Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-05-15 Bd Comm minutes Animal Services Advisory Board Minutes March 28, 2001 Iowa City Transit Building Present: Elizabeth Hospodarsky, Diana Landell, Tarmnara Meester, I.C. Staff: Sue Cote, Misha Goodman, Tonuny Widmer Public: Lisa Drahozal-Pooley; Jean Walker Absent: Michele Brandstatter, Jonelle Hankner, Terry Koehn OLD BUSINESS 1. Minutes were approved with corrections - switch Lisa and Elizabeth's names in attendance section. Add the word "not" in front of having in item 2 of new business. 2. FAC Report. Jean Walker and Lisa Drahozal-Pooley presented reports from the Friends of the Animal Center Foundation. (Attached) 3. Center Sign. Misha showed the artist' s rendering of the new sign for the Animal Care and Adoption Center and reported on the final wording selected for the back of the sign. 4. Cold Noses, Warm Hearts Report (CNVVH). Elizabeth reported that things are slow. They have a mom and kittens, but that most of the recent fosters have been adopted. NEW BUSINESS 1. Acceptance of By-Laws. The bylaws were approved by unanimous vote and recommended (also unanimously) for forwarding to the Iowa City and Coraville councils for their approval. 2. Elections. The board elected the following officers - Chair: Tammara Meester; Vice Chair: Elizabeth Hospodarsky; and Secretary: Diana Lundell. 3. Adoptathon. Mishareported thatthis year's adoptathon is scheduled for July 20 (10:30 a.m. to 8 p.m.) and July 21 (10 a.m.-6 p.m.). Plans are for "bigger and better." 4. Statistics. Misha presented the stats, explaining some data entry problems. There was quite a bit of discussion on what the statistics mean and categories that could be elminated and categories that board member would prefer to see. Based on that discussion, Misha will bring the board a suggested template for future reports to the May meeting for us to review. 5. Supervisors Report. Sue reported that it is quiet in Comlville. Misha reported on staff training that is ongoing and the results of the city's recent budgeting. The Animal Care and Adoption Center was approved for a 1/2time kennel worker and a fulltime clerical worker. 6. Board member reports - A board member asked Misha how many volunteers there are at the center. She says about 200 (in and out), but about 30 on a regular weekly basis. Elizabeth reported that CNWH has 15 to 20 foster volunteers (about 3 of them dog people. 7. Citizen Comments -- none. Minutes submitted May 4, 2001 by Secretary Diana Lundell /~nimal Control/~dvisory Board MINUTES WEDNESDAY, MARCH 14, 2001 - 5:00 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 Howard, Sarah Holecek, Mitch Behr OTHERS PRESENT: David Tingwald, Joe Marron, Michael Pugh CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Corcoran called the meeting to order at 5:02 P.M. ROLL CALL: Maurer, Brandt, Paul, Corcoran and Keitel present. CONSIDERATION OF THE JANUARY 10, 2001, BOARD MINUTES: Motion: Brandt moved to approve the January 2001 minutes. Paul seconded with the motion being carried on a vote of 5-0. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: EXC01-00003. Discussion of an application submitted by Larry and Charmaine Svoboda for a special exception to reduce the front yard setback for property located at 112/118 Bloomington Street in the Planned High Density Multifamily (PRM) Zone. Howard explained that the applicants plan to build a 12-unit apartment building on two lots. In order to meet other requirements of the PRM zone the applicants are requesting a special exception to reduce the required front yard from 15' to 4'6". If granted, proposed building wou~d be located approximately 20' from the city sidewalk and generally in line with other buildings along the frontage. Howard stated that the unique situation in this case is that if the applicants were to comply with the required setback of 15 feet, the resulting building would be further from the street than all of the other buildings along the frontage. The existing buildings along the 100 block of E. Bloomington Street are located between 13' and 22' from the sidewalk. In order to meet the required front yard setback, the applicant's building would have to be located more than 30 feet from the sidewalk. Howard also stated that there is practical difficulty meeting the front setback requirement in this case. The proposed building needs to be located closer to the street in order to meet all the other dimensional, landscaping, and parking requirements of the PRM zone. Howard went on to state that one way to determine whether granting a special exception would have a negative effect on the neighborhood, surrounding properties or the general public is to consider whether the proposed special exception will equally or better meet the purpose of the regulation. The city setback requirements maintain light, air, and separation for fire protection; reflect general building scale; promote a reasonable physical relationship between residences, and promote options for privacy. Staff feels the applicants meet or exceed these purposes, particularly since granting the exception would allow the building to be located in line with other Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes March 14, 2001 Page 2 buildings along the frontage. For this reason staff believes there will be no negative effective on neighboring properties. Howard stated that another consideration was that the applicants meet all requirements of the PRM zone. She explained that the proposed home meets the PRM design standards. if this exception is granted the proposal will meet all other requirements in the zone. She stated that the proposal will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, because the area is intended for high density housing. Staff recommends that the Board approve this special exception. Public Hearinq Opened None. Public Hearin¢l Closed Keitel asked what the pavement width is on Bloomington Street. Howard stated that it is about 30' wide. Motion: Brantit moved that item EXC01-00003, an application submitted by Larry and Charmaine Svoboda for a special exception to reduce the front yard setback for property located at 112/118 Bloomington Street in the Planned High Density Multifamly (PRM) Zone, be approved. The motion was seconded by Paul. Findinqs of Fact Keitel stated that he drove by the area, and it appears crowded. He could see that the properties are close to the street. He feels that an 80' right-of-way width is excessive for this area and that the exception would allow the building to be located in better harmony with other buildings along the frontage. He stated he would vote in favor. Paul stated that he would vote in favor of the application. He feels it would be more favorable to maintain the look of the neighborhood. The project doesn't involve anyone's safety, comfort, general welfare, and doesn't run counter to the purposes of the setback requirements in general. No one will be negatively affected by the setback, and development won't be impeded. Maurer stated he would vote in favor for reasons previously given. Brandt stated he would vote in favor of the exception. Corcoran stated she would vote in favor. She feels a special exception is warranted and the requirements are met in this case. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. EXCO0-00017. An application submitted by James and Becky Buxton for a special exception to establish parking on a separate lot for property located at 225 Church Street in the Neighborhood Conservation Residential (RNC-12) Zone. Howard stated that the applicants have requested that this item be deferred indefinitely because they have not been able to locate the parking that was needed. Paul asked how long the applicants can defer an application. Howard said there was no set rule; it's on a case-by-case basis. However, applicants are in violation, and have received notice from Housing & Inspection Services for over-occupancy. Holecek stated that when a notice of violation goes out, the property owner is granted approximately 30 days to rectify the violation before a citation is filed Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes Mamh 14, 2001 Page 3 in district court. A citation is a municipal infraction that is punishable by a fine and court costs and could include an order by the Court to rectify or abate the violation by a date specific. CONSIDERATION OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED REGARDING PROPERTY LOCATED AT 510/512 EAST BLOOMINGTON STREET IN THE COMMERCIAL OFFICE (CO- 1) ZONE. Holecek referred to a letter that was provided to members of the Board from Tom Gelman on behalf of Bloomington Building Properties requesting and outlining different methods by which the Board could again revisit the issue of rehearing this matter should it so choose. Holecek also provided the Board with a memorandum responding to the proposed methods by which the Board could reconsider the matter which it previously heard in December. She stated that the Board could suspend the rules regarding reconsideration such that any party could make a motion to reconsider and place this issue on the agenda. This would require a four person affirmative vote in support of the rules to suspend. A motion could then be made by any party and a simple majority could then pass a motion for reconsideration. Holecek reminded the Board that there is pending litigation regarding this matter, and suggested that the Board make any reconsideration hearing subject to a dismissal of the district court action prior to going forward on the actual formal hearing. She stated that if the litigation was not dismissed, this could put the Board in the position of defending the matter on two different records. Corcoran asked what the standard of review is if the Board were to vote to suspend and rehear. Holecek stated that the hearing would be a rehearing with new evidence presented. Mike Pugh stated that he was speaking on behalf of Bloomington Properties at Tom Gelman's request. He agreed with the procedures as outlined by Holecek. He felt another option was that the Board could rescind the prior Board action. His position is that this would not be a reversal of the decision, but would place the applicant in the position of appearing in front of the Board again on their appeal. Pugh stated that they have a timing issue with dismissing the appeal. He recognizes that Holecek has a valid point about having two records on appeal at the district court Level and proposes that if the Board would consider suspending the rules and rehearing the matter, that the applicants would substitute that record for the previous record for purposes of their appeal, if necessary. Applicant does not want to be in the position of not being able to appeal a decision if they dismiss their litigation. Keitel asked Pugh to explain the current timetable for their petition for the writ. Pugh stated that it has been filed in district court but no action has been filed at this time because the City has filed a pre-answer motion to dismiss two of the parties. Once this motion has been ruled on, an answer would be filed and the applicant would ask that a writ be issued and that the Court set the matter for hearing. Paul asked if it would be possible for the parties to discuss the issue of the dismissal and after they resolve this matter, to have a special meeting on the rehearing. Holecek stated that would be a possible solution. Corcoran stated she would want to see briefs since this is a complicated matter. Keitel asked what a reasonable time for providing briefs would be. Pugh and Holecek stated that they could provide briefs within two weeks. Corcoran asked if other members of the audience wish to speak on this issue. Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes Mamh 14, 2001 Page 4 Public Hearinq Opened Howard asked if there was a problem that no public notice of a public hearing had been provided. Holecek stated that they were not going to be deciding any substantive rights, so this was not an issue. Corcoran stated that it was on the agenda so people were aware it would be heard. David Tingwald stated he was the coordinator of the steering committee of the Northside Neighborhood Association, and he lives at 814 E. Market St. He referred to a letter from the Northside Neighborhood of February 27, 2001, which was adopted unanimously by the members in attendance at their February 22"d meeting. The Association is concerned that the applicant should accept the actions of this Board as final and pursue methods for appeal beyond the Board. Joe Marron, 508 Bloomington St., stated he lives next door to the property in question. He encouraged the Board to do their job and solve this issue as soon as they could. Motion: Brandt moved that the Board of Adjustment suspend the rules concerning Bloomington Building Properties' request for a rehearing so that the Board could rehear this application with all five members present. The motion was seconded by Paul. The motion passed 4-1. Holecek reminded the Board that a motion to rehear the appeal would now be necessary. She reiterated that her recommendation is that if such a motion is made, it be subject to a dismissal with prejudice of the action currently pending in the district court on writ of cert on this matter. Motion: Keitel moved that the Board of Adjustment reconsider the application brought by Bloomington Building Properties with the condition that no new hearing be held unless prior to that time the applicant's case in district court has been dismissed with prejudice. The motion was seconded by Paul. Pugh stated that a dismissal with prejudice may be problematic because the applicant would be foregoing any possibility of appeal should they lose at the reheafing. Holecek stated that it was her opinion that the decision would be made on an entirely different date so the factual record would be very different. Pugh stated that their appeal was not only based on the decision made by the Board, that they have appealed the decision made by the building official on November 9, 2000. He feels this would set up ares iudicata decision that would prohibit them from raising the same issues at the court level. Corcoran asked if they could dismiss without prejudice. Holecek stated that this would allow the applicant to refile at the district level, which would set the Board up to defend on two different records. Pugh suggested a written letter from applicants through their counsel that they would not refile the same appeal based on the December hearing. Holecek suggested a friendly amendment to the pending motion stating that a hearing will not be held prior to the dismissal of the pending litigation in district court with prejudice or something substantially similar to prevent litigation on two different records. Motion: Keitel moved that the Board of Adjustment reconsider the application brought by Bloomington Building Properties with the condition that no new hearing be held unless prior to that time the applicant's case in district court has been dismissed with prejudice or a substantially similar agreement to prevent litigation on bNO different records. The motion was seconded by Paul. Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes · March 14, 2001 Page 5 The motion carried 4-1. After discussion, the Board decided that the matter will be heard at the next regular meeting scheduled for April 11, 2001 as the last item on the agenda. Corcoran asked that the City Attorney and the applicant submit briefs. Maurer questioned the need for briefs because this matter has already been presented to the Board. Corcoran stated that since this is an appeal and is different than normal procedure, she would like to have briefs. Holecek stated that briefs would be important for the Board since this is a different type of issue for the Board. Paul stated that he felt briefs were important because the original hearing was so long ago. Keitel questioned whether any further correspondence or action had been taken by the appellant since December. Pugh stated that there has been a slight modification to the parking which was denied, but no substantive change to this issue has been made. Holecek confirmed that there has been no material deviation from the site plan review as applied for. The appellant's brief will be due on March 30, 2001 to give the City adequate time to prepare a brief. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, April 11, 2001. ADJOURNMENT Brandt moved to adjourn, seconded by Keitel. The meet/Lag adjo~-ned atdG:01 PM Board Chairperson /~ ~- Board Secr; Minutes Submitted By Neana Saylor ppdadm/rn~n/boa03-14-01 doc M,NUTES i BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 11, 2001 - 5:00 P.M. CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS Subject 3b(3) MEMBERS PRESENT: Vincent Maurer, Mike Paul, Kate Corcoran, Dennis Keitel, T.J. Brandt MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Karen Howard, Sarah Holocek, Doug Boothroy, Mitch Behr OTHERS PRESENT: Dick Kruse, Gerry Ambrose, Gary Smith, Judy Good, Gene Lariviere, Hamed ?, Duane Musser, Tom Gelman, John Kammermeyer, John Hayek, Doug Boothroy, David Tingwald. Joe Marran, Tim Walker, Sarah Paulson, Claire Spansler, Steve Ballard CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Corcoran called the meeting to order at 5:20 p.m. CONSIDERATION OF MARCH 14, 2001 MINUTES: Brandt moved to approve the minutes of the March 14, 2001 Board of Adjustment meeting as written. Paul seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 5 - 0. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: EXC01-00004. Discussion of an application submitted by the Preucil School of Music for a special exception to establish a school of specialized instruction on lot 7 of the Northgate Corporate Park, Phase 2 in the Research Development Park (RDP) Zone. Howard gave staff report. The Preucil School of Music has made a purchase offer to buy lot 7 in the Northgate Corporate Park, Phase II. This approximately 2-acre piece of land is in the Research Development Park (RDP) Zone. Lot 7 of the Northgate Corporate Park is zoned RDP. As a condition of this area being zoned RDP, a conceptual master plan and development standards were adopted as a part of the zoning requirements. Any building application received for lots within this RDP Zone must comply with the master plan and development standards as submitted in January and March, 1990, respectively. Howard described what the new facility would be used for. She reviewed staffs comments on the seven general standards of 14-6W-2B of the City Code. Staff recommends that EXC01-00004 be approved, subject to compliance with the general requirements of the RDP zone as well as the more specific requirements outlined in the Northgate Corporate Park, Phase II, Development Standards. Public discussion open: Richard Kruse, 7 Lonqview Knoll, Iowa City, Iowa, said he is the architect for Preucil and available for questions. Public discussion closed. MOTION: Maurer moved to approve EXC01-00004, an application submitted by the Preucil School of Music for a special exception to establish a school of specialized instruction on lot 7 of the Northgate Corporate Park, Phase II in the Research Development Park (RDP) Zone, subject to compliance with the general requirements of the RDP zone as well as the more specific requirements outlined in the Northgate Corporate Park, Phase II, Development Standards. Keitel seconded the motion. Paul said he was in favor of the exception based on use and compliance. He said Preucil is a well-known institution and a good citizen. Corcoran said she was in favor of the exception and sited her reasons. Keitel said he was in favor of the exception and sited his reasons. Brandt said he was in favor of the exception and sited his reasons. Board of Adjustment Minutes April 11,2001 Page 2 The motion carried on a vote of 5-0. EXC01-00006. Discussion of an application submitted by Ambrose Properties, LC for a special exception to permit an auto and truck oriented use in the Community Commercial (CC-2) Zone and to reduce the front yard setback for property located at 814/820 Orchard Street. Howard gave staff report. The applicant is proposing to lease the property to Budget car and truck rental. Commercial uses surround the subject property on three sides, Properties on the west side of Orchard Street are zoned single family residential (RS-8). Three single family dwellings currently exist along the 800 block of Orchard Street across the street from the proposed development. Howard stated that the business owner provided the following information regarding the proposed use. He stated that the maximum number of vehicles that would be stored would be 30. At peak moving times in Iowa City, there will be approximately 15 customers per day. IN Iowa City there is quite a bit of weekend business and the peak moving season corresponds with the University calendar. Since several single family homes are located directly across Orchard Street from the proposed auto and truck rental business, careful consideration should be given to this special exception request so that the single family-zoned properties are not unfairly affected by traffic, noise, and bright lights, Howard stated that the Zoning Code provides a number of standards that are intended to prevent or mitigate potential negative impacts when commercial uses are located adjacent to a residential zone. One of these is a screening requirement, which states in part, "screening shall be provided along lot lines or street right of way in a manner sufficient to effectively obscure the commercial or industrial use from view. A second standard pertains to parking near residential. The very nature of the proposed use necessitates that a large portion of the site be reserved for vehicle maneuvering, parking, and storage, Therefore, the applicant has requested that the front yard be reduced from 20 feet to 5 feet in order to maximize the amount of site area that can be used for maneuvering and storing rental car and trucks. Howard continued that staff feels that the front yard reduction request combined with the request to provide only the minimum amount of landscape screening will not be adequate to effectively obscure the commercial activity from the adjacent residential area. Staff has suggested to the applicant and business owner and recommends to the Board that the site be designed so that the building is located along the western property line, thereby screening much of the activity on the site from view of the homes. Howard stated that one of the purposes of the setback requirements is to provide options for privacy bebveen properties. Granting a special exception to reduce the front yard in order to store cars and trucks in the area would both defeat the purposes of the setback requirement as well as the intended purpose of prohibiting parking in the front yard on commercial properties located within 50 feet of a residential zone. If the building were located along the Orchard Street frontage, effectively screening the auto and truck-oriented use from the residential area across the street, a reduction of the setback may be reasonable. Staff does not recommend a reduction in the front yard along Orchard Street if it will be used for vehicle maneuvering, parking or storage. Howard outlined the staff recommendation that the Board approve EXC01-00006, a special exception to permit an auto and truck oriented use in the Community Commercial (CC-2) Zone and a special exception to reduce the front yard setback from 20 feet to 5 feet for the length of the building wall that fronts on Orchard Street for property located in the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone at 814/820 Orchard Street if certain conditions are met. Public discussion open: Gerry Ambrose, Iowa City, Iowa, showed a new drawing to the Board. He said they concur with staff on staff's suggestions to redesign the site so that the building is along the western property line. Maurer asked the length of Orchard Street frontage. Ambrose said 110 feet Gary Smith, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, said he's with Budget Car and Truck rental. He said they have 24-foot and 15-foot trucks but not many ever just sit. He said extra trucks are stored at the Cedar Rapids airport. Board of Adjustment Minutes April 11, 2001 Page 3 Ambrose said they think it is consistent with the neighborhood. Paul asked about customer parking. Ambrose pointed out where customer parking is. He said it is a day use business. Public discussion closed. MOTION: Keitel moved to approve EXC01-00006, a special exception to permit an auto and truck oriented use in the Community Commercial (0C-2) Zone and to reduce the front yard setback for property located at 814/820 Orchard Street, subject to the following conditions: · The special exception is granted for as long as the property remains an auto and truck rental use; · The site must be designed so that the building is located along the western property line so that the commercial use is effectively screened from view of the adjacent residential zone; · Any frontage along Orchard Street that is not covered by building area or driveway must be screened according to the standards outlined in '14-6S-11 of the Zoning Ordinance; · Any signs located along Orchard Street may not be illuminated; and · Fascia signs located along Orchard Street are limited to eight (8) square feet in size; and to approve EXC01-00006, a special exception to reduce the front yard setback from 20 feet to 5 feet for the length of the building wall that fronts on Orchard Street for property located in the Community Commercial (CC- 2) zone at 8~14/820 Orchard Street, subject to the following condition: · For any portion of the Orchard Street frontage that is not covered by a building, the required front yard remains 20 feet. Paul seconded the motion. Keitel said the interest of the public is protected by staff and the developer with the revised layout. Paul said this use is compatible with other uses in the area. Traffic will probably be lower than some other uses. He is in favor of the screening requirement and moving the building to the western property line. This will not prevent redevelopment across the street in the future. Maurer said he's in favor as submitted. Brandt said he thinks it is a compatible use and traffic density will not be high. Corcoran said the applicant has shown evidence that they will be in compliance. The motion carried on a vote of 5-0. EXC01-00007. Discussion of an application submitted by Judith M. Good for a special exception to permit a bed and breakfast inn on lots 17, 18, and 19 of the Meadow Ridge Subdivision in a Single Family (RS-12) Zone. Howard gave staff report. Judith Good has made a purchase offer to buy lots 17, 18, and 19 of the Meadow Ridge Subdivision. The eastern portion of lot 19 contains a conservation easement, which was established at the time the subdivision was platted per the requirements of the Iowa City Sensitive Areas Ordinance. The applicant has no plans to develop lots 17 and 18 at this time, desiring instead to maintain this area as open space for the bed and breakfast. Bed and breakfast inns are permitted as accessory uses in the RS-12 zone by special exception if certain criteria are met and if the general special exception review standards are met. Howard also stated that the bed and breakfast will provide no more than five bedrooms to guests who will stay for periods not to exceed 14 consecutive days. The plot plan the applicant has submitted shows that five off-street parking spaces will be provided on the property, which meets both the minimum off-street parking requirements for a single family residence as well as the additional three spaces required for bed and breakfast inns. Ms. Good has also indicated that she is aware that she will have to install fire protection equipment according to the Uniform Building Code and that signage for the inn is limited to one non-illuminated sign that is no larger than two square feet in area. Staff concludes that there are no impediments or peculiarities to the property in question that would preclude the applicant from meeting the objective standards outlined. Board of Adjustment Minutes April 11, 2001 Page 4 Howard outlined the staff findings that the specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood because the RS-12 zone is intended to provide for higher density development of single-family dwellings and duplexes. The applicant's proposal for a bed and breakfast inn establishes a lower density of development than otherwise might be developed under the current zoning. Since the inn will be built on one of the first properties along this frontage road, visitors staying at the bed and breakfast will not have to drive through the adjacent residential neighborhoods to access the inn. Therefore, there will be minimal, if any, traffic impacts to the neighborhood. Howard stated that staff recommends approval because the RS-8 zone is primarily intended for medium densit~ single family residential development. Given the size of the property and the well-designed site plan that preserves existing trees and natural features, use of this proposed single family home as a bed and breakfast inn will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for this area of the City. Corcoran asked if this special exception runs with the land if it's sold. Holocek said if the use as a bed and breakfast ceased for six months, the special exception would expire. Public discussion open: Judith Good, Iowa City, Iowa, said she is purchasing 17, 18 and 19 so no one will develop there and she will have a large front yard. Public discussion closed. MOTION: Paul moved to approve EXC01-00007, an application submitted by Judith M. Good for a special exception to permit a bed and breakfast inn on lots 17, 18, and 19 of the Meadow Ridge Subdivision in a Single Family (RS-12) Zone. Maurer seconded the motion. Corcoran said this development is less dense than allowed in zoning. The use will meet requirements for parking and extra fire standards. There is adequate ingress and egress from the establishment. There is little or no impact on traffic in the neighborhood. Brandt said it is not injurious to any neighbors and the traffic is not a safety issue. Keitel said he lives in that neighborhood and feels it is a well thought out plan and doesn't see any negatives. Maurer said he is in favor. Paul said it is a lower density use than allowed. The motion carried on a vote of 5-0. APPEALS: AP00-0001/AP01-00002. Reconsideration of the Board of Adjustment decision of December 13, 2000 to deny AP00-0001, an appeal of a decision made by the Director of Housing and Inspection Services to deny a minor site plan submitted by Bloomington Properties, L,L.P. for a medical office building and associated parking lot located at 510/512 East Bloomington Street in the Commercial Office (CO1) Zone. (AP01-00002 has been consolidated with AP00-0001, as they concern the same subject property and determinations by the building official). Howard gave the staff report. She described briefly the dates and relevant background information of the case. She explained how the site planning process is separate from the zoning requirements and is intended to ensure that plans for new development promote the most beneficial relation between present and proposed uses of land. Howard listed the reasons cited by the building official in denying the minor site plan as follows: failure to meet the vehicle and pedestrian circulation standard (14-5H-5F); failure to meet the minimum parking requirements as stated in 14-6N-1J; and failure to locate the proposed building and parking lot in a manner that is compatible with surrounding properties (14-5H- 1). The appellant is appealing the first and third code deficiency cited by the building official. Board of Adjustment Minutes April 11, 2001 Page 5 Howard stated that the vehicle and pedestrian circulation standard in the site planning ordinance requires that applicants design a site so that "to the greatest extent reasonably possible" it prevents hazard to adjacent streets or property. She stated that the applicant has the burden of proof In this case, the building official did not believe that the applicant had met this standard because the design would cause unnecessary interruption of the pedestrian network along the street, remove on-street parking, and negatively impact the flow of traffic along Bloomington Street. Howard stated that traffic and pedestrian circulation includes not only the circulation on the site itself, but the surrounding network of sidewalks, streets and alleys in the vicinity and how they function together. Howard continued that the building official also denied the plan based on the building location in that it was located behind the established building line in the neighborhood and was likely to reduce the enjoyment and privacy of neighboring properties. Howard stated that staff believes that the decision made by the Director of Housing Inspection Services was based on a reasonable application of the site plan review standards contained in the City Code and is consistent with the policies of the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan and that is why staff is recommending that the Board deny APOO-0001/APOI-00002 and uphold the decision of the building official in this matter. Keitel asked if in a CO1 zone there is no maximum building setback Howard said no. Public discussion open: Gene Lariviere, 1040 William, Iowa City, Iowa, said he is one of the general partners. He said there are three reasons they have brought this back before the Board. Their patient's safety is priority over aesthetics. He said the one roadblock they were not aware of, that the City keeps referring to is fitting in with the single finger of residential in this area that is predominantly CO1, He said access to the building by the alley is unacceptable. He said they question what is meant by minor site review. He said was it the intent of the City Council to have one person in charge of the aesthetics of the city. He said this denial was done somewhat underhandedly. Hamed ?, 601 East Bloominclton, Iowa City, Iowa, spoke in favor of the appellants citing patient safety. He stressed that traffic is minimal because of patient scheduling. Duane Musser, 202 Westwood Road, Williamsburq, Iowa 52361, said he is a partner of MMS Consultants. He was hired by Hodge Construction in December, 1999 to do a minor site plan. On June 9, 2000 they submitted that to Julie Tallman who usually reviews minor site plans. They went through normal revisions. Circulation and building location issues were never brought up by Tallman. He worked with Hodge Construction on a special exception application in August 2000, which they withdrew. He met with Bob Miklo, Scott Kugler, a representative from Hodge Construction and Gene Lariviere to discuss options. He said the next morning Tallman contacted him to inform him that their curb cut permit was not approved. Tom Gelman, 714 McLean Street, Iowa City, Iowa, is the lawyer representing the appellant. He said their persistence reflects their conviction. He asked to make photos submitted last time part of the record. He submitted a map showing a larger area of the CO1 zone+ He articulated concerns about the First Assistant City Attorney advising the Board of Adjustment. He said they are concerned with public input in the appeal process, either for or against the appellant. They feel it is inappropriate. Gelman outlined his arguments on behalf of the appellant, to overturn the building official's decision based on his legal brief submitted to the Board. He distributed various pieces of evidence in support of the appellant including pictures and a memo from Eleanor Dilkes, City Attorney to the City Council dated March 29, 2001. Board of Adjustment Minutes April 11, 2001 Page 6 He said the owners believe that the minor site plan submitted to the City of Iowa City fully complies with the requirements set forth in the City Code and that the Building Official's refusal to approve the site plan is in error and should be reversed by the Board of Adjustment. It is the owner's position that they have fully complied with the express provisions of the Zoning and Site Plan Review Ordinance applicable to the site plan as submitted and that the Building Official's identification of two alleged Code deficiencies was based upon either imposition of design standards inapplicable to the owners' project and/or design standards imposed by the Building Official without any legal basis or authority to do so. Gelman stated that the decision of the Building Official regarding building location does not reference any violation of a design standard. Those design standards are the substance of the Site Plan Review Ordinance. The Building Official's denial of the site plan for failure to comply with design standards that the City Council has chosen not to impose upon office buildings was illegal and an intrusion on the City Council's ultimate legislative authority. Gelman stated that one of the justifications given by the Building Official for his decision to restrict all street access, and thereby prevent this development, is that the property has adequate sufficient access to the alley. He has ignored the fact that alley access in inappropriate for the owner's intended and permitted use. Gelman stated that a fundamental principal of municipal law is that the City, when exercising its general police power through regulatory ordinances, must be specific and avoid vague and ambiguous regulations. The public must be able to understand the laws that affect them. A Building Official having broad discretion to impose otherwise unarticulated design standards gives property owners no reasonable advance understanding of the rules and regulations that may be applicable to property that they own or may wish to acquire. Paul asked how many parking spaces are available underground. Gelman said 17. Corcoran asked why these design standards don't apply to CO1. Gelman cited the code: 14-5H-5 N. He said the building official tried to apply this to his decision although he never cited the code. Paul asked if he tried to apply this based on what in Gelman's opinion. Gelman said based on a legitimate design concern that he couldn't legally enforce. John KammermeVer, 404 East Bloominqton Street, Iowa City, Iowa, spoke in favor of the appellant citing reasons in his letter to Doug Boothroy, dated December 6, 2000. John Havek, 120 ¼ East Washinclton, Iowa City, Iowa, responded to the appellant's arguments on behalf of Doug Boothroy citing his legal brief submitted to the Board. He said he is disappointed in hearing terms like "underhanded", "outrageous", "facts distorted" and "disingenuous". He said the issue before the board of adjustment is not whether board members, if they were the building official, would have made a different decision nor is it whether, for example, it is good public policy to regulate building siting and development. The appropriate question to be considered by each member of the board should be has the appellant proven that Mr. Boothroy made an error in denying approval of the site plan. Hayek continued stating that the site plan review ordinance grants considerable discretion to the building official. Such a grant of discretion is necessary because it is not possible for the legislative body, in this case the city council, to anticipate all of the possible issues that would arise over the years necessary to ensure the orderly and harmonious development of property. Hayek explained that Mr. Boothroy found that the proposed site plan negatively impacts vehicular and pedestrian circulation and therefore cannot be approved. The design standard specifically authorized the City to limit entrances and exits upon adjacent streets. Thus Mr. Boothroy's first reason for denying plat approval is specifically related to and based upon one of the enumerated design standards in the ordinance. Board of Adjustment Minutes April 11, 2001 Page 7 He said Mr. Boothroy pointed out the relationship between the building, the street, and the adjacent buildings has a direct impact on the character of the neighborhood. Such a finding is entirely consistent with the purposes of the site plan review ordinance. Douq Boothroy, Iowa City Housinq Inspector, spoke on his own behalf to defend his decision, He explained the decision- making process and that the whole tone of the process was how to make this work in this sensitive area. He explained the history of the site plan review ordinance. He said his decision to deny the site plan was based on input from many individuals. He cited his reasons for denial, Bloomington Street is in an older Iowa City neighborhood where the street and property layout is designed for vehicular access to be primarily from the alley. This established street design and vehicular circulation pattern is one which the City wishes to maintain. The development proposal requires direct driveway access to Bloomington Street, which conflicts with the existing street layout and is out of character with development in the neighborhood. The relationship between the building, the street, and adjacent buildings has a direct impact on the character of the neighborhood. The City is required to review proposed developments to ensure that property is developed in an orderly and harmonious manner which results in the most beneficial relationship between present and proposed uses. The proposed building location on the site plan is in violation of this site plan ordinance purpose. Corcoran asked about other medical developments in the Commercial Office Zone. She referred to the letter from Boothroy to Lariviere of November 9, 2000. In the letter Boothroy lists the deficiencies and reasons for denial. Paul asked if in hindsight, Boothroy thought it practical to expect doctors, surgeons and orthopedists to go into 2-story houses that exist for their offices or if there should have been more specific language in the beginning of what was expected. Boothroy said it wasn't limited to doctor's offices; it could be lawyers. He said they never got into this detailed of conversation at inception. They spoke of CO1 as a limited commercial. Brandt asked if Boothroy normally gets involved in minor site plans reviews. Boothroy said minor and major site plans are brought to him regularly. Brandt asked if MMS Consultants brought the site plan to Tallman, did she come to Boothroy with questionS. Boothroy said she came to him with questions about building location and he brought to her attention the petition that he had received. Keitel pointed out other CO1 Zoned areas on the City map. He asked if in other CO1 areas Boothroy has run into issues of building location in site reviews. Boothroy pointed out differences with the other developments. David Tinqwald, 814 East Market Street, Iowa City, Iowa, spoke in favor of upholding Boothroy's decision based on the structure not fitting in with the neighborhood and the vehicle/pedestrian circulation being a safety issue. He said the traffic concern is not volume but adding a new element of complexity in traffic patterns in the neighborhood. Joe Marran, 508 Bloominqton Street, Iowa City, Iowa, spoke in favor of upholding Boothroy's decision based on the fact that the existing usage is overwhelmingly residential. He said that block has a double-wide alley that serves as a common driveway. He emphasized that the concerns of the neighborhood are a reaction to design and not anti-development. Tim Walker, 621 North Johnson, Iowa City, Iowa, spoke in favor of upholding Boothroy's decision. He said another battle of the north side is investor/owners letting places run down so they can rebuild, He said he believes Bloomington Properties is appealing again because members of the Board have changed and it's a timing issue. Sarah Paulson, 416 North Linn Street, Iowa City, Iowa, spoke in favor of upholding Boothroy's decision citing his right to use discretion within guidelines. Board of Adjustment Minutes April 11, 2001 Page 8 Claire Spansler, 413 North Gilbert, Iowa City, Iowa, spoke in favor of upholding Boothroy's decision stating that the decision best serves the mixed character of the Bloomington Street neighborhood. She said businesses are welcome and flourish in this area because they are compatible. Gelman clarified that they are not against public input, but they feel in this process it is unacceptable. He said the building official's decision is made without public input and the appeal process should be made without public input. He stressed that the decision of the Board is not whether they agree with Boothroy, but whether his decision was based on standards. He said he wants to verify that the packet of information sent to the Board members be made part of public record. MOTION: Keitel moved to grant AP00-0001/AP01-00002, an appeal of a decision made by the Director of Housing and Inspection Services to deny a minor site plan submitted by Bloomington Properties, L.L.P. for a medical office building and associated parking lot located at 5101512 East Bloomington Street in the Commercial Office (CO1) Zone and to overturn the building official's decision. Paul seconded the motion. Keitel said the ordinance was written by Boothroy and he should know it. He feels that Boothroy is writing new laws and overstepping his authority. He said there is nothing in the CO1 zone about setbacks. He said denial of curb cuts is in violation of the ordinance. Maurer said the City has erred by not allowing curb cuts. He said calling that alley a street is a stretch of the imagination. He said this proposal is an improvement in the area. He said the site plan meets the requirements of the City. Paul said he wonders what citizens can rely upon as they put together a project or dream. They need to be able to rely on the standards. He said the building official relied on the purpose section and not the standards. Citizens need to know how to tailor a request based on standards when approaching the City. He said the appellant has met all requirements and the building official used discretion not available to him. Brandt said on Bloomington Street between Clinton Street and Dodge Street there are 15 curb cuts. He said it was zoned CO1 with intent of proximity to hospital. He said he can't imagine building access from the alley for safety and liability reasons. Corcoran said she concurs with her colleagues. She said regulations cannot be vague and people need to know what is expected. She said if there is conflict between a specific and general provision, the specific wifi apply. The motion carried on a vote of 5-0. AP01-00001. An appeal of a decision made by the Director of Housing and Inspection Services in the enforcement of the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance to the effect that the use of a portion of property at 319 East Washington Street as a parking lot is not a permitted use. Holocek said it is her opinion that the Board does not have jurisdiction or authority over this appeal, and therefore the matter must be dismissed. If the Board decides to dismiss the matter, the Board's findings and conclusions should adopt this opinion and note lack of jurisdiction and authority to hear the appeal. She cited arguments from her memo to the Board dated April 4, 2001. Public discussion open: Steven Ballard, 222 South Linn Street, Iowa City. Iowa, argued that the Board of Adjustment does have authority to hear this appeal based on reasons cited in his brief to the Board dated April 11, 2001. The Board decided to defer the discussion of whether the Board has jurisdiction over this matter to May 9, 2001. They would like legal briefs from both sides. If it is decided at that meeting that the Board has jurisdiction they will hear the facts of the matter at their June meeting. MOTION: Keitel moved to defer AP01-00001, an appeal of a decision made by the Director of Housing and inspection Services in the enforcement of the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance to the effect that the use of a portion of property at 319 East Washington Street as a parking lot is not a permitted use until the May 9, 2001 Board of Adjustment meeting. Brandt seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 5-0. Board of Adjustment Minutes April 11, 2001 Page 9 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 11:02 p.m. Board Chairperson Board Secretary Minutes submitted by Diane Crossett ppdadmlmiNboa04 11 ~1 doc IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Carlson, Michael Gunn, Michaelanne Widness, Peter Jochimsen, James Enloe, and Ann Freerks MEMBERS ABSENT: Doris Malkmus, Sue Licht and Loret Mast STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo OTHERS PRESENT: Jackie Briggs (Executive Director, Friends of Historic Preservation) CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Gunn called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: Miklo stated that the City Council has directed the reorganization of the Planning Department to include a one-half time staff person to be assigned to the Historic Preservation Council. Shefly McCafferty has been hired to fill Scott Kugler's position. DISCUSSION OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION WEEK PREPARATION: Miklo advised that the commission needs to select the properties for awards as soon as possible so that letters can go out and preparations begin. He presented pictures of several properties for consideration. Jochimsen stated that he feels the color of the house at Woodlawn is not pleasing or appropriate. Jochimsen asked what the categories are for awards. Miklo advised that is up to the committee. Enloe suggested they take Karen's comments and encourage people to submit projects. Gunn suggested they go through the properties submitted one by one and make a decision. 112 S. Dodge - porch addition. This property will be recognized for award. 935 E. College - paint job. This property will be recognized for award. 1041 Woodlawn - paint job. Jochimsen stated the trim is nice and appropriate, but the body paint is not appropriate to the period. This property was tabled for later discussion. 833 N. Johnson - paint job. This property will be recognized for award. 835 N. Johnson - paint job. This property will be recognized for award. 718 N. Johnson - paint job. This property will be recognized for award. 111 E. College - commercial rehabilitation. Miklo stated that the property was renovated to be compatible with the second story. The pillars are not the original limestone. This property will be recognized for award. 114 E. College - commercial rehabilitation. Miklo stated that the rehabilitation mimics the window pattern on the second floor. Freerks stated it shows another option for consideration. Enloe felt that the rehabilitation shows a willingness to keep the historic aspect downtown. Miklo suggested they have Sue Licht look at the property for the architectural aspects. This property was tabled for later discussion. 742 Seventh Avenue - new addition. Miklo advised this was an extensive addition, and the property owners matched the stucco to the original house. Gunn stated he has viewed it and it is a very nice addition. This property will be recognized for award. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 12, 2001 Page 2 1029 N. Dodge - porch restoration. Miklo stated this is a very visible project. The property owners did a great job on the porch, and it was an exact restoration. This property will be recognized for award. 629 Melrose Avenue - paint job. This property will be recognized for award. 523 Grant Street - restoration. Miklo stated that the property owner restored the shingles and siding, and painted. Some of the paint is peeling and needs to be repaired. This property will be recognized for award. 934 E. Davenport - paint job. Miklo stated that Mary Beth Slonager submitted this property. It was originally a red barn color, and the property owners painted it white. It is an improvement over the previous condition. This property was tabled for later discussion. 1109 E. Davenport - restoration. Miklo stated that SIonager also submitted this property. The property owners removed the siding and painted the property. This property will be recognized for award. 416 Reno - porch restoration. Miklo stated that Slonager advised this was a restored porch. It is Carl and Kate Clause's house. This property will be recognized for award. 508 E. Bloomington - paint job. Miklo advised this was wood siding and was painted by Goosetown Painters. The colors look very good when viewed in person. This property will be recognized for award. 1125 E. Burlington - paint job. Miklo advised this was submitted by Scott Kugler last year. Gunn feels that the blue is very bright and uncharacteristic of the time period. He felt the commission should view this home before a decision is made. This property was tabled for later discussion. 305 Center Street - paint job. Miklo stated this was pink and baby blue before, and they did extensive work on the garage. The home is now green. The colors are appropriate for the period. This property will be recognized for award. 358 Lexington - addition. This property will be recognized for award. 1020 Ronalds. Miklo stated the property owners removed the siding and installed wood siding and painted the roof. The commission chose not to recognize this property for award because the siding was not painted. 808 Seventh Avenue - restoration. Miklo advised the owners removed asbestos siding and painted the house brown. He said it is not outstanding but worthy of award. This property will be recognized for award. Alpha Pi Sorority at the corner of College and Governor. Miklo advised that this property received an award about 10 years ago. Gunn suggested that they use the Long Term Maintenance Stewardship award for this property. Widness stated that the previous recipient of the Stewardship had done extensive work on their property. The commission decided to award the Maintenance Stewardship to this property. 103 S. Governor - porch restoration. This property will be recognized for award. Freerks presented a picture of a house she located on the Internet, This property was a conversion job, and the porch was well done. Miklo stated the house does have asbestos siding. Gunn expressed a concern about the asbestos siding. Miklo stated that pictures could be taken that provide close-up views of the porch only. Freerks has not talked to the owners. Miklo stated he would send out a letter to the owners. This property was tabled for later discussion. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 12, 2001 Page 3 Nowysz Award Winner: Gunn asked for suggestions for the Nowysz Award Winner. Enloe asked who had received this award in the past. Miklo suggested the award to go Scott Kugler. Another suggestion was the Englert Theater Group. Gunn stated that the Englert Theater Group might be the best option for public approval. Jochimsen stated that this is the only year the commission could give Kugler an award. Enloe stated that providing the award to the Engler~ Group would do more to further community goals. MOTION: Enloe moved to award the Englert Theater Group the Nowysz Award. Widness seconded. The motion carried 6-0. Gunn advised that Mills did not talk to the Johnson County Historic Preservation Commission yet. Gunn has been in contact with Penningroth, who felt they could not get anything prepared in time so they will not submit anything. Widness stated she would call Penningroth because she had had previous conversations with her about a house in University Heights. Miklo stated he had been talking with Jackie Briggs at Friends of Historic Preservation. She has prepared invitations, and is working on compiling the mailing list. Briggs stated that they are working with Johnson County Historic Preservation Society to assemble lists, and would be laying out the signs and preparing the honorarium. Gunn expressed appreciation on behalf of the Commission. Miklo advised that Marlys Svendsen will be the featured speaker and will speak on downtown. Carlson will use the digital camera to take photographs of the properties receiving awards, for use with a presentation utilizing a PowerPoint display. Carlson will also take slides for use with the Library display. Miklo advised that the display at the Library should go up during the first or second week of May. Freerks advised that Sarah Wails will prepare the guest editorial. Wails would like some Historic Preservation information to use for research. Miklo stated she could talk about the issues going on in Iowa City during the past year. He said that Wails doesn't need to go into great detail. Briggs agreed to do the press release for the May 16th ceremony. Widness expressed concern that there has been very little press in past years. Miklo suggested that the television stations be included. Widness asked that winners receive name tags so they can be readily identified. Miklo advised that the location is the main courtroom at the Courthouse. Widness stated she has sent last year's program out to sponsors for changes and will prepare the new program when all the changes are in. Widness said that Hills Bank will underwrite $200 to $300 for refreshments. They will be providing punch and no coffee. She asked for suggestions for small treats. Miklo stated she should check with Kirsten van Gelder. Widness advised they are expecting about 100 people. Miklo said the program is scheduled to begin at 5:30 p.m. with refreshments beginning around 5:15 p.m. DISCUSSION OF LONGFELLOW DISTRICTS: Gunn presented a memo outlining his ideas on proceeding with the Longfellow historic district and the t~vo conservation districts. He has asked Kay Irelan to map all addresses. He felt that the documentation was nearly ready. Freerks stated that it makes sense to do it all at one time. Widness said she felt the commission would need a compelling reason not to do it. Gunn will try to finish the documentation for nomination prior to the next meeting. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 12, 2001 Page 4 MOTION: Widness moved that the commission nominate the Longfellow historic district and conservation districts in a single nomination. Jochimsen seconded. Gunn asked if there was any concern that they are moving too fast. He stated they could start with a public hearing and see what happens. Miklo stated it won't be news to the Longfellow neighborhood because there have been numerous mailings and newsletters. The new areas for nomination are from Summit Street east, and comprise two conservation districts and one historic district. In response to an inquiry from Gunn, Miklo stated that the State Historical Commission would question any changes to the consultant's recommendations. Gunn stated that he would like to propose the inclusion of property that was initially not marked. The consensus of the Commission was to call the new districts the Clark Street Conservation District; the Dearborn Conservation District; and the Longfellow Historic District. The motion carried 5-0. DISCUSSION OF POLICY REGARDING EXPARTE CONTACTS: Gunn advised that this is the proposed paragraph for inclusion in the bylaws. He asked for suggestions or improvements. MOTION: Jochimsen moved to accept the language proposed by Gunn in his memo of 4/5/01 for Ex parte contacts and incorporate it into the bylaws. Freerks seconded. The motion carried unopposed. REVIEW OF MINUTES OF MARCH 8, 2001: Gunn stated that on page three, the amendment to the previous minutes should include the fact that the demolition of neglect ordinance should be done at the same time as the economic hardship ordinance. Carlson stated that on page 3, the "State Historic Society" should be referred to as Historical Society. MOTION: Widness moved to adopt the minutes as amended. Jochimsen seconded. The motion carried unopposed. COMMISSION INFORMATION/DISCUSSION 903 Iowa Avenue. Miklo stated that he received a phone call from Ralph Carlson stating that the Commission's finding that this property is eligible for the National Register has been approved. Draft Article from Kerry McGrath Miklo presented a draft article from Kerry McGrath for the Commission's consideration. Montqomen/-Butler House meetinq MiMo submitted a letter regarding the Montgomery-Butler house. This property was acquired by tl~e City of Iowa City, and the City has made a commitment to try to find a use for the property. He advised that there will be a workshop on 4/24/01 from 4-6pro in the Council Chambers to explore ideas for re-use of the house. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 12, 2001 Page 5 OTHER: Freerks stated that there will be a Longfellow Neighborhood Association panel discussion on May 8 at 7:30 p.m. in Longfellow School gymnasium on the subject of various aspects of exterior house painting. Freerks expressed concern over the fate of the Old Public Library. She would like the Commission to pursue a designation as a public landmark. She stated the University will be moving out, probably in August, and eviction notices have been received by tenants. It is a Carnegie Library. Miklo stated that the building was owned by the City until the early 80s when it was sold to Glasgow. After Glasgow died a few years ago, his partners began selling off his properties. He stated that any designation would most likely be against the owners' objections. Carlson stated he felt they could easily get people behind the Carnegie Library. Freerks feels it is important to try. Gunn asked if the nomination was suitable for the National Register. Miklo stated it could be done similar to the old mortuary building on Linn Street. Jochimsen asked what keeping the building would do for Iowa City regarding the possibility of hostility to businesses perceived by the community. Freerks stated that a viable use would obviously have to be found for the property, but feels it is worth pursuing. Miklo stated there are plenty of examples of Carnegie Libraries being reused. Gunn asked if anyone was interested in investigating and putting the information together for a nomination as a landmark status. Freerks and Carlson stated they would work on it together. MOTION: Freerks moved to take action to pursue the designation of the Old Public Library as a landmark. Carlson seconded. Gunn stated that if they decided to do this, it will be a political battle. He felt it could make an impression on downtown property owners. Freerks stated this is not just any building. Jochimsen stated that it could be perceived that you are taking a tax paying property off the rolls and making it into something else. Miklo stated that Svendsen's report found this building eligible for the National Register. MOTION: Freerks amended her previous motion to remove the words "take action" and replace them with the word "pursue". Carlson seconded. The motion carried unopposed. Gunn asked if anyone wants a reminder call for meetings. Miklo stated that staff will call a few days ahead of a meeting to see if members are going to attend so they can be assured of a quorum. Gunn stated that his neighbor at the northeast corner of Summit and Sheridan is considering removing the metal roofing and restoring the roof. The current roof, which Goosetown Painters painted four years ago, is now leaking again. Gunn asked if the owners could put on a shingled roof. Miklo stated that if they need a permit and would need to go in front of the Commission. He stated that metal roofs have become historic. If it could be done without redecking, it is possible it could be done without a permit or Commission input. However, any roofing work that requires a new deck requires a permit. Meeting adjourned at 7:23 p.m. ppdadmln/minlhpcO4-12-01 dec Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 12, 2001 without ap"'~mit or Commission input. However, any roofing work that requires a new deck r uires a permit. ~, Meeting adjourned at 7:~3,p.m. ppdadm4n/m~n/hpc04-12 01 doc ' '\ \, \ \ \ MINUTES ;.15-o~ ! ,o, A O,TY PUBL,C ART ADV,SORY COMM, EEPRELliVIINARY( ) THURSDAY, APRIL 5, 2001 b 5 cIvIc CENTER LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM Subject to . proval MEMBERS PRESENT: Rick Fosse, Terry Trueblood, Gary Nagle, Betsy Klein, Sandra Hudson, Barbara Camillo MEMBERS ABSENT: Emily Vermillion STAFF PRESENT: Karin Franklin and Marcia Klingaman OTHERS PRESENT: John Hudson CALL TO ORDER Sandra Hudson called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. Hudson presented a letter from Tom Muller which asks for a response to the proposal that he put through several months ago. Tom has done more work on this proposal. Hudson asked that this item be discussed under the Partnership for the Arts section. Hudson introduced new member, Barbara Camillo. Camillo stated that she is a long-time Iowa City resident, and is a local artist. The committee welcomed Barbara. Franklin announced that Emily Vermillion will be resigning the committee due to a relocation to Seattle, Washington. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES: Minutes of the meeting of February 28, 2001 were reviewed. MOTION: Fosse moved to approve the minutes, Klein seconded. The motion passed unopposed on a vote of 6-0. DISCUSSION OF THE ROTATING SCULPTURE PROGRAM: Klingaman stated that she prepared a draft of information to distribute to artists to promote an understanding of how the program operates. She asked for last ideas so the information can be finalized and sent out in the next couple of months. Fosse asked if the committee was looking for sculptures that were already done. Franklin stated that they don't have to be completed because sculptors do not have inventories. She said they may have a concept, but not a completed item. The candidates will submit slides or pictures, and the committee will select a number of finalists. She proposed that the submitting artists provide a maquette. Camillo stated that her understanding was the honorarium is $300. She advised that is a very low amount of money to expect an artist to prepare a maquette. Hudson stated that $300 isn't the lowest amount paid by communities, but $500 is a common amount and would be more in line. Camillo stated that would make a great difference to artists. Fosse stated that the maquette may narrow the pool of artists due to the effort required to develop it. He thought that most of the sculptures that would be submitted would already be completed. He was concerned that it may be hard to retrofit the base of the sculptures to fit the bolt configuration. He suggested putting the bolts out as far as possible so the artist could fasten their sculpture to a base plate made to fit. Iowa City Public Art Advisory Committee April 5, 2001 Page 2 Franklin stated that the first piece to go on the rotating pad is the Tornado sculpture by Justine Zimmer and that base is 4x4 with the bolts in the corner. This will establish the guidelines for future pieces. Hudson stated her concern is in getting adequate responses from artists. She wondered if the call to artists could be designed as a marketing piece. She feels this is an opportunity for artists to market and if they could see those benefits, they may not feel the City is getting something for nothing. Nagle stated that he doesn't see a problem with $300 because the City is allowing the artists to display their work. He asked if the committee would be able to make a decision based on sketches or slides. Franklin stated that the committee would have to be sure of the works they are submitting as finalists to City Council. Nagle stated that a maquette would allow the committee to fine tune the proposed work. Fosse stated he doesn't believe there will be time for a maquette. Klingaman stated that another consideration is that it may be difficult to get applicants if the economy is good because they won't have to market them on the downtown pads. Camillo suggested that the works also be displayed other places after they rotate, such as the public library. Franklin stated that her understanding is there will be 2-3 views per entry. She asked the committee if they would consider displaying the work of an Iowa City artist if the work was not available for sale, just so the artist has an opportunity to exhibit. The consensus was that the committee would be willing. Fosse asked if the slides to be submitted would have to be the actual work to be displayed. Franklin stated they need to be of works that are available. She wanted the committee to decide whether they would have to be works that are created for this space, or can be works that are already completed. She stated that the item in the entry must be the one available to be placed on the site. Fosse stated that the wording should then be that the artist must submit slides of completed work available to be placed there, or concept drawings of proposed work. Hudson asked for volunteers to work with the draft. Franklin asked how many finalists the committee wanted to shoot for. The consensus of the committee was that they would like to see 5 final sketches or slides. Franklin advised that the committee needs to be careful in wording the information to artists in terms of marketing. She didn't feel that the City should be seen as involved in trying to market works. MOTION: Camillo moved that the honorarium be at least $500. Klein seconded. Nagle stated he would vote no because he feels this is a tremendous opportunity for local artists to put their work on public display and he feels $300 is sufficient compensation. The motion passed on a vote of 5-'1. DISCUSSION OF SEIBERLING PORTRAITS: Klein stated that she was very impressed with the Seiberling portraits. She feels that the artist portrays a very strong rendering of Nancy Seiberling. Hudson stated that they need to decide where they can display these types of things. She asked Klein if she would form a subcommittee to determine where portraits, oil paintings, etc. can be utilized. Iowa City Public Art Advisory Committee April 5, 2001 Page 3 Franklin stated that Ina Lowenberg, who does photographs, representations and collages, has done portraits of a number of Iowa City residents and has offered to loan these portraits of Nancy Seiberling to the Public Art Program for a period of time for display, and possibly to give them to the Public Art Program for permanent display. Franklin stated there is the potential for an exhibit that could be called "Faces of Iowa City" or something similar. The alternative is to just hang the two renderings of Nancy Seiberling. Klein was in favor of doing a "Faces of Iowa City" display. Camillo offered to help Klein in this subcommittee. DISCUSSION OF ART COMPONENT OF THE NEAR SOUTHSIDE TRANSPORTATION CENTER: Franklin advised that the Near Southside Transportation Center is a City project that will occur on the south side of Burlington St. in the block where Union Planters' Bank is located, on the east half of the block of Burlington, Dubuque, Court and Clinton, 25 feet south of the Mod Pod building. The structure will include a parking facility, a bus station, bicycle parking, and a daycare center. There are plans for a commercial development on the Burlington Street side, and there are plans for private redevelopment of the west half of the block. This project is part of the Near Southside Redevelopment Plan, which is the 12 block area south of Burlington Street. This project is being done under a Livable Cities Grant from the Federal Transit Administration. The daycare will be private space leased by a provider. Franklin stated they want to have a public art component in the center. There is approximately $50,000 set aside, 20% of which would come from the public art budget and 80% of which would come from the FTA grant. The City had only two responses to the initial contact with artists, and the public art committee at that time didn't feel these two artists would be a good fit for the entire facility. A final grant application has been submitted to FTA, and the art components submitted were a screen wall along the daycare on Dubuque Street; the bus station signage canopy/fa(~ade; and the parking level ID system. She stated they need to engage an artist or artists to do these three projects. Klein suggested that a City-wide tile project be done. As an example, she said you could charge $5 per tile, and children and adults could contribute tiles. She suggested that the committee could look for someone to donate the tiles. Franklin stated that there was a Des Moines artist who recently did this at the rest stop on 1-80. Hudson stated that there is a tremendous attraction at Hancher with the public art displays by children, so she feels a tile wall would be very popular. However, she does believe one artist will be required to supervise and tie it all together. Franklin suggested that an artist who does community art projects be considered. She asked if the committee wanted to keep this an Iowa artist. The consensus was yes. The size of the tiles was discussed, and the committee felt you could do either 4x4 or 8x8 tiles. Fosse stated that he didn't feel the wall around the daycare should be closed in, and asked if the tiles could be put on columns in between railings. Fosse stated that he felt the parking identification should not be abstract. The committee agreed the signs should be clear. Hudson stated that it might be nice to have different media as people were coming into the building. Fosse stated that the canopy of the bus station is the most integral piece. Hudson appointed Fosse to oversee suggestions for the parking facility; Nagle to shepherd the bus station; and Trueblood to oversee the daycare project. Fosse asked for the roles to be Iowa City Public Art Advisory Committee April 5, 2001 Page 4 defined. Hudson stated they should research artists and ideas and come back to the next committee meeting with suggestions. UPDATES ON CURRENT PROJECTS: Sculptures - Spath; Zimmer; Alsum; Dedecker Klingaman showed two recent photos of Spath's Solar Marker. Installation is scheduled for June 6th; the dedication will be at the opening musical ceremonies for the Iowa Arts Fest. The sculpture will be located in the Blackhawk Mini Park, which is where The Den is located. She stated there were two sculptures, and the other one is made of marble and glass, with glass layered in between. Klingaman stated that Zimmer's sculpture, "Tornado", will be installed and dedicated during Iowa Arts Fest. Details have not been finalized yet. Klingaman stated that Alsum's bronze sculpture, "Jazz", which is a life-size sculpture of four jazz musicians, will be installed in November or December on the west pad near Old Capitol off of Clinton. Klingaman stated that Dedecker's "Ties that Bind" was the sculpture that was selected. She stated that there was a 300 mile distance established for copies of Jazz. She stated that what the artist now wanted for "Ties that Bind" was a 75 mile distance. Franklin stated that the Council felt very strongly about the 300 mile distance, and wondered if that was enough. She feels there will be major problems with 75 miles. Franklin advised that this was the piece that was to go in near the playground, and that due to the Library project, there will be a significant delay in the installation of this piece. She stated that there is time that the committee can locate another permanent installation if negotiations break down. Klingaman stated that she believes the artist has already sold quite a few, and that no less than 5 or no more than 10 be available for sale, but nothing within a 75 mile or 300 mile radius. She does not know why the artist has chosen to request a 75 mile radius. The general consensus of the committee was that 300 miles was not unreasonable. Franklin suggested going back to the artist with a proposal that it is 300 miles or nothing. The committee agreed. Iowa Avenue Literary Walk Franklin advised that the literary walk will be starting very soon. She stated the artist, Greg LaFevre, will be arriving in town on April 23% and on April 24th pouring of the sidewalks will begin, and the artist will install the ternplates for the plaques that are intended for those two block phases. She explained there will be 50 bronze plaques from Gilbert Street to Clinton Street on Iowa Avenue on both sides. She stated that the City is attempting to get permission from all of the artists to use the quotations, but they do intend to use the quotations if the artist doesn't respond to the inquiry. Franklin stated that in October, the artist will install the plaques throughout the entire corridor and there will be a dedication. Franklin stated that committee members are expected to go to the dedication. PARTNERSHIP FOR THE ARTS: Hudson passed out a paper for the review of committee members on which she has outlined her reasons for the Partnership for the Arts proposal. Trueblood asked if Hudson's proposal was to encourage public art. Hudson stated that she was seeking public art as well as financial Iowa City Public Art Advisory Committee April 5, 2001 Page 5 participation. She stated that Tom Muller has come forward with a proposal to raise funds and get involved. She stated that this proposal would include the art on loan project and other community projects. She felt that if a subcommittee was created, it would provide more opportunity for the public to bring their ideas forward, and the subcommittee would bring reports back to the main committee. The subcommittee would have no decision making power. Trueblood stated that it was a sound concept, but he wondered how much time would be required of the subcommittee. Hudson stated it could be very little, or it could be a lot. She stated that the committee has very limited resources, and, in her opinion, if they want additional resources available, they will have to look for private funds. Fosse asked for a clarification of the role of the subcommittee. Hudson stated it was her view that the subcommittee would assist community members who have proposals. Franklin stated that there had been a subcommittee to work with Muller, and nothing materialized with that. Hudson stated that her vision would be that the committee would change according to the project at hand. Trueblood asked if she sees the subcommittee function as locating funding resources. Hudson stated that is not her view at this point, but someone needs to set guidelines up to address working with funds. Franklin outlined the steps that were involved with Tom Muller's proposal. She stated he wanted some public art funds put toward the two projects he had in mind. Franklin said that he was told to flesh out the proposal, and he had conversations with community members and the mayor, but that a concrete proposal has not been received by the committee. She stated that if a valid proposal was submitted, then they would go through a process of discussing funds available and how to best utilize those funds. Hudson stated that her concern was that the committee is not set up to partner, only to disburse City funds. Franklin stated that if a proposal is brought forward, either City staff could work with the proposer, or they could assign some committee members do that work. Franklin stated that committee members who are also City staff would not be in a position to take on those duties due to their job. Hudson suggested that the committee should have more members. Franklin advised that a proposal had been sent to Council about 4-6 months ago which was rejected, but that the committee could come up with a new proposal for additional members and submit it to Council. She said the focus previously was on additional artists on the committee. Trueblood stated that he felt the Council's rejection of the proposal might have been due to trouble filling committee vacancies all over. Franklin proposed that she would talk to the mayor about this issue and get his thoughts and report back to the committee. The committee decided to table the Partnership for the Arts at this time. OTHER BUSINESS: Klein brought up the University of Iowa Arts Program Liaison. She stated that she was going to handle this with Emily Vermillion, and now that Emily was resigning she had no contacts and did not feel comfortable handling this. The committee decided to table this project until the position was filled. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 4:54 P.M. Minutes submitted by Neana Saylor. ppddirlmiNad04~5~l doc PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION APRIL 11,2001 MEMBERS PRESENT: Toni Cilek, Doug Ginsberg, Bruce Maurer, Nancy Ostrognai, Matt Pacha, Rex Pmess, A1 Stroh MEMBERS ABSENT: Barbara Endel, Craig Gustaveson GUESTS: Melissa Ruhlow, Emie Cox, Samantha Solimeo STAFF PRESENT: Terry Treeblood, Mike Moran FORMAL ACTION TAKEN Moved by Ostro~nai, seconded by Stroh, to anprove the March 14, 2001 minutes as written. Unanimous. Moved by Stroh, seconded by Pruess, to endorse the North District Plan as nresented at the Parks & Recreation Commission meetin~ of March 14, 2001. Unanimous. Moved by Ginsberff, seconded by Ostroffnai, to recommend to the City Council to purchase the narcel located near Abet Avenue and Aburdeen Court with Parkland Ac~luisition funds. Unanimous. PUBLIC DISCUSSION - Weeber-Harlocke Neighborhood Melissa Ruhlow, 911 Weeber Street, addressed the commission regarding the possibility of the City purchasing four acres proposed to be developed by Southgate Development on Harlocke Street for a park. There have been negotiations between the developer and the neighborhood, with the developer indicating he would entertain the idea. She presented 35 signatures of residents of the Weeber-Harlocke Neighborhood, noting she also received verbal support. She compared the property to the Roosevelt ravine, noting some of the same ideas could be implemented. Pacha asked the price; Ruhlow indicated the Braverman property was purchased for $175,000, which would set the value for the land. CDBG and REAP grants may be available to help offset the cost. Ruhlow noted the group has a meeting with the developer Friday, ApnI 13. Pruess noted the City tried to purchase this property a few years ago. Trueblood indicated the City made an offer of $60,000 in 1996. A subsequent appraisal completed in late 1996 set the appraised value at $155,000. The owner at that time (CPO Parmership) stated the property was appraised at $462,000 in 1999. Treeblood noted the appraised value would depend on the zoning. Ruhlow stated the first vote by the City Council on zoning ~vas scheduled to take place April 17, with the possibility of it being postponed if negotiations are going well. Pmess asked if the neighborhood would prefer the Ruppert property (on Benton Street) or the Southgate property for a park. Ruhlow noted she could not speak directly for the neighborhood, but her feeling is that the Southgate property would have more potential, noting safety and traffic issues with the Ruppert property and the direct benefit to property values with the Southgate property. Pacha asked what the present priorities are for parkland acquisition funds and the current balance. Trueblood reminded the Commission that they have been working for quite a long time to acquire the two Parks and Recreation Commission April 11, 2001 Page 2 of 3 acres for Miller/Orchard to create a better access off Miller Avenue, but also at one time the Weeber- Harlocke area was considered to be a priority. Treeblood also noted the agenda item to discuss acquiring property near Aburdeen and Aber. The current balance in the fund is $304,000. Pacha asked if the City or the neighborhood would apply for a grant. Trueblood stated it would depend on what grant was applied for, with the most likely being a REAP grant. Ruhlow indicated the neighborhood would be willing to help in this regard, or with any other steps the City would like the neighborhood to do. Pacha asked the group to keep staff posted with the progress of their discussions with the developer. Samantha Solimeo stated she came before the commission approximately two months ago. At that time two different neighbors made comments that they would be willing to donate some of their land if the Weeber- Harlocke property became a park. Ruhlow noted the Busses and Knabes may be willing to donate some of their property to facilitate a Wail. She stated this property would help facilitate a trail system ~'om Willow Creek through the Benton Street area, along Riverside Drive to Ned Ashton Park. NORTH DISTRICT PLAN The Commission received the North District Plan at last month's meeting. Moved bv Stroh, seconded bv Pruess, to endorse the North District Plan as ~resented at the Parks & Recreation Commission meetin~ of March 14, 2001. Unanimous. MONTGOMERY-BUTLER HOUSE STUDY GROUP Trueblood reported Marlys Svendsen with Svendsen Tyler, Inc. has been hired by the City to prepare an adaptive reuse study for the Montgomery-Butler House located on North Dubuque Street on the Waterworks Park site. She would like one or more members of the commission to participate in the planning session. Trueblood reported Barb Endel volunteered to serve on this committee; Stroh indicated he would serve as an alternate. (Craig Gustaveson volunteered the next day to also serve.) PROPERTY NEAR ABURDEEN AND ABER Trueblood referred to the plat in the packet, which delineated the location of a lot staff feels wouId be worth acquiring. It is approximately one-third of an acre located near Aber Avenue and Aburdeen Court. It would serve primarily as a "trail outlet", serving the new Willow Creek Trail. The owners may be willing to sell it to City for $25,000. It would connect into a ten-foot wide trail at one end and a four-foot wide sidewalk at Abet Street. Pmess asked if there would be a curb cut; Trueblood indicated there would be. Pruess noted the curb cut has not been done by Willow Creek near Shannon Drive; Trueblood noted he would foIlow-up. Moved bv Ginsber~, seconded bV Ostro~nai, to recommend to the City Council to Ourchase the parcel located near Aber Avenue and Aburdeen Court with Parkland Acquisition funds. Unanimous. ANNUAL PARK TOUR Pacha asked the commission to come prepared to discuss dates and sites at next month's meeting. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS UPDATE Trueblood reported on the following: Skate Park Meeting. A meeting is set for April 19 for final review of the proposed plans. The tentative schedule is to let bids early June, with construction beginning late June, and anticipated project duration taking two to three months. Parks and Recreation Commission April 11, 2001 Page 3 of 3 Hickory Hill Park Trail. The tentative schedule is to open bids early July, with construction beginning in late August, and project completion July 2002. City Park Trail. A funding package has been completed, and the construction should begin mid-summer. Hunters Run Park. The final planning meeting with interested parties was conducted last night. Construction should begin late August or early September, with the final landscaping completed May 2002. Soccer Park. All the parking lots need to be resurfaced with asphalt and possibly expanded. Staff will be working to get this project out to bid as soon as possible. CHAIR'S REPORT Pacha asked if the June meeting could begin between 4 or 4:30 p.m.; the commission agreed to meet at 4:00 p.m. on June 13th. D1RECTOR'S REPORT Trueblood reported on the following: Property across from Nal~oleon Park. Approximately 2I acres directly across from Napoleon Park has tentatively been offered as a donation to the City. The property cannot be developed due to the sensitive areas ordinance and existing Indian burial mounds. Ginsberg asked how the City envisioned using the property. Trueblood stated the property would remain in its present state as green space until such time as the City could put in trails. Wetherby Park is located to the east and it may provide an opportunity to get a trail connection between Wetherby and this area. It may be an eight-foot sidewalk or the street in some areas. He asked if the commission would be amenable to accepting such an offer if it should come to fruition. Stroh noted there was a lot of topography, but felt it was an opportunity to link the parks. Trueblood noted once the area is developed around it there could become a need from the neighborhood standpoint to do more of a neighborhood park. The consensus of the commission was that staff should pursue the offer. Smokim~ Issue. Posters are up at the soccer park asking people to think before they "light up", with permanent signs to be erected next week. He noted on the National Park and Recreation Association net e- mail that Jacksonville, Arkansas bans smoking at youth sports facilities. Paved Multi-Use Trails. A map of these trails will be included in the Recreation Division's summer brochure. ADJOURNMENT ~Uhe meeting adjourned at 6:05 p.m. APRIL 5.2001 - 7:30 P.M. CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Bovbjerg, Jerry Hansen, Pam Ehrhardt, Dean Shannon, Benjamin Chait, Marilyn Schintler, Don Anciaux MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Mitch Behr, Bob Miklo OTHERS PRESENT: Glenn Siders, Mike Pugh, Gary Watts RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: Recommended by a vote of 6-1, to approve REZ01-0003/SUB01~0004, an application from Southgate DeveLopment for an amended Sensitive Areas Overlay plan and a preliminary plat of Walnut Ridge Parts 9-10, a 13-1ot residential subdivision located on Kennedy Parkway. Recommended approval, by a vote of 7-0, to approve SUB01-0002, an application submitted by Arlington L.C. for a preliminary plat of Stone Bridge Estates Part 1, a 5.05 acre, 16-1ot residential subdivision located north of Court Street and east of Camden Road. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Bovbjerg called the meeting to order at 7:36 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. ANNOUNCEMENT OF VACANCIES ON CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: Bevbjerg welcomed Don Anciaux, the newest member of the Planning and Zoning Commission. She welcomed Benjamin Chait, whose term was renewed. Bovbjerg announced vacancies for the Civil Service Commission, Board of Review, Housing and Community Commission and Historic Preservation Commission. She said the Historic Preservation Commission needs someone from Brown Street. REZONING ITEM: REZ01-0003/SUB01-0004. Discussion of an application from Southgate Development for an amended Sensitive Areas Overlay plan and a preliminary plat of Walnut Ridge Parts 9-10, a 13-1ot residential subdivision located on Kennedy Parkway. Miklo said the application is for development in the north end of Walnut Ridge. He said the applicant is requesting that the tree protection buffer line and conservation easement be reduced on Lots 93, 97, 96 and 99. He said this may not result in immediate removal of trees but the grading could damage the root system of existing trees and result in their death. He said at the time the staff report was written, staff felt that the applicant had not justified a reason to reduce the buffer or the removal of more trees. Hansen asked about the history of the tree replacement and why they had to be replaced. Miklo said the Sensitive Areas Ordinance specifies that for a property in the RR-1 zone, with a woodland area, you are allowed to remove 30% of existing trees. If you remove more than that you are required to replace those trees at 1 tree for every 200 square feet. In this case, there was tree removal and some grading work done before an application was made to the City. That violation was resolved with the Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes April 5, 2001 Page 2 approval of a tree replacement plan last year. This is an amendment to that. He said if the Commission approves this and allows more trees to be removed, the City Forester has approved the applicant's plan. The City Forester is not making a recommendation that this is a good idea or bad idea. Hansen asked what the setback is on the lots. Miklo said the required setback is 20 feet but it is his understanding that there is a gentlemeWs agreement that throughout the development the setback will be 40 feet given the size of the structures and the size of the lots. Hartsen clarified that the trees were removed before a plan was submitted. Miklo said that was correct. Anciaux asked with a 40-foot setback, how close the dwellings would be to the trees. Miklo said it varies and the applicant could address that. Bovbjerg asked if with the topography if there is allowance for septic system and field. Miklo said these are on City sewer. Public discussion open: Glenn Siders, PO Box 1907, Iowa City, iowa, said he is with Southgate Development and they are the applicants for this request. He said the only reason they are there is because they misunderstood the way the buffer line was going to be interpreted when this plat was approved the first time. Had they understood how the buffer line was going to be interpreted, they would have proposed the location of the buffer line where they are proposing it now and probably would have had it passed at that time. He said they are requesting the buffer line be moved back in a few areas; on Lots 97, 98, 99 and 93. He said 93 will be difficult because of the topography but they feel with the buffer line reduction there is an application for a home to be built on that lot. He said Lots 97, 98 and 99 are developable lots and are highly desirable lots to be built upon. He said they took an average of 10 homes that exist in Walnut Ridge and the average depth of the homes is 66~ feet. They request a 40-foot setback and have done so since day one with the other 79 lots. He said they did that at the encouragement of the City and you wouldn't want to reduce that setback because of the magnitude of the structures. He said this development was created at the request of the City because people were developing one- acre lots in the County and the City wanted one-acre lots in the City. They started out that they were going to have rural design standards. Those got put aside and they now have storm sewers, City sanitary systems and City water systems. He said there would be no more grading beyond the buffer line that now exists with the exception of the grading that would have to be done for a proposed structure to be set on those sites. The site grading for the whole development is what was proposed in the past and they don't anticipate changing that site grading. They are not asking that the conservation easement line be changed. They are not even asking the City to cut down more trees. He said he would sign in the developer's agreement that Southgate would not cut down any more trees. The only trees that will be removed would be to set a home back into the trees. He said by moving the buffer line back it would allow these structures to be consistent with what is in the development. He said they have made some compromises. They have reduced these lots down as small as they can be and still have them be one-acre in size. He said he would argue strongly that you do not want the 1ors to be less than an acre. When you have 100 lots, you do not want 97 of them to be an acre and 3 of them to be less than an acre. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes April 5, 2001 Page 3 He said the staff report suggests that they move the street further south. He said you cannot do that without reducing Lots 96 and 95 to less than one acre in size. He said they have reduced the cul-de-sac from 75-foot radius to 60-foot radius. He said if they reduce that to 50 feet, you could have no landscaping in the center of the cul-de-sac. They want to maintain landscaping in the center of the cul-de- sac just like every other cul-de-sac out there. He said the only thing they are asking is to build a house and potentially go back to the new buffer line. The only tree removal would be done by the house builder or the owner of that lot. He said originally they mitigated trees for the 30% that was removed. He said the number of trees they were to replace was 60. They have proposed a new mitigation plan and the City Forester has approved the new landscaping plan and they have added 21 additional trees. That is way more than would be required for any trees that would be removed. They have replaced trees at a greater ratio than what the City requires. He said they have heard comments that Southgate should be resigned to the fact that these lots are undevelopable. He said that is why there is a mitigation ordinance. He said the Sensitive Areas Ordinance came along long after this area was started. He said they have compromised by moving the line forward 10 feet on those lots which would not allow the average size house in the development to be on those lots. He said he doesn't think you want to allow a double-wide modular on those lots because it doesn't keep in harmony with this development. Ehrhardt suggested having one less lot and make the other lots bigger. Siders said the average depth of the homes is 66¼ feet deep. They need the depth, not the width. Ehrhardt said average means there is a small and a large so why not have a smaller house on those lots. Siders said the smallest house he drew his average from was 60 feet deep and they have a swimming pool in the backyard beyond the 60 feet. Ehrhardt asked if when he talked about a constraint, that is a financial constraint to Siders. Siders said it is a financial constraint but that is not the only constraint. He said if you have one hundred 110,000 square foot lots, it's unreasonable to ask someone to come in with four 60,000 square foot lots. Ehrhardt asked if the setbacks are a written agreement. Siders said it is not written in the covenants. He said they have allowed reductions in the 40-foot setback to 35 feet, usually because of a steep sloping lot. He said he does not think a 30-foot setback would be appropriate aesthetically. Shannon asked Siders for an estimate of how many trees would be removed. Siders said they might remove 30 trees but a lot of those trees are 2-3 inch caliper. He said they aren't talking about 4-foot oaks. He said he didn't recall seeing any oaks out there. He said there used to be but about 30 years ago that whole timber was logged out and most of the large, prime hardwood trees were logged out. Schintler asked if it was possible for a builder to come in and put a house next to the trees without removing any trees. Siders said yes it was possible. Schintler said most people are pretty sensitive to trees and would try to save as many as possible. Siders said there is 300-foot wide area of trees well beyond the easement line. Ehrhardt asked if when you grade you might damage the roots and eventually kill the trees. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes April 5, 2001 Page 4 Siders said yes, that is why they have the 50-foot buffer. That is the assumption made in the ordinance and that assumption is what was mitigated. Hansen asked if Siders said they did not understand the buffer line originally. Siders said yes that as far as the Sensitive Areas Ordinance and their site grading they couldn't do anything beyond the buffer line, but they still understood that you could build a house in the buffer area. Hansen asked if the 60 trees were mitigated because they didn't understand. Siders said no. He said they are still under the 30 percent of trees removed. Miklo said he believed Southgate had removed 30 percent of the trees last year and that is why they had to mitigate. Siders said they are at 29 percent. Miklo said the previously approved tree replacement plan would not have been required if they were below 30 percent. Hansen asked if the depth of this lot goes back to the approved conservation easement line. Siders said the depth goes beyond the conservation easement line. Hansen asked if they are just clearing enough trees to build a house in a niche, why can't the homeowner do that anyway. Mikle said once the Sensitive Areas Plan is approved, you couldn't remove trees without amending that plan. Hansen asked what would stop him once he was in the house. Miklo said it would be a violation of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Siders said with the 50 feet between the easement line and the buffer line, it is assumed those trees will die with the grading. He said if you look at the plan, there aren't many trees between the proposed new buffer line and the existing buffer line. Hansen said what he is having trouble with is that some trees were removed illegally in the beginning and now they want to remove more. Chair asked what one has to do with the other. He said they have made remedy for their error. Siders said in their negotiations with the City they were under the impression they could still build a house beyond the buffer line. Chair said as he understands it, they want to take down some trees so they can more easily build a house in the trees and any trees they remove they will replace in kind. Siders said over and above, yes. Chair said to allow that house be built with ease of construction, they want to remove those trees, replace those trees and have a house not 30 feet from the street, but 40 or 45 feet from the street and have that house be in the trees and when they are done they will have houses that are more organically set in the trees and have more trees than are there today. Siders said on Let 97 there are no trees in the new buffer line; the existing trees are well beyond that buffer line. They just want to move the buffer line so they can set the house back in the trees. He said they have mitigated for the area where there are no trees+ Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes April 5, 2001 Page 5 Chait clarified that whether there are trees or no trees involved, they need permission to move that buffer line. Siders said yes. Ehrhardt asked Miklo to comment on Siders statement that had this been in the original plan it would have been approved. Miklo said that would have been up to the Commission and City Council. Miklo said he hesitates to speculate on that. Ehrhardt asked if the mitigated trees go on the lots or in the right-of-ways. Siders said according to the ordinance, they are preferred in the right-of-ways. Some trees will be on private lots but the majority will be in common areas and right-of-ways Hansen asked if they approve this, are they are setting precedence. Miklo said no because they approve Sensitive Areas Plans on a case-by-case basis and approving this doesn't mean you'll something similar next time. Behr said they would not be setting precedence in that each property is unique. Bovbjerg said she does not know if the areas they want to go into have steep slopes or any other geological problem. She said her idea is that by not going into the buffer you do not risk damaging the trees that must be protected. She said she does not know what extent of damage there will be by going into that buffer. Siders said there are no steep slopes. He said there is some sloping well beyond the conservation easement line. Bovbjerg asked if their anticipation if they get the allowance to site a house that there will be damage to the trees in the conservation easement. Siders said no. He believes that is the assumption made by the ordinance. He said the severity of the grading right along that conservation easement line is very minimal. He said the City Forester felt there were very few trees that wouldn't survive between the buffer and the easement because of the minimal disturbance. Bovbjerg asked Siders if as a potential grader he is saying that going into the yellow-hatched areas shown on the map are necessary for the house but will probably not disturb the conservation easement area. Siders said they cannot disturb the conservation area so he will guarantee that is correct. Bovbjerg asked who does the grading and where the assurance comes from. Siders said Southgate does the grading to prepare the site. Once they sell the house, it is beyond their control, He said it will be noted when they sell that property, where the buffer line and the easement line is that you cannot encroach upon, Bovbjerg asked what power does Southgate have over an individual builder to make sure they don't go beyond those lines. Siders said they have no control. Miklo said since this is a Sensitive Area, when the building permits are issued, the inspector would look at it very closely. He said they can require fencing be put up at the edge of the buffer. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes April 5, 2001 Page 6 Siders said he thinks that is already in the papers. Bovbjerg said so there would be some barrier. Chait said that if no one is responsible for enforcing what the Commission agrees to, whether it is Southgate or the City; they have a different kind of problem. Miklo said the City is responsible for enforcement. Chair said when a builder or buyer has certain rights to a property, it seems it would be up to the developer to define those things and if someone is in violation, then it wouldn't be the developer's responsibility. He said those kinds of things are not relevant to this conversation. He said if there are problems with enforcement then it's a different kind of problem in the system. Behr said enforcement is the same whether the buffer line is where it is now or if it's moved. He said it's binding on whoever buys the lot. Bovbjerg said the Commission should learn from the past and if there are not safeguards and checks, then any kind of change of boundaries or zonings shouldn't be passed by this Commission. She said enforcement and ordinances have to work together and if they don't then it's up to this Commission to make sure things don't fall through the cracks. Chair said he agrees with Bovbjerg but the concerns have nothing to do with the applicant being here tonight or whether they move this or don't move this or whether the applicant even asks. Schintler asked Miklo if a builder asks for a permit they have to have a plot plan. Miklo said the subdivision plan would have the conservation easement marked on it and there will be notes about grading limitations. He said it's all about making sure the inspectors are there at the right times and if there is activity that goes beyond what is permitted, that it be stopped. He said lately the inspection department has been meeting with the grading contractors and goes over the plans. He said he thinks the communication is getting better. Siders said none of the grading has been done. He said they have agreed to put up a fence at the buffer line and they have agreed to meet with Julie Tallman, the inspector, before any grading is done. Hansen asked Siders how much room around the house he needs for equipment. Siders said 15 to 20 feet. Hansen asked if that area would be fenced off. Siders said he doesn't think you can even get into that buffer with 15 feet. He said that already moves the house forward another 15 or 20 feet from the buffer line. He said it takes that 80 feet down to 60 feet plus a 20-foot setback leaves 40 feet. Mike Puqh, 321 East Market Street, Iowa City, Iowa, is an attorney representing Southgate Development. He said Bovbjerg's comments about enforcement of ordinances are well taken. He said you have to have faith in the fact that the City and/or the developer are going to make efforts to enforce those. He said that concern is the same whether the line is where it is now or moved back as iS, proposed by the applicant. He said Chair hit it on the head when he spoke of the overall affect of what is being proposed. He said it is not a critical slope or wetlands area. He said it is easier to mitigate trees and that's what is contemplated in the ordinance. The ordinance specifically contemplates situations like this by allowing the applicant to come forward and say if in fact trees have to be removed there is a mitigation plan to allow trees to be brought back to the property. The mitigation plan assumes that the worse case scenario is going to happen. Therefore Southgate will plant 82 trees. He said practically speaking, he thinks the fact of the matter is that people are going to buy those lots and not all those trees are going to be lost because people are going to attempt to save them. But Southgate will plant 82 trees regardless of how many are removed. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes April 5, 2001 Page 7 He said the staff's opinion of why this shouldn't be done is essentially based on the fact that the applicant hasn't shown that there are site constraints or infrastructure requirements for this area. He said the infrastructure concerns are pretty obvious as Siders pointed out. It's impossible to move Walden Court any further south than it is. In terms of site restrictions, the 40-foot setback which is standard in that subdivision plus the average depth of a 66 ~ foot house plus the 15 foot grading area behind it gives an average of 121.5 feet from the right of way in that area. He said if the line stays where it's at it is 80 feet from the right-of-way on Lot 98 and 90 feet on Lot 99. The line they are proposing is 110 feet from the right-of-way so the applicant is making somewhat of an accommodation. He said if you look at the overall picture of the subdivision and the average setbacks and the types of houses that are built there, clearly there is a site restriction for these lots based on where that line is. He said one of the suggestions the City makes is to move the houses closer to the street. He said with the size of the house he thinks you'd be better off sticking those houses back into the trees. He said he wanted to remind the Commission that the Sensitive Areas Ordinance is not designed to create public parkland in a residential development. Hansen asked Siders why he couldn't put a 4000 square foot house on that lot rather than a 5,000 square foot house. Siders said you could. Hansen said wouldn't that fit much better. Siders said it depends on how deep it is. Hansen said if you removed 30% of it, it seems like you could configure it to fit. Siders asked if you had a 4000 square foot house that was 100 feet wide, how deep would that be? Siders said on Lot 99, with the existing buffer line, the lot is 80 feet deep. With a 20-foot setback and 15 feet needed to do grading and foundation filling, leaves 45 feet. Hansen asked if he couldn't build a sellable house that would fit. Siders said they don't have a 40~foot deep house out there. They are all a minimum of well beyond 50 feet deep. Hansen asked if a house that would fit on the current lot would be unsellable. Siders said yes. He said it's an active homeowners group out there and they would be screaming if a smaller house was built in the subdivision. Hansen asked why would they be screaming. Siders said because you'd see something less than what is in the rest of the neighborhood. Hansen said isn't that the spirit of the whole thing; inclusion and mixture of housing in this town. Siders said not in this development. He said this development was started at the request of the City. They wanted large lots and large houses. He said the word neo-traditional or mixed neighborhood did not exist at the time Walnut Ridge was started. They have this development 80% developed and that is not the time to change concepts. Public discussion closed. MOTION: Chair moved to approve REZ01-000;~/SUB01-0004, an application from Southgate Development for an amended Sensitive Areas Overlay plan and a preliminary plat of Walnut Ridge Parts 9-'10, a 13-1ot residential subdivision located on Kennedy Parkway. Shannon seconded the motion. Schintler said she thinks if you buy one of those lots you would try to keep the trees and she has faith they would try to save them and the developer will try to save them. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes April 5, 2001 Page 8 Shannon said he agrees it would be common sense to save those trees because that's the value of those lots. He likes the tradeoff of getting more trees than what's there now. Ehrhardt said she sees this as an experienced developer who removed some trees and replaced some trees and now they are being asked to allow this developer to remove some more trees and go against the spirit of the Sensitive Ordinance. The allowance for replacing more trees is for when there are site restrictions or infrastructure restrictions that makes it necessary to remove trees. She said the developer has not provided evidence that there are no alternatives such as reducing the number of lots or the size. She said a 30-foot setback is not on the street; it is a wide setback and she will be voting against it. Chait said he takes great pride in being one of seven opinions on this Commission and has respect for each Commissioner's opinion. He said he was going to make a pun. They are not seeing the forest for the trees. He said they have a lot of administration, regulations, ordinances and reviews in the process that work pretty well. In this project, there have been a lot of mistakes made that have been admitted to by Siders and every time that has happened, there has been interaction with staff. He said in developing property, you don't develop it without changing it. He said it doesn't stay a forest when you stick a house in it. He said they are so concerned with this minutiae and this level of micro-management that they are missing the big picture. They are not getting away with anything or trying to get away with anything. They are here with staff and the Commission trying to negotiate. He hopes they do set a precedence that they are able to work with the builder in a cooperative way and do the job that needs to be done which is to change the environment to allow people to be in it. He said he thinks they want to uphold the context of the project and support this. He said they have demonstrated beyond any doubt that this is a reasonable request, Hansen said he agrees with a lot of what Chait says but he's having a hard time with why this neighborhood couldn't accept a few smaller homes. He said he would go along with this with the stipulation that the property be fenced off so the grading equipment cannot make a mistake. He said if it were critically sloped he would say not but he doesn't see the slopes as a problem. Anciaux said he understands the trees are small caliper and it's not critical slopes. He thinks diversification of the replacement trees would be good. Bovbjerg said it bothers her that it's a request for a variance on a buffer, which has a reason for being. She said maybe the minutes would be enough for enforcement of fencing to make sure there is no further encroachment on the buffer. She said with what is in place for regulation and what people want on the lots, she will vote in favor. The motion carried on a vote of 6-1. Ehrhardt voted no. Chair said because of concerns about enforcement that were voiced, can they legally single out one area for more scrutiny. Miklo said if there is a concern, there is no reason the inspector couldn't pay closer attention to it. Chait said doesn't that go against uniform standards. Miklo said extra scrutiny couldn't hurt given the reduction in the buffer and the close area of grading. Bovbjerg said it does not imply that inspection hasn't been adequate in the past or that a particular builder needs to be watched, it is simply an alert that this is a special place and a tight place to build. DEVELOPMENT ITEMS: SUB01-0002. Discussion of an application submitted by Arlington LC. for a preliminary plat of Stone Bridge Estates Parl 1, a 5.05 acre, 16-1ot residential subdivision located north of Court Street and east of Camden Road. Miklo said this area was annexed into the city last year with a zoning of RS-5. The rezoning was subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement, which required future development to be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. This concept plan does illustrate the features called for in the Comprehensive Plan, Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes April 5, 2001 Page 9 He said a number of the lots proposed for this subdivision are less than 8,000 square feet, the minimum lot size in the RS-5 zone. The RS-5 zone allows for averaging the lot sizes, with the condition that no lot be less than 7,200 square feet, or more than 15,000 square feet. The proposed plat meets these requirements. This plan does meet the requirements for secondary access. No public open space is proposed with this subdivision. Miklo said there were a number of deficiencies when this was submitted and they all have been resolved and corrected. Staff recommends approval of this plat. Ehrhardt asked if it is possible to bank open space rather than take the fees. Miklo said what they've done in the past when irs all been under the same ownership. In this case the owner is buying the property in pieces and does not have rights to restrict the area where parkland is desired at this point. Public discussion open: Gary Watts. 4988 Lower West Branch Road, Iowa City, Iowa, said he was available for questions. Ehrhardt said for the concept plan, one of the nice features of the Peninsula is that the streets run along the open space. She asked if that was possible near the creek area in this development. Watts said he would consider that. Bovbierg said the lots will average 8,000 square feet and she doesn't know how people feel about lots of that size, but lot 7 has a driveway going out on the cross street. She asked if it was possible to go from 9 lots to 8 lots and alter that. Watts said what they are trying to do is 60 feet at the building line. Some are a little larger. He said it's amazing what you can do on a narrower lot if you get creative. Public discussion closed. MOTION: Hartsen moved to approve SUB0'I-0002, an application submitted by Arlington L.C. for a preliminary plat of Stone Bridge Estates Part 1, a 5.05 acre, 16-1ot residential subdivision located north of Court Street and east of Camden Road. Schintler seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. SUB99-0025. Discussion of an application submitted by the Ethel Cole Estates for a preliminary and final plat of White Barn Estates, a 30.44 acre, 3-lot subdivision located at 4675 American Legion Road. Miklo said the applicant has asked that this be deferred until the April 19, 2001 meeting. Ehrhardt asked if this goes through and a year from now Lot 1 wants to be developed. does the 50% apply. Miklo said what staff is proposing is that the lots other than the one with the house on it be designated as outlots. He said if they proposed developing Lot 1, 50% would be set aside until such time as it is annexed into the City. Public discussion open: There was none, Public discussion closed. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes April 5, 2001 Page 10 MOTION: Chait moved to defer $UB99-0025, an application submitted by the Ethel Cole Estates for a preliminary and final plat of White Barn Estates, a :}0.44 acre, :}-lot subdivision located at 4615 American Legion Road until April 19, 2001. Hartsen seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 1-0. Ehrhardt moved to approve the minutes of the March 15, 2001 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting as written. Schintler seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7 - 0. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:14 p.m. Dean Shannon, Secretary Minutes submitted by Diane Crossett ppdadmiNm~nlp&z04~35~1 dec PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 19, 2001 - 7:30 P.M. CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Bovbjerg, Jerry Hansen, Dean Shannon, Benjamin Chait, Marilyn Schintler, Don Anciaux MEMBERS ABSENT: Pare Ehrhardt STAFF PRESENT: Mitch Behr, Bob Miklo OTHERS PRESENT: Larry Schnittjer, Dave Hodge, Jim McCarragher, Joe Leu, Pat Ringham, Karen Parker, Joe Haman RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: Recommended approval, by a vote of 6-0, REZ01-00007/SUB01-00006, a City initiated application to fezone 24 acres from P, Public to OPDH-5, Planned Development Overlay, and an amended preliminary plat and OPDH plan and a final plat of the Peninsula Neighborhood, First Addition, a 35.99-acre, 73-1ot subdivision located at the west end of Foster Road. Recommended approval, by a vote of 6-0, REZ01-00005, a City initiated application to rezone property located south of Iowa Avenue between Linn and Gilbert Streets (Tower Place) from P, Public to CB-10, Central Business District and to amend the Zoning Code to allow public, municipal parking facilities as a permitted use in the CB-10 zone. Recommended denial, by a vote of 6-0, SUB01-00003, a preliminary plat of Prairie Edge Subdivision, a 5-lot, 5.66-acre subdivision located on the west side of Prairie du Chien road and north of Linder Road. 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 announced vacancies for the Planning and Zoning Commission, Housing and Community Development Commission and Historic Preservation Commission. She said the Historic Preservation Commission needs someone from Brown Street. REZONING ITEMS: REZ01-00007/SUB01-00006. Discussion of a City initiated application to rezone 24 acres from P, Public to OPDH-5, Planned Development Overlay, and an amended preliminary plat and OPDH plan and a final plat of the Peninsula Neighborhood, First Addition, a 35.99-acre, 73-1ot subdivision located at the west end of Foster Road. Miklo gave staff report. He said the original 24 acres included the area on which the Elks Club have an easement for the golf course. Rather than use that area for density the revised plan transfers the 24 acres in the lowlands. Staff recommends approval of the rezoning. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes April 19, 2001 Page 2 Schintler asked about the use of the outlot. Miklo said both 24-acre sites will eventually be zoned P for Public. Schintler asked why they didn't do that originally. Miklo said the original site was the logical configuration. He said after the Elks objected, the City decided to use the other 24 acres to assure that there is no delay in the building of the Peninsula Neighborhood. Public discussion open: There was none. Public discussion closed. MOTION: Chait moved to approve REZ01-00007/SUB01-00006, a City initiated application to rezone 24 acres from P, Public to OPDH-5, Planned Development Overlay, and an amended preliminary plat and OPDH plan and a final plat of the Peninsula Neighborhood, First Addition, a 35.99-acre, 73-1ot subdivision located at the west end of Foster Road. Anciaux seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. REZ01-00006/SUB01-00005. Discussion of a rezoning application from Arbor Hill Condominiums to amend the OPDH-8, Overlay Planned Development Housing Plan and preliminary plat for Washington Park Addition Part 11 (Arbor Hill) a 2-lot, 8.2-acre subdivision located north of Washington Street on Arbor Hill Circle. Miklo gave staff report. He said this plat is par~ of a larger development begun in the 1970s. A portion of the property was subdivided and rezoned last year to allow the development of lots 229 to 234 within the RS-5 zone. The applicant is now proposing to add 16 units to Lot 2 and an additional unit in the existing 6-plex building on Lot 1. The zoning allows 30 units; 16 are being proposed. It is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Staff is recommending approval. Chait clarified that on Lot 1 a unit would not be added to the existing building but would be inside the existing footprint of the building. Miklo said he believed it would be in the basement. Public discussion open: Bovbjerg asked how the storm water will go and who will maintain the basin. Larry Schnittier, 1917 South Gilbert Street, Iowa City, Iowa, said he had been talking with neighbors who are concerned that more water will be thrown on them. He pointed out the route of the storm water on the map and explained it. Chait asked if less water would be going into the existing drainage way than currently goes there. Schnittjer said yes. Bovbjerg asked if neighbors to the east have experienced problems since construction. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes April 19, 2001 Page 3 Schnittjer said the neighbors related to him that they have experienced more water since construction in the northern part. Bovbjerg asked if those backyards were what he referred to as the swale. Schnittjer said there are two swales; one in the existing backyards and one in the proposed backyards. Anciaux asked about route of water from driveways and streets. Schnittjer pointed out and explained a series of catch water basins leading to the storm water basin, Anciaux asked if Schnittjer thinks there will be less water in the backyards than there is now. Schnittjer said yes when construction is completed, He said during construction there might be more water than they would like but probably not more water than there is now. Anciaux asked the estimated time of completion. Dave Hodqe, Hodqe Construction, said he believes the duration of the project would be two years. He said they would do silt fencing or whatever is necessary to keep water on the property and not on the neighbor's property. He explained the style of the buildings. Shannon asked why they decided to undeFbuild the properly, Hodge said he felt this density would sell better with more green space. Anciaux asked the price of the units. Hodge said approximately $190,000 per unit. Bovbjerg asked who takes care of the existing storm water basin on Lot 1. Hodge said a Home Owner's Association would be developed and they would take care of that. Hansen asked the street width of Arbor Hill Circle. Schnittjer said 25 feet and it is a private street. He said hardly anyone parks there now but staff has allowed for parking on one side. Bovbjerg asked if there is space between street and sidewalk. Schnittjer said 6 feet, which is standard. He said he had hoped to have the sidewalk closer to the street so the structure could be closer to the street and further from the neighbors but it is a city requirement. Anciaux asked how far it is from lot line to back of the house on east side. Schnittjer said 42 V2 feet. Jim McCarraqher, 103 Bowlin~ Green Place, said their main concern is the water that will be channeled to the area in their backyard, He said with a good rain they have water build up to a Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes April 19, 2001 Page 4 sizable swale in their backyard. He said this is the beginning of Ralston Creek and it can't handle this amount of water. He said the proposed buildings would be in the swale. He is afraid they'll grade, narrowing the swale, which will increase the velocity. He said they are going to take out about 30 rooted trees, which absorb more water than flat grass. He said they are concerned about the loss of green space. Fewer units are being proposed but they are the same size building. He said when they bought out there, they knew what was planned and there was lots of green space. Hansen asked if there have been complaints about storm water in this area. Miklo said he would check with Public Works. Shannon said Schnittjer said most of the water would go into Lot 1. He asked McCarragher if he thought that wasn't true. McCarragher repeated his concerns about water. Joe Leu, 127 Bowlinq Green Place, said he has live there for 15 years. He said he has a drainage grate in the corner of his yard and that there has been so much water at times that the grate has moved and he has had to fill with dirt. He said the water has increased drastically since development to the north. He said the retention that is there is too far north and doesn't help them at all. Schnittjer again showed the storm water systems in the area on the map. Hansen asked if those were functioning effectively. Schnittjer said he did not know. He said he didn't know if someone had inadvertently modified those. Miklo said Public Works would investigate. Anciaux asked if the City owned the catch basins in the backyards. Miklo said they are on private property. Pat Rinqham, 35 North Westminster Street, spoke of her concerns about water. She said the accumulation is u~believable. She said her property could not handle any more water. Shannon asked if someone has modified the catch basins, could someone be held accountable. Miklo said since there is an easement, the City can go in and repair them. Karen Parker, 25 North Westminster Street, spoke of her concerns about water that gets within six feet of her back door. She said they cannot handle anymore water. She said there has definitely been an increase in the last four years. Public discussion closed. MOTION: Chair moved to defer REZ01-00006/SUB01-00005, a rezoning application from Arbor Hill Condominiums to amend the OPDH-8, Overlay Planned Development Housing Plan and preliminary plat for Washington Park Addition Part 11 (Arbor Hill) a 2-lot, 8.2- Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes April 19, 2001 Page 5 acre subdivision located north of Washington Street on Arbor Hill Circle. Shannon seconded the motion. Chair said the developer suggested that when this project is done, there would be tess water in the backyards than there is now. He said he understands that more water will be diverted with this development. He said it should be looked at not requiring the sidewalk be six feet from the street if it would be better to have the six feet in the backyard. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. REZ01-00005. Discussion of a City initiated application to rezone properly located south of Iowa Avenue between Linn and Gilbert Streets (Tower Place) from P, Public to CB-10, Central Business District and discussion of an amendment of the Zoning Code to allow public, municipal parking facilities as a permitted use in the CB-10 zone. Miklo gave staff report. He said there is a mix of public and private uses and ownership. Public discussion open: There was none. Public discussion closed. MOTION: (:;bait moved to approve REZ01-00005, a City initiated application to fezone property located south of Iowa Avenue between Linn and Gilbert Streets (Tower Place) from P, Public to CB-10, Central Business District and to amend the Zoning Code to allow public, municipal parking facilities as a permitted use in the CB-10 zone. Anciaux seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. DEVELOPMENT ITEM: SUB01-00003. Discussion of a preliminary plat of Prairie Edge Subdivision, a 5-lot, 5.66-acre subdivision located on the west side of Prairie du Chien road and north of Linder Road. Miklo gave staff report. He said City standards apply to this area. He said the plat does not comply with City standards or with the requirements of the Fringe Area Agreement, which are the main reasons for staff recommending denial. Public discussion open: Joe Haman, 2788 CroV Road, NW, ~wisher, Iowa, said he owns farmland north of this. He said there has never been water problems or erosion. He said the drainage of the storm water system would flow through his property. He voiced concern about the type and location of the proposed septic system. He said the design of this development would have a negative effect on his farm property. Public discussion closed. MOTION: Anciaux moved to deny SUB01-00003, a preliminary plat of Prairie Edge Subdivision, a 5-lot, 5.66-acre subdivision located on the west side of Prairie du Chien road and north of Linder Road. Schintler seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes April 19, 2001 Page 6 Shannon moved to approve the minutes of the April 5, 2001 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting as written. Hartsen seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6 - 0. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Dean Shannon, Secretary Minutes submitted by Diane Crossett ppdadmln/m~n/p&z04 20~1 doc POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD MINUTES - April 10, 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 Cohen and seconded by Stratton to adopt the Consent Calendar as presented: a. Minutes of 3/13/01 meeting b. ICPD General Order- Performance Evaluations c. ICPD Use of Force Report - February 2001 d. 4/5/01 Memorandum from Marian Karr e. ICPD March Training Report f. ICPD Training Bulletin 01-47 g. ICPD Training Bulletin 01-50 b.. ICPD Training Bulletin 01-51 i. ICPD Training Bulletin 01-52 Motion carried, 5/0, all members present. RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL - Recommend re-enactment of the PCRB ordinance. JOINT MEETING All board members indicated they would be present for the joint meeting with City Council on Thursday, April 19, at 8:30 A.M. to discuss the sunset clause and changes that might be made to the present ordinance. The board affirmed that the PCRB is an important function and should be continued. Motion by Stratton and seconded by Cohen to recommend to City Council that the PCRB ordinance be re-enacted. Motion carried, 5/0, all members present. Ordinance issues/concerns were discussed: · 8-8-2 E: "No findings in the Board's report shall be used in any other legal proceeding." Pugh explained that the PCRB findings or work product could not be used by a defendant to prove innocence in a civil suit. Whether this could be upheld would be up to the court. · The two complaint processes, the PCRB and the ICPD internal process. 8-8-2 K: "Investigation of all formal complaints is a mandatory duty of the Police Chief, and a report of each complaint investigation shall be given to the Board." 8-8-3 B: "Any person with personal knowledge of the alleged police misconduct may file a complaint with the Board or with the Iowa City Police Department." This doesn't indicate two processes, it just says it can be filed in either place. 8-8-3 C: "All complaints filed with the Board or the Iowa City Police Department shall be in writing and on forms provided by the Board." Again, it says all. 8-8-3 D: "All complaints must be filed with either the Board or the Iowa City Police Department within ninety days of the alleged misconduct." Watson states the above doesn't appear to allow an internal police department complaint process because the ordinance says all complaints, no matter where they are filed, shall be on forms provided by the PCRB. (It does allow for an informal mediation or formal mediation, and that can take place anytime.) The board had requested and has been receiving a report from the Police Chief of the ICPD investigation log. However, the board does not receive copies of the investigations of internal department complaints. Watson questions if the intent in the ordinance is that all complaints (unless settled through mediation) be investigated through the PCRB process. To-date the board has decided that "all" means all complaints that the complainant chose to go through the PCRB process. Watson said the ordinance should be changed to conform with actual practice, or the current internal process should be changed to conform with the ordinance. · 8-8-7 B.2: This section has been a source of discussion since the board began. Watson defined his problem as the restrictive standard of the terms "unsupported by substantial evidence, and unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious." Such a restriction on the board prevents it from forming its own conclusion about a situation unless it can demonstrate gross error of judgment by the Chief. 2 The board's view of a situation may be different, but also supported by substantial evidence. The board should be able to recommend a different finding based on a less restrictive standard. Pugh explained that "unsupported by substantial evidence" means more than a preponderance of the evidence; the Chief should have substantial evidence to support whatever conclusion he reaches. "You could read this as saying the Chief did not have substantial evidence to support his conclusion, or you could read this as saying you have to come up with substantial evidence to the contrary to prove that it's unsupported. It's confusing." The Board decided that it's main objective of the joint meeting is to recommend re-enactment of the ordinance. The Chair should briefly comment about the board's concerns regarding recommended changes. The board will address changes more formally and specifically at a later date. Potential changes include: 1. The two complaint process - ordinance makes repeated references to "all" complaints. This needs to be addressed and clarified in the ordinance. 2. Limits on the authority of the PCRB and with the deferential standard of review in the complaint process. The ordinance is worded in a way that leaves little latitude for the board to make its own findings. 3. Change "unsupported" to "not supported" (8-8-7 B.2) and offering different standards or an additional standard. Pugh offered to draft some language to present. Pugh recommended the board confirm whether the Council is interested in entertaining any amendments on this issue. The board reviewed its concerns and issues addressed in its last annual report. The reasons cited for continuing the ordinance were: 1. External accountability - Supporting the citizens' confidence that there is an independent agency that reviews issues of police misconduct. While there is no reason to mistrust the police or to feel they systematically engage in misconduct, it's always reassuring to have an agency there. 2. Encourages the police department to monitor themselves more closely knowing this board exists. 3.Better department today, four years later. 4.Reaffirm the police department when they do well. 5. The board is an avenue to educate the community about the police department. 6. Saves council time by being able to refer complaints to the board. REVIEW OF PRESENTATION BY PROF. BALDUS Traffic Stop Data and Racial Profiling - The Board's role to this point is to encourage the collection of data and talk about ways to look at it. Watson stated the board does not have the expertise or the budget to analyze this data itself. However, it is the consensus of the board that an independent body should review this. This issue is being dealt with all over the country and there must be objective ways to interpret this data. The board can recommend to the Chief or the Council that they contract with an independent body to collect and analyze and report back to the community. Hoffey suggested the board should monitor it very closely but let the Chief make the decision how it will be analyzed professionally, and then monitor that. Watson stated the analysis should be done externally so it is absolutely credible. Hoffey acknowledged that the presentation by Professor Baldus was very good and informative, but was disturbed when Attorney Persaud was invited to speak on a specific case in which he suggested the City was not cooperating in providing information. It was inappropriate and unprofessional for them to have brought this to the board. Chair clarified that he was unable to interrupt Persaud because it wasn't clear that Persaud was referring to an actual case until the end. Other Board members concurred. ICPD PPP Selection of further topics for presentations by ICPD: Two issues have come up involved with a grant, 1 ) knock and talk, and 2) garbage searches. Both are legal under the right circumstances and the issue is a community standard issue - when should the policies or practices of our police department allow those. Widmer stated the general order on Search and Seizures would come closest to it. There is no general order that covers the knock or talk or the garbage searches. 4 Before selecting further topics for presentations, Hoffey suggested the board see what topics may come up at the community forum on community policing. Carol DeProsse questioned Captain Widmer about the knock and talk. Chair indicated that she could address this issue during Public Discussion. COMMUNITY FORUM Arrangements for the April 18 community forum were confirmed. There will be a time limit of three minutes for people wishing to make comments. Chair will speak with Captain Johnson prior to the forum. SOP The standard operating procedure for reviewing PCRB complaints was reviewed. NEW BUSINESS None OLD BUSINESS PCRB Videotape - Bauer reported that Bob Hardy is editing interviews and arranging for further interviews. He would also like to videotape a board meeting. NACOLE - The consensus is the board does not wish to reapply. Bauer was directed to let NACOLE know the board's disappointment in what they received for their membership. PUBLIC DISCUSSION Carol DeProsse suggested to the board that it talk to more than the City Council when it goes before them, that the board is talking to the public as well. The public monitors closely the meetings of the City Council. DeProsse stated this board is important to a very large segment of the Iowa City community and to residents of Johnson County who remember the reason it was formed, coming in the aftermath of the killing of an Iowa City resident by an Iowa City police officer. That is firmly imbedded in many people's mind and that is the reason this board exists. She also recommended that board members read the Edward J. Byrne grant. When the public addresses this, then board members will be familiar with it. Watson stated that he was given a copy of this grant by another citizen and chose not to bring it to the board. It was going before Council and it was his view that it would inappropriately inject the board into a 5 political/administrative process. If board members want to see a copy, Watson will provide it. MEETING SCHEDULE · Community Forum April 18, 2001 · Joint Meeting with City Council April 19, 2001,8:30 A.M. · Regular Meeting May 8, 2001 BOARD INFORMATION Watson: reported he had a meeting with Carol DeProsse about supporting the extension of the board. Cohen: reported a few calls on the sunset. She also reported a couple meetings with staff that were not board related. STAFF INFORMATION None ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Cohen and seconded by Hoffey. Motion carried, 5/0, all members present. Meeting adjourned at 8:47 P.M. 6 0~15-~ 1 POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD 3 (1) COMMUNITY FORUM MINUTES - April 18, 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, PCRB Assistant Sandy Bauer and City Clerk Marian Karr. PRESENTATION Captain Matt Johnson, Commander of Field Operations for the Iowa City Police Department, gave a presentation on community policing in Iowa City. FORUM The presentation was followed by a question/answer session. Individuals appearing included: Caroline Dieterie Pat Meyer Harry Plendl Nathan L. Vance Carol deProsse Matt Blizek Adam Sagert Katherine Chisholm Eric Ostby Bruce Nestor John Robertson ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Cohen and seconded by Hoffey. Motion carried, 5/0, all members present. Meeting adjourned at 9:00 P.M.