes the Art Advisory Committee in the packet as well as a memo that contained her recommendation. She suggested that the Library's current Art Advisory Committee be joined by three staff members and two Board members. This group would make recommendations to the Board who could coordinate art with donor recognition. Dellsperger moved and Magalh~es seconded a motion that this committee be established. Dellsperger volunteered to serve on the committee. One more Board member will be recruited. Madin asked for a vote. The motion was adopted unanimously. A report from Logsden on recent meetings she had with students from Southeast Junior High and City and West High Schools was included in the packet. She showed the students the building plans, toured the present building with them, and then met with them to ask specific questions about the facilities, programs and services of most interest to them. Council and 64 1A. Craig said the Council is not scheduled to discuss 64-1A until March. A draft RFP will be available to them at that time. She urged the Board to come to some agreement about reviewing it, having a conversation with Council about priorities. Dellsperger's biggest concern is that two projects going on simultaneously could increase our budget 1 to 2 million dollars. If the cost of the project goes up who is responsible for the increased cost? The Board needs to know that up front. If there is an added financial burden to the library project then it should be part of the cost of the development project. Craig asked the Board how they would want to communicate that to Council. Some suggestions were that Martin could address it tonight at the joint meeting immediately following the Board meeting. Another suggestion was to write a letter after we get ICPL Board of Trustees Meeting February 22, 2001 Page 2 some actual costs from City and architect to be included in the Council packet. Craig said it is her understanding that they will be discussing a draft RFP at their work session in March. She will try to get copies of the draft out to Board so that they might respond in some way. The Board directed Craig to draft a memo to include in the packet along with a copy of the RFP. Martin will review and approve. There are other issues to be considered, such as limiting access to the library while we're building. Council was in agreement with us about remaining open and accessible during the process. During the joint meeting, progress and a timeline will be covered by Joe Huberty. NEW BUSINESS Hours of Service: Two issues were addressed in the cover memo to the draft FY02 calendar. One is that we be closed the day before Christmas the other was to be open on Easter Sunday. Consensus of the Board is that we stay open on Easter. Parker moved approval of the calendar. Dellsperger seconded it. Motion carried unanimously. STAFF REPORTS Book Babies: A report from Debb Green was included in the packet noting the one year anniversary of this very successful program. ReDoff on last month's Le.qislative DaV. Craig informed the Board that the ILA Web site had information available. There are definitely issues with state funding. It is hard to predict with any confidence that we won't see a reduction in state funding. A portion of a report prepared by a task force of the Iowa Commission of Libraries was included in the packet. This task force made recommendations that are appropriate and good for library services in Iowa. They are attempting to get legislative action on some of these issues. A question was raised about selling the ICN and the impact on the library. Craig explained that we could get a different internet provider and probably spend much more. The major impact would be on the learning component which allows small communities to be connected and to share resources. Development Reloort: report was included in the packet. May 16 is the scheduled date for the Reaching for New Heights campaign kick-off. Inservice Day reDort: Nichols's report was included in the packet. Letter to Supervisors from Mayor. Craig included a letter about Jail Service written to the Johnson County Supervisors by the Mayor. Board wants a letter to come from them as well. Craig will send one. COMMITTEE REPORTS Martin appointed the following Board members to serve as the nominating committee: Barclay, McMurray, and Magalh~es. Barclay is to chair. DISBURSEMENTS Visa expenditures for February 2001 were reviewed. ICPL Board of Trustees Meeting February 22, 2001 Page 3 Disbursements for February 2001 were approved unanimously after a motion by McMurray/Parker SET AGENDA ORDER FOR MEETING ADJOURNMENT: Meeting was adjourned at 5:20 p.m. A joint meeting of the Library Board and City Council convened at 5:30 p.m. at the Civic Center. Minutes taken and transcribed by Martha Lubaroff MINUTES PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 14, 2001 MEMBERS PRESENT: Toni Cilek, Craig Gustaveson, Bruce Maurer, Nancy Ostrognai, Matt Pacha, Rex Pruess, A1 Stroh MEMBERS ABSENT: Barbara Endel STAFF PRESENT: Mike Moran. Terry Robinson, Terry Trueblood GUESTS: Colleen Krantz, R. Randolph, Marilyn Belman, Judith Klink. William Knabe, David Purdy, Barbara Buss, Andy Tinkham, Olympia Niederecker, Sara Langenberg, Karin MeKeone, Nancy Romalor, Irvin Pfab, Michael Bray FORMAL ACTION TAKEN Ostrognai noted her name was misspelled in the minutes, and under Commission Time the statement she made with regard to a possible requirement for a "certain number of trees per acre" should be changed from "per acre" to "per person". Moved bv Pruess, seconded by Cilek, to apl~rove the January 10, 2001 minutes as amended. Unanimous. Moved by Pruess, seconded by Stroh, to aDDrove and I~roceed to implement the ltickorv Hill trail I~lan as presented. Unanimous. Moved by Stroh, seconded bv Maurer, to accept land in lieu of fees in Weeber's Third Addition, subiect to the plan delineatinl~ the 3/4-acre of neiehborhood oDen sDace in the southern Dortion of this development Der the current plan. Unanimous. Moved by Cilek, seconded bv Ostrol~nai, to not take formal action at this time to ban smoldnl~, bnt to encoural:e the Iowa City Kickers to do anvthinl! they can to discourage smokinl! dnrin~ their lea~nes. AYES: Click, Gustaveson. Ostrol~nai, Pacha, Pruess. NAYS: Ginsber~,, Maurer, Stroh. The motion carried. HICKORY HILL PARK TRAIL PLAN Consultants Tom Dunbar and Mike Stineman of the Dunbar/Jones Partnership presented the proposed trail plan. Dunbar noted their charge was to take the trail plan developed in 1997, to review the goals, and to work with the Friends of Hickory Hill and the Johnson County Coalition for Persons with Disabilities to bring the plan up to date. Several workshops were held to discuss the positives and negatives of this plan and what they wanted to achieve. The group also conducted a site tour and modified the plan accordingly. The goals were to establish an accessible trail system, to protect existing resources, to be able to use the park as an outdoor classroom, and to provide opportunities for recreation. The restraints were the trail width, material, alignment and construction. The trail width will be six feet wide, and the material wilI be compacted limestone, possibly mixed with Roadoyl (a binding agent). The alignment will utilize the existing trails as much as possible to minimize the impact on the physical place and existing resources. Trueblood noted the Roadoyl component would add about $110,000 to the project. This component is not within the budget, but a grant application could be written to expand the budget to include it. Dunbar noted Parks and Recreation Commission February 14, 2001 Page 2 of 5 the current conceptual plan consists of three phases - the primary trails and site improvements, the secondary trails and site improvements, and the tertiary trails and site improvements. The northern most portion of the park has been noted as undecided, which will be determined at a later date, based on future demand for connection. Dunbar noted in each phase when putting the trail in if an opportunity becomes available to create a wetland they are suggesting that it be done. Pruess asked the type of trail users they envision. Dunbar stated their first priority was to make the trails accessible, with the entirety of the trail ADA compliant. He noted there were many discussions about users at the various meetings, in particular bicyclists. They came to the agreement to orient the trail primarily to the environment of the park, using the existing trails if possible and to expand only when necessary. The trails are not designed as multi-purpose but as accessible nature trails, and they will not be conducive to bicyclists. Stroh noted the outcome of this plan addresses many needs, and he felt it was a good series of compromises. Ostrognai questioned the surface material to be used on the trails; Dunbar noted it would be crashed compacted limestone. Robinson noted the proposed surface would create a very strong base, which works well for thinner wheels on wheelchairs. Ryerson's Woods accessible trail is crushed limestone, which has held up very well Pacha referred to the phases and asked what could be accomplished within the present budget. Trueblood stated the amount budgeted will accomplish the entire project, with the exception of the Roadoyl component. Originally phasing was done for budget purposes, but the City Council at the CIP meeting was supportive of the project and completing it in its entirety. Pruess stated it was a good plan and a job well done by the consultant and various groups. Trueblood expressed his gratitude to the Friends of Hickory Hill and the Johnson County Coalition for Persons with Disabilities in working together to help develop the plan and to the Dunbar/Jones Partnership for doing a good job facilitating the meetings. Pacha also expressed his appreciation, noting it was an excellent example of people working together to accomplish something good. Moved bv Pruess, seconded bv Stroh, to approve and proceed to implement the Hickory Hill trail plan as presented. Unanimous. WEEBER'S THIRD ADDITION Trueblood reviewed the small plat and development proposal for Weeber's Third Addition, which is located in the Miller-Orchard Neighborhood District. He gave a brief history on parkland and trail concepts in this district. The land requirement through the NOS ordinance is approximately 3/4 of an acre. Judith Klink of the Weeber-Harlocke neighborhood addressed the commission, urging them to accept land located in the southern portion of this parcel. She noted the fees in lieu would amount to a minimum of $33,000, which is based on the purchase price. Pruess asked staff what the odds were of getting a trail from this area to the city-owned parcel on Benton Street. Trueblood noted John Yapp from the Planning and Community Development Department indicated it would be difficult to get a trail through this area without going into steep ravines. Klink noted the Willow Creek trail that connects to City High School; a trail many thought would never exist. She shared topographicaI information and photographs of the area. She stated she served on the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Neighborhood Open Space Committee and Task Force. The NOS Task Force worked out an action plan, district by district, and established priorities for each district. She stated the neighborhood would like the commission to consider the priority set for this area, which includes the Miller-Orchard and Weeber-Harlocke areas. She stated the development proposal disappointed her in several ways. The sensitive areas ordinance is to help protect resources from destruction, and it appears the trees in the ravine will be bulldozed and the ravine will become a concrete Parks and Recreation Commission February 14, 2001 Page 3 of 5 retaining basin. She noted there are approximately 400 trees in the ravine and retaining walls do not fit with the spirit of the sensitive areas ordinance or the NOS plan. There are many children in this area and there is no open space or trail to connect to the proposed park on Benton Street. She urged the Comrmssion to remember its commitment to the citizens to fulfill the open space needs throughout the city and to opt for the open space instead of fees. Pmess questioned how the neighborhood envisioned connecting this area to the parkland on Benton Street. Klink stated the trail could go behind Benton Manor and through the Ruppert property or behind Forest Ridge through properties owned by Buss, Ruppert and Ruppert's adjoining neighbor. Bill Knabe indicated he was the spokesperson for the Weeber-Harlocke Neighborhood Association, and they have been trying to get a park in this area since I979. The area involved consists of high rise apartment dwellings, with 443 multi-density units m the Benton Hill area. A few years ago the City tried to purchase the Jensen property, but the price was too high and it was subsequently sold to Southgate Development for $175,000. Knabe stated the site is a beautiful piece of property with developed trees, two nice ravines, open space fronting Harlocke Street, and some flat area. He noted this area has the highest density m the city, with a lot ofrenters rather than owners, and the city should do everything it can to preserve the green space. Barbara Buss stated at one time they had offered two acres of their property to the city. She noted the property is land locked, but the offer stilI stands. She indicated they have lived in this area for 30 years, two ravines have been turned into concrete basins, and now the City has a chance to save one ravine. The area is not the most stable neighborhood and she felt recreation could help contribute to its stability. Pacha asked for staff input; Treeblood noted mixed emotions. He stated it is not the city's practice to accept small parcels because they are more expensive to maintain, with staffs biggest concern being coanectivity. Staff would like to support the NOS Task Force recommendation, noting it has changed to some extent because the two acres acquired for parkland on Benton Street is not in the location identified on the two- park concept of several years ago. He also felt that connecting the two parks via trail is not likely to happen because of the various property owners between the two parcels. He also indicated that consideration of fees in this case should not be overlooked due to the sizeable amount. Trueblood stated the commission should take the trail equation out of its consideration when determining whether to accept land in lieu of fees. Stroh stated he supported the plarmmg process and is always swayed by citizen participation; therefore, he supported taking the land. Maurer asked about the possible location for a trail. Pacha stated the commission should consider the proposal on its own merits. Pruess noted the fact that the area is the #1 parkland deficit area sways him to accept the land. He noted trail connectivity is a very important part of what the commission wants to accomplish, but when citizens are committed good things happen. He indicated he thought there would never be a trail behind the Dairy Queen on Riverside Drive, but that happened. Cilek asked where the Miller/Orchard park development appeared on the commission's priority list; Pacha noted it was listed as their number one priority. Moved by Stroh, seconded by Maurer, to accept land in lieu of fees in Weeber's Third Addition, sub[ect to the I~lan delineating, the 3/4-acre of neiehborhood open space in the southern portion of this develol~ment l~er the current plan. Unanimous. The commission's desire is to obtain the land along the south portion of the proposed development, which includes some flat area and the ravine. If the plan changes, the Commission would like to review it, as they may wish to reconsider their options. Parks and Recreation Comn~ssion February 14, 2001 Page 4 of 5 PROHIBITING SMOKING AT SOCCER PARK Trueblood stated the issue of prohibiting smoking at the soccer park has come about at the request of the Iowa City Kickers. They would like to see the soccer complex declared a "drug free zone", primarily emphasizing the recreation and health aspects of youth sports. Staff discussed this with an assistant city attorney to determine feasibility, who indicated it could be accomplished but the big factor would be enforcement. Trueblood noted staffs feeling is if it proceeds with this, it should also discourage smoking at all youth sports facilities in Iowa City. Buildings are already covered, as smoking is not allowed in city buildings. Pruess asked how it would apply to employees working in these areas during these games; Trueblood stated it would apply. Pruess asked about the carnival rides in City Park. Trueblood noted Successful Living employees were allowed to smoke away from the ride area during their breaks. Stroh stated professional conduct should be followed and it is a good idea to prohibit smoking during soccer games. He noted it was just as logical though to ban smoking in all parkland or public property, but there was no way to do it right. Ginsberg noted smoking is not allowed at the Kinnick Stadium, and Gustaveson noted the City of Ames has banned smoking in its downtown plaza. Gustaveson indicated he had no problem with banning smoking, noting he has asthma and nothing is more irritating than to be sitting by someone who is smoking, indoors or outdoors. Maurer stated the department promotes the health and wellness of this community and smoking does just the opposite. He felt the Commission should do whatever it can to promote no smoking and to ban it in any recreational park area in this community. Pacha stated the point is setting a good example for our youth, but he did not feel it was within the realm as a commission to prohibit the activity. He felt common sense should prevail when youth are around. Cilek stated she could support a ban during spectator sports in a public facility. Stroh felt the leagues should take it upon themselves to put a statement in their registration material that smoking presents a bad image and is strongly discouraged. He stated there should never be a rule if it is not enforced. Gustaveson agreed it is one of those rules that is tough to enforce, but it would create the option for him to tell someone there is no smoking. Pruess noted peer pressure may be enough, but he was not sure he was ready to vote since other groups have not had an opportunity to give their input. Ginsberg felt it would be worse to have a designated smoking area. Maurer felt it is a statement a body like the commission should be saying. Pacha stated it would send a message to the youth and their parents. Cilek noted concern about the reasoning behind the Kickers request. She stated if the issue is just setting a good example and not a response to a problem or complaint, the City could also install signs telling people not to swear, eat unhealthy snacks, etc. Pruess agreed. Stroh felt the issue should go back to the league for them to ask parents to set an example for their children and informing parents that the park is a smoke free zone. Gustaveson felt the Commission should take the lead and say this is what the Commission feels should be done. Trueblood stated he did not think the Kickers had the authority to ban smoking in a city park, but probably would not be out of line to discourage smoking. Banning smoking becomes an ordinance issue for the City Council to act on. Cilek stated she could recommend supporting the Kickers' eflbrts to discourage smoking at the soccer park, but she was not ready at this time to recommend an ordinance change. Trueblood noted this issue has not been discussed with the other youth sport organizations. Pacha stated it would be appropriate to approach the other affiliate groups to determine if they have the same feelings towards this issue, and suggested postponing any action until the Commission's meeting next month to give commissioners more time to consider the issue. Parks and Recreation Commission February 14, 2001 Page 5 of 5 Moved by Cflel~ seconded by Ostrolmai, to not take formal action at this time to ban smoking, but to encourage the Iowa City Kickers to do anvthin~ they can to discourage smokin~ durin~ their leagues. Various members asked for clarification. Pacha stated this means the commission was not prepared to prohibit smoking at Iowa City Kickers Soccer Club games or any other outdoor youth events in city parks, but strongly encouraged Kickers to discourage smoking at their events. AYES: Cilel~ Gustaveson, OstroRnai, Pacha, Pruess. NAYS: Ginsber~, Maurer, Stroh. The motion carried. Pacha asked staff to determine whether the Kickers could legally ban smoking during their games and to determine where the other affiliate groups stood on this issue. Trueblood asked if staff should survey other communities; the Commission indicated they are more interested in reactions from local groups. COMMISSION TIME Ostrognai noted an upcoming Alternative Transportation Conference on April 27 and 28 at the Sheraton Hotel. There will be approxin~tely nine speakers, and the subject of funding for trails will be covered. Maurer reported staff and hc presented to the City Council their views on the Parks & Recreation budget. The City Council was receptive, with some encouraging comments that they understand the problem and the need to address some of the issues, especially the natural areas specialist position. Cilek indicated two individuals have contacted her regarding the chlorine level at the Mercer Park Aquatic Center and asked if it has been rotesled. Moran reported chlorine levels would be taken again in May, June, July and August. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Trueblood reported on the following: IPRA Conference. Members should contact staff if they are interested in attending part or all of the conference. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Pruess, seconded by Stroh, to adjourn. Unanimous. The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. { .... 03-20-01 MINUTES i~.~r"~,, ,~,~ 1 PLaNNiNG A,D ZON ,G COMMiSSiON FEBRUARY 15, 2001 - 7:30 P.M. S jecI t0 ppr CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Bovbjerg, Jer~ Hartsen, Marilyn Schintler, Dean Shannon, Pare Ehrhardt MEMBERS ABSENT: Benjamin Chair STAFF PRESENT: Mitch Behr, Bob Miklo, Sarah Holecek OTHERS PRESENT: Glenn Siders, Michael Gunn, Cecile Kuenzli, Don Lacina, Klaus Bielefeldt, Lorraine Bowans, Derrick Abromeit, Ginny Blair, Paul Kinney, J, Knabe, Cynthia Pickett, William Knabe, Judith Klink, Tom Gelman, Georgeann Chavell, Jeffrey Gauthier, Ruth Baker, Ernie Cox, Melissa Ruhlow, Bill Graf, Chalice Wyckoff, Stephen Tully, Paula Ford, Dennis Dykstra RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: Recommended approval by a vote of 4-1 (Shannon voting no), a rezoning to establish the Governor- Lucas-Bowery Street Consedation District, a Conservation Overlay Zone, located generally south of Burlington Street along Governor and Lucas Streets. Recommended approval, by a vote of 3-2 (Ehrhardt and Hansen voting no), a rezoning from High Density Multi-family Residential RM-44, to Sensitive Areas Overlay, OSA-44, on 4.01 acres to allow 39 dwellings in 3 buildings located on the east side of Harlocke Street, subject to Public Works ~proval of a grading and erosion control plan prior to Council Consideration and verification from the State Archeologist that there is no amheological site that requires fu~her study per the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Recommended approval, by a vote of 5-0, a request for final plat approval of Prairie View Estates Pad a 30.86 acre, 21-lot residential subdivision with two outlots be approved, subject to approval of legal papers and construction plans prior to City Council consideration. Schintler seconded the motion. Recommended acceptance, by a vote of 5-0, of the Development Regulations Analysis repod presented by Duncan and Associates. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Bovbjerg called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. ANNOUNCEMENT OF VACANCIES ON CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: Bovbjerg said them is a list available on the lobby bulletin board. She said the City needs expe~ise from the public to help the City Council make decisions, including the Planning and Zoning Commission that has 2 openings; soon to be three. ZONING/DEVELOPMENT ITEMS: Discussion of a rezoning to establish the Governor-Lucas-Bowery Street Consedation District, a Consedation Overlay Zone, located generally south of Burlington Street along Governor and Lucas Streets. Miklo said the Historic Preservation Commission has nominated this area for consideration as a ConseNation District. A Conservation District is an overlay zone according to the City's zoning ordinance. If adopted it would allow the Historic Prese~ation Commission to review exterior alterations to buildings that require a building permit. It would not affect the interior of buildings or activities that don't require a building permit. The Commission did a study of the area a~er receiving requests from area property owners asking for consideration of the area as a Conservation District. The intent of a Conservation District is to preserve the physical appearance of the neighborhood as it is today. It is similar to a Historic District but the standards of review for the alterations of buildings is not as strict. The Planning and Zoning Commission's role in reviewing Consedation Districts is to determine whether or not the proposed overlay zone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes February 15, 2001 Page 2 does propose the preservation and conservation of older Iowa City neighborhoods and contemplates the use of tools such as historic district overlay zones and conservation overlay zones to achieve this objective. The Plan also recognizes that these areas often provide affordable housing. The plan also encourages the use of other zoning tools such as the downzoning in this area from medium density to a conservation residential zone. The plan also encourages the use of conservation overlay zones and historic districts in these particular areas. Staff finds that the proposed Conservation District is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and furthers the plan's objective of conserving older Iowa City neighborhoods. Staff recommends the approval of the Governor/Lucas/Bowery Street Conservation District. Miklo said the Commission was given copies of e-mails and letters in support of the Conservation District. There was also a phone call from Ruth Switzer, a resident of Lucas Street, supporting the Conservation District. Bovbjerg confirmed that the Planning and Zoning Commission's role is to decide if this proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. She asked if this is technically a rezoning and requires two meeting or if it could be decided on tonight. Miklo said it is technically a rezoning and it is the Commission's policy to look at it for two meetings but not a requirement. Bovbjerg asked if area neighbors had been notified. Mikl~ said all property owners within 300 feet were notified of this meeting by mail. Public discussion open: Michael Gunn, 1011 Sheridan Avenue, chair of the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission said he would discuss seven main issues. He said historic preservation has been successful in protecting neighborhood character and enhancing property values in Iowa City and many other cities around the country. The design review process is a process that affects property owners only when significant exterior changes are about to take place. For historic districts in Iowa City, this occurs about once every 15 years. Density is rarely affected by design review. When density is affected it is modest. Limiting the size by a setback requirement is one example of this. Retaining the architectural character is the aim of design review. In an effort to make the Historic Preservation Commissions decision-making process more open and consistent they have developed the Historic Preservation Handbook to aid architects, builders and property owners. It contains guidelines that pertain to all districts and will contain strict guidelines as they are developed. A portion of the nomination before you is that individual district guideline. The handbook apl~lies to single-family, duplex, multi-family property. This reflects the diversity of historic property in Iowa City. He said there are three differences between Historic and Conservation Districts. The first is that the criteria for nomination are somewhat different. The details of that are probably not as important as the other two differences. The guidelines are more lenient for Conservation Districts. This applies to materials for foundation, siding, dormer sizes and addition materials. Also, the review process is more streamlined for Conservation Districts. A number of these things can be approved by staff or the chair of the Commission rather than going before the full Commission. He said there are two issues that are probably more controversial than anything else. One is that demolition is not allowed unless the structure is deemed irretrievable. It is felt by the Historic Commission that if this nomination goes through and the districts are preserved that we ought not allow the demolition of sound property, The other thing, is that vinyl siding is allowed for a Conservation District on non-contributing structures and new structures but not on contributing structures in Conservation Districts. It is not allowed at all in Historic Districts. He said the Commission feels strongly that contributing structures should not be wrapped in vinyl siding, which detracts from the appearance, detail and color which is important in Historic Districts. He said in closing, they are going to meet with people in a number of formats to discuss these things if they have questions. He said this is a complex issue and there are a number of regulations and interacting regulations by different ordinances and any way they can help explain that they will be happy todo. Ehrhardt said, as she understands it, their charge is to look at whether this overlay zone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. She said they have not seen the specific district guidelines. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes February 15, 2001 Page 3 Gunn said the specific guidelines are in the nomination, Exhibit D. Ehrhardt asked if they were concerned with those at this point. MikJo said if they have concerns, they should express those to the Historic Commission. Hansen asked in terms of demolition, what are the criteria used to judge a building irretrievable. Gunn said it would have to be structurally unsound. Hansen said that would be a matter of finance; you could do anything if you had enough money. He asked if there was a dollar amount. Gunn said no they didn't have any more detail than irretrievable. He said it's not something they can spell out in detail because they have to look at a whole host of propedies; not only single-family and duplex but also multi-family structures and big commercial structures. He said it's hard to decide that kind of thing ahead of time. Shannon asked where the appeal process go if the property owner doesn't agree with their assessment. Gunn said it would go straight to the Council. Schintler asked Gunn if he thought because of the process to do a repair or anything that that might stop people from proceeding. Gunn said they haven't seen that has happened in historic districts. Ehrhardt said as she understands, if a lot of these changes can be approved by staff or the chair; that would speed things up. Gunn said even for things that come before the full Commission they encourage people to submit plans two weeks before the meeting. He said two weeks is the most they could delay a project before it comes before the Commission. Bovbjerg clarified that this is the first Conservation District that they've looked at and so the conservation district guidelines (Exhibit D) would become part of the Historic District Handbook. Gunn said that was correct. Cecile Kuenzli, 705 South Summit, said she is there as president of the Longfellow Neighborhood Association to express enthusiasm and support for a Conservation District overlay. She and her board applauds the considerably work that Gunn and the Commission has put into the repod that brings them there this evening. She said although the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the downzoning of this area to RNC-12 last summer, that decision only affected the density in this area. She said the conservation overlay is a necessary counterpart because it addresses how a structure in this area will look. People who live in these older neighborhoods near downtown feel these neighborhoods feel they have intrinsic historic and architectural worth and as such are an asset to the entire community. Where new construction usually and especially duplexes become necessary in old areas or when existing structures such as in single family homes require exterior changes, the conservation overlay will ensure that these changes will not produce a visual shock with the surroundings. Rather they will result in a harmonious renewal that will benefit the property owner and the architectural character of the neighborhood. Only the conservation overlay can do this and they look forward to its implementation. Don Lacina, 5146 Lower West Branch Road, said he is a property owner in the area being discussed. He said he's opposed and that is appears to him that this just adds another level of bureaucracy if he wants to do some work on his house. He said you have housing inspectors who are doing a super job, building permits that will govern the building of new buildings and he gets nervous when people talk about how something is going to look. He said how do you define how something is going to look. if this goes through and he wants to work on his house, he has to appeal to a board of people that he has no vote for, no control over how they get their job or keep their job and yet they can come out and tell him he can't put vinyl siding on his house. He said we have regulations in place right now in the City to manage these things and all we have to do is enforce them. He said we have a fine historical area and during a time Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes February 15, 2001 Page 4 when Kirkwood Community College is growing as fast as it is and the University is growing, we need housing for students. He said he's opposed to downzoning. He said some time ago, it was felt that Iowa City adopted a no growth policy. Shortly after that our malls started floundering, businesses started moving out of town so he thinks they better take care of the students. He said every time you downzone, as a landlord he looks at this two ways. He doesn't like another level of bureaucracy telling him what he can and can't do with his property. He said every time there is a downzoning he raises his rent. He said there was an adicle in the Iowa City paper about a month ago that the students are already starting to look to Coralville for places to live because of the cost of living in Iowa City. He said the way you lower a cost base is to build the base that it services, The more people you have paying utilities, the lower your utilities can be. He said he asks the Commission to consider the tenters because landlords will pass added costs to include jerking around to add another level of bureaucracy to try to fix up his house. Bovbjerg said what is before them does not affect density as Gunn stated but does affect the design and how something looks. Lacina asked if he has the footage and the other requirements to build a 12-plex on his property, a tornado comes through and takes his house, will he be able to build a 12-plex under the new zoning. Miklo said it would depend on what's there now. The conservation overlay would not affect the density; that would be the underlying zone. He said most of this area is zoned RNC-12 which means new construction is limited to single family and duplex unless a legal grandfathered use currently exists on the property. So if there's a 12-plex that conforms with the previous zoning, then yes it could be rebuilt. Klaus Bielefeldt, 922 Bowerr St., said he likes the idea of an older home being preserved in a neighborhood that functions as an entity. He said he appreciates that there are other people and other needs but it comes to a question of quality of life and quality of community and having all the needs met. He said it's important to think of low cost rent for the students, it's important to think of families in neighborhoods who are not transient and maintain a character that is unique rather than suburban or strip-like character that can be seen in other areas of a neighboring town. He said this is something that maintains important historic aspects and maintains something for those that live there. He said it probably also provides enough opportunity for students to live in an area that is diverse with relatively affordable rent. Lorraine Bowans, 510 South Governor, said they bought their house in 1987 when the area was a depressed area. She said the nice thing back then is that they paid about $1400/year in taxes because it was a depressed area. She said they did a lot of renovations to their house. It was a rental property that sat on the market for a year because it was run down. She said they got a very good deal on their property and put a lot of sweat equity into it. She said they now have one of the nicest properties on the street and won a historic preservation award. She said she knows people don't want to jump through any more hoops that they absolutely have to, but she looks at the property values. She looks at her property as her retirement investment and wants to make sure it sustains the best possible value. She said they've had offers for their home in the $100,000 range when they paid $71,000. She said the property next to them which is the largest lot in the whole area went on the market in 1988, stayed on the market for a year, sold for about $70,000 and last year it listed for $175,000 and sold in a week. She said this is an area that had been good, went down and has come back up. She said the people who live there and own property there have done an excellent job. The landlords and owners have come together and brought this neighborhood back. There are still some properties that need improvement but 80% have been brought back to their historical appearance and she thinks that is what has brought the property values up. She said she hopes this goes through. It has been long waited and research has been done, the City has invested dollars in it, so let's go for it. Derrick Abromeit, 625 South Governor, said he's had the opportunity to speak to the Commission on several occasions and many of the same issues keep coming up. He said he's there with many of his neighbors. He appreciates what the Commission did for his property in closing the alley that went behind his house several years ago. He said he has a really nice neighborhood, there are a lot more kids there than when they moved in and his property values are increasing. He said the neighborhood is still full of college kids and he likes that. He said they have families like his and they have old houses that are a pain and this will make it a bit more of a hassle. He said he doesn't have a garage so he'll have to get a building permit for the garage and it may be a hassle because the garage is going to have to look a certain way and that will be a sacrifice he will have to make. He said he feels that that's part of the deal. He said he loves many of the characteristics of his neighborhood and it's worth the sacrifices. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes February 15, 2001 Page 5 Lacina said that both of the folks who have spoken are his neighbors and they both commented on how the neighborhood has been built up and fixed up without any historical designation. He said if you let people own property, most of us are proud of our property. He bought one of the rundown houses that was spoken of and he would like to think it is one of the nicest houses in the neighborhood. He said his point is, if it's not broke don't fix it. Ginny Blair, 650 South Governor, said her address would make her Lacina's neighbor if he lived on South Governor, but he lives on Lower West Branch Road. She owns property and lives in it and she would really like the Commission to listen to the people who own property and live in it and would like to stay in the neighborhood and not worry about how many students they can cram in and how little they can spend to make it look nice from the street. Paul Kinney, 645 South Governor, said so many of the people that want to turn this into student apartments are landlords and don't live there. He said he doesn't think it's too much to ask if this is a business for them and they're going to make money on it that they try to get along with the neighbors that do live there and try to contribute to making that neighborhood as attractive as possible. Bowans said most of the people are maintaining their property and doing a good job of it and maintaining their rental propedies, but one thing that is happening in the last five years; another house went down on Dodge Street to make way for a bigger more dense building. Another property went down on South Lucas and if you drive down to the dead-end part of South Lucas there is a grey vinyl steep pointed roof thing that does not blend in with the neighborhood. She said this is the main concern with the Conservation District. She said she's heard a developer wants to buy her neighbor's property just to knock it down and build something bigger. She wants to protect the old homes and make the neighborhood look like a neighborhood. She said they have a lot of wonderful renters in the neighborhood and they live there because they want to live in a neighborhood and not in student housing. She said to keep this flavor would benefit even the landlords because it keeps long term tenants and keeps the value up. She said when you have long-term tenants you don't have to make as many repairs. She said the key issue although the most controversial is to keep these old homes that are well built from destruction. Ehrhardt said she first heard about Conservation Districts at a conference and it sounded like you could go beyond the restrictions of the building permits such as setbacks. She asked if it were true that a Conservation District designation doesn't just add restrictions but allows some flexibility that go beyond building permit regulations. Gunn said a individual district could write their own code that would allow some flexibility to the existing code. He said it's a good point that it's not just adding bureaucracy but can add some flexibility although not in all cases. Bovbjerg said someone had mentioned building a garage and not being able to use vinyl siding but Gunn had referred to existing and new, and contributing and non-contributing structures. She asked Gunn to clarify. Gunn said as they have written the guidelines, in a Conservation District they are allowing vinyl siding on non-contributing structures, which make up about 30 percent. It is allowable on new structures. It is restricted on historic properties that are significant and of the proper time period and contribute to the theme. He added that in this area there are a number of rental properties. He said rental property and commercial property is part of the historic fabric of Iowa City and they don't look at them differently. Public discussion closed. MOTION: Ehrhardt moved to approve a rezoning to establish the Governor-Lucas-Bowery Street Conservation District, a Conservation Overlay Zone, located generally south of Burlington Street along Governor and Lucas Streets. Hartsen seconded the motion. Ehrhardt said she's very much in favor of the overlay. She said if they look strictly whether it's consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Plan gives them a tool they can use to protect older neighborhoods and this is a very effective tool. She said Lacina's comments about getting a building permit has nothing to do with how the property will look in the end. She said this spells out how the end product will look and help keep the character of the neighborhood. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes February 15, 2001 Page 6 Hansen said he's in favor of it and it's been a long time coming. He said he slowly watched the older housing stock erode in our community. He thinks it is the older housing stock that gives the town character. He said he wants to see diversity in neighborhoods and diversity in density but he also wants to see diversity in character; not just new houses and apadment buildings. He wants to see the old houses remain so he'll be voting in favor. Schintler said she's in favor of it because she wants to see the houses preserved. She said her only concern is it may make some of the houses unaffordable. Shannon said he can understand what people want to do to improve their properly and last year he voted down the downzoning because he wasn't sure that's the best thing to do when everything changes and you're locking yourself into a land use that when we're gone may not be the proper use. He said he suppods people for trying to do something with their neighborhood flavor but at the same time he's opposed to another layer of government. He said he's always been against more hoops to jump through. Bovbjerg said she will be in favor of this because it goes along with the Comprehensive Plan and is flexible and as the conservation district guidelines may be flexible so too are the overlay zonings and other kinds of zonings. She said it's a benefit to the neighborhood and a benefit to property owners who use their property for rental because stability benefits everyone. The motion carried on a vote of 4-1 (Shannon votincl no). REZ01-0001. Discussion of a rezoning from High Density Multi-family Residential, RM-44, to Sensitive Areas Overlay, OSA-44, on 4.01 acres to allow 39 dwellings in 3 buildings located on the east side of Harlocke Street. Miklo said they have received a revised plan and he highlighted the changes since the last meeting. The entrance has been changed to allow turn-around access for emergency vehicles. This also allows for less paving in that area. The fire marshal has accepted this design and signed off on it. There is a note on the plan that outlines what would happen to the property in any future development to the grading and tree removal in the two protected slope areas. This is in lieu of a conservation easement and staff finds that acceptable. The Recreation Commission met and reviewed this property and decided they would like dedication of land. The ordinance requires the dedication of approximately 33,000 square feet. The revised plan shows approximately 39,000 square feet. There is a fiat area available for active play area and the Parks and Recreation Commission may put some equipment there sometime in the future. It also includes a protected slope and buffer area some critical slope and a section where the Parks and Recreation Commission thought it would be possible to put a trail to the east. The State Archeologist has sent a letter and they would like to investigate the site to determine if the artifacts found there have any relationship to a burial ground. If not, it's unlikely they would do any further investigation. They cannot make a determination until the snow has melted and they have made arrangements with the property owner for a field visit as soon as the snow is off the site. Miklo said a memo from the Transportation Planner is provided regarding traffic in the area. He said staff is recommending approval subject to the grading and erosion control ordinance being approved by the Public Works Department prior to this being reviewed by Council and subject to the State Archeologist determining whether further investigation is needed on this property. Bovbjerg asked if the area outlined in yellow on the overhead is what is being dedicated as open space. Miklo said yes. Bovbjerg asked if that includes the area that was being discussed for a conservation easement. Miklo pointed out the protected slope and buffer area and said it does include that. He said there are a couple of other protected slopes and buffers in the area. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes February 15, 2001 Page 7 Bovbjerg asked if this note on the plan does the same thing that an easement would do. She said they were very concerned that this need for protection not be lost. Miklo said it is similar in that it will be a recorded document and notify future property owners what the requirements are in terms of the sensitive areas on the site and what their obligations are. Bovbjerg asked if play equipment were brought in, whoever does it would be told not to encroach upon the sensitive areas. Miklo said yes. Holocek said what the note does is put future property owners on notice of the restrictions in regard to the use of the protected slopes and that area. So what that note does is put people on notice that there are certain activities that are restricted in that protected slope and buffer area. Ehrhardt asked what would be done to address the problem of traffic onto Benton from Weeber. She asked if there might be lights put there. Miklo said that is not being proposed with this development. He said since it is a local street it would not normally be considered for lights. Ehrhardt asked if the storm water calculations would be done. Miklo said the Public Works Department has reviewed those and is satisfied at this point. Public discussion open: Glenn Siders, PO Box 1907, Iowa City, Iowa, with Southgate Development, the applicant for the project before the Commission. He said they also represent the owners of the property. He said they have been working on this project for about nine months. He said they have made numerous changes to this plat and each change has been made uncontested by the development company. The changes have been made at the request of staff to make this development appropriate for the neighborhood. He believes what is in front of the Commission is a good development as a result of all the requests by staff and the Commission. He said they are well beneath the density requirements on this property even with the dedication of the park land. They still have the ability to erect over 130 units; they are proposing 39. They are within the traffic limitations for a secondary access. They have gone down to minute details of relocating dumpster locations. They have been conscious along with staff to provide minimum disturbance to this property in the locations of the buildings. They intend on not removing any of the wooded area with the exception of what's needed to put in the storm water retention system. He said that is why they are before the Commission. He said it is his belief that none of the other issues that he mentioned are germane to the issue; they are before the Commission because it was a requirement that they provide storm water detention, which is in a sensitive area. They are disrupting some of that sensitive area to accommodate the City's requirement, therefore they need to approach the Commission with a sensitive areas plan and that's what they have done. He said it is the Commission's position to decide if they are within the bounds of the work that's going to happen in the sensitive area and approve their application on that. He said they were conscience that there would be neighborhood opposition to this project and they kept that in mind in the design of this project. He said last meeting the Commission heard comments about the enjoyable open space that was provided with no development there. It was even at times referred to as public space. It's not public space; it's private property. They are concerned about the misnomer of public space; they have concerns about liability of using private property without their consent. He said he was happy that the Parks and Recreation Commission decided that they actually wanted some park space. It is his belief that if they would have approached the Parks and Recreation Commission, it would not have been decided for them to take the space. They probably would have decided for Southgate to pay them instead of dedicate the space but because of the neighborhood input they dedicated land. He said now they have dedicated about 25% of their property to that open space. He said again the reason they are there; it's not a rezoning request other than it's an overlay zone for sensitive areas. They would appreciate it if the Planning and Zoning Commission would keep that in mind during the discussions of this project. Shannon said there was concern voiced that there would be more runoff with the water retention in parking lots. He asked if that would be a problem. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes February 15, 2001 Page 8 Siders said there would be more water runoff on more parking space with less absorption and a larger area to drain. But he said the rate of release of that detained water will be much slower than what currently exists. He said there will be less problem downstream. He said it's a deep hole and will retain a lot of water. Bovbjerg asked if it leaves the basin and goes into a pipe. Siders said at the east end of the hole they are going to build a concrete wall; a dam so to speak. At the base of the wall will be a hole to outlet the water. Thirty feet to the east of there is the existing storm sewer pipe. Bovbjerg asked if it goes through a hole into surface drainage. Siders said yes, Bovbjerg asked if there was dirt there or rift raft. She said she's very concerned about concentrated water hitting dirt. Siders said he would assume that there is some rift raft with the construction of the storm pipe. The water will continue to run in the path that it has for years and years; they are not changing that path or disturbing that ground. They are just releasing it at a slower rate. He said there will be a lesser percent of disturbance than there is now. Bovbjerg asked if there's any recourse for an adjacent property owner if there were damage due to runoff. Siders said they have discussed that with the adjacent property owners and they're aware of what is being done. The engineers are aware of what's being done and have approved it. They haven't approved the grading plan because they haven't done that yet because they keep shifting things around. Holocek asked if Bovbjerg was asking about recourse for a downstream property owner having water dumped on their property from an upstream property. Bovbjerg said yes or prevention. Holocek said there is state law a statutory remedy for a properly owner if a established stream is changed so that the downstream neighbor results in damage. Also the Iowa City storm water management ordinance actually requires a very slow release rate from basins. She said when Siders said that you would have the release rate slowed down by the basin and the mechanism, which it's flowing. Siders said Schnittjer reminded him that along with the hole in the wall, there is a calming device so the water will not gush out. Bovbjerg asked if the recourse of a neighbor would be through the Council or the courts. Holecek said ultimately through the courts but often times you find the property owners remedy those situations amongst themselves. Judith Knabe, 1101 Weeber Circle, relinquished her time to her husband, William, Cynthia Picket, 1125 Weeher Circle, dedicated her five minutes to William Knabe. William Knabe, 1101 Weeber Circle, said he is speaking as an area property owner and as representative of Harlocke-Weeber Neighborhood Association. He thanked the Commission for giving the neighborhood the opportunity to express their views. They are there to ask the Commission to not approve this application for Sensitive Areas Overlay Zoning, He said they do see this as a rezoning. He said they contend that the proposed development violates the spirit and intent of the City's Sensitive Areas Ordinance and therefore be rejected. He said at the informal meeting on February 12, 2001 the Commission indicated that a vote would be taken this evening. At that point the Assistant City Attorney stated that she wanted to remind the Commission that this application isn't really an issue of density. Immediately the question came to his mind; what is she saying. He said most if not all of the problems they have expressed about this rezoning Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes February 15, 2001 Page 9 and the plans for development of this property are related to the impact of population density. He said was she saying that their concerns about the impact on the safety of their children shouldn't concern the Commission because it's not really about density. Was she saying that cutting or felling several hundred trees in the northeast ravine shouldn't concern the Commission because density is not really the issue. Was she saying that this development will place additional burden on an already weak water and sewage infrastructure in this area should not concern the Commission because it's not really about density. Or the fact that this area already saturated with over 500 apartment units and thousands of square feet of asphalt and concrete and sorely needs more park and open space shouldn't concern the Commission because density is not the issue. Or the fact that previous Planning and Commissions saw the need for and recommended downgrading any development of this property should not concern the Commission because density is not really the issue. Or the fact that this development will at least double the number of vehicles from 169 trips to over 500 on streets that are 3 feet short of the standard street width should not concern the Commission because density is not the issue. Or that such an increase in traffic raises neighborhood anxiety about increases in pollution and noise, pedestrian and fire safety should not concern the Commission because density is not the issue. Or the fact that residents and property owners in the Benton Manor area are concerned about flooding of their property due to a major increase in the amount of water that will be directed toward them as a result of this development should not concern the Commission because density is not the issue. Or finally, the fact that the proposed development will have a permanent adverse affect on the quality of life in the Weeber-Harlocke neighborhood and the adjacent Benton Manor area should not concern the Commission because density is not really the issue. Knabe said he does not intend to interpret what was meant by a single statement. He has nothing but genuine appreciation and respect for Holocek. Nevertheless if her statement means that you need to divorce the issues as previously cited from the approval or disapproval of this rezoning request then you should be slow to agree with that conclusion. He said they believe density is an issue that you may eventually be asked to address. Their concerns about such issues are clear, real and genuine and should affect the decision the Commission makes. Their position is supported by both the Sensitive Areas Ordinance and the City Code. He said in the Sensitive Areas Ordinance it is clearly written that the ordinance is related to the environmental policies of the city's Comprehensive Plan and that the purpose of the SAC quote, "To protect the public from injury and property damage due to flooding, erosion and other natural hazards which can be exasperated by development of environmentally sensitive land." The SAC further states in Section 14.16J 1, subsections 1C quote, "Review and approval of a sensitive areas planned development should be by ordinance in accordance with the planned development housing overlay zone as specified in Section 14.6J2D." He said he wanted to read one sentence from that reference. The Planning and Zoning Commission should recommend approval or denial of the plan and shall make a written report of it's findings to the City Council. The report should include findings that the variances in setbacks, lot area requirements, building types and sizes and combination of land uses will be in the public interest. Will be in the public interest in harmony with this chapter and will not adversely affect nearby properties. He said obviously they believe the proposed rezoning is not in the public interest and that it will adversely affect their neighborhood and the properties adjacent to the development area. Therefore they believe this request for rezoning should not be approved. Judith Klink, 1101 Harlocke Street, said she finds several things about this proposal disturbing. She is concerned first about water drainage. Her neighborhood is well aware of what even a small change in surfacing can make. The areas behind those apartments on Harlocke were hard surfaced a few years ago; a long surface about 20 feet wide and 100 feet long. It was universally regarded as improvement until the first heavy rains came. Her neighborhood slopes down toward the west from that part of Harlocke Street. Since that seemingly innocent pavement improvement, they have had to deal with a number of unanticipated problems. When it rains heavily they have streams flowing through their yards and lakes forming in gardens. There has been basement flooding and the sewer backs up at the low point of Weeber Street. So the drainage system proposed here is a much larger scale and very extensive. It involves three large concrete retention facilities interconnected by pipes. There will be a lot of water runoff from new roofs and new parking areas. She said four acres that have acted as a natural water retention area will be seriously redesigned and have a lot of asphalt and buildings. She said what if the plan system doesn't work and basements in Benton Manor flood. What if there is erosion as the water rushes down to the Iowa River. What if we don't have a big rain until a year after the construction. How long will the affected residents to the east have to complain. What might be the long term effects of this on the water table. Another thing that bothers her about the water plan is that it will probably be unattractive. In this 4- acre area, more than half is in trees, 27% of the trees will be removed. Which trees? Ones which are providing natural erosion prevention on the north side of that deep ravine. On the plan she can see Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes February 15, 2001 Page 10 scallops of a proposed tree line and a present tree line. She said it looks to her like the north side of the ravine will be denuded. The dense woods presently provide a pleasant buffer between the Hillsborough Manor and the homes in the Harlocke-Weeber neighborhood. This buffer is appreciated by residents on both sides of it. The present deep ravine which is wooded looks like it will be formed into a concrete retaining pit. It looks like where the dam is planned is the location of one of the few really big oak trees. She said they moved to Harlocke street in 1978 before Benton Manor was built and there were numerous huge oaks and extensive wooded areas in what is now Benton Manor. That is all gone and the water retaining pit in Benton Manor is a huge open eyesore. Forest Ridge was built in 1995 and the pit behind it is even uglier and behind it almost the entire steep hillside was denuded to build it. In the Neighborhood Open Spaces plan and the Sensitive Areas Ordinance adopted in 1993 and 1995, city residents were very hopeful. One of the stated purposes of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance is, "Foster urban design that preserves open space and minimizes disturbance of environmentally sensitive features and natural resources. Recognizing the impodance of environmental resources and protecting resources from destruction." The present proposal may follow the letter of the law of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance but it certainly does not follow the spirit of it. Harlocke Ridge, when construction is completed doesn't look like it will be significantly different from the ravages of Benton Manor or Forest Ridge even though it will be built after the Sensitive Areas Ordinance was put into effect. She said another thing she noticed is the large number of concrete retaining walls. These are south and west of the lower building and around the northernmost building and around parking lots. Again, the spirit of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance allow the trees already occurring on the slopes to help prevent erosion rather than destroying them and building retaining walls. The proposal does provide for replanting with trees, a meager replacement for the 300 she estimates will be destroyed. She said her last point has to do with the future. She understands that the City Attorney advised that traffic concerns aren't relevant to the adoption of this plan. The City Engineer estimated traffic on Harlocke and Weebet would increase to 503 vehicles a day, slightly over the maximum allowed on a street without secondary access. She said what would happen if Mr. Ruppert wants to build residences on his property on the end of Harlocke. Does this mean there could be no development on the Ruppert property that exits onto Harlocke. If this development is approved in it's present form what can we anticipate with other development at the end of Harlocke. Because of the concerns she has about water runoff and the replacing the natural tree buffer with a unsightly water basin and the traffic concerns for the future, she has serious reservations about this project. Tom Gelman, 714 McLearv, said he is the attorney for Southgate Development. He said this is quite a narrow review for the Planning and Zoning Commission; narrower than some of the comments might indicate. This project does require a Sensitive Areas development plan. It requires one because of only one intrusion into the sensitive area and that's the intrusion for the storm water retention facility. Such an intrusion is specifically a permitted use under the ordinance. It just needs to be done in a way that's least intrusive as possible to the sensitive area. This plan has a design which is least intrusive as possible. The City staff has concurred with that. That's really all this Commission is authorized in the nature of this review, is to be sure that the intrusion in these sensitive areas is acceptable and consistent with the ordinance. In fact it's been concurred that the delaying of the water, the detention of the water will have the capacity to improve the storm water management emanating from this area by slowing down the water that is already leaving the area. As such, they believe by the narrow issue of what's before the Commission, the ordinance is complied with very clearly and the intrusion is very minimal and disrupts the sensitive areas identified in the plat very minimally which is all the owner is required to do. He said additionally he would indicate that because of the specific design that the owner has put forth and the preservation of the sensitive areas and the dedication of land for park purposes, all of which were perfectly acceptable to him, the density here has been reduced by as much as from a density possibly as high as 176 units to 39 units. He agrees with the City Attorney that that is not the issue before you but it's an important element with this particular plan. Some of the impact of that reduced density helps to minimize the impact on the sensitive areas. He said what they are seeing here minimally impacts the sensitive areas which is ultimately consistent with the letter of the ordinance and the intent of the ordinance. Georqeann Chaven, 1124 Harlocke Street, said the Commission has heard from many of the older residents; she has been there 4 years. Her concerns refer to the attorney's comments. Yes we are talking about sensitive areas as far as the environment, but there is also a sensitive area in terms of people. This area is designed for, or when she purchased her home it was considered a new area in that young people were moving into the area. She said they have a great mix of young and old people and she likes that mix. Her neighbors moved in a year after her and they now have a small child. That child is going to be running up and down that street. New neighbors across the street will soon be developing a family as Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes February 15, 2001 Page 11 well. She lives on the corner of Weeber and Hadocke and though she doesn't have mailboxes taken out like her neighbors, she hears the squealing tires as they go up the hill. Adding additional traffic on that street will substantially affect my sleep at night because she's already wide awake several times a night because of the cars going back and forth. She said the traffic is tremendous already. She said the other issue is that when you go up the street there are people who park on both sides of Weeber. There isn't even enough room to get through. If we add more traffic and more parking, what's going to happen. Jeffrey Gauthier, 1108 Weeber Circle, said he would like to draw attention to part of the title of this austere group and that is Planning. He said having been here to visit with the Commission's predecessors for several hours, the real issue is the planning aspect of what this represents. There are many more acres to be considered at some point in our future. It seems to him that before we step off into this development and what the Commission's charge is they need to consider what the long-range plan is. He said many hours were spent before the predecessors trying to collaboratively and collegially decide what we could do with 44 acres a rarity in the City to come up with some kind of plan that reflects and respects the existing neighborhood that gives thought to a mixed development and coordinate with some of the highest density housing in the entire city on Benton, a sheer ghetto by description to come up with something that works for everybody. Much of that effort over the past 10 years dwelled on the issue of what to do with the traffic and this does not appear to have addressed it and only exacerbates a situation that will come back to haunt us all. Much effort went to trying to move that traffic to the east, the restriction of great magnitude of trying to access Highway 1, the efforts of trying to finesse an access to Miller and he can't conceive of discussions about this development without seriously looking at the entire area. To step off and approve this now without a clue about what's going to happen in the future doesn't make sense. He encourages the Commission to consider the planning aspects of their charge and to pause here to take an opportunity - he doesn't recall the developers ever engaging in meaningful dialogue with the neighborhood. He appreciates what staff does to interpret the ordinances but staff to his knowledge does not live in their neighborhood. So he thinks there has been some dialogue that is critically missing and he thinks they would be remiss in not suggesting and encouraging you to pause and give this serious consideration. Ruth Baker, 515 West Benton, said she's from the Miller Orchard Neighborhood and totally agrees with Gauthier. She said he made some good points about the Commission's charge as planning. This is an area that is close to downtown and we ought to be thinking more in long range planning as far as what we're going to do with this precious area. She said in her neighborhood they recently got two acres of parkland and it's been their hope that there would be some way they could connect with this area to form a trail to some open space. She said the Parks and Recreation Commission has indicated for the density they should be allotted seven acres but they don't have that. She said they do have their quota of complexes and apartment buildings and there's nothing wrong with having those mixed with single family homes but we need to be thinking about overdoing this area with the traffic that is already there. She said we need to be sensitive to the extreme hilliness of those streets and the dangerous areas that this might cause by putting the added traffic. She said she wants the Commission to think about this carefully before they make any decisions. Ernie Cox, 913 Harlocke Street, said he would like to talk to the narrower issue that counsel and Mr. Siders would like to discuss. He said he feels his neighbors have addressed the other issues adequately. First he would like to talk about the easement. While the notation on the most revised plan at least outlines the intent of the easement, it doesn't have the effect of the easement. He asked if that was correct. Holocek said it is not a grant to the City of any affirmative right but that is not outlined in the Sensitive Areas Ordinance as a requirement for approval regarding steep and protected slopes. Cox said that at least the note gives the spirit of the easement and he doesn't know why the counsel for Southgate is still reticent to grant that easement if they are sincerely that interested in protecting this sensitive area. He said one question he posed at the last meeting is an explanation of one aspect of the Sensitive Ordinance which mandates a minimization of destruction of wildlife habitat and the preservation of scenic characters. He said he's unclear how the impact on the habitat has been assessed. He agrees that more dialogue could occur and in that spirit, the neighborhood felt that it was necessary for them to be more educated about the soil erosion issues on the northern spot. He said they have made initial contact with the Johnson County USDA soil conservation experts and he hopes the City staff as well as Mr. Siders and counsel will be open with that organization in the future to try to look at the impact and possible alternatives if there are environmental impacts to sensitive areas. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes February 15, 2001 Page 12 Melissa Ruhlow, 911 Weeber Street, said they bought their house about one year ago. She said she has her two children who are 4 and 8 and two children next door who are 3 and 6, her neighborhood is regenerating daily. Her concern is traffic and the high population of children. She said if you increase that traffic, even if it meets the city limits by 3 cars you increase traffic. She said they have a hard enough time with people cutting through from Sunset to go the speed limit. She said cars are constantly flying up and down their street; that's with the 298 cars per day. She said what's it going to be like if you increase that to 503 cars per day, every single day. She said that's her biggest concern as well as what it's going to do to the rest of the neighborhood as far as depreciation. Bill Graf, 1123 Harlocke Street. said he lives on the southeast corner of Harlocke and Weeber. He said he had to smile when he heard the developer say they've been working on this for nine months. He's lived there for 26 years and has been before the Planning and Zoning Commission for 17 years on this same issue. He said the problem he is most concerned with is traffic. He said there are many issues that are germane even though they've been told they aren't germane. But traffic is the big one. He said he is very concerned. He said he brought up 4 kids in that neighborhood and he plans to bring his married son with two kids back into his house next year and he doesn't want his grandkids playing in the street where it's dangerous because of the increase in traffic. He said it was mentioned and a report was done that 503 cars is only 3 over the limit. He said he works on computers and does a lot of estimating. Most of the time his estimates are either low or high. In this case what it the estimate is wrong and you have 600. Are you going to come back a year later and say take out the development because you're over the estimate. He said if you're at 500, which is the limit it would be very dangerous to approve at the limit of that street. He said he heard concerns of exiting Weeber onto Benton and that is a concern but there are other concerns. There are concerns of entering Weebet when you have snow banks and parked cars there's only one lane of traffic. Doubling that traffic is dangerous. Cherice Wvkkoff, 1117 Harlocke Street, said her main concern is traffic. They are planning on starting a family soon and so it's a real issue for them. She also has a cat and she worries about more possibilities of him getting hit. The other issue is maintaining the character of their neighborhood. She said she thought it was interesting the first decision of the meeting that the Commission made was to protect the character of the neighborhood. She said even though their neighborhood isn't historic, it still has value and it's still worth protecting so she would urge the Commission to vote down the rezoning issue. Stephen Tullv, 917 Harlocke Street #5, said he's been a renter there since 1996. He said in the proposed plan he has a nice view of the driveway to this development. He said there are many renters in the neighborhood and he understands legally that makes them second class citizens but they do care about the impact on the neighborhood. He said Mr. Siders said he would allow the other people to speak. He said he doesn't know Mr. Siders personally but he has no doubt he's a good employee. He said they are good neighbors and a good community and they're concerned about what happens to people and their lives not only on their street but on the one next to it. They're concerned about the environmental impact on a neighboring property that this development appears to have. They're also concerned about the impact on public safety, which may or may not be of interest to this Commission. He said he'd like to note the irony that the Commission earlier this evening voted to maintain the character of a neighborhood. He said they may not be under any legal obligation to preserve the character of their neighborhood but they are certainly concerned about it. He said Gelman mentioned that the p an as currently proposed minimally impacts the sensitive area but he wants to remind the Commission that' to put 39 dwe ngs on an area which already has large multi storied apartment buildings in a highly dense areas does nothing to minimally impact the neighborhood or the surrounding areas. The potential problems with the water runoff do not minimally impact the anxiety of their neighbors. To allow for development that almost doubles the estimated daily trips on Harlocke up to Benton does not minimally impact the neighborhood nor add to it's character. Ehrhardt said they do not feel renters are second class citizens. Paula Ford, 905 Harlocke Street #8, said she will probably be emotional. She said she really did notice the contrast between how the first issue before the Commission was treated compared to this one and she has a hard time comprehending how people who would approve of this plan who wouldn't want to live under those conditions themselves. She doesn't understand what their justification might be for imposing it on second class citizens. Knabe said Bovbjerg asked Cox if they would be willing to discuss this with the developer and he thinks it's pretty obvious that the Weeber-Harlocke neighborhood doesn't have a tradition of being bashful. He said they do welcome any opportunity for open dialogue. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes February 15,2001 Page 13 Public discussion closed. MOTION: Shannon moved to approve REZ01-0001 a rezoning from High Density Multi-family Residential RM-44, to Sensitive Areas Overlay, OSA-44, on 4.01 acres to allow 39 dwellings in 3 building located on the east side of Harlocke Street, subject to Public Works approval of a grading and erosion control plan prior to Council Consideration and verification from the State Archeologist that there is no archeological site that requires further study per the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Schintler seconded the motion. Hansen asked Holocek for clarification whether this was an issue where they vote if it's in compliance or not in compliance. Holocek said the application before the Commission is asking for approval of a Sensitive Areas Development Plan so the application is requesting approval that this plan is in compliance with the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. She said the issue of density goes to the issue of the zoning the property at RM-44 where it currently sits. Hansen said he's more interested in traffic and having a negative impact on that neighborhood. Holocek said the property is currently zoned RM-44, although a property owner does not have a right to current zoning, zoning is a fluid and changeable designation. Currently, the applicant is able to build at a density allowable under RM-44 which is some tacit indication that the infrastructure is there to support that type of development. She asked Hansen to clarify what he was asking about traffic. Hansen asked if traffic is something he can think of as being a negative impact on that neighborhood that would not conform with the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Holocek said if the Commission after reviewing this particular plan and listening to public comment finds that the designation of this property at RM-44 is not appropriate because infrastructure does not support it, the Commission can of it's own accord recommend a different zoning designation. Miklo said he could address the traffic issue. Local streets can carry in the low range of 250 trips a day up to about 1000 trips per day. For a secondary access guideline a midpoint was chosen of 500 vehicles per day, which is half of what a local street could carry. It was determined that if a local street was going to carry more than 500 vehicles per day then there was the need to consider a secondary access; another in and out in a particular location. The numbers that are before the Commission are just estimates. The Transportation Planner would be very hesitant to say you should deny something because the traffic might be 3 cars over the secondary access guideline. Hansen asked if the 500 number is based on streets that are the same width as we're talking here. Miklo said it's based on local streets and 50% of the local streets in Iowa City are the same width as Harlocke Street. Ehrhardt said she feels this property is not appropriate for RM-44. She thinks everyone knows that former Commissions have looked at this and the same problems are still there. It sounds like from the minutes that the Council did not have the courage in the past to go along with what staff and the Commissioners felt. She said the emotional part of this is that one of the reasons she is on this Commission is that she watched one of those ravines filled in and destroyed. She said she would hate to be a part of destroying another ravine. She discussed with staff about what it would take to downzone this as a Commission. She asked staff to explain that and what the Commission's options are to downzone this to a more appropriate zoning. Miklo said the current zoning is RM-44, which allows 44 units per acre. Staff has studied this twice before at the request of the neighborhood and on both those occasions staff recommended somewhere between 12 and 20 units per acre. One of the reasons staff is recommending approval of this is that it is 9.5 units per acre so less than what staff previously found was appropriate. He said he agrees if this were developed at a density of 44 units per acre it would be very questionable, however this is not being developed at RM-44, it's being developed at less than RM-12. Ehrhardt asked if it was RS-5 would it need this retention basin. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes February 15, 2001 Page 14 Miklo said yes it would. Hunsen said if it was zoned at RS-5, which is 5 units per acre; you would have 20 units. He said if you have 39 units at two-bedroom; that's 78 people and that would generate 503 traffic trips. Miklo said 503 trips includes the existing residences. Hunsen said even if you went to RS-5 and built 20 homes, what kind of traffic would that generate. Miklo said generally multi-family housing generates 6 trips per day. Single-family homes generally generate more. He said they've been using a number of 7 although a recent study showed it was more like 9 or 10. So, approximately 140 trips per day. Hunsen said then it would be 65 less trips per day at RS-5. Holocek said the Commission would have to give particular findings as to why they feel that this is not an appropriate plan given that it's designated at RM-44 but with the current plan it's being developed at 9.5 units per acre. Those findings need to be very clear as to why this is not an appropriate plan, given the inherent physical characteristics of the land as well as it's current zoning. That would include the infrastructure concerns. The Commission has the ability of their own accord when presented with a plan to make a recommendation to council as a result of that application. She said she knows it has been stated that the application before you is with regard to the environmental characteristics of the property and whether or not it is in comport with the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Again, after hearing the testimony, the Commission could make a finding that the current designation on this property is not supported by the infrastructure serving the properly. To do that, the Commission would have to make an appropriate motion and follow that with an appropriate vote. Hunsen said many people expressed concerns about storm water. He asked what the impact is going to be with more people. Miklo said in terms of the area to the west; that was built before the Storm Water Management Ordinance. This particular area according to the City Engineer that reviewed this property would be an improvement to this area because of the facility that is being built would slow the runoff. Hunsen said if they are going to consider a new zoning, he has heard all the reasons people don't want something and he would like to know what they do want. Holocek said she would suggest if the Commission is so inclined, the property owner would have a due right to know what you are inclined to do and to address that. Miklo said he's not speaking for the neighborhood but there were two requests in the past from neighbors to downzone this to RS-5 so whether that's what they still feel he can't say. Holocek said the 45-day limitation period expires on February 22, 2001. The Commission has a current motion to approve the plan and if they are inclined to go in another direction, that would require a deferral, which would require the applicant's consent to waive that 45-day limitation period. Bovbjerg asked if the motion were retracted, they would have to get approval from the applicant to waive the limitation period or they could send it on to council without a recommendation. Holocek said you have to make a recommendation or it is automatically deemed as a recommendation of approval according to the Zoning Code. Bovbjerg asked Siders if there was a deferral, would he grant them until March 1,2001. Siders said no he would not and if the Commission decides to not approve this project he would appreciate if they would articulate why they are not approving it. Miklo clarified with legal that the Commission needs to vote whether or not the application is in line with the Sensitive Areas Ordinance and the second issue would be to start the process to downzone this property if they have concerns about the current designation. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes February 15, 2001 Page 15 Holocek said she's not sure the two issues can be divorced. The Commission may feel it meets the intent and spirit of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance but the infrastructure issue raises a concern about the current RM-44 designation. Schinfier said she thinks it does meet the Sensitive Areas Overlay and she's not concerned about the water retention because it's been approved by the engineers and she really appreciates the open space so she would vote in favor of it. Shannon said there's a lot of speculation about what bad things could happen but some good things could happen too. He said there's a lot of bad things happening over there right now that should be addressed somewhere down the line but it doesn't mean this will get as bed as it could be so he is going to support this project. Ehrhardt said she will voting against this. The reasons are that the infrastructure does not suppod this, the traffic is a major problem and she is concerned about the water retention basin. She said it seems like you put all this concrete instead of the land that absorbs water. She said she knows the engineers come up with a great plan but in her mind she can't visualize how this is going to be better than land absorbing water. Hansen said he initially thought it was okay because of 9 units per acre, which could limit the density and the affect on neighbors of what could happen to this property. He finds the development in and of itself meets the letter of the law but it stretches the credulity as far as traffic goes especially with Weeber going uphill to Benton. Benton has been a problem forever. He doesn't like the way it impacts the neighborhood and he will be voting against it. Bovbjerg said this issue has been around for a long time. The zoning of RM-44 never should have been done in the first place and everything that's been done since then has exacerbated that. She said it's very difficult to say to a property owner that they can't build something because of the traffic problems, which weren't their fault to begin with. To the question of whether this fulfills the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, the answer is yes. To the question of whether this impacts the people in the neighborhood, the answer is yes. However the density proposed is much less than the density allowed under the RM-44 zoning. She will be voting in favor of this project. The motion carried on a vote of 3-2. CZ01-001. Discussion of a request submitted by Dykstra Real Estate Partnership to rezone approximately 7.13 acres located on the north side of Herbert Hoover Highway, approximately ¼ mile east of its intersection with Taft Avenue in Johnson County from (A-1) Rural to (CP-2) Planned Commercial. Miklo said this parcel was the subject of much discussion during the adoption process of the current Fringe Area Agreement, which was adopted in December 2000. Staff recommends that this proposal be deferred until a review committee, comprised of members of the City Council, Board of Supervisors, and/or members of the Planning and Zoning Commissions, and staff, develops a more comprehensive plan for this interchange to attempt to address the desires of the County and City. This is consistent with the new "conflict resolution" section of the Fringe Area Agreement, which allows the City and County to come to an agreement about a subdivision, rezoning, or annexation that may be in conflict with the Fringe Area Agreement. While the results of the review committee may not include the Dykstra property as a commercially designated parcel, it will hopefully result in a more detailed plan for future commercial development at this interchange. In the meantime, the Dykstras may establish the nursery and greenhouse elements of their proposed project under the A-l, Agricultural zoning. Dennis Dykstra, 1803 Grantwood, said he hope for a lesser term than being deferred indefinitely. He said he's had some discussions with County Planning and Zoning. Schintler asked Dykstra if he planned to have a sales office. Dykstra said it should go hand in hand. Hansen asked about the type of landscaping the nursery would use. Dykstra said pot to pot and explained. He said with A-1 they could have a sales office. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes February 15, 2001 Page 16 Public discussion closed. MOTION: Ehrhardt moved to defer CZ01-0001 indefinitely. Shannon seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 5-0. SUB01-0001. Discussion of an application submitted by Thomas Wegman for an extra-territorial final plat of Prairie View Estates Part 4, a 30.86, 21-lot residential subdivision with two outlots located north of Interstate-80 and east of Prairie du Chien Road in Johnson County. Miklo said staff recommends that SUB01-0001, a request for final plat approval of Prairie View Estates Part IV, a 30.86 acre, 21-1ot residential subdivision with two outlots be approved, subject to approval of legal papers and construction plans prior to City Council consideration. Public discussion open: There was none. Public discussion closed. MOTION: Hartsen moved to approve SUB01-0001, a request for final plat approval of Prairie View Estates Part IV, a 30.86 acre, 21-1ot residential subdivision with two outlots be approved, subject to approval of legal papers and construction plans prior to City Council consideration. Schintler seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 5-0. CODE AMENDMENT ITEM: Discussion of Development Regulations Analysis report presented by Duncan and Associates. Public discussion open: There was none. Public discussion closed. MOTION: Shannon moved to accept the Development Regulations Analysis report presented by Duncan and Associates and forward to Council. Ehrhardt seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 5-0. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEM: MOTION: Schintler moved to set a Public Hearing for March 1, 2001 on an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to include the North District Plan. Shannon seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 5-0. Schintler moved to approve the minutes of the February 1, 2001 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting as written. Hansen seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 5 - 0. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. Dean Shannon, Secretary Minutes submitted by Diane Crossett ppdadndm~n/p&z2-15~)1doc .;. M,NuTEs PRELIMINARy PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 1, 2001 - 7:30 P,M, Subject to A proval CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS ' MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Bovbjerg, Jerry Hansen, Pam Ehrhardt, Dean Shannon, Benjamin Chait MEMBERS ABSENT: Marilyn Schintler STAFF PRESENT: Mitch Behr, Bob Miklo, John Yapp, Karen Howard OTHERS PRESENT: Ann BadeIs RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: Recommended approval, by a vote of 4-1, to approve a rezoning to establish the Governor- Lucas-Bowery Street Conservation District, a Conservation Overlay Zone, located generally south of Burlington Street along Governor and Lucas Streets, including the letter of agreement from the State Historical Society. Recommended approval, by a vote of 5-0, to approve amending the zoning code to permit accessory apartment in an accessory building with the provisions and references in the staff report and to include the following language in number 7 of the zoning code: The accessory apartment shall be clearly subordinate in area to the single-family dwelling or to the accessory building. The accessory apartment may not contain more than thirty percent (30%) of the principal building's total floor area, or not more than fifty percent (50%) of the accessory building's total floor area and in no case may be larger than eight hundred (800) square feet or have more than two (2) bedrooms within a principal building or more than five hundred (500) square feet or have more than one (1) bedroom within an accessory building. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Bovbjerg called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. ANNOUNCEMENT OF VACANCIES ON CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: Bovbjerg said there is a list of vacancies on City Boards and Commissions available on the lobby bulletin board. She said the City needs expertise from the public. REZ01-0002. Discussion of an application submitted by Charles Ruppert for a rezoning of approximately 12.09 acres of property from I-1, Industrial, to C1-1, Intensive Commercial, for property located on the south side of Highway 1, between Westport Plaza and Menards. Yapp said this property is approximately 12.09 acres in size and is located between two commercial zones, the Westport Plaza property to the northeast and the Menards development to the southwest. Yapp said the Comprehensive Plan supports commercial development in areas where existing infrastructure can be utilized, where vehicular and/or pedestrian traffic will be adequate to support commercial enterprises, and where the commercial development will have the least negative impact on surrounding neighborhoods. Staff feels this property has all those attributes. The Comprehensive Plan also states that landscaping and access points are important for commercial corridors and entranceways to the City. Planning And Zoning Commission Minutes March 1, 2001 Page 2 Staff is recommending that no direct access be permitted to Highway 1. This is a condition that has been placed on this property in the past, and there is an existing frontage road that abuts the property from the Westport Plaza site and a planned frontage road from the Menards property, both of which provide access to the Ruppert property. Regarding environmental restraints, the property does contain hydric soils, which does not prohibit development but some special construction methods and drainage issues need to be taken in to account if and when a development is designed. Yapp said the property is covered by the runway protection zone for Runway 12. The airport has a runway protection zone easement over the property, which prohibits some uses that have a large congregation of people such as restaurants, camping, playgrounds and other uses that attract a lot of people. There are also some height restrictions closer to the runway. The runway protection zone does extend at a 20 to 1 slope from the airport property out over this property. The further away from the runway, the taller your buildings can be. The Federal Aviation Administration would need to review and approve any future development. Regarding entranceway issues; in the past on properties along Highway 1, the City has through Conditional Zoning Agreements has required certain landscaping and site design techniques to preserve the appearance along Highway 1. In summary these include: no outdoor storage of materials should be visible from Highway 1, loading docks should be screened from ~iew, parking rows should contain landscaping at the ends of rows, no more than one free-standing sign, a 30-foot setback from Highway 1 should be landscaped with ground cover, and any development should be approved by the FAA for compliance with the Runway Protection Zone. Yapp said staff recommends that the proposal to rezone the Ruppert property from I-1 to C1-1, Intensive Commercial be approved, subject to a conditional zoning agreement addressing the development's landscaping, design, sign, access, and runway protection zone issues. Yapp said Bovbjerg asked at the work session how the Ruppert property relates to the North Airport development. He showed the location of this proposal and the North Airport Development on the map and how Ruppert Road is planned for extension to Riverside. Shannon asked what could be done with the property that could be lower density. Yapp said they could do almost anything that is permitted in the Intensive Commercial Zone, which typically are uses such as contractors' yards, lumberyards, car dealerships, and other uses where outdoor storage of materials is a component of the business. The restrictions are on large congregations of people, which is what would trigger the FAA to be concerned. Shannon said the businesses on either side would be large congregations of people. Yapp said WaI-Mart and Menards are not in the Runway Protection Zone. He said the airport zoning regulations restrict uses that have an occupancy rating of 50 square feet per person or more, according to state building code. Ehrhardt asked if there is any way to avoid having a blank wall facing the Highway like Wal- Mart. Yapp said that is something that has been done in the past, with other developments. Miklo said they may be able to do something similar. Planning And Zoning Commission Minutes March 1, 2001 Page 3 Ehrhardt asked if they were not to consider anything about the potential sale of the property to the Airport, or whether their vote influences that sale. Behr said that is correct; that should not be a consideration at all. Hansen said he thinks it is the right use of the property but he also doesn't want a stark wall facing the Highway. Bovbjerg asked about the 30-foot setback on the map. Yapp pointed out the 30-foot landscape easement that is in place. Bovbjerg asked about the access road and if that is a requirement. Yapp said there is a 50-foot access easement, which already exists across the property. Public discussion open: There was none. Public discussion closed. MOTION: Chait moved to defer REZ01-0002, discussion of an application submitted by Charles Ruppert for a rezoning of approximately 12.09 acres of property from I-1, Industrial, to C1-1, Intensive Commercial, for property located on the south side of Highway 1, between Westport Plaza and Menards until March 15, 2001. Shannon seconded the motion. Ehrhardt asked if anything about the wall would come after the development comes in or if they need to do something now. Yapp said if they want that to be part of the Conditional Zoning Agreement they would do that now. He said staff would suggest some language for the next meeting. The motion carried on a vote of 5-0. Discussion of a rezoning to establish the Governor-Lucas-Bowery Street Conservation District, a Conservation Overlay Zone, located generally south of Burlington Street along Governor and Lucas Streets. Miklo said the Commission voted on this at the last meeting but they did not have a letter from the State Historical Society at that time. Staff found out it was something that was required before voting. The letter has been received and the State Historical Society agrees the proposed Conservation District is an appropriate method to help preserve this area. They did make some suggestions on some of the key historic properties in this area such as the Bethel AME Church, which is already on the National Historic Register; that those places have further protection as Iowa City landmarks. He said there are a few other places that might also apply. He said the letter will be passed on to the Historic Preservation Commission and they may be before the Planning and Zoning Commission in the future to nominate certain properties for landmark status. Ehrhardt asked how many properties were suggested for landmark status. Planning And Zoning Commission Minutes March 1, 2001 Page 4 Miklo said the Bethel AME Church, 411 South Governor; Stone Cottage, 332 South Governor; 510 South Governor, frame Italianate, 922 Bowery; Gothic Revival, 917 Bowery; and a Queen Anne, 427 South Governor. Public discussion open: There was none. Public discussion closed. MOTION: Ehrhardt moved to approve a rezoning to establish the Governor-Lucas-Bowery Street Conservation District, a Conservation Overlay Zone, located generally south of Burlington Street along Governor and Lucas Streets, including the letter of agreement from the State Historical Society. Hansen seconded the motion. Shannon restated his position of February 15, 2001 against the rezoning because he is against adding more layers of government and does not want to take away any properly rights unnecessarily. Shannon said he would not be against property owners voluntarily having their properties designated as historic properties. The motion carried on a vote of 4-1. Shannon voted against. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEM: Public Hearing on an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to include the North District Plan. The North District is bounded by Interstate 80 to the north, North Dodge Street on the south and east and the Iowa River on the west, including the Iowa City Water Plant Site located north of Interstate 80. Howard said the North District Plan is intended to be a general guide for future development in the Nodh District. If adopted it will become part of the Comprehensive Plan. It is the fourth district plan that the City has undertaken. Previous efforts have been in the South District, the South Central District and the Northeast District. She said the plan before the Commission is the culmination of the efforts of many interested citizens over the last year and a half. The plan is divided into three sections. The first section describes the location, the second section describes planning principles divided into five categories: housing, commercial and institutional uses, transportation, public services and facilities and parks and open space. The third section is the North District Plan map. She noted some of the handouts and correspondence received. Staff received an e-mail from Mike Arn who has a long history in the North District. He sent a message from Texas as spokesperson for his family and highlighted his family's history in the area and commented on the Plan. His letter and staff's response is included in the Commission's packet. Some of the issues that he brought up were that on the plan map the interchange of Dubuque Street the City right of way overlapped with Laura Drive. It appears that Laura Drive connects with Dubuque Street in some way and that is not the case now or in the Plan. She said staff is recommending that an appendix be included in the Plan to show al[ the citizens that participated in the process. Bovbjerg asked if the only change was the drawing in of Laura Drive. Howard said that and the key to the map. Planning And Zoning Commission Minutes March 1, 2001 Page 5 Public discussion open: There was none. Public discussion closed. MOTION: Shannon moved to defer an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to include the North District Plan. The North District is bounded by Interstate 80 to the north, North Dodge Street on the south and east and the Iowa River on the west, including the Iowa City Water Plant Site located north of Interstate 80. Ehrhardt seconded the motion, The motion carried on a vote of 5-0. OTHER: Discussion of a request submitted by Ann Bartels to amend the zoning code to permit accessory apartments in an accessory building. Miklo said accessory apartments are currently allowed in a primary residential structure. There are some limitations on them. The occupants of the accessory apartment or the home itself must be elderly or handicapped and one of the units must be owner occupied. There are restrictions on the size of the property and there is a committee review process every three years. He said in 1998 staff put together a proposal to expand the options for accessory apartments to allow them in accessory buildings such as a garage. That was deferred by the Commission. Since then the City has received a letter from Ann Bartels requesting a similar amendment. Staff is recommending approval. He said he received comments from Ehrhardt and those are provided for the Commission along with staff's responses. He said one thing staff feels the Commission should consider is a size restriction on the accessory apartment if it is in a detached building. Staff suggests limiting an accessory unit in a detached building to 500 square feet or one bedroom. Ehrhardt asked about the side yard and if it were possible for someone who had a wide lot to put an accessory building in the side yard. Miklo said it must meet the 5-foot side yard setback. Ehrhardt said when the code talks about an accessory unit inside a house the entrance should be in the rear or the side. She said they need to think about whether they want the front door of the accessory apartment to be in the front, side or rear. Miklo said the reason for the current wording is so it wouldn't look like a duplex. He said with a detached structure that may not be as big of a concern. He said the Commission might want to put in a restriction as to where the door is. Shannon said the letter from Boothroy does not indicate any concerns. Miklo said that is correct. Boothroy made the original proposal two years ago. Bovbjerg asked if currently, an accessory apartment within a building must have a separate entrance. Miklo referred to #5 in the code: The accessory apartment shall be designed so that the appearance of the building in which it is located remains that of a single-family residence. Any Planning And Zoning Commission Minutes March 1, 2001 Page 6 new entrances should face the side or rear yard of the building, and no addition for an accessory apartment shall increase the floor area of the original dwelling by more than ten percent. He said there is no requirement that it have its own entrance, but if it has one it has to be on the side or rear. Chait asked what the likelihood of having an accessory unit in a side yard. Ehrhardt said there were several possibilities for that in her neighborhood. Chait asked if her concern was having an entrance facing the street. Ehrhardt said she wasn't sure if she had a problem with that. Chait said he did not have a problem with the entrance not facing the street. Bovbjerg said they were limited in their design review and that #5 would govern. Chait said he didn't want to get too restrictive. He said #5 as it is would be fine. Ehrhardt asked about lot coverage restrictions. Miklo explained that all buildings on a lot could not cover more that 45% in RS-5 zone and 40% in RS-8 zone. Chait said when you look at atl the standards on the books; they put a damper on invasiveness of this type of development. Ehrhardt clarified that remains the same. Miklo said yes. Hansen asked about parking. Miklo said for a single family dwelling you can have one parking space in the front yard and cannot cover more than 50% of the front yard with pavement. Hansen expressed concern that there could be a lot of parking with these units. Chait said the people living in the accessory units would be elderly or handicapped. Hansen said if an elderly or handicapped person lived in the house, they could rent out the accessory unit to college students. Chait asked if it is defined who is the renter and who is the owner. Miklo said no just so that one, either the renter or owner is elderly or a person with disabilities. He said they don't check who the occupant is; that's not the City's business. Hansen said he thought it was to give a person who was ill or handicapped the opportunity to have a caregiver in the accessory unit. Chait said they don't know what the scenario would be. He said they are just making the possibility more real that they could stay on their property. He said what they can do now, does not change. He said this would allow them to live in the accessory unit and rent out the house Planning And Zoning Commission Minutes March 1, 2001 Page 7 no different than they could rent out the house today without this. He said the house could have too many people or too many cars under the current ordinance. Miklo said it would change the location of the accessory unit from in the house to in a detached building. Public discussion open: Ann Bartels, 524 3rd Avenue, Iowa City, said she cannot address technicalities of doors and spaces or potential abuses but she would like to say a few things about accessible housing in general and the accessory apartment idea and why she thinks it is important to pass this amendment. Bartels said we need more accessible housing. Currently, in Iowa City, there are 250 families on a waiting list for accessible housing. Aside from this immediate need, accessible housing makes sense for everyone. Ease of movement in a living space makes sense for small children. It makes sense for the able bodied, the elderly and it is essential for people with severe mobility issues. Bartels said need is only going to increase. Our population is aging. Baby boomers are becoming senior citizens. As we age, our chance of sustaining an injury or illness that leaves us with a temporary or permanent impairment increases. When this happens, we would all be thankful for not having to negotiate our crutches, walker or wheelchair up a flight of stairs just to use the bathroom. The accessory apartment provision will encourage the establishment of accessible housing. Broadening the provision to include detached buildings will encourage it even more. But the accessory apartment can have far more social impact than simply encouraging accessible housing. Bartels asked if she could use her particular case as an illustration; she plans to create an accessory apartment in a detached building on her property. She will make it accessible because that makes good sense, and rent it to a wheelchair dependent occupant. She has reduced the number on the list to 249 and is receiving rent payments, making home-ownership affordable. We both win. Barties said in a few years, her mother may be in need of assistance. She can move in the apartment and maintain some independence yet be close to family for care and supervision. In this way, she avoids expensive assisted living or nursing home care. Bartels said down the line further still, she will be the one who is tired, disabled or otherwise unable to live in the principal house. She will then move into the apartment and rent the house to some younger, able-bodied people for reduced rent (by then she will have paid off her mortgage) in exchange for yard duty, laundry or other favors, and so you see, over the course of 40 years or so, many people have received benefit. Bartels said she is a single person with no children. She is concerned about her future and how she will manage when/if she is less than fully capable. The accessory apartment will give options. Barrels said we should all consider our futures and those of our neighbors. The accessory apartment is a unique and creative way to provide housing options for ourselves, elderly and disabled. Chait said he had no idea of her motivation. He said he is primarily supporting extra income for property owners. He asked Bartels where her motivation is; how much motivation is due to money. Bartels said part of her motivation is money. Chait asked for a percentage. Planning And Zoning Commission Minutes March 1, 2001 Page 8 Barrels said it is significant to reduce the list of people waiting for accessible apartments from 250 to 249. Ehrhardt asked if Bartels would object to a condition of limiting to one bedroom and 500 square feet. Barrels said her space is 456 square feet and she would call it a one-bedroom space. She said it had been an apartment years ago and she wants to rehabilitate it back into an apartment. Ehrhardt said she is sympathetic to what Bartels wants to do and with her property it looks very natural. Her concern is doing it for the whole city and someone doing it in a way that could be very disruptive to neighbors. Public discussion closed. MOTION: Chair moved to approve amending the zoning code to permit accessory apartment in an accessory building with the provisions and references in the staff report, Shannon seconded the motion. Ehrhardt said she would like to consider an amendment to the motion to limit it to 500 square feet and one bedroom and limit the lot size. Miklo explained minimum lot sizes in RS-5 and RS-8 zones. Chait said he thinks they do not understand the distinctions that are already in the ordinance. He said setting more limitations defeats what they are trying to do in the first place. He said their concerns wouldn't happen because they can't happen now. He said he would rather not have a size restriction. He said he understands Ehrhardt's concern as a rude neighbor over building their lot. Miklo said there might be some merit in restricting it to 500 square feet because it can be up to 50% of the building area of the accessory building. AMENDMENT TO MOTION: Ehrhardt moved to amend the motion to include the following language in number 7 of the zoning code: The accessory apartment shall be clearly subordinate in area to the single-family dwelling or to the accessory building. The accessory apartment may not contain more than thirty percent (30%) of the principal building's total floor area, or not more than fifty percent (50%) of the accessory building's total floor area and in no case may be larger than eight hundred (800) square feet or have more than two (2) bedrooms within a principal building or more than five hundred (500) square feet or have more than one (1) bedroom within an accessory building. Chait seconded the amendment to the motion. Hansen said he likes the amendment. Chait said he does not like the restrictions but he will go along with it in the spirit of compromise. Shannon said he's against the amendment because he thinks they are trying to micromanage something. He said it makes it confusing. The amendment to the motion carried on a vote of 4-1, Shannon voted against. Hansen said he's in favor of the principal of providing housing for elderly or disabled but then he reads staff's response to Ehrhardt's e-mail which states: We feel that the positive benefits of Planning And Zoning Commission Minutes Mamh 1, 2001 Page 9 providing additional housing options for the elderly and their caretakers as well as persons with disabilities, out weigh the possible negative concerns. Hansen said the way this is going, it's not really providing additional benefits to those people. It's providing additional benefits to anyone. He said he thinks they are creating a lot more individual landlords who have no experience with renting. He said he's seen so many problems in neighborhoods because landlords don't know how to deal with bad tenants. He said the City should offer training for landlords. Bovbjerg asked if Hansen felt he would vote against the motion. Hansen said his comments were somewhat outside of this zoning issue. Chait said as a community, they could not restrict who can and cannot become a landlord. Hartsen said they cannot restrict it but he would like to see the City make education for landlords available. He said he's in favor of this amendment. Chair said he will support the motion as drafted but he does feel more strongly that it should not be restricted to handicapped and elderly. He would like to see it broader to help the average person afford to stay where they are. Shannon says he supports this kind of housing, he was just wary of restrictions being added with the amendment. Ehrhardt told of her grandmother who lived with them. The altered their house for that. Soon her in-laws will be moving in with them and it would be nice to have an accessory unit for them but she will not do that to her neighbors. She thinks there are enough restrictions on this that she can support it. She said she is concerned with enforcement. She said it is difficult to prove if someone is abusing the ordinance. Behr said there is always a difficulty to prove who lives where. He said he thinks the over- occupancy problem is more with students. He said in this situation he doesn't think that would happen as often. He said it could be difficult but less difficult than what it has been compared to. Ehrhardt asked what evidence would be needed to prove someone was abusing the accessory apartment rules. Behr said you would check the mailing address, tax returns and testimonies; a trail of things. Bovbjerg said she thinks the motion makes good sense, city-wide. It is narrow enough. Chair said not to forget this is an amendment to an accessory code already in place. It's not brand new; it is a modification. The motion carried on a vote of 5-0. Bovbjerg asked if Hansen wanted to make an appeal to staff about making information available to landlords. Hansen said that is being worked on in the Neighborhood Council. He said he thinks the City should be more assertive in it's housing department on the over occupancy issue. He said as it is being proposed there would be a staff person to train potential landlords. Planning And Zoning Commission Minutes March 1, 2001 Page 10 Bovbjerg asked if it would be voluntary or mandatory. Hansen said that's the biggest question. Hansen said the program would train landlords to recognize problems, i.e. drug traffic. Chait asked if the landlord did not know anything ever, would he be somehow liable. Hansen said that has to be worked out. Shannon said it's a grand idea and it's doomed to failure. He said he was a landlord for thirteen years and he read all the books. One time he had a nice duplex and it came to his attention that the tenant was paying his rent in cash always. He found out he was a drug dealer and they were getting ready to lower the boom on him and the federal government was going to seize his property, which they can. He was able to get the tenant out but he destroyed the place before he left. When he moved in he had excellent credentials. A previous landlord was not going to say anything bad about him. Shannon said his lawyer told him there was nothing he could do about it. He said you have some landlords who will be bums no matter how much education you give them. Hansen said they need people like Shannon to talk at the Neighborhood Council. Shannon said he doesn't know if it's fair to impose school on the landlords when you will still have bad tenants. Bovbjerg asked about the minutes from February 15, 2001. Miklo said they would be mailed to Commission members. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:27 p.m. Dean Shannon, Secretary Minutes submitted by Diane Crossett ppdadmin/min/p&z3-1 ~1 doc POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD MINUTES - February 13, 2001 CALL TO ORDER Chair John Watson called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ATTENDANCE Board members present: Leah Cohen, Paul Hoffey, Loren Horton, John Stratton and John Watson. Staff present: Legal Counsel Catherine Pugh and PCRB Assistant Sandy Bauer. Captain Tom Widmer was also present. CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by Hoffey and seconded by Hotton to adopt the Consent Calendar as presented: a. Minutes of 1/9/01 meeting b. Revised PCRB By-Law, 1/16/00 c. ICPD General Order- Racial Profiling d. ICPD General Order - Department Disciplinary Philosophy e. ICPD General Order - Emergency Operation of Police Vehicles E. ICPD General Order - Informants g. Department Memorandum 01-05, November & December Use of Force Review h. Traffic Stop Demographics, Jan. 2000 through Dec. 2000. i. ICPD Training Newsletter, January 2001 ICPD January Training Report ]<.Watch Training 01-23 |. ICPD Training Bulletin 01-37 m. ICPD Training Bulletin 01-38 n. ICPD Training Bulletin 01-39 o. Memorandum from Chief Winkelhake re 2000 Yearly Review p. ICPD Use of Force Report, December 2000 Items on the Consent Calendar were discussed as follows: c. ICPD General Order - Racial Profilincl - Page 3, G. Watson questioned if the canine officer makes a traffic stop, what's the rule for using the dog to sniff. Widmer responded the dog does not get out of the car unless there is probable cause. A "cursory sniff" means unobtrusive; the officer must be able to articulate why he deems there is a reason to have the dog do a walk-around. Widmer stated, as a matter of policy, the dog is not taken into a random parking lot and walking him around. The dog is used for routine patrol; his drug-sniffing ability is simply one of the things he is trained to do. Watson questioned "Complaints...", #1, why the department does not explain to a person how to fill out a PCRB complaint form, and Widmer responded that the practice is they explain the options they have and the procedures they would need to fill out both kinds of complaints, and directing them to the appropriate person in the PCRB. Stratton recommended some grammatical changes. d. ICPD General Order - Department Disciplinary Philosophy - Stratton recommended possible grammatical changes. e. ICPD General Order - Emerqencv Operation of Police Vehicles - Regarding all of the General Orders, Hoffey stated these are written exceptionally well. Especially this Order, where priority calls have been defined and are quite explicit, noting this is the first time in his experience that he has seen this. f. ICPD General Order - Informants - Stratton asked if there was something beyond monetary that would be included as a personal benefit. Widmer stated there probably is and gave possible examples. Stratton asked who the Commander of Investigations is, and Widmer stated it is Lieutenant Rick Wyss. o. Memorandum from Chief Winkelhake re 2000 Yearly Review - Watson commented that there appears to be fewer departmental complaints and PCRB complaints this year than in previous years. Watson requested from Widmer the number of complaints in the ICPD in the past five years. Widmer stated he would provide those numbers, and confirmed that the number of complaints is significantly down this year. Watson also would like provided the number of use of force incidents, together with other baseline statistics to include number of arrests (Widmer stated some categories of arrests are up; calls for services are up). Widmer explained how the department is doing policing differently and how that affects complaints. Widmer stated he would let the Chief know of the Board's request for this information. He also said the depar~ment's year-end report should be finished sometime in March. Motion carried, 5/0, all members present. RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL - None ICPD PPP Chief Winkelhake was not prepared to give a presentation at this meeting on GOALS & OBJECTIVES OF THE ICPD FOR 2001, but should have that information completed for the March meeting. Widmer and Bauer will confirm this with the Chief. Watson also stated that Prof. David Baldus would be present at the March meeting to discuss the ICPD traffic stop data and racial profiling. The Board requested that Sid Jackson and the Chief be invited to attend also. Further discussion of topics for upcoming presentations will be discussed at the next meeting. 2 Hoffey previously mentioned Police Pursuits as a possible topic. He questioned, in a police pursuit situation where another agency is pursuing through Iowa City, what their procedure would be. COMMUNITY FORUM The decision whether to videotape the Community Forum was discussed again. It remained the Board's decision to not videotape. Bauer reported that ChiefWinkelhake stated Captain Matt Johnson would be available to make a presentation at the PCRB Community Forum on April 18, 2001, on Community Policing. Bauer also reported that the Chief stated Captain Johnson would take questions from the Board, but he would not take questions from the public. Watson stated that it seems self-defeating to have a public forum and have a representative of the department there to make a presentation on a major emphasis of the department and then that person not take any questions/answers from the public on that subject matter. Following discussion, Watson was directed to meet with the Chief to discuss the Board's position on this matter. Watson will report back to the Board in March. NEW BUSINESS None OLD BUSINESS The Board noted that Article V, Section I of the PCRB By- Laws was approved by Council. A copy of e-mail correspondence from Bob Hardy was distributed, which stated the PCRB videotape is still on target for completion in April. NACOLE membership was again discussed. Bauer reported NACOLE has not responded to her requests for a refund of their membership dues. PUBLIC DISCUSSION Captain Widmer informed the Board that the ICPD has made the decision to go through the accreditation exam inspection in August. A mock inspection is planned prior to that. Referring to a Gazette article on Jan. 15, 2001, regarding accreditation, Hoffey stated perhaps the most 3 important aspect of police accreditation is the fact that it assures the community that the police department is meeting and complying with the highest professional standards ever set for a police agency in this country, which the article did not state. MEETING SCHEDULE · Regular Meeting March 13, 2001 ( Stratton and Cohen absent) · Regular Meeting April 10, 2001 · Community Forum April 18, 2001 BOARD INFORMATION · Cohen and Chief Winkelhake met with students from Metre High School, Cedar Rapids, in the Council Chambers on January 23. Approximately 15-20 students plus a few teachers attended. The students are studying police boards throughout the country and came to the meeting very well prepared. A very good, intelligent conversation was held about the board, and PCRB handouts were distributed. · Cohen reported a conversation with Council Member Connie Champion. · Stratton reported on a request from a Daily lowan reporter on student rights and information about the PCRB. STAFF INFORMATION None ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Stratton and seconded by Hoffey. Motion carried, 5/0, all members present. Meeting adjourned at 8:20 P.M. 4