HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-08-21 Bd Comm minutesMINUTES
IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION
THURSDAY JULY 19, 2001 - 5:45 P.M.
IOWA CITY AIRPORT TERMINAL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Rick Mascari, Howard Horan, Mark Anderson, Alan Ellis
STAFF PRESENT: Sue Dulek, Ron O'Neil
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Mascari called the meeting to order at 5:48 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
The minutes of the July 19, 2001, Commission meeting were appreved as submitted.
AUTHORIZATION OF EXPENDITURES:
Anderson made a motion to approve the bills. Horan seconded the motion and the bills were
approved 4 - 0.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION - ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA:
Information was presented by the University of Iowa Department of Industrial Engineering. They
are working on a synthetic vision projoel. It is a project that simulates terrain outside of an
aircraft, enabling a pilot to "see" outside, even at night or in adverse weather conditions. A
portion of Building H would be subleased for the project's simulator. The initial sublease would
be five years.
Access to the airside of the airport would be limited. Anyone participating in the experiment
would be aecorr~onied by U of I staff. There would be a little modification to the building, such
as running an additional air conditioning and heating duct. This would be done at the
University's expense. The simulator would occupy about 225 square feet of the 4800 sq ft
hangar.
The Commission said Dennis Gordon's lease would need to be revised. This will be on the
agenda for the August meeting.
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION:
a. Aviation Commerce Park
1. Tracy Overton, from Iowa Realty, said the Commission needed to address some of the
easemel~ts on the lots. He said Lot 11, as an example, is about 63,000 square feet, with
drainage and access easements on 17,000 square feet. Depanding on what zoning will
allow as far as parking or driveways are concerned, the Commission is not likely to get
full market value for the propetty with easements on it. This will have the overall affect
of lowering the appraised value ofthe property. Dulek said it would depend on the type
of easement it was on what the restrictions there would be. She said that if the
Commission wanted to change the plat at this time and remove the easements, the plat
would have to be pulled from the Council agenda on July 3 1 and it would go through the
Planning and Zoning Commission again. The consensus of the Commission was to
address each parcel as it is leased, to see what effect the easements have. Dulek
recommended the Commission go to the Council meeting when the plat is to be ~nalized,
and express the concern to the Council about the easements. Dick Blum, from HR.
Green, suggested the land be designated as reserved and not designated as an easement.
He said it might be easier to change if it was not needed as a road in the future.
Mascari said when he flew over the ACP, he noticed there was standing water in the
drainage ditch. He said it was his understanding that this was suppose to only have water
in the ditch right after it rained. O~leil will contact the Assistant City Engineer and have
him look at the potential problem.
Ovenon said the Commission needs to decide on their covenants, codes and restrictions.
He said that is what tenants am asking about. OveRon said he has a set of examples that
can be used as a basis to develop a list. Ellis said the subcommittee should develop a list
for the Commission. Overton said the basis for the list will be the CI-1 zoning. Ellis and
Mascari are the subcomm~ee. O~eil said a lot of those restrictions were built in during
the initial development of the plat.
Overton discussed the conceptual drawing the Commission had drawn and how it could
be used in the marketing program.
Overton said there needs to be some procedures for negotiating leases. He said he would
recommend the Commission assign the Airport Manager to work with him to negotiate a
contract before it gets to the Commission. Overton is obligated to present all viable
offers to the Commission. He said it would be more efficient to meat with 0~qeil and put
an offer in a final form before the Commission discusses it. This would save his time and
the Commission's time. The Commission agreed to have O?qeil and Overton do the
initial negotiation. They will concentrate on the business terms. At%er the Commission
approves those terms, the rest of the lease will be reviewed for legal content. Overton
said the FAA review and Council involvement needs to be clarified.
O~leil discussed the finance agreement for the infrastructure repayment. He discussed
several points that he thought should be discussed. The Council would like the finance
agreement cornplated before the final plat is approved. Mascari will contact the Mayor
and see what needs to be done before the next Council meeting to finish the agreement
and have the fmal plat approved. On the advice of the City Attomey's office, the
Comnussion will hire David Brown to review the agreement before final approval.
2. Consensual Duel Agency Addendum - Because Tracy Ovenon sometunes represents
the Commission and the tenant in leasing a lot, a duel agency disclaimer must be signed
for each parcel that this occurs. Heran made a motion for a resolution for the chairperson
be able to sign these agreements. This would eliminate having to wait for a Commission
meetmg or having a special Commission meeting each time a dual agency addendure
needs to be signed. Ellis seconded the motion and at roll call vote, the motion passed 4 -
0, with Ruyle being absent.
3. The Commission has received an offer from Rob Nichols to lease lot #11. He would
like to build a 20,000 square foot building for an indoor soccer areaa. He would like an
initial lease of 15 years, with 5 10-year options. The first fifteen years would be broken
down into three five-year rent periods, with the rent increasing at each five-year period.
Nichols presented information to the Commission. He would like to build this fall and
have his building completed by November. O~Neil and OveRon will negotiate with
Nichols and have an offer ready for the August Commission meeting,
b. Fuel site- Blum said the project was not ready for a request for final acceptance, but he did
want to give a status report. The tanks were commissioned on July 16~. Everything was
operational. The equipment cabinets will be delivered and installed next week. Blum is
compiling a punch list.
Blum said the fuel would need to be transferred from the old tanks to the new tanks. Jim
McCrabb, from lOW Aero, said the 100LL tank is practically empty. Because of the design
of the Jet A tank, there am about 1000 gallon of fuel left. A special pump will have to be
brought in to transfer the fuel. O'Neil said there are companies out there that will do the job,
but this was not budgeted for in the bid from P.E.S. The Commission directed O?qeil to find
a company to transfer the fuel.
Blum said the emergency telephone delivered for the fuel farm was not acceptable and a new
phone has been ordered. It has to be programmable so that it will only call 911. A decision
has to be made on which phone line to connect the emergency phone.
Blum said the phone line for the remote staUon needs to be a dedicatM line. He said Applied
Technology would be at the Airport on July 30 to install the card reader. The Commission
must decide who will be responsible for the remote station and who will pay for the line.
Ellis said he thought the FBO should be in charge of the fuel and it should be spelled out in
the lease with the FBO on what the rules are for the remote fueling station. O~leil, Blum and
the FBO, and the distributor will decide what credit cards to have on the card reader.
Blum said the last issue he had was whether the reel on the remote fueler should have a cover.
He said this was an option on the original bid and was rejected by the Commission. The
Commission directed Blum to order the cover and have it delivered as soon as possible.
c. Fly Iowa 2001 - Anderson said the updated budget totals about $ 25,000. Just a little over
$19,000 has been collected. The variable will be the sales of Coke products. Ellis said he
received a letter from the Govemor's office. He will not be attending. Blum will call the
Office of Aviation and see if the director of the IDOT would be interested in attending.
d. FBO lease- Mascari said he had a conference call with Jet Air and IOW Aero. They are both
willing to prox/lde services for the Airport. Jet Air would like to provide charter service and
aircraxt sales. IOW Aero would provide fueling, instruction, rental, mechanic services and
charter. Mascari said he would recommend this arrangement to the Commission.
O~Neil said he thought there would be one contract with lOW and Jet Services would sublet
from them. Mascari said he thought there should be two separate contracts. If one of the
companies would have problems, the other one could pick up the additional services.
O'Neil will generate two leases for the subcommittee and the subcommittee will contact the
two companies and negotiate the contracts. Honm made a motion for a resolution to select
lOW Aero and Jet Air to provide FBO services for the lowa City Airport. Anderson
seconded the motion and at wll call vote, the motion passed 4 - 0, v/rth Ruyle being absent.
This is subject to negotiation of a contract.
e. Obstruction removal project- O~Ieil said the grant application to the Iowa DeparUnent of
Transportation was successful and the IDOT has offered a grant of $ 241,560 for obstruction
removal. Ellis made a motion for a resolution to accept the grant offer from the IDOT for
obstruction removal. Anderson seconded the motion. At roll call vote, the motion passed 4 -
0, with Ruyle being absent. O"Neil suggested the Commission work toward selecting a
consultant to administer the project. O~leil will discuss the project with Gary Harris from the
Iowa Department of Transportation.
f. T-hangar leases - insurance and assurances- Heran said this shouldn~ be that big of a deal.
Although it raises the cost of owning an airplane, he thought the insurance was atxainable and
the terms explained by the Risk Manager were reasonable. Ellis said this would apply to
those who do not have a lease or to new leases. Mascari said he recently purchased a policy
that meets the City's requirements. Ellis suggested sending a letter at some time, to all the
tenants, explaining the insurance requirements. Heran and Ellis will continue to work on this
project.
~. Strategic planning- Ellis recommended deferring this to sometime in the future. He said he
thought it was important and something the Commission should do. O~Neil said the
Commission wanted a stmunary of each agenda item. O~Neil had included a summary in the
July packet. Horan suggested the Commission fmish the FBO selection process and then
have a special meeting, concentrating only on a business plan/long term planning. O~eil
suggested the Commission have a facilitator for their special meeting that would keep the
Commission on task and present issues in a neutral setting.
CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT:
Mascari said he discussed his report items during the meeting. He discussed a meeting he had
with the pilot that was practicing maneuvers on the runway without a radio. Mascari said the
pilot apologized and said he wilt always use a radio from now on.
COMMISSION MEMBERS' REPORTS:
Anderson asked about the dirt pile at the end of the south T-hangars. O~Neil said some of the dirt
would be used to fill in the hole when the fuel tanks are removed.
Ellis said there are several airports advefiising in the local paper, trying to solicit business.
Ellis said he talked to a consultant that suggested the Comnussion try to get a localizer if they
could not get a full ILS. O~Neil said a localizer is on the ALP.
Ellis asked who was meeting with the Council about the ACP finance agreement? Mascan said
he and Ellis are the subcommittee.
Ellis wanted to know when the Commission could meet with Overton to work on covenants?
Ellis will contact Heran and schedule a meeting with Overton.
Heran said he was still interested in seeing a gross strip installed.
Heran said he wanted some type of identification for Commission members for Fly Iowa 2001.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT:
The drainage system has been installed for Building K. There are still some items to correct
before the project is complete.
O?qeil included a copy of the South Central District report in the packet. This report addresses
what impact Mormon Trek extended would have on the Airport. The report concluded there
would be no adverse affects.
SET NEXT MEETING:
The next regular Airport Commission meeting is scheduled for August 9, 2001,at 5:45 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjoumed at 8:48 p.m.
Rick Mascati, Chairperson
MINUTES
IOWa CITY BOARD Of ADJUSTMENT
WEDNESDAY, JULY 11,2001 -5:00 P.M.
CIVIC CENTER - COUNCIL CHAMBERS '~ ~U~jj~Ct I:0 ~ ';~i'0~J~I~
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mike Paul, T.J. Brandt, Vincent Maurer, Dennis Keitel, Kate Corcoran
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Karen Howard, John Yapp, Mitch Behr, Doug Boothroy
OTHERS PRESENT: Ken Pau]sley, Jong Koo Lee, Dave McLaughlin, Bob Downer, Wayne
Gorman, Steven Ballard, Robert Burns, Jesse Burns
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Corcoran called the meeting to order at 5:07 P.M.
ROLL CALL:
Keitel, Paul, Corcoran, Maurer and Brandt present.
CONSIDERATION OF THE JUNE 13, 2001, BOARD MINUTES:
Corcoran stated that there are no June 13, 2001 minutes in the packet. The minutes will go out in the next
packet and will be considered at that time.
SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS:
EXC01-00013. Discussion of an application submitted by the All Nations Baptist Church for a special
exception to permit the expansion of a religious institution in a Low-Density Single Family (RS-5) Zone at
1715 Mormon Trek Boulevard.
Howard stated that the All Nations Baptist Church has come before the Board a number of times for
expansion to their church property. Currently they are requesting an expansion to their parking lot.
Howard stated that the expansion would add 33 parking spaces and a volleyball court to the northwest
side of the property, along Highway 218, and another 5 spaces on the northeast corner near Mormon
Trek Boulevard.
Howard advised that any expansion of a religious in the RS-5 zone requires a special exception, and that
there are specific standards in the Code they must meet, and all of those requirements have been met.
She stated that staff feels this expansion will not be a detriment to the public or endanger the public
health. Staff expressed concern that there have been a number of expansions on the property that
increase the impervious service on the property, so the engineering staff feels that new storm water
detention calculations should be submitted to the City before approving the building permit for the parking
lots.
Staff recommends that EXC01-00013 be approved provided that new storm water calculations are
submitted to the City so the storm water management facility can be re-evaluated. If it is determined that
the storm water facility is inadequate, staff recommends that the applicant must upgrade the facility to
meet City standards.
Corcoran asked what upgrading the facility would involve if the calculations show that the capacity is not
being met. Howard advised that they would have to increase the capacity of the existing storm water
basin. Paul asked if increasing the capacity would create huge engineering costs. Howard stated that
there seems to be plenty of space on the site. She stated that previously the Board had required the
applicants to submit a landscaping plan, and that the church is moving some of the landscaping around in
this parking lot plan. Corcoran asked if the trees were going to be moved. Howard advised that was true.
Public Hearinq Opened
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
July 11, 2001
Page 2
Associate Pastor Ken Paulsley of the All Nations Church stated that they are grateful to the Board for all
the help and approval for the building of the recent addition. He stated that parking spaces are running at
full capacity and they anticipate some problems this fail if they don't add on the requested spaces.
Keitel asked Paulsley if they have retained an engineer to do the analysis. Jong Koo Lee, Senior Pastor,
advised that when they were granted the special exception 10 years ago they were required to make a
storm water reservoir, and it is a pretty big storm water reservoir. He stated that the Church consulted
with the City Engineer on the current request and followed their recommendations. He stated that the
church's drawing was in strict accordance with the recommendation of the City Engineer, so he does not
believe the new parking lot will infringe upon any part of the current storm water reservoir, which was
created after consultation with MMS.
Lee stated that other people from surrounding neighborhoods sometimes use their parking lot, so he feels
the additional parking spaces will be good not only for the church, but for the neighborhood.
Keitel asked if the basin is shared with the housing development to the north of the church. Lee advised
that the creek was expanded at least 4 times and there was a new, large basin built when the housing
development was built. Howard clarified that the staff concerns were that because all of the changes that
have occurred since MMS did the original calculations on the storm water basin, this expansion will
increase the impervious service on the whole property. She stated that the City Engineer's office was not
saying that the storm water detention basin was not adequate; it just needs to be recalculated.
Public Hearincl Closed
Motion: Keitel moved that item EXC01-00013, an application submitted by the All Nations Baptist
Church for a special exception to permit the expansion of a religious institution in a Low-Density
Single Family (RS-5) Zone at 1715 Mormon Trek Boulevard, be approved, provided that new storm
water calculations are submitted to the City so that the storm water management facility can be
re-evaluated; if it is determined that the stormwater management facility is not adequate, it must
be upgraded. The motion was seconded by Paul.
Findines of Fact
Paul stated that staff did a good job of pointing out standards that have been met. He will vote in favor of
the special exception.
Keitel stated that he is in favor of the motion. He has some engineering background and he does not feel
that re-evaluation of the storm water calculations is going to find any significant problems, even with
the additions, because this expansion of the parking tot is about one-fifth of an acre on a total property of
5.69 acres.
Brandt stated he will vote in favor of the exception. He complimented the church on their addition. He
feels the additional parking would be an added bonus.
Maurer stated he will vote in favor of the expansion for the reasons previously stated.
Corcoran stated she will vote in favor of the application. She feels the specific and general standards
have been met. She expressed approval that some of the trees will be moved and used to shade this
proposed parking area.
The motion passed on a vote of 5-0.
EXC01-00017. An application submitted by AutoSmart of Iowa City, L.L.C. for a special exception to
permit an auto- and truck-oriented use in the Community Commercial (CC-2) Zone at 620 South
Riverside Drive.
Yapp stated that the property is fairly narrow and has been vacant for a year or two. AutoSmad proposes
to have an auto dealership business at this location. He clarified that the reason auto-oriented businesses
require special exception review on a case by case basis in the commercial zone is that this has primarily
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
July 11, 2001
Page 3
been a general retail zone and there is some potential for an auto-oriented use to be incompatible with
retail functions. He stated that this location is very auto-oriented and staff feels this is an appropriate
location for this type of business. There is one existing access and the DOT office has approved of
continuing this access.
The only stipulation staff would suggest is regarding landscaping. Yapp stated that the applicant has
committed to repaving the property, adding some landscaping, making improvements to the existing
exterior of the building as shown on the plot plan. Staff suggests that the Board require that landscaping
be consistent with existing landscaping on surrounding propedies (Master Muffler). Staff recommends
approval of the application, subject to landscaping being done as part of the site plan including nine feet
of grass or low shrubs with the required street trees.
Corcoran asked if these would be used or new cars. Yapp stated that he understands it will be "newer"
used cars (1-3 years in age). He stated that did not factor into staff's recommendation. Keitel asked if
there are any minimum rear yard setback requirement. Yapp stated that typically along the Iowa River
there is a 50' setback requirement for land that had not been developed in the past, but there is a
provision in the Code that any land that has been developed or paved in the past can continue to be fully
utilized. This land is paved all the way back to the Iowa River Trail, and the owners can make full use of
that property. There is an easement for the trail.
Public Hearinq Opened
Dave McLaughlin stated that AutoSmart is currently negotiating to purchase the property. The auto
dealership would be late model cars, next to new or nearly new vehicles, usually 1-3 years old. They plan
to renovate the existing building to make it resemble a new car store, similar to their store in Cascade,
Iowa. The front part of the lot would be landscaped with grass, and they would then hard surface the
whole lot, except around the building, which would be landscaped. The lot is 68' wide across the front;
they are working with Master Muffler to lease purchase the additional 13'. He feels their proposal would
enhance the property. He advised they would not be doing any mechanical work; this would be a sales
outlet.
McLaughlin advised that they don't have the property purchased at this time due to problems. He stated
that if this property falls through, he may come to the Board with another piece of property.
Public Hearinq Closed
Motion: Paul moved to approve EXC01-00017, a special exception to permit an auto- and truck-
oriented use, a vehicle sales business, for property located in the Community Commercial (00-2)
Zone at 6209 South Riverside Drive, subject to staff approval of the landscaping plan as part of
the site approval. At a minimum the landscaping plan shall include nine feet of grass or low
shrubs and require trees between the sidewalk and the parking lot paving. The motion was
seconded by Brandt.
Corcoran asked Yapp what the duration of the special exception would be if approved. Yapp advised that
it would be in effect for six months. McLaughlin stated that they will know within the next 30 days if they
will be moving forward with the project.
Findinqs of Fact
Brandt stated he would vote in favor of this exception because it will improve a vacant lot which has been
an eyesore in the area. He feels that access will be no more of a problem than with other properties in the
area.
Maurer stated he will vote in favor for reasons that have been given.
Corcoran stated she will vote to approve the application. She stated the specific and general standards
have been met. She stated she appreciates the fact that this will improve that corridor.
Paul stated he will vote in favor of the application for reasons given by Corcoran.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
July 11, 2001
Page 4
Keitel stated he will vote in favor. He expressed a question to staff about special requirements with
regards to signage for this parcel. Yapp stated this is a state highway and he is not aware of any special
requirements for signage. McLaughlin stated they have been in contact with Production Signs in
Coralville, and they have a sign meeting the Iowa City requirements.
The motion passed on a vote of 5-0.
EXC01-00014. An application submitted by Systems Unlimited, Inc. for a special exception to permit a
school of specialized instruction on Lot 27 of the Scott-Six Industrial Park in the General Industrial (I-1)
Zone.
Howard stated that this is a 3.2 acre piece of land in the general industrial zone. She stated that the
Scott-Six Industrial Park is not fully developed. She stated that Systems Unlimited wants to purchase this
land with the understanding that they are not going to build the proposed service center for up to five
years. This will allow time to raise the funds to build. The proposed building is approximately 33,000
square feet, with 78 parking spaces. She stated that Systems is asking for two things from the Board: 1) a
special exception for a school of specialized instruction in the Industrial Zone, and 2) for the Board to
extend the normal period of time for which a special exception is granted (to January of 2005).
Howard presented some information about Systems Unlimited. She stated that this facility would serve a
good portion of east central Iowa, and also provide some training for staff. She stated that this type of
facility does not fit easily within the zoning categories in the zoning ordinance because it has several
different uses in the building: administrative offices; and light industrial work (recycling and baling).
However, a large portion of the facility would be dedicated to vocational training and to staff training, so
staff feels it fits within the category of school of specialized instruction, which are currently allowed in an I-
1 ZORe.
Howard advised that staff recognizes the difficulty of finding a site that is large enough to accommodate a
facility of this size at a cost that is not prohibitive to a non-profit organization. However, staff has concerns
about how this fits into an industrial area, particularly with regard to the issue of public transportation.
Systems Unlimited currently has 38 vans used to transport clients; they also utilize Johnson County
SEATS; Systems advises that while some of their clients arrive by public transit, they feel it is not a
significant means of transport for their clients. There is currently no transit along Scott Boulevard, but a
route is planned to begin service later this summer. However, the head transportation planner with the
City has concerns as to whether this route will be available in five years due to cost effectiveness.
Howard stated that another issue is that sidewalks are not required in the industrial area, but that
sidewalks shouEd be required for this use. The applicant has stated they have in their plans to build a
sidewalk along their frontage.
Another concern of staff is that, the industrial uses that may locate in this area may have some impact on
Systems Unlimited. While there is little development in the industrial park right now, there is no guarantee
as to what industrial businesses may locate there in the future. Staff feels the applicant should be
cautioned that there are risks if they locate in an industrial zone.
Staff feels the parking that would be generated by Systems Unlimited would not have an impact on other
types of industrial uses in the area. The access road is adequate.
Corcoran asked what would happen if Systems Unlimited bought the property, received the special
exception and then sold the property. Howard advised that the special exception is for the use only,
Maurer asked if Commerce Drive, Independence Road and Liberty Road are already in. Howard
confirmed that the roads have been built.
Howard stated that staff recommends that this proposal be approved subject to: 1) prior to obtaining a
building permit, Systems Unlimited must submit a detailed transportation plan for Board approval, which
must detail how they plan to meet the transportation needs of clients and employees in the event that
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
July 11,2001
Page 5
public transit is not available to the site; and 2) that a sidewalk be built to City standards along Liberty
Drive frontage.
Corcoran asked why the City feels that Systems provide such a plan. Howard stated that staff is aware
that they have clients and staff who use public or alternative transpodation, and they are concerned that
in the future, if public transit is not available to the site, there be some plan in place to provide
transpodation for their clients. She stated that given limited public funds public transit goes where there
are the most riders and the City cannot guarantee that transit would be justified in this area in the future.
Industrial areas with large amounts of free parking typically do not generate high demand for public
transit.
Paul asked if it was the City's purview to require a plan. He feels that it would be up to Systems Unlimited
to know that public transportation may or may not serve their location. Howard stated that staff feels a
requirement would put the onus back on the applicant to plan for that contingency.
Paul asked if there is any history of granting extensions of this length. Howard stated that the longest
extension she is aware of is two years. However, the Board can grant a shoder extension and ask them
to come back. She stated that if zoning requirements were to change, the applicant would still be required
to meet the zoning requirements at the time of building permit. Paul asked what would happen if the
applicant's use changed before building. Howard stated that unless the building plan changed, the City
would not be aware of changes in the internal workings.
Keitel asked if the City could require sidewalks along the other properties along Liberty Drive. Howard
stated that, looking at the subdivider's agreement, those two other lots currently have a sidewalk
agreement.
Public Hearinq Opened
Bob Downer introduced himself as attorney for Systems Unlimited, Inc. He stated that the time period of
the application is actually 3-1/2 years (to January 2005). The applicant feels there is some
misunderstanding as to the needs of clients, and he presented Bill Gorman, the Executive Director of
Systems Unlimited, to further clarify the transportation needs.
William Carman stated that they appreciate the staff's sensitivity and analysis. Their only disagreement is
on the issue of transportation. He stated that they are the experts in serving people with significant
disabilities, and would never move their current operations to another site that is not accessible to people
they serve. He said that their consumers use a fair amount of Johnson County SEATS. He stated they
serve over 600 people, and on a daily basis no more than 3-7 on any given day would ride transit. Since
staff drive over 1,000,000 miles per year to get to people with disabilities or to transport them back and
forth to the site, transportation will not be a big problem. He stated they are the largest transporter of the
people they serve; the next largest transporter of people they serve is Johnson County SEATS; the next
largest is parants, guardians, social workers, case managers; and transit is way down below those.
Carman stated that they called the JCCOG when they began researching the best place to relocate and
asked about the potential expansion for transit. They were informed they should not count on it, so they
have made other plans. He asks that this requirement not be placed. Carman stated they would never
make the cash investment of property unless they could transport their clients.
Maurer asked why they are buying the properly 3-1/2 to 5 years before they need it. Carman stated the
price will go up; there are very few other sites; and it helps with their capital campaign because they have
a site.
Carman stated they are currently in an industrial commercial area on South First Avenue. He stated they
are very crowded at their current location, and they feel there will be less noise and it will be a safer
location at Scott-Six.
Corcoran asked if the extension to January 2005 means they have to start construction. Howard stated
her opinion is the approval would be good until January 2005, and they would have to apply for a building
permit within that timeline. Corcoran asked if they mean the beginning of January or the end of January.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
July 11,2001
Page 6
Gotman stated they would like to break ground in 2005, Their current lease runs through October 2006.
They would prefer an extension to March or April of 2005. Corcoran asked how long it would take to build,
Gotman stated they have not talked to a contractor, but he feels 6-8 months at least.
Public Hearina Closed
Paul commented that he feels the transportation requirement is overreaching. Corcoran said she feels
comfortable with the reassurances that Mr. Gotman presented with regard to the sidewalk and the
transportation issues. She stated the minutes would be clear that they are aware the City has no
responsibility to them in this area.
Brandt, Maurer and Keitel concurred with that assessment.
Motion: Maurer moved to approve EXC01-00014, a special exception to permit a school of
specialized instruction on lot 27 of the Scott-Six Industrial Park in the General Industrial (I-1) Zone,
and extend the period allowed to establish the use until January of 2005 without requiring the
applicant to request an extension from the Board every six months.
Corcoran stated she would like to see the time extended to May 31, 2005 because this is a non-profit
corporation.
Motion: Maurer moved to approve EXC01-00014, a special exception to permit a school of
specialized instruction on lot 27 of the Scott-Six Industrial Park in the General Industrial (I-1) Zone,
and to extend the period allowed to establish the use until May 31, 2005 without requiring the
applicant to request an extension from the Board every six months. The motion was seconded by
Paul.
FindinGs of Fact
Corcoran stated she will vote to approve this application. She stated she is an admirer of Systems
Unlimited, and she feels they are engaging in very good planning in obtaining this piece of property when
it is still reachable for them. She believes the general standards have been met, and the specific
exception will not be detrimental, or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. She
doesn't feel it will be injurious to the use and enjoyment of the property in the immediate vicinity, and will
not impair the values of neighboring property. Corcoran said she is comfortable with the assurances
Gorman gave with regard to traffic and parking and that Systems is willing and able to take responsibility
for transportation of clients, She feels adequate utilities are being provided, and there don't appear to be
any ingress or egress issues. She also feels providing the sidewalk will increase the safety for everyone,
and that the applicant has acknowledged before the Board that they will have to meet all other City Code
requirements, and that this use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Paul stated he will vote in favor for the reasons previously articulated. He commends Systems Unlimited
on their foresight, and understands the challenges they face.
Keitel stated he will vote in favor, and commends Mr. AI Streb and Streb Investment Partnership for
encouraging and inviting Systems Unlimited to join the Scott-Six Industrial Park.
Maurer stated he will vote in favor for the reasons given.
Brandt stated he will vote in favor for the reasons given.
The motion passed on a vote of 5-0.
EXC01-00018. An application submitted by James A. Clark for a special exception (EXC01-00018) to
permit dwelling units on the ground floor of an Iowa City Landmark in the Central Business (CB-10) Zone
at 307 East College Street.
Howard stated that this application has been deferred, pending some action by the City Council and
amendment to the Zoning Code.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
July 11,2001
Page 7
APPEALS
AP01-00001. An appeal by the Citizen Building Limited Partnership 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.
Howard presented a timeline of events on the history of this building, and stated that in December of
1993, the Citizen Building Limited Partnership ("CBLP") acquired the building for the purpose of
converting to elderly housing, and were issued a building permit. In September of 1995, the City issued a
certificate of occupancy. In November of 1996, the City was approached by CBLP regarding proposed
new housing on the site. At this time, the City became aware of the parking behind the building. The City
discovered that there was an oversight when the building permit was issued - elderly housing is required
to have one parking space for every four units, and this was overlooked at the time the building permit
was issued. The applicant was asked to remedy the situation in November of 1996 and was told that they
needed to apply for a special exception. In December of 1996, the applicant applied for a special
exception, and staff recommended that the Board approve the special exception for 8 parking spaces off
the alley. The Board did approve the special exception with some conditions: 1 ) they were required to
build a ramp from the walkway to the parking area; 2) and to sign and enforce the parking to reserve it for
the residents of the building.
Howard advised that there were some issues that came up with the design of the proposed new building
project, and there was quite a bit of correspondence between the City and the applicant regarding the
parking and the new proposal. She said the applicant was told that if they were not satisfied with the
Board's decision they could come back to the Board of Adjustment and ask for a reconsideration. The
applicant argued that they didn't need the special exception because it was a legally non-conforming use,
but the City disagreed with them. The applicant did not go forward with an appeal to the Board of
Adjustment at that time, and continued to use the 8 spaces behind the building.
Howard stated that the City sent a letter of notice that the appellant was in violation in 1999 and gave the
appellant one month to bring the property into compliance. Given that the appellant did not comply, the
City pursued enforcement action in District Court, which matter is ongoing. In March of 2001, the
applicant appealed this matter to the Board of Adjustment.
Howard said that the City has an obligation to enforce the Zoning Ordinance, and has an obligation to
enforce the Board's order. However, she stated the City's primary interest in this case is to ensure that
the parking is being used as intended for the elderly and disabled tenants of the building.
Howard stated that the questions for the Board are as follows:
1. Is the parking a legally non-conforming use?
Staff feels the answer to this question is "no". Private off-street parking is not a permitted principal use in
the CB-10 zone; it is an accessory use and cannot exist lawfully in the absence of a principal use. Once
the Press-Citizen newspaper operation vacated the building in 1991, the parking ceased to exist lawfully.
The appellant converted the property to an entirely different principal use. She stated that the purpose of
the City's parking requirements is to ensure that parking is adequate to serve the principal use of the
property. Howard referred to Section 14-6A-4D of the City Code.
2. If determined that the parking is not a legally nonconforming use, is the parking permitted without
obtaining a special exception from the Board of Adjustment?
Howard stated that the Code states that "except as otherwise provided, off-street parking in the CB-10
zone shall be permitted only after approval of a special exception by the Board of Adjustment." She said
that the only thing the Code provides is that one parking space is required for each 4 units of elderly
housing. It is the City's position that beyond the required four spaces, the applicant must ask for a special
exception.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
July 11, 2001
Page 8
Howard stated that this is an important point. It is a basic tenant of statutory construction that more
specific provisions rule over more general provisions and in cases where it is difficult to determine which
is more specific the more restrictive provision rules. It is clear in this case that the more restrictive
provision is the one that requires Board approval of special exception.
3. Should the City be estopped from enforcing the Zoning Ordinance in this case?
Howard stated that this question could have been more appropriately addressed in District Court, but the
Board is being asked to look at that question. She stated that the City Attorney's office has provided the
Board with court cases that pertain specifically to this issue. She stated that according to a Supreme
Court ruling, in order to prevail on a claim of estoppel, the appellant must prove by clear and convincing
evidence that 1) the City issued a building permit on the basis of a specific interpretation of the zoning
code by a zoning administrator; and 2) that the permit holder expended substantial funds and effort in
reliance on that permit. Howard said that staff feels these exceptional circumstances do not exist in this
Case.
Howard explained that the City did not issue a building permit on any specific interpretation of the zoning
code as it relates to the use in controversy, She said a site plan was not submitted to the City that
specifically showed parking spaces, and the applicant never asked for an interpretation about whether
parking was required or whether a special exception was required at the time they applied for the building
permit. She stated they did not give specific notice to the City that parking is what they intended to do with
that part of the property.
Howard showed a 1967 plot plan submitted by the Press Citizen operation in 1967, showing replacement
of the concrete parking area with new pavement. She stated that in 1993, the only external site plan
submitted by the applicant (largely because most of the renovation was interior) was the 1967 plot plan
with some writing over the top of it. She stated they had three things highlighted on the plan regarding the
exterior of the building: 1 ) to remove a rear canopy; 2) a new handicap access for the buildings; and 3) a
new sidewalk from the street up to the handicap access at the front of the building. She stated there were
no parking spaces shown on the plot plan that was submitted to the City.
Howard stated that City inspectors did visit the site throughout the building process, but she stated that
City inspectors are usually asked to come look at something specific with regard to an issue that was
noted in the past. She stated that the inspectors would be looking for building code violations and not
generally reviewing the zoning ordinance for parking issues.
Howard conceded that the City made an error of omission - the staff reviewing the site plan failed to note
that a certain number of parking spaces were required for elderly apartment housing. She stated that
since no parking was reviewed on the plan and the reviewer did not realize that parking was required, the
issue of parking was never discussed with the applicant. Staff feels that this error does not rise to the
level of exceptional circumstances referenced in the Supreme Court case.
Howard also stated that the applicant did not expend substantial funds and effort in reliance on the
permit. She said that other than posting some private parking signs, there is no evidence the appellant
has spent substantial funds to establish or upgrade the parking.
Howard stated that there is controversy about the handicap walkway between the Citizen Building and the
neighboring property. She provided a picture of the walkway. Howard stated it has a problem with snow
and ice in the winter and the City has received numerous complaints. She stated that in 1996, one of the
requirements the Board of Adjustment put on the walkway was a ramp so that residents using
wheelchairs would not have to roll into the alley to get to the parking.
Howard stated that staff feels the appellant did not obtain vested rights to the parking - the City did not
attempt to revoke a right that was specifically granted by the building permit. The building permit did not
specifically grant the appellant the right to use the rear part of the parking lot as a private parking lot.
4. Is this appeal brought to the Board in a timely manner?
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
July 11, 2001
Page 9
Howard said staff feels that the appeal is not timely. In 1996 and 1997, when the Board of Adjustment
made their ruling, the appellant was fully informed of all their options for relief and they chose not to
pursue any of those options at the time. She stated that it has been five years, and the applicants have
caused the City substantial expense and the residents of the building still do not have adequate access to
the parking.
In summary, Howard stated that the applicant has failed to prove that the City made an error in enforcing
the City's zoning ordinance, and staff feels that granting the appeal would not serve the interests of
justice in this case because neither the letter nor the intent of the City zoning ordinance has been
followed; the appeal is not timely; the parking located is not a legally established non-conforming use.
She said that with the change in the building from light manufacturing to elderly and disabled housing, the
property must be brought into compliance with the parking regulations contained in the zoning code, and
in this case, four parking spaces are required for the elderly and disabled housing. She stated that
according to the requirements in the CB-10 zone, a special exception is required for any amount of
parking beyond those four spaces.
Howard stated that the applicant has applied for and been granted a special exception for 8 parking
spaces, and for the last five years the appellant has taken full advantage of these 8 parking spaces
without complying with the Board's order. This has resulted in costly litigation to the City and a parking lot
that is not accessible to the elderly and disabled tenants of the Citizen Building. Therefore, staff
recommends the Board deny AP01-00001.
Brandt asked if any tenants of the building have filed complaints with the City for non-accessibility of the
parking area. Howard stated there has been some correspondence about the condition of the walkway,
which affects access to the parking. She stated that none of the residents have chosen to come before
the Board to speak. She advised that this last winter a tenant did fall and injure herself on the walkway.
Corcoran asked if the 1996 special exception that was granted included the walkway. Howard stated that
construction of a ramp was a condition of the special exception.
Maurer asked how many parking spaces are currently in the lot. Howard stated it is difficult to tell. She
stated the Board granted 8 parking spaces because the design standards state that you cannot have
more than 8 parking spaces that back into an alley. She stated that in January 2001 the applicant applied
for a new special exception for more parking spaces with the lot reconfigured. However, that special
exception was withdrawn by the applicant.
Public Hearinq Opened
Paul stated that he is in favor of the applicant making their points as well as possible in a timely fashion,
not restating everything that was presented to them.
Steven Ballard, an attorney with the Left law firm, stated he represents the Citizen Building Limited
Partnership. He passed out notebooks to the Board with exhibits, and stated that the City Attorney's office
has been presented with a complete copy of the exhibits.
Ballard stated that there are a variety of underlying issues that bring them before the Board. He stated
that he would outline some overriding issues that are critical to understanding this appeal. He stated that
the desire of the special exception sought in 1996 was to build a tower on top of the parking area behind
the building. The concern of the applicants was that if they developed the tower in the way they thought
they could, it would take away some of the existing parking. Ballard stated that they came to the Board to
ask what the City's requirement was going to be on the parking issue; they were not seeking additional
parking.
Ballard stated that he has never discussed the use of the parking lot by tenants with anyone from the
City. He stated that two or three employees, from time to time, use the parking lot. He said that parking lot
is primarily used by tenants, and that use will continue. Ballard said that what brings them before the
Board is not how the parking lot is used; the issue is does the City have the right to say anything about it.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
July 11,2001
Page 10
Ballard stated his final broad point concerns access. He stated that access to that parking lot can be
improved, and the applicant is determined to improve it. He said that they only want to improve it once
and want the configuration set out before they begin. Ballard said that the applicant has obtained bids to
improve the parking lot.
Ballard said that entry into the alley is not a problem. He stated that the SEATS bus can pull up flush to
where Bob Fox's building ends and a tenant can wheel out to the SEATS vehicle and enter that vehicle
as long as there is not another vehicle blocking that entry. He contended that it may be better if the tenant
doesn't have to go into the alley. He said they have submitted plans for different access, but until they
know how the parking lot is going to be configured, they don't want to take the steps to improve the
aCCeSS.
Ballard stated that the sidewalk is owned by the building immediately next to the Citizen Building, subject
to an easement in favor of the Citizen Building. He said that it has presented problems with ice and snow
in the winter, and the Citizen Partnership has dealt with that the best they can. Ballard stated they have
no right to do anything about the gutters that contain the ice.
Ballard stated he does not have a significant dispute with Ms. Howard's facts, but they do disagree with
the assessment of the parking lot. He stated that the City was a partner in this project from the beginning.
He said that the City issued the building permit, and the cases presented to the Board are building permit
cases. The applicants' contend that the building permit was valid at the time. He stated that after the
building permit was issued, there were a series of City approvals that are absent from the cases to which
the Board's attention has been drawn.
Ballard stated that this area has always been a parking lot. He stated that every single building on that
block has some sort of parking behind it except Mr. Fox's building because the building and sidewalk take
up the entire lot.
Ballard drew the Board's attention to Exhibits RR and SS, photographs of the area behind the building.
He stated that in 1995, when they were applying to obtain the certificate of occupancy, that parking lot
was striped with fresh paint. He stated that in August of 1995, the City inspector came and looked at the
building but they were looking at the parking lot also because in the notice of inspection that gave rise to
the conditional certificate of occupancy, the building official said they needed to do something about
installing a guardrail along the parking lot. He said they didn't say anything about changing striping or
signage or anything else. The limited partnership ordered signs and signed the parking area in
accordance with the way it was striped, and 30 days later a permanent certificate of occupancy was
issued, the requirement of a guardrail had been removed and there was no mention of the parking lot.
Ballard stated that since 1995, additional certificates of occupancy have been approved and issued by the
City.
Ballard stated that the limited partnership that owns and manages this project is on-site, and contends
that it has a better idea of tenant needs for the parking lot than the City. He stated that the principals
involved are experts in this type of housing. He said that the City's supplemental submission indicates
that they have never argued that the zoning code establishes a maximum number of parking spaces in
the CB-10 zone. However, he states that in their citations in 1999 the City stated that the applicant
violated section 6N-j of the Code of Ordinances, and typed in "only 4 parking spaces allowed". He states
that in 2001, the blank on a similar form says "only 4 off-street parking allowed". Therefore, it is his
contention that the City has argued that a maximum number of parking spaces is established by the
Code.
Corcoran stated that she believed that was correct since the special exception had expired, so the only
way to be in compliance with the law was to have four spaces. Ballard stated that it is his opinion that the
City is trying to enforce a zoning ordinance that they wish they had adopted. He feels that the City stands
in a very unique position because they get to write the rules. He contends that parking in the CB-I O zone
is allowed: 1) only by special exception; and 2) except as otherwise provided. He states that elderly
housing is permitted in the CB-10 zone and the minimum number of spaces in the CB-10 zone is one
space per four units. He states that is a minimum of four spaces.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
July 11,2001
Page 11
Ballard contended that there is a pretty clear presumption that if the land permits, a parking space for
every unit is ideal, but that is not true in the CB-10 zone. He stated that the zoning ordinance does not
say the maximum number of spaces is one space for every four units; the zoning ordinance says that is
the minimum. Ballard stated that in his opinion you do not need a special exception to have more than
four spaces in the CB-10 zone where you have senior housing.
Ballard stated that he feels the City is telling the Board that they are not trying to get along. He said that
the City and the applicant have been attempting to negotiate a settlement of the parking issue. He stated
that on October 28, 2000, he wrote to the City Attorney's office with a proposed plan. He said that he
received a letter dated November 8 that the plan would not work, but that the City could support a special
exception if the accessibility issues were resolved. He stated he responded on November 14 asking for
elaboration on the problems with the parking configuration.
Maurer asked if the major issue is the contention that they can only have four parking spaces. Ballard
stated that the major issue is that the City of Iowa City has the right to say how many parking spaces the
applicant can have. Maurer asked how many parking spaces have been in the location for years. Ballard
stated that his understanding is that the entire area has been parking since the Press Citizen was in the
building. Maurer asked if the City has suggested what they do with the extra space if they don't use it for
parking. Ballard stated the City suggested they barricade everything off so only four spaces can be there,
unless they apply for a special exception under the City's rules.
Ballard stated that if the City committed to the limited partnership that, within the standards, it could do
what it desired to do as a property owner of a non-conforming use, he would assure the Board that, with
whatever limitations a contractor would impose, they would have access to that parking lot improved
immediately, and it would be used for tenant parking. He stated there is a nominal fee charged for tenant
parking so that the limited partnership can justify to someone who doesn't have a space why they pay
less.
Paul stated that his recollection was the Press Citizen primarily used the space for a loading dock for
loading and unloading newspapers. He does recall maybe 8-12 parking spaces, but primarily trucks
would come in and out with supplies and papers.
Ballard stated that they did provide reconfigurations to the City similar to the Masonic building, head-on
parking, as well as parking that would back out into the alley. He stated that he had tried to get the City to
respond to his requests in November, without success. He stated that the applicant withdrew the most
recent special exception because the staff report they received was not supportive of the special
exception.
Ballard reaffirmed his belief that the ordinance does not set a maximum of parking spaces, but a
minimum, He also believes that a lack of change of use of the parking area, even if some other change of
use occurs on the same lot, should allow the parking lot to be grandfathered in to be considered an
ongoing non-conforming use. He said the ordinance considers buildings different than land with respect to
the non-conforming use provisions.
Ballard submitted to the Board a copy of Exhibits TT and UU, referred to in their brief, deposition
transcripts from Chuck Wanager (former publisher of the Iowa City Press Citizen) and Bob Perine
(operations director at Iowa City Press-Citizen). According to Ballard, this testimony indicates that as far
as they knew, after the ICPC moved its operations to North Dodge Street, employees of the Press Citizen
continued to use the parking lot downtown. Ballard states this supports the applicant's contention that the
non-conforming use continued after the change in the use of the building.
Ballard stated that the citation by the City to an unpublished court ruling from Johnson County has little
effect or factual application to this situation. He said that the City granted a building permit; reviewed the
parking and granted handicap access; the City viewed or had plenty of opportunity to view fresh striping
on the parking lot; the City issued a temporary certificate of occupancy with the requirement they do
something with the guardrail along the parking lot; the City issued a permanent certificate of occupancy;
the City assisted in the funding knowing they were possibly aiming for a 66 unit development; the City did
a site review and made specific mention of the parking lot on the inspection report. He asserted that's a
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
July 11, 2001
Page 12
little different than saying the inspector didn't have the authority to issue the building permit, as in the
COUrt CaSe.
Ballard concluded that to the best of his knowledge this area looks like a parking area; to the best of his
knowledge there were no complaints submitted to the Board after notice of their appeal was submitted to
neighboring buildings. He stated that the access will be improved as soon as they know what will be
permitted as far as a parking area.
Paul asked if it was true that in 1996 the partnership was issued a special exception to increase the
parking from 4-8 with two conditions. Ballard stated that in his view, the requirements should be a
minimum of four, not a maximum of four. He agreed that the special exception stated they could have up
to 8 with the supplied configuration. He disagrees with the question of increasing from 4 to 8 spaces
because he doesn't agree that you start at 4. Ballard stated that he believes the special exception stated
that 8 spaces would be permitted with the conditions of accessibility issues and signage.
Corcoran clarified her understanding of what Ballard was saying was that the special exception applied
for in 1996 was to build the tower and that parking may be lost. She stated that she remembers from
attending that meeting in 1996 that the applicant wasn't present. She quoted from the December 1996
special exception regarding the parking requirements, and questioned why the client was not present.
She said her feeling is that the client doesn't believe that the partnership should come under any kind of
control with regard to parking on this piece of property. Ballard stated that his client was scheduled to
present to a housing task force at the time of the meeting and wrote to the City stating he would be
available by cell phone. Ballard deferred to Robert Burns to answer the questions regarding the special
exception. He stated that they fall under ordinances enacted by the City that say the City has no say
about how the parking lot is used, with respect to the issues they are talking about. He said they are not
saying there should be no design constraints, but the partnership feels they are able to use more than
four spaces.
Corcoran asked exactly what they are appealing. Ballard stated they are appealing any decision from any
office or individual within the City of Iowa City that says that parking area is not a permitted, non-
conforming use. Corcoran asked when that decision was first made, Ballard stated he is aware of
discussion in 1996 and 1997, but he does not know when the determinations were made. Corcoran
stated that Ballard testified that he feels the building official made the determination was a non-
conforming use at the time of the building permit in 1993.
Corcoran asked if there was any paper that the building official said this is a non-conforming use. Ballard
stated there is no such paper, but the building permit and certificate of occupancies and other permits and
the ordinances all go to his point. Corcoran asked how he responds to the City's statement that there is
no mention of parking on the site plan that was submitted. Ballard stated that the City was well aware
because it was not only an approving authority, but a padnet in funding for the project. Ballard stated that
the City had to know some parking was in mind because this is an elderly housing project and the City's
ordinances require a minimum number of parking spaces. He stated that the City knew that they planned
more than 18 units. In addition, he stated that the City had knowledge of the use of that area for years. He
said that the striping, the ongoing use and the issuance of occupancy were further proof that the City
knew the area would be used for parking.
Ballard stated he could surmise that one of two things occurred: either the building official reached the
conclusion that this was a non-conforming use that would be permitted, or the building official could have
concluded that this was a non-conforming use that would be permitted to continue. He stated that either
of these would distinguish this situation from cases that are cited where the Supreme Coud has said that
building permit was void from the beginning because the building official under any set of facts could not
have issued it.
Corcoran stated that the City has said it acknowledged the oversight, and in November 1996 this was
addressed with the client. She states that the client then applied for a special exception. She questioned
why the client applied for a special exception. Ballard stated he would defer to the client; but that his client
continued to say they think this is grandfathered in.
BREAK - 7:36 PM
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
July 11, 2001
Page 13
RECONVENE - 7:45 PM
Ballard referred to Exhibit J J, a letter to Burns from Melody Rockwell, stating that if they decide to develop
the parking area to the rear of the building, it is the opinion of Karin Franklin, Director of the Dept. of
Planning & Community Development, that they can go ahead and do so with no further action required by
the Board. He quoted from this letter, "It is beyond the Board's authority to require you to provide more
than four parking spaces for the 18 elderly housing units in the Citizen Building." He stated that the
Citizen Building was not talking about expanding the number of spaces; they were concerned about how
construction might decrease the number of spaces. He said that Exhibit KK, a memo from Ms. Rockwell
to the file, discusses a meeting between the Limited Padnership and the City wherein they talked about
parking issues, and whether there was a grandfathering issue. He said that Exhibit LL, Burns letter to Ron
Boose, states that Burns believes there is a grandfathered issue regarding the parking and after
construction of the new addition there will be five parking s aces that will remain. They will be sufficient to
meet the requirements for the elderly apartments on the lsPand 2~d floors. He stated that he cites to these
exhibits because the padnership was concerned whether someone was going to require more than a
minimum number of spaces. They were not seeking to expand the parking.
Corcoran asked what he meant by grandfathered. Ballard stated that 14-6T-1 of the zoning ordinance
says that a non-conforming use in existence at the time of the enactment of the ordinance may continue.
Corcoran asked what that means for this property. Ballard stated that means whatever the record
establishes existed with respect to parking. Corcoran stated he cannot show them anything in writing that
shows the determination was made by the City. Ballard stated that what he is saying is, there are cases
by the Supreme Court that say a building permit issued without authority cannot be relied upon. Ballard
states he does not know what was in the mind of the building official when he issued the building permit
with respect to this non-conforming issue. He concludes that the building official may well have made that
determination, given the existence of the ordinances and circumstances at the time.
Robert P. Burns introduced himself as general partner in the Citizen Building Limited Partnership. He
stated that the City had been a partner in this project from 1992/1993 when they began financing. He
stated that in 1995 they began to seek funding for the tower which would be built above the parking in the
rear of the building. He stated that when they went to the City with the plan for the tower, they led him to
believe he needed to go before the Board for a special exception to reduce the parking to four spaces. At
that time, the whole south and east side was a parking lot, and had been that way since they purchased
the building. He stated that it was maintained by the Press Citizen as a parking lot until they took
possession and started construction.
Corcoran stated that she quibbles with calling this a parking lot; it was a loading dock. Burns stated that it
was a loading dock but was also parking all along the alley. Burns explained that at the time they
purchased the site, the Press Citizen had moved to their new facility and were using the entire back of the
site for parking, including the loading dock area at the east end of the site.
Burns stated that when the plans for the tower were made, they would have to reduce their parking to four
spaces. Corcoran asked how they could apply for a special exception when they state they were relying
on the City's determination that it was a non-conforming use. Burns stated that in 1995 when they
occupied the building, they began to plan the financing for the additional units (the tower). They planned
to elevate the new tower to maintain four spaces for parking underneath the building. They took the plan
to the City, and Burns stated he was told he needed to submit a special exception for reducing the
parking to four spaces. Burns stated he was unable to attend the meeting and wrote a letter to the City
explaining why he would not be present, but would be available by cell phone. He stated he made himself
available, but had not seen the staff report prior to the meeting. Corcoran asked if he was represented by
an attorney at that time. Burns stated he was not. He stated that if he had seen the staff report prior to the
meeting, he would have made arrangements to speak toward what the staff was recommending. He
states that the City did not act on his request to reduce the parking to four spaces, but instead
recommended eight spaces with an assignment of usage.
Burns stated that eventually they abandoned the tower project and therefore, did not implement the
special exception.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
July 11, 2001
Page 14
Corcoran asked if they continued to have parking of more than four vehicles. Burns stated yes, but they
felt it was approved by the City. He stated he wrote to the City stating he felt they were allowed to have
more than four spaces. Corcoran asked Burns to point to the letter he was referring to. Burns cited Exhibit
LL.
Howard reminded the Board that they have the application for the special exception submitted by Mr.
Burns, and a site plan they submitted for nine parking spaces with that application. Corcoran recited from
the application for special exception, wherein the application states that "this request corrects a request to
City for zoning opinion regarding suitability of site for 30 one-bedroom addition above parking lot led to
this discovery.... Exception will provide off-street parking required by zoning ordinance." Burns stated that
was the required minimum of four spaces. He said their contention is that four is the minimum, so that
would have met the requirement for the existing 16 units. Corcoran stated that the site plan that was
submitted with the application shows 9 parking spaces.
Burns clarified that the Board of Adjustment met in December of 1996 and made their determination. On
January 15, 1997, he pointed out to the City that he did not agree with their decision that he must have 8
spaces. He stated that he did not know the City was going to take that position until the decision by the
Board of Adjustment. Corcoran stated that the site plan showed 9 spaces. Burns stated that the drawing
shows the configuration of the parking along the south part of the property. He stated that Exhibit CC was
his application. He asked the Board to look at each of the pages (11 pages). He stated there is no site
plan in those 11 pages. Burns stated that was submitted November 12, 1996. He stated that Exhibit EE, a
transmittal letter dated December 4, 1996, was sent to Melody Rockwell, who had asked for a copy of the
existing parking plan. The letter references 10 copies of a drawing dated August 17, 1996, of the site
plan. He stated they did not apply for this site plan, he had the existing parking mailed at her request.
Paul asked why the proposed plan was not included in the packet. Burns stated he was not asked for that
plan.
Corcoran stated that the special exception as moved by Brandt was to approve no more than 8 parking
spaces. She asked why they abandoned the project because he says the Board required 8 parking
spaces, but the decision said "no more than" 8 spaces. Burns stated that the way they read the decision
was they could have no more than 8 spaces, two of which would be marked as handicapped-accessible,
four spaces reserved for eiders and persons with disabilities who reside in the Citizen Building, and two
spaces reserved as shod-term 15 minute parking spaces. Corcoran stated that she reads the decision as
stating they could have less than 8 spaces.
Corcoran referred to the second paragraph of his letter, stating that only five parking spaces would
remain after construction of the tower and the Board of Adjustment's decision jeopardizes their ability to
construct the project. Corcoran stated she thinks Burns was confused by the decision. She asked if his
application refers to the tower to be built. Burns stated that the reason nine spaces were approved initially
was because there is enough turning space. Maurer asked why it was reduced to four spaces. Burns
stated that was strictly for building the tower. Paul stated that they were allowed a maximum of 8, so they
could have reduced it to 4.
Ballard stated that Exhibit KK refers to a meeting on January 10, wherein it appears that after the Board
of Adjustment met in December, the applicant and some City staff members talked about the tower plan
and the requirements of elderly parking. He states that the City Attorney responded to Burns' letter MM,
with Exhibit OO, wherein they stated that four spaces are required. Ballard stated that about that time, for
reasons unrelated to parking, the tower idea was abandoned.
Corcoran asked if Burns ever went to a lawyer to get legal advice. Burns stated he didn't think he did.
Jesse Burns stated that he is in charge of site management at the Citizen Building. He stated that the
parking lot serves the residents and their needs. Six residents currently rely on these spaces either for
their own vehicles or their visiting nurses. He stated there is also a loading and unloading space, and staff
parks in the lot. He affirmed that they have met the minimum and exceed the minimum.
Howard stated that the City does not have a problem with the number of parking spaces so long as they
are in compliance with the zoning ordinance or in compliance with the Board's 1996 order. She said the
City is in full support of having as much parking as can fit behind the building as they need for the
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
July 11, 2001
Page 15
residents of the building, and are willing to work with the appellants to do that, within the guidelines set
forth by the zoning ordinance and design standards. She stated that she was the staff person assigned to
analyze the most recent application for a special exception, and she talked with Burns to great extent
about the 15 places they applied for. She stated she worked with Housing & Inspection Services, and
they responded with some issues regarding aisles and a clear line to get to the front of the building, and
Burns took exception to some of those code requirements. Howard told the applicant that she could not
change the zoning rules, but was willing to work with Burns to get as much parking as they could within
the regulations set forth in the zoning code. Howard recalls that there was enough space behind the
building for approximately 11 parking spaces. She stated that the applicant was fully informed of the
options to remedy the situation.
Corcoran asked Howard to explain why the City issued the citation. Howard stated that there was a letter
of notice from Terry Goerdt that explained their options, which gave the appellant the opportunity to
remedy the situation before issuing a citation. The appellant was told they could remove all but four
parking spaces and make the parking spaces accessible by widening the stairs and providing a ramp
without going into the alley, or they could comply with the special exception which was granted December
11, 1996. She stated that the reason it was limited to eight spaces by special exception was the code
requires that you cannot have more than eight parking spaces that back out into an alley.
Howard stated that the appellant was fully informed of their options to appeal the Board's decision, or th.e
City's decision back in 1996/97. She stated that the appellant did not choose to pursue any of those
options or to appeal to the Board until March of 2001.
Doug Boothroy clarified that all references to building official should be to building snspector. He stated
any official determination comes from him, the building official; otherwise the correspondence is usually
handled by the building inspector.
Boothroy stated that the evidence shows that the building inspector who reviewed it noted that zero
parking was required, which means that an error was made on his part on making a determination that no
parking was required. He said that the site plan did not disclose that parking was being proposed. He
stated that for many years the back of that building was used for something less than an ideal parking lot
- it was primarily for loading and unloading. He stated that if the inspector who was reviewing the site
plan had made the determination that parking was required he would have also checked the parking lot
design standards, elderly apartment housing was a new use, so you have to comply with all requirements
including parking. The intent of grandlathering is if you want to continue an existing use, you get a break,
but if you want to establish a new use, you have an obligation to bring that property into compliance.
Boothroy believes that if the inspector had known that parking was required, he would have been talking
with the applicant about separation between parking and the alley to bring it into conformance. He stated
that this is a new use, and the non-conforming part is a weak argument.
Ballard reiterated that in the deposition transcripts, Perine and Wanager testified that the area behind the
building was a loading dock and parking lot. He stated that the City has many representatives and, like
any organization, those representatives don't always know what the other is saying, but it is a fact that the
City has told the District Court that they have to limit the parking to four spaces. He stated that the City
has told the District Court that the applicant has no options now that the special exception has expired.
Ballard said that the citation stated that only four spaces were allowed. He stated that the limited
partnership would like the flexibility of a special exception to assign spaces to short-term use as the need
arises.
Howard stated that the Board has the authority to grant a new special exception for more spaces if Burns
wants to apply, and he still has the opportunity to submit an application.
Public Hearinq Closed
Corcoran asked attorney Mitch Behr if he has any comments to exitlain the law. Behr stated that the issue
of timeliness was brought up. The State Code and City Code provide that appeals from determinations
are to be made within a reasonable time of that determination, as provided by the Board's rules. No
specific time is set. Behr said that the chairperson accurately focused on the time when this determination
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
July 11, 2001
Page 16
was made, and accurately pointed out that it is for the applicant to show the decision being appealed
from. The notice filed applies to a determination of the use of a podion of the property as a parking lot is
not a permitted use - that is the determination appealed from.
Behr clarified that the original decision they are appealing from would have been before 1996, because
that is when the appellant applied for a special exception. He further stated that there is case law that
indicates that when a Board provides that 30 days is the time frame within which an appeal must be
submitted, that is reasonable. However, the Board has not provided for a specific time limit in their rules.
Behr stated that there is case law that indicates that when a Board does not give a specific time frame,
that 180 days is not reasonable. Behr stated that he is providing this as guidance of the law. He stated
there has been a lot of discussion of the various options the applicant had as these events unfolded. He
pointed out that under State Code, one can appeal a Board's decision on a special exception to the
District Court, which has to be done within 30 days.
Behr commented that there is not a great degree of disagreement as to what the status of the law is on
estoppel. The argument is how the facts should apply to the law, but he stated that there is a summary of
the law within the case cited in the City's staff report. Behr explained that the courts have said that if a city
grants a permit to an applicant and specifically and explicitly grants that applicant a specific right, and that
applicant goes out and relies on that and spends significant resources in reliance upon that, under certain
circumstances a city can perhaps later be estopped, meaning not allowed to change that right that was
initially granted.
Motion: Keitel moved to grant the appeal of AP01-00001, an appeal by the Citizen Building Limited
Partnership 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 I~ortion of property
at 319 East Washington Street as a parking lot is not a permitted use.
Paul asked for confirmation that an affirmative vote would deny the appellant. Corcoran clarified that an
affirmative vote would grant the appeal.
The motion was seconded by Paul.
Behr clarified the motion: the motion made is to uDhold the appeal and overturn the determination by the
City official. Keital stated yes, an affirmative vote grants in favor of the appellant.
Corcoran proposed the Board use the issues as laid out by the City as a basis for discussion.
Keitel asked if the vote is in the negative, is the end result the applicant has to pay a fine for the citation
and stop using the parking lot for more than four spaces. Boothroy stated that the appeal is on hold in
District Dourt. Behr stated that they still have the ability to go forward in District Court. Ballard affirmed
these are similar but separate proceedings. The City could appeal to the District Coud, also.
Findinas of Fact
Paul stated that Ballard commented that the rule makers have the advantage because they make the
rules. He feels the appellant does not like the rules, so he doesn't want to abide by them. He thinks the
use did change and the parking requirements did change along with the change in use. The City has the
authority to enforce the zoning ordinance. He also stated he doesn't feel the appeal was timely. He will
vote against the motion.
Keitel will vote against the appellant. The timeliness is a big issue and should have come to a head long
before this. He believes the appellant made no effod to try to alter the access to the parking lot, which
was one of the conditions imposed by the Board in 1996, nor did they come back to the Board to explain
why they could not do that. He stated that the Code was clear that parking lots must also meet the design
standards.
Maurer stated that he feels there is too much paperwork just over parking spaces. He feels the ordinance
is quite clear, but some laws should have exceptions. He does feel this is definitely a parking area. He
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
July 11,2001
Page 17
stated there is room for about 8 spaces even with the loading dock. He doesn't see what else you could
use the area for, and it cannot be harmed in any way to allow parking. He will vote in the affirmative.
Brandt echoed Maurer's thoughts with regard to what else you can use the property for. However, the
timeliness of the appeal is a big issue. This was ruled on in 1996 and the ruling should have been
followed. There was no attempt to remedy the situation by the appellant. He agrees that the applicant
does not want to follow the rules. He will vote against the appellant mainly because of the timeliness
issue, and what this Board stands for as far as being quasi-judicial.
Corcoran stated she will vote against the appeal. She does not feel it was a timely appeal. She said that it
was hard to get the appellant to nail it down, but based upon testimony they have seen tonight, they are
appealing the determination in 1996, and possibly earlier. The special exception was applied for; it was
granted. Options and alternatives were clearly pointed out and not taken advantage of. She believes the
testimony and written record show that the law provides that when there is a new use, that all of the other
issues have to conform to the current law at that time that the new use is established. Clearly, this was a
manufacturing and printing office for a newspaper, not a residential use. It became a residential use when
the partnership bought and modified the building, so the parking needed to meet the zoning ordinances
and laws of the City of Iowa City. She feels the City went above and beyond in terms of explaining to the
appellant the applicable laws. She stated she has not seen any evidence that supports a claim that the
City should be estopped. The appellant did not rely on any specific decision or determination made by the
City. She sees no great outlay of money or time or effort expended by the appellant with regard to the
parking. Corcoran stated that she believed that the appellant was trying to evade his responsibility and
has engaged in dilatory tactics. For all these reasons, she will vote against the motion.
The motion failed on a vote of 1-4.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION
The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, August 15, 2001, if that date is available. Howard will
check on availability and notify the Board.
ADJOURNMENT
Maurer moved to adjourn, seconded by Keitel. The meeting adjourned at 9:14 PM.
Board Chairperson Board Secretary
Minutes Submitted By Neana Saylor
IOWA CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES
REGULAR MEETING - JUNE 28, 2001
THURSDAY, - 5:00 PM
Members Present: Winston Barclay, Linda Dellsperger, Mark Martin, Lisa Parker, Shaner
Magalhaes,
Staff Present: Maeve Clark, Susan Craig, Larry Eckholt, Debb Green, Heidi Lauritzen, Kara
Logsden, Martha Lubaroff, Liz Nichols,
Others: Curtis Lehmkuhl, Joumalism School, Joseph Calhoun, Journalism School,
Tim McConville, Journalism School, David VanDusseldorp, new Board
member
CALL TO ORDER:
President Martin called the meeting to order at 5:10 p.m.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION
None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
It was noted that there was an error in the minutes. Linda Prybil was a member of the Director's
Evaluation Committee, not Dellsperger. A motion was made to approve the minutes as corrected.
Magalhaes/Dellsperger. All were in favor.
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
At the request of the Director the Board went into Executive Session to discuss a personnel matter.
The motion was made by Magalhaes, seconded by Barclay. A role call was taken. All present said
Aye.
The Board resumed open session after a motion by Magalhaes and a second by Dellsperger.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Because of a personnel change at the City, it is doubtful we will be able to use their services as
construction managers. The Building Committee met with Public Works Director. We cannot
expect to get that type of service from the private sector for the amount of money budgeted, which
is $343,000. Joe Huberty, our architect, offered some options: 1) hiring a Clerk of the Works. This
is a person who is on the site daily maybe full time but not necessarily always. This person would
monitor people on the work site, be there when materials are delivered. They would bring a
contractor' s perspective to the job and hopefully have experience as a site supervisor for a general
contractor. The cost for such a person is estimated at between $50-70,000/year. We are thinking
ICPL Minutes
June 28, 2001 Page 2
about maybe a 38-month arrangement. If we choose this option, this individual would be recruited
and hired by us.
Another option is to pay Engberg Anderson an additional $30-$40,000/year to provide extra visits.
These would be more than a routine once or twice a week visit. The person they suggested is Dan
Kabara, who is working with Huberty on the project, and about whom Craig has heard excellent
reports. The City would do regular types of building inspection. Downside is no one is available
everyday and it's an architect's perspective, not contractors.
The third possibility would be to hire a construction manager. This person would be hired as an
individual or fi'om a private firm and would cost more than the first two options. This process would
require a Request For Proposal (RFP) and be much more time consuming. Craig reminded the Board
that as a group, they have had a long-standing commitment to using some form of construction
management. Chuck Schmadeke and Kumi Morris, from the Public Works Department are very
supportive of some type of professional oversight.
Martin suggested trying to locate two retired construction people whom we could hire part-time to
manage this project. The Homebuilder's Association was suggested as a resource. Parker reminded
the Board that this is a somewhat political issue with local contractors. We would need to be careful
about who we hired and wouldn't want someone who has ties to a contractor interested in bidding
on the project. Magalhgtes suggested that it could be less politically charged if we hired Engberg
Anderson. Martin thinks that we should hire a construction manager who will be here all the time.
Craig believes that success depends on the person you hire. The fight people do the job you need;
the wrong person causes more problems. Suggestions were made in terms of resources. At the same
time all options are kept open, an RFP should be prepared that would allow us to look at what the
responses would be. Barclay suggested that in terms of the budget, we could do both of the first two
options that would keep us within the budget.
Dellsperger made a motion that we charge the Building Committee with making decisions about this
and at the same time, move ahead with an RFP. Parker seconded that motion. The motion was
approved. A question was raised about whether Engberg Anderson would be willing to hire
someone for this job who would work with Kabara on the project as a Construction Manager. Craig
will discuss with them.
Other building issues concerned reports from the Art Committee and Mural Committee. The Art
Committee's memo contained recommendations somewhat in disagreement with those of the Mural
Committee regarding preservation of the Lenoch & Cilek Building mural. Some compromise is
possible between the Art Committee's and the Mural Committee's positions. Both recommend the
same type of preservation but differ in the nmnbers of pieces framed. Nichols said that the people
who are working on the Mural committee would find it difficult to choose a smaller number of
pieces. Barclay's attitude has been that the artwork belongs tO the people who made it and our job
is to help them do whatever is possible to preserve it. He sees no problem with the library deciding
what we keep and what goes out of our hands. First thing that happens is photo documentation and
perhaps doing something with the image like producing posters. From the Art Committee's
position, Dellsperger felt that members were concemed about spending a large amount of money on
ICPL Minutes
June 28, 2001 Page 3
the mural that might eat into the funds for a major piece of artwork for the libra~z. Barclay said the
Mural Committee believed it is possible to raise money for the project. If the Board doesn't want
to get into the fund raising issue, Nichols thinks that people on the committee would be willing to
go out and solicit money for the mural. Funds could also come out of NOBU budget. The library
might have to cover expenses for a short term while money is being raised. In explanation, the
capital improvement fund is the amount of money budgeted for the building - $18.4 million. It is
reasonable to spend $8,000 to $10,000 from NOBU since it could be returned. Martin moved that
we accept the recommendation of the Mural Committee and that we find the $8,700 from our own
budget, probably from NOBU funds, if appropriate, to cover the cost of the renovation and
photographic representation of the mural and the framing. He made a friendly amendment to his
motion and stipulated that does not minimize the cost of any original art planned for the building.
Parker seconded. It was recommended that the Board approve the motion and charge the Mural
Committee with the task of finding places for the extra pieces. Information on weight and how they
needed to be hung need to be included. Funding sources should be sought to reimburse library
accounts. One suggestion for funds was that the Iowa Arts council might have grant programs that
could fund part of the project. It was suggested that someone might look into this. All in favor.
Motion carried.
NEW BUSINESS
Director's Salary for FY02
As a member of the Evaluation Committee, Parker made a motion to give Craig a 5.5% salary
increase and direct the City to move 80 hours of her vacation time into her retirement fund and to
accept the goals she provided the Board. Dellsperger seconded the motion. All in favor.
FY01 Board Annual Report
This is the time of year that Craig will begin the draft of the Board's Annual report that is included
in the Library's annual report and the city's report on Boards & Commissions. The first group of
suggestions includes accomplishments for FY01:
Passed referendum, helped with FF campaign, received increase in budget for parking, users survey,
continue to press City about additional parking, will do angle parking, update process for Director's
evaluation, review orientation process' for new Board members, input for options of satellite library
services re survey, policies reviewed and/or revised, approved revised union contract, working with
public input on the design of building, approved the Mural Committee' s recommendation, signed
contract with architect, approved design.
Goals for FY02 proposed include:
Complete design, award a building contract, continue to pursue parking on 64 1A, continue to
support FF fund raising, explore options for satellite services, continue opportunities for public input,
learn about changes to state wide library system, conduct policy reviews, hire a construction
manager, maintain high quality library service.
ICPL Minutes
June 28, 2001 Page 4
STAFF REPORTS
A. Cable ad now airing.
The Board viewed the cable ad that is nmning on 5 cable stations. It is a spot to promote importance
of reading for children through the stunxner.
B. Library Service Areas
Information was included in the Board packet outlining the new plan for Library Service Areas
created by the Iowa Legislature, which will replace Regional Libraries. The most significant change
is the selection and makeup ofLSA Boards ofTrustees. Boards will represent constituency groups
including local library trustees. If anyone is interested they should let Craig know.
C. Spoken word compacts discs.
They will debut this summer. Currently we only offer spoken word on cassette tape but we will begin
offering the CD format as well.
D. Development Office report was included in packet.
E. New Board members.
Craig reviewed for the Board, the names of the three new Board members who will begin in July.
They are David VanDusseldorp who was in attendance, Colin Hennessey and Tom Suter. They will
have their library orientation on July 2 1.
PRESIDENT'S REPORT
Martin reminded the Board that our tradition is to have a dinner in July for both old and new
members. Board was in agreement that we should continue this tradition and the Dellspergers have
offered to prepare the meal and have everyone join them at their home. The invitation will be
extended to the architects who will be here at the next meeting.
President-elect Parker thanked Martin, Barclay and McMurray for their efforts. They were presented
with Certificates of Appreciation.
DISBURSEMENTS
Visa expenditures for May were reviewed.
Disbursements for May were approved unanimously after a motion by Parker/Dellsperger
ICPL Minutes
June 28, 2001 Page 5
SET AGENDA ORDER FOR MEETING
Review Trustees Annual report
ADJOURNMENT:
Parker moved adjournment. 6:45 pm
IOWA CITY PUBLIC ART ADVISORY COMMITTEE
THURSDAY, AUGUST 2, 2001 Subject to Approval
CIVIC CENTER LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chuck Felling, Terry Trueblood, Rick Fosse,
Betsy Klein, Sandra Hudson, Barbara CamiHo
MEMBERS ABSENT: Gary Nagle
STAFF PRESENT: Karin Franklin, Marcia Klingaman
OTHERS PRESENT: Serena Stier, Ina Loewenberg
CALL TO ORDER:
Sandra Hudson called the meeting to order at 3:30pm.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
Hudson stated that she would like reconsideration of the motion that the Calls to Artists go to
artists currently residing in and having a permanent address in the state of Iowa. She
suggested deferring this item until later in the meeting since there were guests.
CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES:
Minutes of the meeting of July 5, 2001 were reviewed.
MOTION: Fosse moved to approve the minutes. Felling seconded. The motion passed
unopposed on a vote of 6-0.
CONSIDERATION OF ACCEPTANCE OF SEIBERLING PORTRAITS:
Ina Loewenberg was present at this meeting, and offered two portraits of Nancy Seiberling. Ina
presented them to the committee. The smaller one was a double image portrait, and the larger
one was a photo collage. Ina Loewenberg, Steve Atkins, and Karin Franklin looked for a space
in the Civic Center to hang the portraits. They found that the best place for them would be on a
wall across from the City Clerk's office. Rather than a small brass plaque, the committee
preferred to have a text with plexi-glass over it stating Nancy Seiberling's contributions to Iowa
City. Karin Franklin will take care of the text with help from others in the community.
MOTION: Klein moved to accept the portraits from Ina Loewenberg. Camillo seconded.
The motion passed 6-0.
PUBLIC DISSCUSSION OF ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA (CONTINUED):
Hudson wanted to vote on a reconsideration on the Call to Adists because she i~elt that by
limiting the call only to artists who currently reside in Iowa that they were excluding some
qualified artists. She wanted to also include artists who may have lived in Iowa at one time.
Iowa City Public Art Advisory Committee
August 2,2001
Page 2
MOTION: Hudson moved to have a reconsideration of the call to artists. Trueblood
seconded.
Trueblood asked if this reconsideration would have any SOFt Of change on the time line for these
projects. Karin Franklin answered yes. The City Council voted on a call, and if it were to
change to a carl and an invitation, then it must go back to City Council Hudson then suggested
that the definition or interpretation of "Iowa Artist" could be changed so that the call would not
have to go back to Council.
The motion passed 6-0.
Franklin indicated the reconsideration would be on the September agenda.
EDUCATIONAL BREIF-SERENA STEIR:
Serena Steir is an attorney who instructs courses concerning art and law at the University of
Iowa. She presented information on the Visual Artists' Rights Act (VARA). She stated that the
Visual Artists' Rights Act was an addition to the copyright law that went into effect in 1991.
VARA is the first instance in the United States where there are moral rights for art. There is also
a waiver in VARA that offers an option for artists to waive their rights. Steir was clear to point
out that this not only benefits those who purchase art, but it also benefits the artist. If VARA
were passed without a waiver, there would be no public art, and individuals would not buy public
art. Steir reviewed the Act with the Committee and answered questions.
COMMITTEE TIME/OTHER BUSINESS
Karin Franklin stated that at the Tuesday, July 31st City Council meeting the Lions Club
announced that they will be taking on the project of an Irving Weber statue. At this point, the
Lions Club is not looking for any public funding. However, the City Council and the Mayor
particularly would like to know if the Public Art committee would endorse the concept of having
the Irving Weber statue some place in Iowa City. Two future questions that do not need to be
answered now are: will the Lions club be looking for some funding from the City, and where will
the statue be located. The committee felt, in consensus, that it would be fine for the Mayor to
announce that the Public Art Committee supports the effort of the Lions Club to issue a statue of
Irving Weber.
Karin Franklin also brought another issue to the table. Ties that Bind is the sculpture that is
going to be put in place by the library. It looks as if it is not going to be installed until the spring
of 2003. At the City Council meeting, a question was raised concerning the date of the
installation. Should the sculpture be placed at a different site before the library is completed
and then moved, or should the installment of the sculpture wait until the library is completed?
Camillo asked if the library had any sort of voice on this issue. Fosse also pointed out that one
benefit of placing it somewhere early is related to the radius around Iowa City in which the
sculpture could not be sold. He said that placing it somewhere earlier will help prevent other
places from getting the sculpture in the next two to three years. Franklin also stated the re-
installment would be from public art funds. It was decided that there was enough sentiment to
install this piece temporarily while the library was being completed and the location decision
should be placed on the next agenda.
The next meeting will be September 6, 2001.
Iowa City Public Art Advisory Committee
August 2, 2001
Page 3
Franklin said there might be a proposal brought before the committee for a mural on the wall of
Dulcinea along Iowa Avenue.
Sandra Hudson will take the Education portion for the next meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 5:09 pro.
Minutes submitted by Erin Welsch
MINUTES
PARKS AND RECREATION COMlVlISSION
JULY 11,2001
MEMBERS PRESENT: Barbara Endel, Toni Cilek, Craig Gustaveson, Brace Maurer, Nancy
Ostrognai, Matt Pacha, Rex Pmess, AI Stroh
MEMBERS ABSENT: Doug Ginsberg
GUESTS: Sara Langenberg (Press-Citizen)
STAFF PRESENT: Terry Treeblood, Teny Robinson
FORMAL ACTION TAKEN
Moved by Endel, seconded by Stroh, to annrove the June 13, 2001 minutes as written. Unanimous.
Moved by Endel, seconded by Gustaveson, to keen a dos hark on the list for future budSetarv
consideration, notinS it is not a ton ten nrioritV. AYES: Endel, Gustaveson, Ostrosnai, Pacha, Stroh.
NAYS: Cilek, Maurer, Pruess. ABSENT: GinsberS. The motion carried.
Moved by Cilek, seconded by Stroh, to recommend to the City Council that the minihark referred to
as "Ned Ashton Park" be officially named "Ned Ashton Park". Unanimous.
DOG PARK
Endel distributed a memo prepared by her in support of the dog park concept and making it a part of the
planning process for future city budgetary considerations. Treeblood stated this item is included on the
agenda because it appears on the list of "Future Work Session Items" for the City Council to consider. At a
recent staff meeting, Treeblood asked the City Manager if this should remain on the list, noting it went
through the commission's prioritization process and ranked low. He indicated he would like to get the
commission's feelings as to whether or not this item is worth further consideration at this time. Trueblood
distributed a copy of an e-mail he received from Martha Boysen expressing her support for adding the dog
part to the list of future capital projects, and a packet of dog park information from Madison and Dane
County, Wisconsin.
Pacha asked where this project appeared on the commission's capital improvement projects priority listing;
Treeblood noted the commission only ranked their top ten priorities, of which it did not make. Endel agreed
it was not a top ten priority or similar to other projects such as trails that appeal to a majority of citizens.
She indicated there is a subgroup of very dedicated citizens who are seeking a structured, legal, leash-free
area to exercise their dogs. A dog park would diversify the leisure opportunities for area residents without a
large expenditure. She also noted the Iowa City Dog Obedience and the Hawkeye Kennel Clubs that host
several events a year such as dog shows and competitions that would pay rent for a dog park venue. She felt
a dog park would greatly enhance the ability for people with larger breed dogs to exercise them adequately
thereby indirectly benefiting the City of Iowa City Animal Shelter with fewer adoptions or care costs.
Pacha asked if the majority of dog parks are fee based; Gustaveson indicated there is no trend based on the
many WEB sites he has visited. He felt a dog park could be self-sustaining, noting there are over 3,000
licensed dog owners in Iowa City. Pacha questioned whether a fee-based dog park would deter people from
using it. Endel felt dog owners would view it as a service and would be willing to pay to use it. With
Parks and Recreation Commission
July 11, 2001
Page 2 of 4
regard to the dog park in Madison, Wisconsin, Trueblood noted it is self-policing, with citizens either
purchasing a permit or depositing the fee in a drop box at the park and are close to being a break-even
proposition. Gustaveson noted a private group in Cedar Rapids who has raised $20,000 for a dog park. He
stated it is a 40-mile round trip to a public area where he can let his dog run, and he, along with many others,
would be willing to pay a fee.
Ostrognai questioned whether people would use a dog park or do they prefer a natural-type area, such as
Hickory Hill Park to let their dogs ran. Gustaveson stated people are using Hickory Hill Park off First
Avenue as a dog park, noting a runner stated two off-leash dogs had attacked him in the park. He felt
people would prefer a big open area, noting Scott Park is a natural basin, with a large open area. Maurer
noted dog owners are using Scott Park to let their dogs rim off-leash without a problem and questioned the
need for a fence. Endel noted safety reasons; i.e., dog rutruing across street or not coming back when called.
Stroh stated within a few years there would be additional open space in the peninsula and waterworks
areas. Fencing would be a front- end cost and a fee system could be set up to recoup the cost. Trueblood
indicated the previous cost estimate was $50,000, based on a five-acre site and six-foot high chain link
fence. There may be a need for parking lot, water line and accessibility issues, which could be variables in
the cost. With respect to Madison, Wisconsin, they have a five-foot high fence and no water source, both of
which have not been a problem.
Gustaveson indicated he was very much in favor of a dog park, but felt the comrmssion had its priorities set
correctly. He felt this was the type of project where a group of people could set up an organization to solicit
donations thereby learuing if citizens are really interested in establishing a dog park in Iowa City.
Trueblood stated if the majority of the commission feels it is an important issue to start pursuing, a public
meeting could be held to deterfranc what people would be willing to do. Cilek felt that if people were really
interested in establishing a dog park they should form a group on their own to begin laying the necessary
groundwork. Trueblood agreed, but noted unless the commission or staff takes the initiative to set up a
meeting, it likely won't happen. Endel stated she is now a member of the Iowa City Dog Club and they were
not aware of past discussions on this subject.
Pruess stated this project is not one he would support in that there are other priorities beyond the top ten
projects that he would support. He noted Coralville's efforts to establish a dog park and wondered if the two
communities were big enough to have two. He ~vondered about the possibility of going together with
Coralville and subsidizing the cost of one dog park. Maurer noted he liked the fact that this park will be out
away from people and would not want a dog park as visible as it would be at Scott Park. He felt there
would be a lot of opposition from people living in that area. Pacha indicated he was uncertain as to where
he stood on the issue, noting it comes down to two things - money and location. If money was not an issue,
he agreed with Pruess as to what would rank higher on the list of non-top ten priorities. As far as location,
he asked where it would be located to accomplish the goal. If it is located on the west side of Iowa City,
will it stop people from letting their dogs run off-leash in Hickory Hill Park; Maurer noted he did not feel it
would, that the problem would continue. Stroh noted the social engineering aspect is not the commission's
mission, rather it is to provide facilities to meet the public's needs or desires. Endel agreed with Stroh,
noting a meeting should be held to determine feasibility. Gustaveson also agreed, noting there should be a
diversification of options of what people can do when using city parks. Pruess noted the funding issue,
indicating he could be persuaded if there was money up front. Gustaveson stated a dog park is not a priority
of this commission, but it would make a difference if a group of people were willing to undertake this
project and approached the commission with money raised. Endel questioned whether other interest groups
Parks and Recreation Commission
July 11, 2001
Page 3 of 4
were asked to show the money. Maurer noted many of the sport organizations have contributed towards the
facilities, such as the Iowa City Kickers.
Pacha noted it appeared there was a fair amount of interest on the commission that it was not opposed to a
dog park under the right circumstances. Treeblood indicated he wanted to know the commission's
consensus as to whether there is enough interest that a dog park should remain under consideration. Moved
by Endel, seconded by Gustaveson, to Reed a doll park on the list for future budlletarv consideration,
notinll it is not a top ten ~rioritv. Endel noted if the dog owners/groups/clubs were aware this project was
under consideration, they might have been in attendance. Pmess questioned why this was picked out as
something to put on a future City Council work session, noting he would be excited if one of the top ten
projects were on the list. He did not want this action seen as endorsing it as more of a higher priority than
he wants to give it, but noted he was not adamantly opposed to a dog park. Cilek also questioned why it was
on the future work session list. Trueblood stated that to the best of his knowledge, it was because citizens
who want to establish a dog park have approached the council. The motion was voted on. AYES: Endel,
Gustaveson, Ostrollnai, Pacha, Stroh. NAYS: Cilek, Maurer, Pruess. ABSENT: Ginsbefit. The
motion carried. Treeblood asked if the commission wanted him at this time to put together a group to look
into this matter or to wait until the commission deals with the capital projects. Endel stated she was
involved in a local dog club and would inform them at the next meeting to contact staff to discuss setting up
a community group.
"NED ASHTON PARK"
Trueblood stated the park on Benton Street has been called "Ned Ashton Park" for years, but it needed
official action to name it that. Moved by Cilek, seconded bv Strok to recommend to the City Council
that the minipark referred to as "Ned Ashton Park" be officially named "Ned Ashton Park".
Unanimous.
COMMISSION TIME
Pruess wished Endel well, as it was her last comnussion meeting. Endel stated she served four years and
thanked the group for the good work it has done. She also expressed appreciation to Trueblood and Mike
Moran for the opportunity to work with them.
Stroh noted the unsightly weeds growing up through the gabions at the Scott Boulevard water retention area
and asked that they be sprayed; Robinson indicated he would follow up.
Gustaveson asked if the city had received the money from Babe Ruth Baseball for the concession stand.
Treeblood stated he had met with the group two weeks ago and they indicated the check would be put in the
mail Gustaveson noted the concession stand looks great and referred to the letter from the State
Commissioner of Babe Ruth acknowledging the same.
CHAIR'S REPORT
On behalf of the commission and staff, Pacha expressed appreciation to Endel for her service, work and
effort put into the commission.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Trueblood gave an update on the following projects:
Parks and Recreation Comrmssion
July 11, 2001
Page 4 of 4
Soccer Park Parking Lot. Three bids were received June 28, with the low bid being $72,000 under the
engineer's estimate. The project will resurface the parking lot' and expand the south parking lots.
Skate Park. Bid opening is scheduled for July 24; engineer's estimate $312,000.
Hunters Run Park. Bid opening is scheduled for July 26; engineer's estimate $245,000.
City Park Trails. Bid opening is scheduled for July 26; engineer's estimate $295,000.
Hickory Hill Park Trails. The tentative bid opening is scheduled for September I0; engineer's estimate
$430,000 plus $120,000 if a Road Oyl surface is included.
Trail Ranger Program. The program, in its second week, consists of six 14-15 year old youth working
with an adult supervisor doing trail maintenance at Hickory Hill Park.
Sentember Commission Meeting. An Iowa Park and Recreation Association Workshop is scheduled for
September 12, and staff would like the commission to consider moving its September meeting. After
discussion, the commission tentatively agreed to set the meeting for September 5, but will discuss it further
at next month's meeting.
Capital Proiects. The commission will be discussing capital projects by the October meeting and should
contemplate any new projects they would like included.
Future Possibilities. The upcoming Scott Boulevard extension may create an opportunity for a weftand
and trail connection to the N.O.S. property discussed at the June meeting (i.e., First and Rochester Addition,
just off Hickory Trail). There is also some consideration to put a trail around Sand Lake, connecting to the
Iowa River Trail.
Commission Vacancy. Due to Endel's move out of the city limits, a vacancy has been created and will be
advertised. Commissioners are urged to encourage applicants.
ADJOURNMENT
Moved by Stroh, seconded by Gustaveson, to adjourn. Unanimous. The meeting adjourned at 6:00
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
THURSDAY, JULY 19, 2001 --7:30 PM
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Don Anciaux, Benjamin Chait, Pam Ehrhardt, Jerry Hansen, Elizabeth Koppes,
Dean Shannon
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ann Bovbjerg
STAFF PRESENT: Robert Miklo, Mitch Behr
OTHERS: Larry Schnittjer, Mark Danielson, Thomas Hobart, Chuck Meardon, Tony Frey
CALL TO ORDER
Vice-Chairman Chair called the meeting to order at 7:34 PM.
RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL: Recommend approval by a vote of 6-0, REZ01-0001 l/SUB01-0008,
a rezoning from Rural Residential, RR-1, to Sensitive Areas Overlay - Low Density Single-Family
Residential, OSA-5, and a preliminary plat of Dean Oakes Sixth Addition, a 30.11-acre, 18-lot residential
subdivision located at the west end of Bristol Drive.
Recommend approval by a vote of 6-0, SUB00-00020, a final plat of Walnut Ridge, Parts 9 and 10, a
20.67-acre, 12-lot residential subdivision located at the north end of Kennedy Parkway, subject to
approval of legal papers and construction drawings prior to City Council consideration.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA
There was none.
DEVELOPMENT/ZONING ITEM:
REZ01-0001 l/SUB01-0008. Discussion of an application submitted by Oakes Construction for a rezoning
from Rural Residential, RR-1, to Sensitive Areas Overlay - Low Density Single-Family Residential,
OSA-5, and a preliminary plat of Dean Oakes Sixth Addition, a 30.11 -acre, 18-lot residential subdivision
located at the west end of Bristol Drive.
Miklo reported that since the Commission's first meeting on this rezoning/subdivision the deficiencies
have been corrected. Staff now recommends approval.
Hansen asked Miklo to point out the revisions.
Miklo said the plat was corrected to show the extent of the woodlands OR the site; the buffers were
corrected to show the amount of woodland that would be removed; the buffer required by the Sensitive
Areas Ordinance is now shown; revised stormwater calculations were submitted to Public Works, which
has reviewed the calculations and is satisfied with them; the conservation easement shows what
woodlands are to be retained, excepting those woodlands contained in an outlot which is to be dedicated
to the City.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OPEN
There was none.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED
MOTION: Shannon moved to approve REZ01-0001 l/SUB01-0008, a rezoning from Rural
Residential, RR-1, to Sensitive Areas Overlay - Low Density Single-Family Residential, OSA-5, and
a preliminary plat of Dean Oakes Sixth Addition, a 30.11-acre, 18-lot residential subdivision
located at the west end of Bristol Drive. Anciaux seconded the motion.
Planning And Zoning Commission Minutes
July 19, 2001
Page 2
Motion carried on a vote of 6-0.
DEVELOPMENT ITEMS:
SUB00-00020. Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Development Company for a final
plat of Walnut Ridge, Parts 9 and 10, a 20.67-acre, 12-1ot residential subdivision located at the north end
of Kennedy Parkway.
Miklo reported that the two plats are the final sections of the Walnut Ridge development. Planning and
Zoning Commission recently reviewed an amended preliminary plat and sensitive areas development
plan to revise the tree-protection element of the plan; the plat was recommended for approval by P&Z and
was subsequently approved by the City Council. Miklo said the applicant is seeking approval for the final
plat. Miklo reported that the plat as submitted is in order and staff recommends approval subject to
approval of legal papers and construction drawings prior to City Council consideration.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OPEN
There was none.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED
MOTION: Anciaux moved to approve a final plat of Walnut Ridge, Pads 9 and 10, a 20.67-acre, 12-
lot residential subdivision located at the north end of Kennedy Parkway, subject to approval of
legal papers and construction drawings prior to City Council consideration. Koppes seconded the
motion.
Motion carried on a vote of 6-0.
SUB01-00011. Discussion of an application submitted by Saltzman Enterprises, LTD., fOF a preliminary
and final plat of Saltzman Subdivision, a 2.8-acre, 3-lot commercial subdivision located east of Riverside
Drive south of Benton Street.
Miklo responded to questions and concerns regarding this plat which had been raised by Commissioners
at the last meeting.
One Commissioner had asked if the City could require dedication of a trail easement as a condition of
approval. Miklo reported that the City attorney's office had examined the problem and concluded that,
legally, it would be very difficult for the City to require a trail easement, based on a Supreme Court case.
Miklo said if subdivision regulations required trails just as they now require sidewalks or public streets,
then the City would have some leverage. Staff recommends that the Commission not pursue the
easement issue at this time. Additionally, there are no immediate plans to build a trail in that area and
there may not be for several years.
Miklo said that a note had been added to the plat stating that the equipment shed standing in the access
easement would be removed if Lot 3 ever develops.
Miklo reported a third issue needful of resolution: a southward-running sewer line lies under a portion of
the front of the Ground Round restaurant; Public Works recommends if that particular portion of the line
ever breaks that the City should not be responsible for tearing up the building or the property in order to
repair it. Miklo said an easement over the sewer line should be required and the property owner ought to
take responsibility for the portion of the sewer lying under the building.
Miklo said the fourth and most complicated issue involved the number and proximity of curb cuts onto
Riverside Drive. The curb cut serving as Ground Round's entrance is twenty-two feet from Sturgis Corner
Drive. The existence of driveways so close to one another can often lead to accidents: which driveway a
driver is headed for may not be apparent to someone trying to exit Sturgis Corner onto Riverside. Miklo
said that ideally the Ground Round curb cut would be closed, but given the existing orientation of the
restaurant such request by the City would be unrealistic at this time. Staff recommends that a note be
added to the plat requiring the closure of the curb cut serving Ground Round if the building is ever razed,
Planning And Zoning Commission Minutes
July 19, 2001
Page 3
after which Lot 2 would use the access easement serving Lots 1 and 3 as its means of ingress/egress.
Miklo said that the applicant had been asked if he would agree to that stipulation as a note on the
preliminary and final plats and as a condition in the legal papers; the owner has chosen not to agree. Staff
recommends that the plat not be approved without such a note. Miklo said there has also been no
indication from the applicant or his representatives regarding the sewer easement. He said that if the two
stipulations were agreed to by the applicant then staff would recommend approval.
Ehrhardt asked what would happen if the Ground Round were added on to.
Miklo said that would not affect the curb cut. Only if the building was removed would the required closure
of the curb cut be enforced.
Hansen asked if the curb cut could be moved onto Sturgis Corner Drive.
Miklo said that would be difficult given the curve in Sturgis Corner Drive and it would cut across property
lines.
Hansen wondered if the presence of a building over the sewerline was an unusual situation: how could
this have happened?
Miklo confirmed that it is unusual.
Chair asked how the Commission would connect the request for subdivision to the sewer easement
requirement.
Miklo explained that because the sewer is a public utility, which typically have easements over them,
Public Works believes it was the responsibility of the property owner to check for easement information
before erecting a building on the site. The granting of easements is a normal part of the subdivision
process.
Ehrhardt asked what would happen if the sewerline fails in its current easementless state.
Miklo said he is unsure how that would be handled, which is why staff is seeking clarification on this
subject.
Shannon asked for clarification on the curb cut issue: does staff recommend moving it to the north?
Miklo explained that if Lot 2 ever redevelops the City would want access for all three lots moved to a
common driveway: the access easement running through the south half Lot 1.
Ehrhardt asked if the Commission could approve the subdivision with the above mentioned condition
attached.
Miklo said that unless the property agrees to the condition staff would not recommend approving the
subdivision.
Chair asked what denying the subdivision would accomplish.
Miklo said the Commission would be sending a clearer message to City Council if they voted to deny the
subdivision. The applicant has had an opportunity to agree to the conditions, but has rejected them.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OPEN
Larry Schnittier, 1917 South Gilbert St., of MMS Consultants, said he met Chuck Schmadeke (Public
Works) and discussed the sewer easement. Schnittjer said he did not get the impression from
Schmadeke that it was the owner's responsibility to maintain the sewer. He said MMS checked records as
thoroughly as they could and could find no easement on record. He speculated on the responsibility of a
property owner to find a sewerline if there is no indication of its existence. MMS found what they believe
to be a manhole located three feet below ground through probing.
Planning And Zoning Commission Minutes
July 19, 2001
Page 4
Chair asked Schnittjer to clarify the location of the manhole.
Schnittjer indicated on the projection of the plat the location of the manhole between Sturgis Corner Drive
and Ground Round's parking lot.
Chair asked if it was in a swale.
Schnittjer said it was not a swale, but more like a small berm. The manhole is buried three feet below the
surface. He said there is no problem granting an easement if the building is ever removed, but granting
the easement now would give the City the opportunity to demolish the front part of the building.
Chait asked how far from the front of the building the sewer was located.
Schnittjer indicated that it crosses the building's northwest corner and cuts diagonally through the "sun
porch" dining area.
Chair asked how far below grade the sewerline was.
Schnittjer said he did not know.
Anciaux asked where the Ground Round's sewer hooked in to the main.
Schnittjer said he did not know. He said it could be hooked up to either the east-west line or the north-
south line running below the building.
Ehrhardt pointed out that when a building is built one has to know where the sewer hooks up.
Schnittjer replied that Ground Round did not build the building. He said Saltzman bought the property with
the two buildings already on it (the other building being Payless Shoesource).
Chair commented that if there is no easement of record no one would think to look for a sewerline.
Schnittjer said that when Saltzman's attorney reviewed the abstract he found nothing recorded. He said
the sewer easement issue should not, in itself, be grounds for rejecting the subdivision.
Miklo said that if Public Works had changed their position regarding responsibility for the sewer they had
not informed him. He said of the two issues hanging on this plat that the sewer issue is the least serious.
Chait asked Schnittjer if he had anything to say about the curb cut.
Schnittjer replied that he was positive the curb cut for Ground Round existed before Sturgis Corner Drive
did.
Mark Danielson, 122 South Linn Street, attorney for Mr. Saltzman, said that, with regard to the curb cut,
there is an existing long-term lease with Ground Round specifically tied to access onto Riverside Drive.
The lease has at least a twenty-five-year term remaining. The lease provides that there will be access via
Riverside Drive.
Danielson said that the recent McDonald's Restaurant remodeling presented a similar situation in that a
building was razed and no condition was imposed on the reconstruction regarding the curb cuts onto
Riverside to the west and Benton Street to the nodh. Danielson said he was concerned about disparate
treatment of similar properties. He said this "stick in the bundle of property rights" should not be taken
away without adequate compensation.
Hansen asked if Danielson was aware that McDonald's curb cut on Riverside was "entrance only."
Danielson said that may be the intention of it but no one uses it just as an entrance.
Planning And Zoning Commission Minutes
July 19, 2001
Page 5
Miklo explained that McDonald's case was a special exception and not a subdivision. Staff had the same
concerns in that case and recommended against that particular driveway setup. The Board of Adjustment
nevertheless approved it.
Danielson said that in the proceedings Miklo spoke of Saltzman proposed via letter to create an access
from the back of Ground Round through Mumm's property and out onto Benton Street. He said Mumm's
was in agreement but McDonald's was not. Danielson counted this as effort by Saltzman to address the
concerns regarding traffic. He said it was not reasonable to require any restrictions on the curb cut at this
time.
Hansen asked for specifics on the contract with the Ground Round in relation to access.
Danielson said the existing access is tied to the lease.
Chair reminded Danielson that the curb cut restriction is not to take effect unless and until the building
now occupied by the Ground Round is razed. He said it would not have anything to do with the current
lease for the building.
Danielson said the building could, conceivably, be torn down the next day. He said the Ground Round is
renting the ground and could choose to do that.
Chair asked if he meant it was a land lease. Danielson said such was his understanding.
Hansen asked again if the lease specified access to Riverside Drive or to the exact spot where the curb
cut now exists. Danielson said the lease references particularly the existing curb cut.
Danielson suggested that a future date may be the time to deal with this issue, such as when the properly
is redeveloped.
Miklo said that the City may not necessarily have the power to effect changes in a simple redevelopment.
Chait agreed, saying that now the City has the influence to ask that a deal be struck now. Miklo said it is
difficult to close a curb cut with just a building permit or site plan unless there is also a plat that provides
alternative access.
Ehrhardt asked if the City may legally require this condition.
Behr said because this is a resubdivision the access question can be addressed.
Chair said it appeared possible to remove and rebuild the building and still have access to Riverside
Drive. Miklo reiterated staff's idea that the access easement just north of Ground Round could serve both
lots. The easement is adjacent to Lot 2 on which Ground Round sits. Andaux asked if it would be the
means of access to Lot 3 as well. Miklo confirmed this.
Chair suggested this is an issue that could be worked out between Ground Round and Saltzman if both
parties were willing.
Miklo likened the situation to that of Menards, NAPA, and Jiffy Lube sharing a single access point onto
Highway 1.
Chair said all the parties involved, specifically the lessee, needs to get involved in working out an
arrangement.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED
Miklo pointed out that they were nearing the 45-day limitation period on this application; the applicant
would need to grant an extension.
Planning And Zoning Commission Minutes
July 19, 2001
Page 6
MOTION: Anciaux moved to approve SUB01-00011, a preliminary and final plat of Saltzman
Subdivision, a 2.8-acre, 3-lot commercial subdivision located east of Riverside Drive south of
Benton Street. Shannon seconded the motion.
Anciaux said he thinks the subdivision should be left the way it is unless the applicant agrees to the
stipulations put forth by the planning staff regarding the curb cut. He also said the sewer easement
subject should be discussed again with Public Works. Because this is just a tidying up of lot lines for
potential sale, Anciaux said he was leaning toward denying the plats.
Behr made a clarification cor~cerning the motion: a move to approve would be contingent on the
conditions listed in the staff report. Chait acknowledged this.
Anciaux said he would vote in favor of the subdivision if the conditions were in place.
Chait said the approval or denial of the plat is based on the application; the applicant has not indicated his
willingness to agree to the conditions. Chait said his understanding of staff's recommendation was that
the Commission vote for or against based on the application. Behr stated he concurred with planning
staff.
Miklo asked the applicant's representatives if they would be willing to grant a waiver of the 45-day
limitation period.
Chair said he was thinking to request the same thing and would ask that the motion on the floor be
withdrawn and be replaced with a motion to defer.
WITHDRAWL OF MOTION: Anciaux moved to withdraw his motion to approve SUB01-00011, a
preliminary and final plat of Saltzman Subdivision, a 2.8-acre, 3-lot commercial subdivision
located east of Riverside Drive south of Benton Street. Shannon seconded the motion.
Schnittjer granted the waiver.
MOTION: Hansen moved to defer SUB01-00011, a preliminary and final plat of Saltzman
Subdivision, a 2.8-acre, 3-lot commercial subdivision located east of Riverside Drive south of
Benton Street. Koppes seconded the motion.
The motion carried on a vote of 6-0.
SUB01-00014, discussion of an application submitted by Carousel Motors for a preliminary and final plat
of Carousel Addition, a 12.09-acre, 1-lot commercial subdivision located southeast of Highway 1 West.
Miklo began by covering the history of the land in question. He reminded the Commission that the lot was
the subject of a recent rezoning action from I j., General Industrial, to CI-L Intensive Commercial. The
Ruppert family approached the City in 1996 to rezone a wedge of land northeasterly adjacent to Menards;
the rezoning was granted on condition that an access easement across it was preserved. The Rupperts
later came back with a request to fezone the Outlot "A" of Westport Plaza - Part 2 from [-1 to CI-t for the
purpose of locating an automobile dealership there. At the same time they entered into a Conditional
Zoning Agreement (CZA) stipulating that the two ends of the access easement (one at Walmart, the other
at Menards) be somehow joined across Outlot "A." The applicant came back and asked for an
amendment to the CZA to allow some flexibility in the siting of the easement, which both staff and
Planning & Zoning Commission recommended to the City Council. A design had not been worked out, but
the language was before the Council. On staff's recommendation, the Council deferred the final reading
of the ordinance. Staff made this recommendation after receiving the current plat. The staff was
concerned about the two ninety-degree turns in the easement immediately west from Walmart. After
meeting with the applicant staff found that there is a curve at one of the corners which would probably be
acceptable. However, Miklo continued, the problem persists in that the design somewhat usurps the point
of having the access easement, which is to relieve the traffic on Highway 1 between Menards and
Walmart.
Planning And Zoning Commission Minutes
July 19, 2001
Page 7
Miklo reported that the situation is further complicated by a site plan submitted some months ago by
Menards with a road extension to Outlot "A" based on the pre-CZA configuration of the access easement.
The site plan has not received final approval, but it meets all the City's requirements. Miklo said staff
spoke with both the applicant and Menards and asked if there was a chance of either one of them
redesigning their frontage road plans. Miklo reported that staff had received a letter from Menards
reporting that they would object to redesign. He reiterated the problem: neither party has a plan in which
their frontage road meets up with the other's.
Miklo said staff does not recommend approval of the subdivision unless that particular problem is
resolved. The corners closer to Walmart also are a serious problem. He added that there are some other
minor deficiencies that could easily be resolved. Miklo advised the Commission that it was well within the
45-day limitation period and could defer until its August 2, 2001 meeting to see if a solution could be
worked out among the various parties.
Shannon asked what Menards had planned; he did not see a problem in moving there end of the frontage
road closer to the highway.
Miklo explained that Menards planned to expand its lumberyard and to make available the remaining
triangular piece of properly for sale or lease.
Ehrhardt asked if the proposed CZA obligated the City to agree to the siting of the access easement no
matter where. Miklo said that the easement may be moved, not that the City shaft consent to it. In any
case, the Council deferred the CZA at its last meeting.
PULBIC DISCUSSION OPEN
Tom Hobart, 122 South Linn Street, attorney for Carousel Motors, said that the easement in its original
location makes the lot unusable because only the front of the property can be developed. He went on to
say that the parcel is "landlocked," meaning that every business has access to Highway 1 but that lot.
Hobart said Carousel would rather have direct access to the highway, but understands the reason it
cannot. He said that the planning staff's recommendation to angle the easement toward the highway cut
off much of the usable acreage of the lot. He said Carousel was willing to work with staff on a solution.
Hobart reported that staff's problem was that the entrance to Carousel, as one came from Walmart/Red
Lobster, would be directly in front of a motorist and the frontage road would be to the right; Carousel
revised their plan and moved the sales office back sixty feet.
Hobart said that late in the previous week they learned that Menards plans conflicted with their own. He
said he called Menards and asked if they could move their road to meet with Carousel's. Menards reply,
according to Hobart, was that they had paid a lot for the land and would like to recoup that cost by selling
the remaining outlot. He asked whether or not it was true that Menards had to resubdivide if they wished
to sell that property. Chait said only if they sell it, not if they lease. Hobart replied that leasing the property
would not recoup very quickly if they rent it. He said Menards would probably someday be back before
the Commission asking them for a resubdivision and then would be the opportunity to talk to them about
the orientation of the road. He said if the property cannot be developed the way Carousel has proposed
he does not think it can be developed.
Hobart said he knows the City has interest in buying this property because it is at the end of Runway 12.
Chair asked Miklo about this; Miklo confirmed that the airpod had at one time been interested in
purchasing the property and had made an offer. Hobart said an offer is still on the table.
Hobart said Carousel is being put in a position where they cannot buy the property or develop it. Chair
asked if he meant that Carousel has not yet closed the deal with the Ruppert family. Hobart told him that
the sale was conditioned on the approval of this subdivision. He added that because there are no other
locations to build this dealership in Iowa City, Carousel would probably build in Coralville.
Chait asked about the chain of ownership: did the Rupperts own all the land along the south side of
Highway 1. Miklo and Hobart said the Dane family had owned the land now occupied by Menards, the
Rupperts owned the land now occupied by Westport Plaza. Chair pointed out that the lot is "landlocked"
partially through Rupped's own accord.
Planning And Zoning Commission Minutes
July 19, 2001
Page 8
Hobart said, with regard to the ninety-degree turns of concern to the staff, that there are a number of such
turns in Westport Plaza. He added that Carousel is concerned about safety and about speeds on the
frontage road; sharp turns would slow motorists. He said it is possible Menards could sell Carousel the
land, but it would not be economically feasible. He again reminded the Commission that the problem with
Menards could be solved if and when they applied for a resubdivision.
Chait said Menards may or may not pursue that course; right now it is speculation.
Miklo said, regarding Hobart's mention of ninety-degree turns in Westport Plaza, while it's true such turns
are there, they serve a different purpose: namely, they are for circulation within the shopping center; the
point of the frontage road is to encourage people to use it rather than use Highway 1 to get between
Westport and Menards.
Ehrhardt asked about different automobile display options, citing the manner in which Carousel displays
their cars now. Hobart said the access road situation between the two places was significantly different.
Ehrhardt asked if they could separate the display lot from the sales office. Hobart said it would be too
dangerous to have salespeople and customers cross back and forth over the frontage road.
Chait asked if the access road would ever connect with the one in front of the current Carousel location.
Miklo said the extension of the dead-end road in front of Carousel was intentionally abandoned.
Anciaux asked if the frontage road needs to be visible; can it be further back from the highway. Miklo said
no, it doesn't have to be visible; the main concern is that the frontage road is convenient for travelers
going back and forth between Menards and Walmart. If it is not convenient, people will not use it.
Koppes said she was concerned about speed, too, which a straight shot may invite. Miklo said curves are
an option to control speed.
Chuck Meardon, 122 South Linn Street, attorney for the Ruppert family, said old comprehensive plans
showed the area in question as being "landlocked," so he disagreed with an earlier suggestion made by
Chait that the Rupperts had partially brought this on themselves. Miklo, when asked if he corroborate,
replied that he did not think of the lot as being "landlocked" since it had access from two points. Chair said
he was not connecting the lack of Highway 1 access to being landlocked.
Meardon explained that over the last 3 or 4 years the City had had the property assessed for purposes of
acquisition and had submitted an offer as recently as four months ago. He said he thinks the City is still
interested in the property. He said the Ruppert family perceives the City's interest in the property as
another complicating factor along with the issue with Menards. He offered to explain the history of the
issues surrounding the land around the airport. The Commission was disinclined to hear the history.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED
MOTION: Hansen moved to defer SUB01-00014, application submitted by Carousel Motors for a
preliminary and final plat of Carousel Addiction, a 12.09-acre, 1-lot commercial subdivision
located southeast of Highway 1 West. Shannon seconded the motion.
Ehrhardt asked what they hoped to achieve by deferral. Chait speculated that discussion with the various
parties could continue and compromises could be worked out. Hansen pointed out that Hobart said
Carousel had a revised plan it would like to share with staff. Chair said the usability of the property is
compromised by the several factors the Commission had heard presented that evening. Those factors
also put a burden on the value of the property. He said that supply and demand may make the City the
best bidder on the property because of all the conditions attached to it.
Ehrhardt said the ease of transition between Walmart and Menards is the important issue. She asked for
clarification concerning the disposition of the landscaping easement; Miklo informed her that it is not
subject to change.
The motion carried on a vote of 6-0.
Planning And Zoning Commission Minutes
July 19, 2001
Page 9
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES OF JUNE 21 AND JULY 5, 2001 MEETINGS
MOTION: Hansen moved to approve the minutes of the June 21 and the July 5, 2001 meetings of
the Planning & Zoning Commission. Koppes seconded the motion.
The motion carried on a vote of 6-0.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA (REOPENNED)
Tony Frey, 19 Caroline Court, spoke in support of the Cakes Sixth Addition and suggested a trail
connection running south from the proposed east-west trail.
OTHER
Miklo informed the Commission that the City Council discussed the CB-10 amendment allowing by
special exception residential uses on the ground floor of landmark structures. The Council requested a
meeting with the Commission at 6:00 PM on July 30 prior to the P&Z's informal meeting. The Council
seemed inclined to approve the amendment, but asked planning staff to revise the language to reflect the
concerns voiced by P& Z at their June 21't meeting. Miklo said the Council wished to have a meeting of
the minds on the revised language.
Chait wondered if this was just a political formality; would not the Council do what it wished to do
regardless of the Planning & Zoning Commission's recommendations. Miklo said it is not clear the Council
will override the Commission's recommendation; here is an opportunity to discuss the issue. Ehrhardt
made arguments along the same lines as Miklo.
Chait said the issue is having to be creative under the rules of the CB-10 zone.
Hansen said he had observed the Council meeting and it sounded like they were talking about a different
issue. Miklo said the Council had the same amendment on hand as P&Z had discussed.
Hansen said he would like the opportunity to talk with the Council; the other Commissioners seemed to
agree. Chair said he would not stand in opposition to their wishes, but said he would like to be more
specific about what the issue at stake is.
The meeting adjourned at 8:48 PM.
Dean Shannon, Secretary
ppdadrr~min/p&z07-19-01doc
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Subject to/lppr0vai
AUGUST 2, 2001 - 7:30 P.M. · -
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Bovbjerg, Jerry Hansart, Dean Shannon, Don Anciaux,
Elizabeth Koppes, Benjamin Chair, Pare Ehrhardt
STAFF PRESENT: Mitch Behr, Bob Miklo, Shelley McCafferty
OTHERS PRESENT: Larry Schnittjer
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL:
Recommended approval, by a vote of 7-0, SUB01-00010, an application submitted by 3~d Street Partners
for a final plat of Village Green Part XVIII, a 9.54-acre, 3-lot residential subdivision with 2 outlots located
west of Scott Boulevard and south of Village Road.
Recommended approval, by a vote of 7-0, SUB01-00011, an application submitted by Saltzman
Enterprises LTD. For a preliminary and final plat of Saltzman Subdivision, a 2.8 acre, 3-lot commercial
subdivision located east of Riverside Drive south of Benton Street, subject to approval of legal papers and
legal papers including a shared access easement agreement before Council approval.
Recommended approval, by a vote of 7-0, Zoning Code, Article O, Sign Regulations, to permit Canopy
Roof Signs.
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Bovbjerg called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There was none.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF VACANCIES ON CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS:
Bovbjerg said there is a list of vacancies on the bulleting board in the lobby.
DEVELOPMENT ITEMS:
SUB01-00010. Discussion of an application submitted by 3rd Street Partners for a final plat of Village
Green Part XVIII, a 9.54-acre, 3-lot residential subdivision with 2 outlots located west of Scott Boulevard
and south of Village Road.
Miklo said this is a final plat. The preliminary plat and OPDH were approved several months ago. He said
there are some minor changes from the preliminary plat, including Baldwin Lane terminating in an L-
shape instead of a straight dead-end. There is a slight change to the configuration of the units, although
the number of units is the same.
Bovbjerg asked about units on Clifford Lane and what Clifford Lane would connect to.
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
August 2, 2001
Page 2
Miklo said it would connect to Village Road, which is in place.
Ehrhardt asked what road each lot has access to.
Miklo showed on the overhead and clarified that lots 48 and 57 back up to the pond.
Public discussion open:
LarrV Schnittjer, 1917 South Gilbert Street, said he and the applicants are available for questions.
Public discussion closed.
b 3rd
MOTION: Chait moved to approve SUB01-00010, an application submitted y Street Partners
for a final plat of Village Green Part XVIll, a 9.54-acre, 3-lot residential subdivision with 2 outlots
located west of Scott Boulevard and south of Village Road. Shannon seconded the motion. The
motion carried on a vote of 7-0.
SUB01-00011. Discussion of an application submitted by Saltzman Enterprises LTD. For a preliminary
and final plat of Saltzman Subdivision, a 2.8 acre, 3-lot commercial subdivision located east of Riverside
Drive south of Benton Street.
Miklo said staff found a recorded document for the sanitary easement located under the existing building,
which protects the City's rights. He said they have reached an agreement for the curb cut at Ground
Round and closure of that if that lot is ever developed.
He said they have reached an agreement concerning the access easement north of the Ground Round
on Lot 2. This easement will provide access to Lot 2 if the property is ever redeveloped.
Hansen asked if there were a new lease agreement, would they be able to close that curb cut.
Miklo said no. The access easement applies to the building, so only if they reconfigured the building
would they change the access.
Anciaux asked if there is anyway the Ground Round can hook up to the shared driveway.
Miklo said it does now.
Ehrhardt asked about Lot 3 access being in the legal papers.
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
August 2, 2001
Page 3
Miklo said it is in the legal papers.
Behr said if they move to approve, they should include the shared access easement agreement in the
motion.
Public discussion open:
There was RORe.
Public discussion closed.
MOTION: Anciaux moved to approve SUB01-00011, an application submitted by Saltzman
Enterprises LTD. For a preliminary and final plat of Saltzman Subdivision, a 2.8 acre, 3-lot
commercial subdivision located east of Riverside Drive south of Benton Street, subject to
approval of legal papers and legal papers including a shared access easement agreement before
Council approval. Ehrhardt seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0.
SUB01-00014. Discussion of an application submitted by Carousel Motors for a preliminary and final plat
of Carousel Addition, a 12.09-acre, 1-lot commercial subdivision located southeast of Highway 1 West.
Miklo said they received a verbal request from Duane Musser to defer this until the September 6, 2001
meeting. He said negotiations are continuing between the parties involved.
Ehrhardt asked where the road comes out of WaI-Mart.
Miklo showed on the overhead that it is located between the Red Lobster and WaI-Mart.
Bovbjerg asked about the continuation of that road on lot 1. She clarified that was what the potential
owner asked to be moved.
Miklo said yes.
Public discussion open.
TheFe was none.
Public discussion closed.
MOTION: Chait moved to defer to September 6, SUB01-00014, an application submitted by
Carousel Motors for a preliminary and final plat of Carousel Addition, a 12.09-acre, l-lot
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
August 2, 2001
Page 4
commercial subdivision located southeast of Highway 1 West. Shannon seconded the motion. The
motion carried on a vote of 1-0.
CODE AMENDMENT ITEM:
Discussion of amendment of the Zoning Code, Article O, Sign Regulations, to permit Canopy Roof Signs.
McCafferty explained that the proposed amendment results from a temporary permit granted to Mondos.
Currently the code allows for signs applied to the face of a canopy or below a canopy. The code prohibits
signs on the roof of a canopy. With Mondos, staff felt the scale of the building makes it acceptable. She
explained the intent of downtown is for a pedestrian oriented shopping and entertainment district. Staff
feels that the storefront relates best to this intent, therefore the length of the storefront should determine
the size of signage.
She said the amendment defines storefront and allowed dimensions based on that storefront. She
showed examples on the overhead of different scales of signs.
Bovbjerg asked if the examples shown are exceptions.
McCafferty said they show the three classes of dimensions, based on the width of the store front.
Hansen asked what the sign size would be if there was no canopy.
McCafferty said it would fall under other sign ordinances.
Ehrhardt asked about awnings.
McCafferty said that is completely different because awnings are soft structures and made of fabric.
Canopies are permanent structures.
Ehrhardt asked what would be allowed if a building were on a corner.
McCafferty said they could have a sign on each street side based on each frontage individually.
Chair asked if with the current ordinance, Mondos could attach a sign to the building that covers 15% of
the face of the building.
McCafferty said yes.
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
August 2, 2001
Page 5
Chair said the regulations of downtown are to encourage a certain look; lots of visual variety. He said Old
Capitol Mall could have lots of awnings and different individual signs.
Bovbjerg asked how this affects the pedestrian mall, which is a separate ordinance.
Miklo said anything that projects out over the pedestrian mall has to be approved by a design review
committee. Canopy signs would be reviewed also, but it would be less stringent.
Bovbjerg asked if canopy signs could be lighted.
McCafferty said yes.
Miklo said no signs could be moving or have moving lights.
McCafferty said they prefer signs be self-lighting rather that spot-lit, which can potentially get into drivers'
eyes.
Koppes asked if the design review committee looks at these then they wouldn't end up with an ugly sign
downtown.
Miklo said they only review projecting signs. He said projecting signs were outlawed until 1983. When
they were brought back, it was decided there should be extra scrutiny by the Design Review Committee.
Chair said the design review is limited to urban renewal.
Miklo said urban renewal projects or elements that go into the public right of way, such as sidewalk cafes.
Chair said a huge concern to him is trying to define ugly.
Koppes asked if this were not passed, would Mondos have to take the sign down.
Miklo said yes; it is a temporary permit.
McCafferty said they have had other businesses express interest in having this type of sign.
Shannon said he thinks the City is so conservative about signage when they are trying to promote
downtown. He said when he visited Times Square in New York he was amazed by the size and
creativeness of the signs.
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
August 2, 2001
Page 6
Miklo said the current sign ordinance came in the early 1980's with urban renewal as a result of concerns
about sign pollution and sign competition. He said it may be time to revisit the sign code and that can be
done with the rewriting of the Zoning Code.
Public discussion open:
There was none.
Public discussion closed.
Ehrhardt asked if a canopy has to be solid or just a frame.
McCafferty said it could be a frame or plexiglass.
Hansen asked if the canopy can be lit or is it part of the sign.
Chait asked if the canopy is addressed in the building code.
McCafferty said yes.
Miklo said architectural lighting is allowed but if a light illuminates lettering that would be considered a
sign.
MOTION: Shannon moved to approve Zoning Code, Article O, Sign Regulations, to permit Canopy
Roof Signs. Hansen seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0.
MOTION: Hansen moved to approve minutes of July 19, 2001. Chait seconded the motion. The
motion carried on a vote of 7-0.
OTHER: Ehrhardt expressed concern about the letter from Mr. Fitzpatrick regarding zoning at a fraternity.
Miklo said staff is researching the history.
Erhardt asked the staff provide the Commission with a report after they complete their research.
Chait asked what the City Council did with the Carnegie Library,
Miklo said the amendment was passed 5-1.
Koppes asked about City Council deferring annexation.
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
August 2, 2001
Page 7
Miklo said it was deferred to explore whether they could reach an agreement with the residents who are
opposed.
Chait asked about the transition of taxes for annexed residents.
Miklo said the phasing is provided for in the state code.
Chait said there concern is strictly about money.
Anciaux said he finds it interesting that they don't want to be annexed, but the minute they step off their
property they are on city streets and use city resources.
McCafferty gave information about Longfellow Historic District, Clark Street Conservation District and
Dearborn Conservation District. A public hearing will be held August 9, 2001 and then eventually will
come before the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Hansen announced movies to be shown at Wetherby Park on August 11,2001.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
Dean Shannon, Secretary
Minutes submitted by Diane Crosserr
ppdadrn/~n/p&z08*02*01 .dec