Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2002-04-02 Bd Comm minutes
MINUTES ~ HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 2002 FINAL/APPROVED MEMBERS PRESENT: Lori Bears, Christine Boyer, Amy Correia, John Deeth, April Gutting, Rick House, Kathleen Renquist, Bill Stewart STAFF PRESENT: Tracy Hightshoe, Steve Long, Steve Nasby OTHERS PRESENT: Chris Kinkead, Maryann Dennis, Charlie Eastham, Al Axeen, Jo Benson-Vorwald, Jim Kalbach, Ethel Madson, Theodore Wells, Ross Wilburn, Dana Hutton, Steve Hurst, Linda Fairchild, Jim Swaim, Marsha Acord, Jane Driskill, Harvey Miller, Connie Benton-Wolff, Gary Smith, Jack McMann, Judy Wilson, Maureen Connelly, Jennifer Miller, Scott Shook, Alaina Welsh, Bob Burns, Justine Zimmer, Mike Partridge, John Shaw, Andrew Perrington, Chrissy Canganelli, Kenneth Ratliff, Denita Gadson, Stephen Trefz, Brian Loring, Irvin Pfab Call Meetinq to Order The meeting was called to order by House at 6:30 p.m. Approval of Minutes from January 17, 2002 Renquist questioned how the Iowa City Housing Authority could be running at 108% occupied. Nasby explained that they over-issued vouchers. Some months are under 100%; some months are over, so that the yearly runs at 100%. It means that they are 108% funded, not that they are using 108% of units. Deeth moved to approve minutes, Correia seconded. Approved 6-0. Old Business 6:32 p.m. Boyer arrived. Renquist passed out memo regarding Enterprise Zone phone calls. Those she was able to speak with were very positive. Jeannie Kelsey provided some good information. She stated that the state has not set caps yet. Thus budget cuts have not come into play since projects are not yet completed. 6:34 p.m. Stewart arrived. House questioned if the zones created for these two projects were for housing. Renquist explained she thought Burch's reason to create an Enterprise Zone was more economic, to get things developed faster so the city would benefit. Kelsey's project seemed to be more of renovating an old hotel in Ft. Dodge, and similar projects like that. Since neither was in on the development of the Enterprise Zone, they gave other names for Renquist to contact. Renquist also commented that Channel 9 has been commenting on Enterprise Zones recently. Discussion Reqardinq Applications for FY03 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership Proqram (HOME) Funding Discussion on accepting written correspondence for answers or other supporting material that people bring. Corriea motioned to accept supporting material, Renquist seconds. Approved 8-0. Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes February 22, 2002 Page 2 Domestic Violence Intervention Project- Building Rehabilitation (Chris Kinkead): Kinkead hands out answers to the Staff Analysis questions. Renquist questioned why safety cameras were listed again. Kinkead explained that it was discussed last year, but not enough funding was requested. Request only covered one camera for front door and monitor that is on desk. They now request safety cameras for the other four exterior doors. Correia questioned what are currently used for window treatments. Blinds are presently used, but they are not heavy or opaque. They are requesting heavier duty and opaque this year. Renquist wondered what type of blinds. They are horizontal and solid, so more like shades. Correia wondered if building rehabilitation is currently debt free from the mortgage. The mortgage is paid. DVIP has setup a reserve fund for repair and replacement, but that reserve fund needs time to be built up. The reserve fund is not built up enough for this project, and is currently being used for smaller repairs. Renquist asked if numbers are available for people achieving self-sufficiency. That number is hard to track with shelter service. Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes February22,2002 Page 3 Domestic Violence Intervention Project- Furniture Project (Chris Kinkead): 6:43 Bears arrived. Renquist commented about summary of all furniture that was removed rather than going to landfill, as was available in the past. Kinkead stated it was not available at this time. Correia wondered if some families who received donated furniture reside outside of Iowa City. Kinkead stated that yes, there are some, however all recipients reside within Johnson County. Correia questioned if any of the other local governments have been asked to help. At this time, they have not been asked, but there are plans to do so, especially in Coralville. Boyer questioned if advertising is done for needed furniture. Kinkead replied that there is a brochure that comes out in the utility bill at least once a year, as well as brochures that are available and distributed to referring agencies. In addition, advertising is done for volunteers in the community advertiser. There has never been a problem with receiving enough useable furniture. Correia asked if the shelter usually gets money from Coralville in their budget. Kinkead answered that they do, usually around $3,000 per year. That amount has stayed the same for approximately 5 years now. Stewart asked what would happen if CDBG funds were not received. Kinkead replied that the furniture project has always been funded by CDBG. For the first few years of the project, many outside applications were made, but there was little interest. Every year applications are made for Emergency Shelter Funds, but funding just has not been available for new programs. Number of hours for program would decrease for the full-time coordinator if no funds were received from CDBG. Distribution would be affected, and there would be no time to monitor volunteers without a full-time person. Renquist questioned if the City of Coralville receives any CDBG or HOME funds. They do not as they are not an entitlement community. Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes February 22,2002 Page 4 Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship (GICHF) - Owner Occupied Housing (Maryann Dennis and Charlie Eastham): Renquist wondered what is the status of the remaining FY00 funding. The current balance is $119, 924. Money has been spent since application was written. The project in Iowa City is 78% complete, and planned to finish by June 30, 2002. That project was for Acquisition and Rehabilitation of 9 rental units, 7 of which have been acquired. Stewart asked if it is known yet where the student housing will be. That is not yet known. This year's project is currently being built. All of the Iowa City lots under $29,500 are listed in the application. Thus, there are no lots currently listed. House requested an update of the Peninsula Project. There were several delays that were out of the Greater Iowa City Housing Authority's control. There is a commitment to buy the lots on the Peninsula, however, the lots need to be build-able, and the developer must do that work. Unfodunately, the developer wasn't able to purchase the lots until last month. The lots must have streets, etc. for Greater Iowa City to be able to start building. The plan is for spring. The holdup on this project has been developer financing. Gutting wondered if there are prospective buyers at this point, or are buyers sought after the homes are built. Buyers are sought during the building process. However there has not been a delay due to a lack of buyers to date in the program. Correia wondered if the rental housing community receives information about the prospective purchases, and if they are offered early chances to buy. It is set up as first come, first serve. The rental population is given information, however the people that are in the rental program have an average income of $11,000 per year, so it would be difficult for them to purchase a home. There is an approved application for the student-built housing project of this year. Hawkeye Area Community Action Program (HACAP) - THRA Replacement Project (Al Axeen): Renquist wanted to clarify that THRA is asking for approximately $50,000 per property. That is accurate. The funding request is basically for acquisition, similar to last time. HACAP is basically looking at buying properties such as condos. They are trying to purchase the most economical properties with funds available. Procedures must be followed when using HOME funds, such as property must be vacant and for sale, with no encumbrances. July is usually best time. Stewart wondered about projects that fall into 15% HOME requirements. Nasby explained that 15% of HOME funds must go to Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDO). HACAP and GICHF qualify as CHDOs. C0rreia asked if the two mobile homes would be s01d. Axeen explained that they would be disposed of. The mobile homes have little to no value. The last mobile home sold was sold for $1.00. The seller was responsible for moving the home. If a buyer is not found they will be responsible for moving and disposal fees. The homes are older, and may not be moveable. The amount received would be negligible, but whatever amount is received would contribute to the purchase of another unit. Renquist wondered about the property where the house is located. Mercy Hospital owns the house. HACAP leases the property for $1.00 per year. The house has lead-based paint problems and other maintenance issues. HACAP will not invest the dollars necessary to repair the home as it would be costly and they do not own the property. Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes February 22,2002 Page 5 Correia questioned number of units held. There are 18 transitional housing units and 2 federal HUD grants. The 18-townhouse units are public housing units that are operated under another locally financed program. Correia wondered what the average stay for families are in the transitional housing. Probably about a year and a half, although some people will go over two years, such as for medical events or for school graduation. Correia asked about the performance goals, and what is the percentage of families who leave transitional housing to enter affordable housing. The figure is not immediately available, however Axeen recalls that there were 8 families in the last two years that moved from transitional housing to buying a house. There is a homebuyer program built in to their program. Correia asked if most people graduate from the program or ask to leave. Axeen replied that there is a very intensive weekly meeting with a social worker, and a lot of people who start out realize this is not for them, and they might be asked to leave the program. Others could receive a certificate only a year into the program and will move to a more accessible place for them. Correia question the type of lease available. The two HUD programs have a lease designed by HACAP. Hawkeye Area Community Action Program - Douglas Ct. (Al Axeen): Renquist questioned whether this house was worth purchasing. Axeen replied that it is, however it has not yet been appraised. It is expected to appraise out to about $85-90,000. Bears wondered where Douglas Ct. is located. It is in Orchard Park Subdivision, behind Paul's Discount. The house will have to be assessed, and there is one fascia board on the porch with lead paint, as well as one doorsill with lead paint. Those items would be replaced and then the house would be re-certified. Gutting asked if the cost for that work was included in the funding request. Al stated it was included in the request. Stewart questioned if HACAP would take out a private mortgage of $8,600. Axeen stated yes the HACAP corporation would take out the loan and assume the GICHF $6,000 lien. Hightshoe questioned the 30-year conditional occupancy loan. What is requested to happen at the end of 30 years? Axeen replied that the only aim is to run transitional housing. Thus, if the property were not used as transitional housing, it would revert back to the City. Pathways Adult Day Health Center- Outdoor Courtyard and Garden (Jo Benson-Vorwald and Jim Kalbach): Renquist questioned the design and construction cost for concrete removal. Benson-Vorwald explained that the whole project is based on a similar Cedar Rapids project. Specific items could be estimated, but no exact figure can be given at this time. Correia asked if all of these projects would need to be bid out. General contractor is the one who gave the estimate on the construction. With critical services, horticulture is a part of philosophy, including health care, environmental design, arts and humanity, and life on learning. Unable to pursue many of the core services with just the grant that was previously received. In 1996, Board of Supervisors looked at a one million-dollar project for Adult Day Health Care. The project is approaching one million dollars, as predicted. $75,000 in county funds was to go to the facility, as well as CDBG money. At this point, there are no county funds that will go to the facility, so the budget is extremely tight. Correia wondered how many of the 310 households are Iowa City residents. All are Johnson County residents, but a large percentage are residents of Iowa City. Approximately 20 of the 48 Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes February 22, 2002 Page 6 current padicipants are Iowa City residents. The commission questioned the enrollment figure of 310. Benson-Vorwald believed it was not an annual figure, but clients served since program operations began. She would check the figure. Gutting questioned what would happen if partial funding from CDBG were granted, and if Pathways would be able to proceed. Benson-Vorwald stated that it would limit the extension, however should be able to proceed with partial development, as it is ongoing. Correia mentioned that last year there was discussion of a campaign to raise public awareness and money. Benson-Vorwald responded that the campaign is going very well. Looking at the million-dollar project, one-third is based on campaign, one-third on CDBG funds, and the rest went to a mortgage since funding fell short. Correia wondered if some of the campaign revenue would be earmarked for this specific project. Based on the entire project, this one is above and beyond, and getting people there must be their main focus. It can be done and the horticulture project can be limited, but it's not the best design. The entire county is being targeted for the capital campaign. Correia wondered if the Pin Grant had been awarded. It has not been awarded, awards will be made this spring, but the exact date is unknown. Boyer had a question about the budget breakdown chart, and if those funds are already committed or anticipated. Benson-Vorwald stated salaries and volunteers are committed, other funds are anticipated. Event Conner Rights and Resource Center - Rehab. and Home Modifications (Ethel Madson and Theodore Wells): Renquist wanted to verify that renovations are dependent upon hiring someone. Madson replied this is accurate as taking on a project of this magnitude will require another person for managing maintenance, building, supplies, etc. Person who would work full-time. 50% of that time would be devoted to making sure this project is properly under way. Correia wondered if funding is secured for rehab in other regions. It is often done with waivers and grants, such as Medicare waivers. Correia atso wondered if there could be funding other than CDBG funds for Iowa City. Not necessarily, as some use money for wheelchairs, and there is a cap on how much they can use. Correia noticed the application stated that the project was developed from receiving five calls. Actually, there were a number of calls to find out there were 27 individual families who were in need of home or apartment modifications. The Grantwood Area Education Agency reported 22 families in need of assistance. There may be many others who are already receiving services and are in need of modifications, but who have not yet made that request. Renquist wondered if there were other resources in Iowa City. There are other programs for rehabilitation, but they are for owner-occupied housing. This service is for rentals, because landlords are not required to do this service. Correia noticed that the administrative costs are high, based on similar projects funded by CDBG in the past. Salaries are $9.00 per hour, full time. Madson stated that unfortunately less time might not be possible to do these services. The person to be hired has had extensive experience in the Quad Cities. Correia questioned how the 5 units were estimated for cost, such as ramp. Average cost of ramp can be $1,000-1,500. However, many items are bathroom renovations. Gutting out a Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes February 22, 2002 Page 7 bathroom or putting in a new shower are common requests. This project can run about $5,000. There are people who haven't been able to shower in their own apartment for 10 years because of lack of accessibility. Corriea asked if this agency provides help in finding accessible rental units. They do, but there are not enough units. Is the unit worth putting the money into accessibility? Most people who are requesting these renovations are staying in their homes or apartments for many years, so it is worthwhile. Crisis Center- Food Bank Warehouse Addition (Ross Wilbum, Dana Hutton, and Steve HursO: Boyer wondered if the architectural expenses could be donated. Wilburn understood from staff that when the projects go out, they must have bids. The center worked with an architect to get preliminary figures, and that work was pro bono. Also included figure for volunteer work for gutting out the building, as many will be used for that work. The center has a good relationship with local unions, thus they are anticipating good, skilled help from volunteers. Correia questioned the lead issue that was posed in staff analysis. Commercial facilities do not have as strict of guidelines, however lead is still a concern for other reasons. Previous contractor stated that this was not a requirement or an issue before, and does not anticipate a problem now. Correia wondered if an assessment would be required. HACAP is able to perform testing if required. As for zoning requirements, the building is currently zoned C1-1. No changes to zoning are necessary. Hightshoe asked about setbacks on the new additions from the road. Western portion of the building lands on a right-of-way, so designer is planning that so it will not be an issue. Correia wondered how many volunteers are used at the Food Bank. Hutton replied that there are 105 regular volunteers, who work anywhere from twice per week to once every two weeks. They also work with about 35 organizations that do food drives, and help with stocking shelves, cleaning, etc. Community Corrections Improvement Assn. - Youth Leadership Program (Linda Fairchild): Fairchild handed out chart on demographics of the program. Renquist wondered if this chart was in response to the Staff Analysis, however Fairchild never received the Analysis. Renquist began by asking Analysis questions. Wondered about transportation options. Transportation was provided last year, and different options are being looked at this year. During school year, enough vans were owned that allowed staff to pick people up with minimal cost to the program. The larger expense is contracting with the same bus service as the Iowa City schools use. Renquist wondered if this grant would allow more children to utilize the services. The program increases by about 40 youth every year. School counselors select the participants at the end of the students 5~h grade year. Correia asked if this grant was applied for due to loss of other funding, or to help expand current services. They would like to implement a new curriculum for a conflict management program. It would teach young people how to resolve conflicts and would have a restorative model that would have a correctional outreach, similar to a circle group where problems are worked out Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes February 22, 2002 Page 8 within the group. If this grant is not approved, they probably will not have the funding for this new program. Correia wondered if the $7,000 in the budget that is used for transportation would be used for contracting with the bus service. It would. Correia wondered how this contracting was paid for last year. Fairchild stated that she did not have that information with her. Renquist questioned how many of the youth stayed with the program through high school. Retention rate is in the Iow 60s. Correia asked how the kids are identified through the schools; if the Youth Program worked with other agencies. There is a planning committee with such regular attendees as the University of Iowa, Iowa State, occasionally the juvenile court office, United Action for Youth, and the school district. A common reason for dropping out of the program were those students had other extra-curricular activities. There has not been regular participation by the Neighborhood Center or UAY. Renquist asked if there are many volunteers used. There are not at this time, although there are hopes to recruit some interested for internships program wide. They are currently working with Cornell and Mount Mercy. Hightshoe asked if activity space is donated. Space is donated in all four communities. Volunteers from sororities or other organizations provide some programming. Correia questioned what funding currently supports the project. At this time there is funding from the state legislature. Received $10,000 from AEGON since application was written, half of which will go to the Iowa City program, and half to Cedar Rapids. They have submitted an application to General Mills and Best Buy specifically for the Iowa City program. Correia wondered how much comes from the state legislature. Fairchild answered that $100,000, of which is divided between all four programs (hoping to retain that amount this year). Gutting wondered how many youth participate. There are currently 159 in Iowa City, but when the next recruitment comes in, that figure will rise to 199. Cedar Rapids has 213 participants, Marion has 62. The Tama program works best with 6th-9th graders (not all communities work best with the same age ranges). After junior high, some may only meet once a month. There are about 32 participating youths in Tama at this point. Correia wondered about Fairchild's involvement in evaluating the program. There is an evaluation done with the parents. Parents complete a survey to inform them how they feel the program helped their teenager and whether the parents noticed any changes. This is still not completely satisfactory, and staff is evaluated as well. This year's plan, with the help of Steve Arns (Iowa Consortium of Substance Abuse) and Dick Moore (Office of Juvenile Justice, Des Moines), is to design a subset of the Iowa Youth Service that will be used for all prevention programming under CCIA. There are a lot of questions within the new survey that demonstrate leadership, so they are hoping to have it completed and ready to administer in the fall. Correia asked if the participants would complete the survey. If they are in the grade when it will be administered, they probably will. It is a lengthy document that gives information to the state about the onset of substance abuse (alcohol, marijuana, etc.). The survey addresses substance abuse as well as if the student feels connected to the community, their families, and the schools. United Action for Youth- Property Acquisition (Jim Swaim): Swaim had answers to proposed staff questions. Volunteer hours were not in the budget breakdown, but rather volunteer hours are answered in question 12. The City of Iowa is asking Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes February 22, 2002 Page 9 $558,350, or $130 per square foot. UAY is considering a purchase offer to the City of $95 per square foot, or $408,025. UAY thought it would be inappropriate to submit this offer to the City Council prior to the HCDC meeting and recommendation. Thus there is no purchase offer until it goes to HCDC first. Depending on the results of the HCDC decision, UAY might try to negotiate the difference. Correia asked for clarification on this point. Swaim serves on the library board. The library board would be upset if the Council decided something on behalf of the library that was coming before the library. Thus, it could put undue pressure on HCDC to approve their request because the City Council already agreed. The City is also considering lowering their purchase price request. Estimates from conversations with the architect on the building renovation cost range from $130-170,000 for additional finished costs, or $30-40 per square foot. Those funds would come from private and group donations or fundraisers. UAY has had preliminary discussions with contractors who have been long-time suppoders of the agency and might be willing to donate labor. Renquist wanted to verify that the $230,000 is not committed funds, but rather estimates. Swaim verified that it is an estimate. The proposed purchase offer to the City is contingent on UAY raising $200,000 within 90 days of when the City accepts the offer. The campaign has not been started. They have 10% already pledged, although a couple of major donors will have to be found. UAY has broken down the project in four phases. Phase I is the site acquisition, Phase II is to finish the space, Phase III is to move into the property, and the final Phase (Phase IV) is to reconfigure existing propedies currently owned to accommodate their programs. Bears questioned if the new building would be handicapped accessible. The site would be accessible. Correia wondered if the loan could be a conditional occupancy loan (COL). Swaim questioned the terms of a COL. Basically no repayments are necessary if UAY continues to operate the facility as a youth center by the CDBG agreement. If UAY were to sell, the amount awarded would revert back to the City. UAY's proposed loan was for a 10-year, 0% interest forgivable loan. Correia questioned if UAY was awarded funding as a COL, would UAY accept. Swaim stated yes, they would consider it. UAY is looking at this facility to meet a long-term need for space. Renquist asked if UAY would retain its other properties. Swaim confirmed that they would. Part of the task force criteria is the recommendation of the downtown location. Parking is provided, people liked the existing houses, it's the geographic center of the community, the programs would not be separated by a large distance between the facilities, and is cost-effective. This property meets all these criteria. Correia wondered about the cultural/art center and if UAY has ever explored getting Ads Iowa City money. There is a current NEA grant and they have applied for a grant with the River City Community Theatre. Part of the attempt to preserve the existing buildings is to get a cultural affairs grant. Wesley Foundation - Building Rehabilitation (Marsha Acord, Jane Driskill, and Harvey Miller): Correia questioned the expected life of the project. Miller stated that the feeling was that everything would be durable and ADA compliant. Ceramic tiles and ceramic floors will be utilized as they are more durable materials. They estimate a 10-15 year useable life. Renquist questioned if volunteers will be utilized. Driskill answered that there will be volunteers. They will have an engineer and board members volunteer their skills. Driskill and Acord would be supervising the construction and coordinating with Miller, in addition to reporting monthly to the Wesley Board. Driskill is also acting in role of engineer, and coordinating with Miller to make Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes February 22, 2002 Page 10 sure necessary materials are received and comply with safety standards. Renquist mentioned this would also apply to financial resources for time being volunteered. There have been some volunteer contributions, but will also have contractors. Acord responded to the question about the loan being requested as a depreciating loan rather than a contingency loan. The first choice would be to get a grant or depreciating loan. The restrooms are used for public service. An estimated 40,000 people per year use these facilities. They will receive a great deal of wear. Wesley wants to avoid carrying a loan on an improvement that is no longer current (or will need replacing) after 10-15 years. Unlike a building acquisition, the improvements will depreciate and will need replacement due to heavy usage. Basically they want to avoid an improvement over a 10-15 year period which has no residual value due to deterioration but the loan still has the full principal amount owed. Correia asked if the plans were pretty secure. Both the Free Lunch Program and Free Medical Clinic have no plans to leave the facility, in fact Free Medical Clinic just completed a major renovation. Elder Services, Inc. - Small Repair Program (Connie Benton-Wolfe, Gary Smith, Jack McMann, and Judy Wilson): Smith did a breakdown of some funding they've received, as well as the range of mean cost of projects. Benton-Wolfe stated that they are aggressively trying to bring additional resources into the county and surrounding areas where a lot of case management work is done. They are having some success, and are researching other sources for additional funding. Benton-Wolfe stated she is intrigued by repayment options for repairs. In her few years with the company, the board hasn't considered those options, but would like to take a look at it. They've done a lot with trying to bring in Medicaid waiver dollars for this kind of project. Correia questioned if the Medicaid waiver had been increased. Smith states that, as shown in the handout, other funds accounted for more than $4,000 of repairs in Johnson County. The other figure of $811 is what has been spent so far, but there are other committed funds for projects on hold due to weather. Some funding requires eligibility criteria, based on medical and income requirements such as below 30% of median family income. The Small Repair Program allows greater flexibility. This is not just based on financial need, but also meeting medical criteria and level of care reviewed and cleared by DHS. They try to identify eligible clients, but the pool is smaller due to newer guidelines, as mentioned. There is a case management program that is used to assist in identifying the eligible clients and getting funding for them. Benton-Wolfe added that the clientele has increased by 33%. This shows that they are identifying more seniors who fall into the very Iow-income range and having two or more problems that would be characterized as frail clients. Deeth commented that some very small projects come up frequently. Benton-Wolfe verified that, and stated that sometimes just a small amount of money makes a huge difference, in order for someone to be able to stay home safely. Smith stated that any money HCDC would grant to Elder Services would allow them to not have to jump through all the hoops. Thus, very needy, Iow-income clients can be helped with acquiring the modifications they need to stay home. This would prevent them from getting to the point of qualifying for the waiver money. Correia wondered if all the funds awarded would go to the rehab, and since it does, what funding supports the staff salaries. Most of the administrative funding comes from United Way, city aid dollars, and private donations from agencies. Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes February22,2002 Page 11 Correia noticed that it was stated that Elder Services primarily serves owner-occupied, and questioned if they can serve rentals. McMann answered that they are allowed to, but it's not done very often. However, there are many mobile homes that are served. The largest item listed, $3,000 for bathroom re-modification, is from a mobile home for somebody who needed an accessible bathroom. There is a list of contractors who are willing to serve the mobile home clients. This service helps to maintain the housing stock in the city. Smith reiterates from last year that they really seem to be able to get the most for their money from the contractors. The people do have to be lead base paint trained and have insurance. The volunteering part is usually the extra hours they put in while working on projects. People they use are always willing to fix doorknobs, fix a ramp, and Elder Services feels that they have managed to instill that everyone is doing a valuable service. Correia noticed that about half of the money that was awarded last year was only half expended, but that more money was being requested this year. Smith replied that last year there would have been a waiting list, but they received a supplement from the City, so they had two people that carried over. There are many Iow-income seniors, and they have a client list that identifies about 1,900 in Johnson County (with about 1,100 in Iowa City). Not all are Iow-income, as they serve people without regard to need, however many people are single, widowed women trying to survive. So anything that the City offers would be well spent. Benton-Wolfe added that the nutrition program was taken over by Elder Services, and there are 150 new clients on this program that potentially have nowhere else to eat. In the process now of getting social workers in the homes to satisfy those needs. Smith stated that volunteers are used, but not for the skilled work. They are from a retired senior program. Iowa City Free Medical Clinic - Case Management (Maureen Connelly and Jennifer Miller): Miller stated that the budget is broken down as basically from United Way, the county, private donations, City of Iowa City, City of Coralville, and fundraisers. That money funds the operation of the clinic in general. The Board of Directors voted to fund case management position from clinic reserves. They had originally received a grant from HCDC to start up the program in 2000 as a half time position. That was done, and it has expanded into a full time position, but there was no more funding for the past year. The Board has not voted for any further funding. Stewart questioned the amount listed for salary, and if that was for one person. Unfortunately they don't have the details on the amount. There is only one case manager, however that amount is not her salary. They tried to get the information on that figure, but were unable to find out before this meeting. A major part of the case management program is in administering a patient in need program which works with pharmaceutical programs to provide medication at no charge to Iow-income patients. But there is a lot of paperwork, including resubmitting paperwork every three months for every patient and for every drug. Renquist wondered if the figure requested is high, noting that partial funding was given last time, and asked if partial funding this year would be acceptable. Connelly stated that they have been applying to other sources. Last year they applied at Wellmark and others, but did not receive a response. They have increased their applications and are still looking at potential sources with hope. Correia noted that the application stated the case management person sees 2,600 people. That is a figure throughout the year, and the total number of visits. There are about 250 people Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes February 22, 2002 Page 12 followed by case management. One of the goals is to expand that program, as they have more patients who could benefit from more intensive service, but they are just unable to provide those services. Correia asked if volunteers are utilized with the case management program. There are several daytime clinics specifically geared to the case management and there are pharmacists, nursing students, lab technicians, and some physicians (from University Hospital and from Mercy Hospital), all of which may volunteer their time to see patients. The patients are also seen during evening clinics, which are also staffed by at least 20 volunteers per night. There could be anywhere from 250-300 volunteers staffing the clinics. Family Services - Consumer Credit Counseling (Scott Shook): Shook responded to the first question on staff analysis, stating that the extension service provides resource material and education items, but does not provide one-on-one counseling or debt management. His office does the counseling and debt management, but they do work closely with the extension office. In regards to the value that creditors give the clients who go into debt management, it's hard to say, due to each creditor being different. Some creditors will completely waive an interest rate, while others reduce the interest rate. Average client has credit card debt of around $13,126, and monthly payment is usually 2% of the balance. When not on the debt management program, the average interest rate is about 19.2%, taking 102 months to repay the debt, with a finance charge of $13,492. Through this program, the average interest rate is 11.6%, with a total finance charge of $4,894. This saves about $8,500 in finance charges, without including late fees, which can often be waived. This translates to getting out of debt in about 5 years versus 8½ years. As far as a waiting list, due to the economy, they are about six days out from taking new clients after their initial contact. If someone has a more immediate situation, the office tries to take care of what they can over the phone, including dealing with creditors, until they can come into the office. Demand has steadily increased about 15% this year, but the previous year had increased even more. Correia wondered about assessments and debt management charges. There is a charge for assessments, which is where the CDBG money helps out, because the fee is waived for Iow- income people. Correia questioned why the amount requested was put under salary, as well as how many assessments are done, and if there is a fee for debt management. Shook stated if someone had his or her fee waived or reduced for the assessment and needs to go into the debt management program, there is no additional fee. Goal for assessments is around 150 per year. Fee for assessments is $20, plus fee of $25 if moving into the debt management program. Approximately 40% of assessments enter the debt management. Stewart asked to verify if those fees are both one-time fees. Shook stated they are. BREAK Garden Prairie - Affordable Family Rental Housing (Alaina Welsh and Bob Burns): Welsh handed out written responses to Staff Analysis questions. Renquist asked about the proforma, showing return investment 16% for first 10 years, and then 2% from 11 to 20 years. Burns stated that the person to answer that question is not available. Welsh believed that it is the return on the tax credit over the first 10 years. Renquist noticed that the second page explained that. Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes February 22, 2002 Page 13 Correia wondered about the application stating that homeless families would be prioritized and how would that be accomplished, since the fair market rent is still not affordable. Housing would be provided through Section 8 vouchers. There is no other subsidy in place to cover rent. They will work with Iowa City Housing Authority and Emergency Housing Project for families that are on a list, or families with vouchers who are already trying to find a place. Renquist mentioned that sites are not identified. At the time of the application submission, there were two duplex lots available on Catskill Coud (over by eastside Hy-Vee, by Memorial Gardens), however new land is being acquired and platted all the time. Duplex lots don't stay on the market long, so this is a problem for acquiring lots for this type of project. Renquist wondered what is planned for the current land that is being developed. There are no duplex lots being developed at this time. Senior housing on the west side is already zoned for elderly (they were rezoned in 1997 for that purpose), and there is a project plan for that, so there is no available land at that site. As soon as funding is available for this project, the money will be used to acquire lots for this specific project. Preference is for scattered sites, but timing and availability depends on the market. Bears asked if Garden Prairie has been working with any banks to assist in securing a site. HOME funds would be used to secure a site, and then a bank would be used for a construction loan. Finally, a permanent loan would be utilized during operation of the project. Englert Civic Theatre - Accessibility Improvements (Justine Zimmer, Mil~e Partridge, John Shaw, and Andrew Perrington): Correia asked for responses to the Staff Analysis. Volunteer hours could not be applied to this project due to the types of renovations that are planned. Volunteers they utilize clean restrooms, but can't renovate them or install elevators. Volunteers have been used for demolition, such as in taking down walls, but construction is of course quite different. Liability concerns would be an issue as well. One prime contractor would need to be used. Renquist wondered about partial funding, perhaps in funding the restroom renovation project only. Shaw stated that would be fine, however in doing the project there would be problems if contractors are on the job for completely different projects rather than for one full plan, and this is what is meant by one prime contract. Partridge stated that accessibility is the prime consideration, and a necessity. If partial funding is granted rather than full, accessibility is high on the list of priorities. Overall, accessibility is not an option, and so money will have to be expended for that purpose. Correia stated that the purpose of CDBG funding is to benefit Iow and moderate-income households, and wondered what the benefit would be for those households in the community. Any income range could have a disability, however Partridge felt that it is appropriate to mention that folks with disabilities are disproportionately underrepresented in the population. For example, high unemployment (51% for those with disabilities in the 2000 census, ages 21-54), and therefore he felt that there is high likelihood for representation of those with Iow to moderate incomes. Long stated that for HUD purposes it is assumed that accessibility renovation projects would be benefiting persons with lower income. Correia was thinking of benefits to general population of Iow to moderate-income households, rather than only those with disabilities. Zimmer stated they plan to offer a sliding fee scale and free tickets to LMI persons. They would most likely provide a venue/facility for LMI groups that cannot afford to rent private space for activities, etc. Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes February 22, 2002 Page 14 Bears mentioned the Johnson County Coalition for Persons with Disabilities, for assistance with reviewing the accessibility project. The Evert Conner Center is another resource that has been used. Emergency Housing Project - Feasibility Study (Chrissy Canganelli): Renquist questioned the necessity of land acquisition before a feasibility study is completed. Canganelli stated that the feasibility study is for the scope of the project, to build support among the community and public relations. Emergency Housing is underdeveloped and not very well connected in the community. It is hard to sell a larger facility, increased programming, and the thought was to go through a professionally done feasibility study that would involve focus groups within the community over a long duration. This should also provide some education, advocacy, and community development. Renquist stated that it looked to her like a feasibility study would be unnecessary, as the project would already be under way. Canganelli responded that they would like to acquire the land, however they also need to have community input and support on when and how this would be implemented, as well as any changes that could be implemented. Correia noticed that it seemed the study would also be used to find private sources of funding. This is true, as well as to receive continued support and funding throughout the project. Correia wondered if fund development would be a part of the feasibility study. Canganelli stated it would be a goal of the study. Boyer wondered if there were other homeless shelters that have done these studies. There is John Lewis Coffee Shop in Davenport that just completed their study, and they strongly encouraged committing to such a study. They stated that it was a very positive aspect, due to the size of the campaign. When serving the homeless, it appears to be a very good idea to have a plan that goes through these kinds of steps, including getting members of the community to participate. Correia asked if there are any written materials that HCDC could look over. There is a report from the study, and a concept plan that came out, but Canganelii did not have it on hand. Boyer wondered if money could be spent on public service announcements or other ways of advertising to draw in the community. The problem is that those are great ideas, but there would have to be someone overlooking those plans. That would be part of the feasibility study. There is no administrative support staff for the Emergency Housing Project. Canganelli is the only administrative person. If a campaign of this magnitude were to go forward, she would want it to go very well, because the reputation of the organization could be at stake. This would likely be the most visible thing the organization would have done, so she would want to make sure it would not hurt those that are served. Correia wondered how the $27,500 amount was determined. A consulting firm that worked with John Lewis Coffee Shop gave estimates on the amount of the study. Would not necessarily go with this firm, because of course it would have to be publicly bid, but since this was a firm who had worked with a homeless shelter and knew the issues involved, they were most likely to give an accurate estimate. Emergency Housing Project- Set-Aside for Property Acquisition (Chdssy Canganelli): Renquist asked how the $350,000 figure was arrived at without the feasibility study. A new facility would be necessary to service more individuals. However, they don't know what the community would support at this point. Land in the set aside request is in a designated spot, but Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes February 22, 2002 Page 15 they don't know what it will look like or what activities will occur. By acquiring the site, better leverage would be possible for other funds, because they would have something to dedicate funding to. There is property around Southgate and Waterfront, which seems to be a reasonable possibility. Correia wondered if there was an issue of concentration of services. Canganelli stated it works to their advantage to be close to MECCA, the Crisis Center, HACAP, and Johnson County Public Health. They would not be directly next to each other, but in close enough proximity to help out. This area is friendly to commercial development, and is not at this time heavily residential. Iowa City is not an area where you can spend $30,000 and improve the neighborhood with the construction of a homeless shelter. Davenport was able to do this, by building a homeless shelter in downtown after their feasibility study, and made a big difference. However, cost of land and other issues prevent that in Iowa City. The land that Emergency Housing Project is looking at is valued at $300,000, and is currently for sale. Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes February 22,2002 Page 16 Emergency Housing Project- Deposit Assistance Program (Chrissy Canganelli): Renquist wondered about the funds awarded last year and if it was a rollover fund. Canganelli replied that it was. The portion of the security deposit that was donated by Emergency Housing will come back. A full lease period has not expired yet in order for the funds to be returned. There is still some money from last year, approximately $1,800, as there was $5,000 from CDBG and about $3,000 from a private donation. Renquist asked if there is a long waiting list. They have tried to hold that off, by limiting assistance to $100-150 per household so that it can be stretched. So at this point there is no waiting list. Renquist noticed that there have not been formal contributions from organizations in the community, but clients sometimes get money from them. For example, Trinity Episcopal Church continuously gives assistance. There is also a private donor that has been giving a continuous $100 per month for this specific project. Emergency Housing Project - Services Coordinator (Chrissy Canganelli): Gutting questioned if there are other funds secured at this point. United Way funding is unknown until March, joint state will be unknown until July. The City of Iowa City's Aid to Aid Agency has already given an increase of $4,000. As for private funds not directed, there was a fundraiser that was much more successful than anticipated. Canganelli will continue to advocate for funding from Johnson County, Iowa City, Coralville, and United Way. Securing funding is an ongoing part of the budget. Correia wondered if there is any funding from the University Hospital or the Veteran's Administration. There is not. Significant numbers of people do come through due to the care they've received at some point or that they need care from those hospitals. The most viable assistance Canganelli's seen from these options is the VA per diem grant that goes to individuals who are sheltered. The shelter would receive a per diem amount for that individual. This option would go as part of a capital campaign for the facility. There would have to be a certain amount of beds allocated/prioritized for vets, and there would have to be a policy stating that at a certain time if the bed were not used, that they could be rolled over to the next person in need. Gutting asked how many total staff people there are. Including Canganelli, there are eight. 30 people are sheltered per day, and the drop-in center services another 15-20 people. On an ongoing basis, people who are not current residents of the shelter are serviced with phone calls and crisis management. There are people who will call in the middle of the night for referral services. There is only one individual on shift during the night between 5:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., although there is a change of shifts during that time frame. Service coordinator during the day is there with program manager, and this is the first time that there have been two full-time people during the day to provide services. Eagles' Flight, Inc. - Minority Health Initiative (Kenneth Ratliff and Denita Gadson): There are no real dollar figures for volunteers included in the budget. Gadson stated that participants are asked to volunteer anywhere from 5-10 hours, as well as receiving volunteers from the College of Medicine, College of Nursing and College of Dentistry. They help to plant and work with the garden. Administrative staff includes four people who are all volunteers. There are volunteers through the hospital, including a nurse and physician, as well as the Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes February 22,2002 Page17 Colleges of Nursing and Medicine, for health development. As of yet there are no volunteers from the Department of Public Health. The program is heavily dependent on volunteers. As for the fundraisers being listed under the anticipated budget, the initiative is multi-faceted, including youth mentoring and a community garden. The fundraiser in April will be for the health development portion. Funds requested from CDBG will be specifically for the garden. Correia wondered if the youth involved in the garden are also involved in the youth mentoring program. They are, and in fact last year was the first year that funding was received for the garden. The goal at that time was to employ 15 kids. Most youth involved in the garden are also involved in the mentoring program. The goal this year will be to include more youth. For potential partners, ISU extension office has been contacted. Several health colleges are incorporated. They are also working on incorporating Public Health into the program, but that might take some time. Correia wondered if there are other programs that have been contacted, such as Project Green or Garden Club. Attempts were made last year to work with a farmer, but that didn't work out. Still looking into this. Mid-Eastern Iowa Community Mental Health - Building Rehabilitation (Stephen Trefz): Correia asked if more people would be able to be served, if a waiting list would decrease. Trefz stated the improvements are meant to create more space to see current clients. There are three people in an office now, which is small. Confidentiality issues arise due to the cramped space. They also need additional room for training. The new plan would be for two closed off, confidential areas plus three workspaces. They are currently handicapped accessible, with a ramp that is not as great to get up. The new plan would be at ground level and accessible. Renquist mentioned lead based paint problems with other facilities, and wondered about this one. Trefz stated that the facility was painted two years ago, and he suspects that there was an assessment done at that time, however he would have to investigate. Long said that, as with other projects, they would have HACAP do an assessment if required. Renquist wanted to verify that essentially two confidential areas would be the benefit of this renovation. Gutting wondered if this plan would meet zoning requirements. It would. Gutting also wondered if the clientele would increase. The numbers have remained fairly constant, however the complexity and severity of the issues have increased. Correia asked what that could be attributed to. Trefz responded that it is likely due to the economy, the outreach work they do, including going to schools. Any kid who comes to the mental health center does not come alone, and that adds to the complexity. They also work with parents with persistent serious mental illness and their children. Correia questioned the 2,140 number for persons/households served and if they are all from Iowa City. Trefz stated there are 180 homeless clients. There are over 500 people with diagnosed chronic mental illness that at any time could be imminently homeless. Actual enrollment in the program is 188. The new area would probably serve approximately 500 of their current clients. This would assist efficiency for staff time, as well as providing the training space. Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes February22,2002 Page 18 Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County - Building Rehabilitation for Child Care (Brian Loring): Staff Analysis questioned how the cost estimates were completed. Loring answered that there were bids on items listed in the project. He does not have the specific information with him, however it could be provided separately. Was not yet compiled at the time of the application submission. There are likely to always be other funding available, however not necessarily amenable to their mission and goal. If they are unsuccessful with CDBG, they will have to look at other sources. He can only think of one other source, Variety Club that would be possible. Their application is not due until June, with funding unavailable until September of 2003. As for problems with current playgrounds, there are serious drainage problems at the Broadway location, which will require retention walls to be installed. Nothing has really been done to the Broadway playground in about four years, so it is in need of updating. Pheasant Ridge needs a new sidewalk to the playground. The windows in Pheasant Ridge were speced for the construction, however they were very poor quality and had only a one-year warranty. The building was a significant project and the windows were overlooked in the process. Water is leaking in around the edges and they're rotting. Four or the five windows are about ready to fall out of the sills. Tried to work something out with the general contractor, but that is not going anywhere as the one-year warranty has expired. The manufacturer went out of business shortly after the building was built. Plywood was in one window for about eight months because there was no replacement. Just made a swap with another window. Playground mulch, fence and shade requested, but playground fencing at Pheasant Ridge is for infant play area, and is not adequate size, as well as quality issues. They would like to expand that area, and replace the fencing around all of Broadway for improvement as well as for security issues raised by the police department. Reimbursement rates for Neighborhood Centers versus private shows an average of infants at $496 for the Center, $600-750 is the private per month rate. Toddlers and preschoolers average $420 for the Center. Private per month rate is between $400-700. Typically at a private center payments are made up front and you pay for holidays, sick time, etc. Payments at the Centers are never are made up front, and in fact can sometimes have contracts that aren't paid for a month or two. It's not uncommon for the contracts to not even come through, and they've even done up to six months of care for children that they've never been paid for. Rates are Iow and methods of payment are not prompt, so resources are used up to the detriment of other possible uses of those funds. Loring is unsure if voluntary contributions are included in the budget, and how. Extensive use has been made of volunteers, but some work must be done with private contractors. A lot depends on the type of job. The loan is requested to be forgiven at the end of 15 years. The FY02 award has not been spent to date. Only $3,433 has been expended as of 12/31/01. Since December, tile and flooring have been installed and paid for. This spring, construction will begin for all outside work. They anticipate using all the funds before the end of the fiscal year. Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes February 22, 2002 Page 19 New Business March 1 is the date the ranking sheets are due, however they will be accepted on Monday, the 4th , tO have the weekend to complete the sheets. There will be a meeting on March 14 to discuss the ranking and consensus for allocations. The funding scenario will be done in thirds; high, medium, and Iow. Gutting thanked the staff for the reports. All agreed that they were very nice and easy to follow. Nasby stated that the Analysis was done at HCDC's request and did not provide recommendations as concerns were raised during the review of the projects. Last year pros and cons were completed and provided to HCDC members. Much of this information was incorporated into the Staff Analysis of this year. Nasby asked if HCDC requested a funding breakdown recommendation. HCDC stated it would not be necessary, they will provide the recommendations for funding. Renquist reminded members that there is only 1.066 million available for award. Only $40,500 was available to fund the public service category. Stewart stated that the pie chart breaks down exactly what must be done. Nasby stated that the categories are flexible except for public services, which has a maximum allowable funding amount. All other things can shift. Correia wondered if an application seems to be more appropriate for the Economic Development Committee, when should that be proposed. It would be proposed in the funding meeting. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. t: sharedJhcd~hcdcO2-20-O2.doc MINUTES IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2002 - 5:00 P.M. FINAL/APPROVED CIVIC CENTER - COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Eric Gidal, Mike Paul, Vince Maurer, T.J. Brandt, Dennis Keitel MEMBERS ABSENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: Karen Howard, Mitch Behr OTHERS PRESENT: Dennis Mitchell, Greg Allen, Chuck Meardon, Tim Walker, Ann Freerks, Pam Erhardt, Cecile Kuenzli, Jerry Hansen CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Brandt called the meeting to order at 5:01 P.M. ROLL CALL: Maurer, Paul, Brandt and Keitel and Gidal present. CONSIDERATION OF THE JANUARY 9, 2002 BOARD MINUTES: Paul noted an error on page 2, first paragraph, wherein "by prohibited" should state "be prohibited". Keitel noted that on page 12, there is a blank near the bottom of the page. Howard stated that it should be "structure". Motion: Paul moved to approve the January 9, 2001 minutes as amended, Keitel seconded. Motion carried 5-0. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: Appeal. Discussion of an appeal of the City of Iowa City's interpretation and enforcement of City Code Section 14-D-7C(3) and 14-6D-9C(7) submitted by Tas Properties regarding whether rooming house uses may be established or expanded on properties located in the RNC-20, Neighborhood Conservation Zone, and RNC-12, Neighborhood Conservation Zone, at 619 Burlington Street and 403 S. Lucas Street, respectively. In response to a question from Paul, Dennis Mitchell stated that he had passed out two documents to the Board before the meeting started. Mitchell stated that he wanted to note that the zoning for the property at 403 S. Lucas Street is actually RM-12. Behr corrected that the property is currently zoned RNC-12 and that the location map shows the current zoning of the properties. Howard clarified that at the time the original building permits were submitted, the zoning on 403 Lucas Street was RM-12. The staff report bases the analysis on the zoning that was in place when the building permits were requested. She said that subsequently, the area was downzoned to RNC-12, but that is an issue that should be considered separately from the specific decision appealed by the applicant. She said the Board needs to keep in mind what was in force at the time the building permits were submitted. Howard stated that on March 10, 2000, Tas Properties applied for a building permit to expand a rooming house at 403 Lucas St. She said that the zoning at the time was RM-12. She stated that the lot size is 9,540 sq. ft., and the size of the existing structure is 2,179 sq. ft., according to the assessor's website. She said the law that applies in this case is that rooming houses are permitted in the RM-12 zone provided that the total floor area shall not exceed 330 sq. ft. for each 2,725 sq. ft. of lot area, and there shall be at least 100 sq. ft. of floor area for each roomer. Howard said this standard was adopted in 1981, and is a means to control the density by controlling where rooming houses could be located based on the size of the lot. She said that when the applicant Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes February 13, 2002 Page 2 applied for a building permit, the senior building inspector applied the law as stated in the zoning code. Applying the zoning code formula, he determined that the existing lot size permits a rooming house that is 1,155 sq. ft. in area or less. She said if there is a structure on the lot that is larger, a rooming house is not permitted. She said that since the existing house is 2,179 sq. ft., the existing lot size does not support the existing structure as a rooming house. Therefore, she said the permit to expand an existing non- conforming rooming house was denied. Howard said that on March 13, 2000, Tas Properties applied for a building permit to establish a rooming house at 619 E. Burlington St., a new use. She said the zoning was RNC-20. She said the lot size is 6,750 sq. ft. and the size of the existing structure is 1,360 sq. ft. She said the rule is a little different in RNC-20 zone, providing that the total floor area shall not exceed 330 sq. ft. for each 1,800 sq. ft. of lot area. She said that this was intended to be equivalent to what was permitted for multi-family uses, one unit per 1,800 sq. ft. of lot area. Howard stated that the senior building inspector applied the facts, using the formula, and found that the existing lot size does not support the existing structure as a rooming house. She said rooming houses are provisional uses in that zone, meaning they have to comply with the standard as written in the Code. Howard said the Board needs to determine the answers to several questions. First, what is being appealed? She said the appellant is arguing that the building permits were denied in error because the senior building inspector should have relied on a Zoning Code Interpretation Panel (ZCIP) opinion that was issued in 1983 rather than the plain reading of the Zoning Code text. Howard stated that secondly, the Board needs to determine if the City made an error in applying the law. She stated that the law has not changed since 1981, and the standard is clear and objective. She said the 1983 ZCIP panel ignored the plain wording of the Zoning text when they issued their opinion and used the formula only as a means of determining occupancy of a rooming house, not as a means of determining whether a rooming house is permitted in the first place, as the Zoning text clearly states. She said that any question of whether the law is a good one or not is irrelevant to these proceedings; this would be a question for the Planning & Zoning Commission and the City Council. Howard said that ZCIP opinions are issued at the time a question comes up about interpretation of the Code. She said they are used as a guide to making decisions, and while it may be true that housing inspectors used the 1983 ZCIP opinion as a guide to determining occupancy load for existing rooming houses and it may have been used over several years following 1983, if it was an incorrect application of the Code as it is written, it should not be perpetuated. She said that the 1983 ZCIP overstepped their authority in essentially amending the Code by their opinion; they did not have that authority. Howard stated that the Senior Building Inspector who was charged with issuing building permits in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance reviewed the Zoning Ordinance, applied the formula and was relying on the plain reading of the text at the time the subject applications were received. She stated that the senior housing inspector requested a ZCIP opinion to clarify the permissibility of rooming houses with regard to the Zoning Code, perhaps because he had been at the City long enough to remember the 1983 opinion. She said a new ZCIP opinion was issued after the panel met to determine what the plain reading of the Code was, which confirms that the plain reading of the Zoning Code text should stand and that the 1983 panel overstepped their authority. She said this opinion states that the density requirement should be applied consistently between all properties, and that properties that have existing structures should not be treated any differently than new rooming houses that have yet to be built. Howard clarified that the City Council is the only body that has the authority to amend the Zoning Ordinance. Howard said that staff concludes from the facts that the various ZCIP opinions should be distinguished from the law itself and the law has not changed since 1981. Secondly, that the wording of the Zoning Ordinance is clear and objective and the standards must be met if a rooming house is to be permitted in the RM-12 or RNC-20 zones. Thirdly, the City staff correctly applied the law as written to the particulars of the properties at 403 Lucas Street and 619 Burlington Street when reviewing requests for building permits; and finally, that the existing law does not grant special rights to certain property owners merely Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes February 13, 2002 Page 3 due to the fact that a structure already exists on a property. Howard stated that therefore, the staff recommends that the Board deny the appeal. In response to a question from Maurer, Howard clarified that 619 Burlington St. would be conversion of apartments to a rooming house, not new construction. Public Hearinq Opened Dennis Mitchell appeared on behalf of the applicant. Mitchell referred to the 1981 ordinance referenced as 81-3035. He said that each of the RNC-20 and RNC-12 zones have calculations that are separate but similar, depending on the size of the lot area. Mitchell referred to several different decisions by the ZCIP in 1983, and said that the appellant feels that there was ambiguity with regard to the enforcement of this particular ordinance with respect to existing buildings. Mitchell said that in 1983, the ZCIP found that the calculation was fine for determining the number of occupants, but that it would make no difference what the exact square footage of the existing house was so long as you had the required minimum square feet. He presented his calculation on the property at 619 Burlington St. showing that the current lot contains 6,750 sq. ft. He said that under the ordinance as calculated, you can have a rooming house that is 1,237.5 sq. ft. He said that the City calculated the existing building as 1,360 sq. ft., and therefore not allowable, meaning that you could not have the same number of roomers living in the larger building. He said that in 1983, the ZCIP decided that, in situations with an existing building, it was their opinion that it was not enforceable or made sense, to say that if you have 5 people that can live in a particular structure, it makes no difference whether you have 1,237 sq. ft. or 1,360 sq. ft. Mitchell stated that it is their position that, reading what has occurred since that time, they feel this interpretation has been followed since 1983 and uniformly enforced up until the time these applications were denied in March 2000. Mitchell referred to a letter from Ron Boose, which he handed out to the Board prior to the meeting, who was the senior building inspector in 1997 and handled an application on a property located at 716 N. Dubuque St. He said that this property involved a fraternity house that was converted to a rooming house. He said that the City relied on the 1983 ZCIP decision in order to reach a decision to allow this property to be converted to a rooming house. He said this property was zoned RM-44, which permits a rooming house equal to 330 sq. ft. for each 1,000 sq. ft. of lot area. He said the lot is 6,500 sq. ft., which is similar to the properties at issue in the appellant's case. He said that if you use the City's literal calculation used in March of 2000, there would be a determination that this house could have been 2,145 sq. ft., and that property, in fact, has 7,200 sq. ft. Mitchell said that the statute requires at least 100 sq. ft. for each roomer. He said that in this particular property, the rooming house was allowed to be established with 21 roomers, despite the fact that if you used the City's 2000 calculation, there is no way the structure could have been permissibly allowed to be converted to a rooming house. Mitchell stated that Boose's memo was copied to the Planning Dept. and to the Director of Housing & Inspection Services, and that he believes this property came up before the City Council with additional parking issues. Mitchell said that, therefore, it seems clear that this ordinance was, in fact, interpreted consistently with the 1983 ZCIP opinion until March of 2000. He said they agree with the City's position that the ordinance needs to be interpreted consistently. He said the problem is, if you go back now and accept that the 1983 decision was illegal and contrary to the Code, then any building permits issued involving the 1983 opinion would not be validly issued. Mitchell referred to a second document he handed out prior to the meeting, which sets out case law with respect to interpreting ordinances which are deemed to be ambiguous, or at least in interpreting ordinances. He directed the Board to the third paragraph at the bottom of the first page, and said that the Iowa Supreme Court has stated that ordinances are to be strictly construed in favor of the free use of property. He said the applicant feels there was a rational basis for the 1983 ZClP opinion; there clearly was ambiguity with how this was to be enforced with regard to existing buildings, and the applicant feels the decision by the ZClP was clearly within the bounds of the plain language of the statute. Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes February 13, 2002 Page 4 Mitchell said that, at a minimum, the 1983 ZCIP decision should have been relied on with regard to determining whether the two properties at issue in this case should have been approved or denied. He said that it was not until after the decision was made to deny the applications that the ZCIP interpretation was changed. He said that it is the position of the applicant that if the City is going to change the interpretation of the ordinance, that should be prospective rather than retroactively enforcing it against these properties. Mitchell said that as part of their notice of appeal, there is an e-mail from Gary Klinefelter, the then-senior housing inspector, which he believes supports his belief that the City had been enforcing the 1983 ZCIP decision consistently up to the time the City denied these applications. Mitchell said that if you interpret the ordinances at issue in this case the way the City is doing it, in order for the existing building at 619 Burlington to be permissible you would have to have a lot that is much larger than the existing lot. He said that the City's interpretation of the ordinance simply makes it almost impossible to follow. Mitchell said that the applicant does not feel that the way the ordinance is currently being interpreted is reasonably related to controlling density. He said it shouldn't matter whether you have 1200 sq. ft. or 2000 sq. ft. for the same number of roomers to live. Mitchell said that, in summary they believe: 1) there was ambiguity with regard to the ordinance as evidenced by the 1983 ZCIP decisions, which were used consistently by the City in enforcing the ordinance up until 2000; and 2) the ordinance in its entirety, regarding the way it is being enforced in this particular case, is not rational in controlling density. Greg Allen identified himself as an owner of Tas Properties. He said that when he bought the house on Lucas St., he talked to Gary Klinefelter, the senior housing inspector at the time, and asked him what the best thing to do with the house was because the previous owners had had a multitude of problems over the years. He said that Klinefelter's advice was to change the property from a duplex to a rooming house. Allen said he then submitted a plan to do the work the Board of Appeals had requested and turn this property into a rooming house. Allen said that the statute, which is confusing, appears to say that you need this much lot for the existing house. He said that it also says it needs at least 100 sq. ft. per roomer, where the City is now reading it to say you can only have 100 sq. ft. per roomer. Allen said he asked Klinefelter for an opinion, and was told that the ordinance was used to determine occupancy for the lot. He said Klinefelter told him the required amount you need is 6,000 sq. ft., and in the zoning book it has says the requirement for duplex and other uses is 6,000 sq. ft. Allen said he began drawing the plans, and determined that the property on Burlington St. was going to take considerable time, so he checked with the building department and was assured that this statute was only used to determine the occupancy of the lot, not the size of the house, and he only needs 6,000 sq. ft., which he has on both lots. Allen said he submitted the plans with the thought that he could correct the problem and make changes. Allen said that now the City is trying to use the statute to be consistent with what is already in place. He said that the lot on Lucas St. is legal for a 3-plex of four bedrooms, which would put 12 people in there. He said that if you use the formula for a rooming house, you can put 11 people in there. He said that the ordinance consistently allows just a little bit less density than a duplex, three-plex, etc. Allen said that if you read the ordinance literally, the house has to be 1100 sq. ft. but is legal for 11 people. He said that the literal reading means that 11 people cannot live in a 2,900 sq. ft. house, but have to live in an 1100 sq. ft. house, with 100 sq. ft. per person maximum. Allen said that this interpretation is erroneous. Allen said that the paperwork on rooming house conversions only goes back about 5 years, so this interpretation by the City is going to cause problems for years. Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes February 13, 2002 Page 5 Allen said that in the RM-12 zone, all usages allow coverage on a lot of 50%, and the City was allowing that coverage for rooming houses until the decisions of March 2000. He said that now you have to have an ungodly large lot to have a rooming house, because the City is using this formula to determine house size instead of density. He said that this makes a house size so small that a two-story house with basement has a maximum legal lot coverage of 4%. Tim Walker said he lives in a mixed-use neighborhood and is an occupying homeowner. He said that he owns a home on a lot so small that if his house burned down, it would be illegal to rebuild on the lot, so there are strange lot laws on the books. He clarified that the Code states at least 100 sq. ft. of floor area per roomer, which limits the number of roomers in the house. But he said there is nothing in the Code that says you have to occupy a dwelling up to the maximum; it is a limit, not a requirement. Walker said that, as an occupying homeowner in a mixed-use neighborhood, they are paying for their own house. He said they need to live in these neighborhoods, need to send kids to school rested, need invest in the upkeep of the property so they can resell at a faidy appreciated value. He said this is a property right, and if ordinances were strictly enforced to allow free use of property, being able to rest in your property and being able to have it appreciate along with the economy are important free uses. Walker said that free use is challenged by high-density uses like rooming houses that overload our neighborhoods with cars, people, noise, and the reduction of appreciation of properties. Walker said they have lost occupying homeowners in his neighborhood because of really densely occupied properties. Walker said that allowing these properties to become rooming houses would add to the dangerous precedent set in the murky 1983 opinion and in Gary Klinefelter's e-mail. He said that the fact that Gary Klinefelter, whose wife owned a number of rental properties, was on the staff of City Housing Inspection Services decreases our faith in that office, and is a gross conflict of interest. Walker said it is not too late to begin consistent enforcement of the City Code and to protect the property rights at a neighborhood level. Ann Freerks said she lives on Governor Street, another mixed-use neighborhood. She urged the Board to deny the requests for the variances. She said that what we are really talking about is increasing density. She said there are many problems associated with overcrowding and over-occupancy, and rooming houses are most often associated with these problems. Freerks stated that a year ago the City Council voted unanimously to downzone an area which includes one of the subject properties in an effort to stabilize and maintain the neighborhood. She said this new zoning does not allow for any additional rooming houses; the Council seemed to understand the need to control density and strike balance in our older neighborhoods. She said denying the appeal does not cause hardship for Mr. Allen; he can continue to make a profit with the properties as they are and not further erode the surrounding neighborhood. Freerks said that rooming houses very often have a negative impact upon surrounding properties. She said a decision to grant the appeal has the potential to open the gates to more exceptions to the written law. She said rooming houses are provisional uses in both the RM-12 zone and the RNC-20 zone, and therefore are not permitted unless the specific standards stated in the Zoning Code are met. She said the most important points are clearly that the ordinance is not ambiguous; the applicant's request for a variance has no standing. She said the Lucas St. property is already a non-conforming use, and a non- conforming use cannot be expanded. Freerks said the 1983 ZClP opinion tried to amend the Zoning Ordinance without going through the legislative process. She said only the City Council has the authority to amend the City's ordinances. She said the more recent March 2000 ZClP opinion clarifies that both new and existing structures are treated the same with regard to the density formula for rooming houses. Freerks said that the ZClP decision of 1983 was not the law; the law has not changed since 1981 and it is clear that the City did not err in denying the permit. Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes February 13, 2002 Page 6 Pam Erhardt, from the Longfellow Neighborhood, urged the Board to deny this appeal. She said it seems clear the law has been applied correctly, and if the law is not working well, there are other mechanisms to change that law and this is not the place. Erhardt questioned the motivation of the appeal. She said that the argument that they want to provide more space for the same number of roomers makes her wonder. She said that the applicant does not have a good track record in the neighborhood for responding to complaints, upkeep property, and taking measures to avoid violations of over-occupancy. She said that Gary Klinefelter repeatedly told their neighborhood when they complained of over-occupancy that it is virtually impossible to identify and prosecute it. Cecile Kuenzli, president of the Longfellow Neighborhood Association, said that much of the work of the neighborhood association for the past 10 years has been to promote families, and invest in property. She said that City rules should be interpreted in such a way that makes that possible. She said the City law is clear, and the applicant seems to be basing his appeal on the erroneous 1983 ZCIP interpretation. Jerry Hansen, 1237 Burns Avenue, said that interpretations should not take precedence over the law. He said that to take Mr. Allen's analogy that if you have a 2,000 sq. ft. place and the law says you can only have 1,000, you should allow as many people to live in it as possible, goes right to the heart of the over- occupancy problems in this town. He said that with regard to the timeliness of the appeal, this appeal should have come up at least a year ago, if not sooner. Howard stated that Tim Hennes, the Senior Building Inspector, is present if the Board wants any points clarified regarding the building permits process. Howard said that, regarding the applicant's claim that the ordinance needs to have some rational basis, some of the attachments provided to the Board include a memo from the Planning Director in 1983 pointing out some of the problems with the 1983 ZCIP opinion and the fact that there was some rational basis for restricting the size of the structure when it came to rooming houses because of problems with enforcing occupancy due to the fluid nature of rooming units versus apartments. There is a tendency to occupy rooming houses with as many people as is comfortable, regardless of any density formula, so with large structures there is more of a tendency toward over-occupancy. Howard said that when the ordinance was amended in 1981, the staff recommendation to the City Council indicated that structure size should be limited in a rooming house based on the size of the lot. She said the ordinance itself mentions that there is some rational basis for regulating the size of the structure based on the size of the lot, and the Planning Director pointed out that the 1983 ZCIP opinion opened up a Pandora's Box with regard to how big a structure you could have. Howard said that with regard to applying the formula consistently, it would be the same for a new rooming house as it would be for an existing house. Behr stated that because the Board does not regularly deal with ZCIP opinions, he wanted to clarify that when the applications were submitted, the City official's role was to apply the ordinances. He said it was not the official's responsibility to rely upon or refer to a prior ZCIP opinion. In response to a question from Paul, Behr stated that a ZCIP panel is asked to interpret a section of the ordinance, and their decision goes into a file of ZCIP decisions. He said these decisions do provide guidance, but are not binding upon a City official in making a decision on an application. Chuck Meardon identified himself as counsel for Tas Properties. He said that the premise in the City's argument tonight is that the ordinance is clear. However, he said that if it really is that clear, there would not be three ZCIP decisions trying to give guidance on that language. He reiterated that the appellant feels the ordinances need to be construed in favor of the free use of property. Public Hearinq Closed Findinqs of Fact Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes February 13, 2002 Page 7' Paul stated that he noticed Mr. Hermes in the audience, and said that they are distantly related but that he does not feel that will affect his judgment in this case. Meardon said that this factor makes no difference to the applicant. Motion: Paul moved to approve the appeal of the City of Iowa City's interpretation and enforcement of City Code Section 14-D-7C(3) and 14-6D-9C(7) submitted by Tas Properties regarding whether rooming house uses may be established or expanded on properties located in the RNC-20, Neighborhood Conservation Zone, and RNC-12, Neighborhood Conservation Zone, at 6'19 Burlington Street and 403 S. Lucas Street, respectively. The motion was seconded by Gidal. Behr clarified that voting in the affirmative on the motion would grant the appeal, overturning the City's determination. He said that any such motion would be to overturn the denial of the permit, but that any subsequent permit would have to be "otherwise eligible", and would have to meet any and all other requirements. He said the matter before the Board is simply the denial on the basis of the ordinances before the Board. Paul stated that he agrees in a lot of ways with the Gary Klinefelter memo, and feels the formula in the Code is flawed and convoluted, which makes it hard to enforce as a City staff person. However, he said that rooming houses are a provisional use and are not permitted unless specific standards are met. He stated that his opinion is the interpretations issued by the ZCIP are not as important as the law as it applies to the current case. He said they have to rely on the law and what the Code says, and not what the interpretation panel came up with. Paul said the law cannot be changed by the Board of Adjustment, but only by the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council. He said that as the law is stated now, the appellant has not met the specific standards as stated in the Code, and his conclusion is the City staff applied the law correctly in this situation. Paul said he would vote against the motion. Gidal said that he feels both the ordinance, in its purpose, as well as the Zoning Code are very clear. He said the 1983 interpretation talks about a literal interpretation that would suggest that for every 330 sq. ft. of total floor area in an existing residence, the required amount of lot area must be provided, and they then find the literal interpretation illogical and impractical. Gidal said the issue does not seem to be a question of free use of property, since they are talking about two potential ways of applying a zoning code, either of which would limit the free use. He said the issue seems to be one of density, since the discussion includes expanding the number of rooms and converting from an apartment to a rooming house. Gidal said he would vote to deny. Maurer said that he agrees with the reasons stated by his colleagues, and he would vote to deny the appeal. Keitel stated that the standards by which the Board is to consider appeals and decisions for special exceptions include the interest of justice and a complete set of guidelines. He said that the argument regarding free use of property does not apply to this case. He said he would not try to interpret the intent of the ZCIP decision which is not law, so he will vote to deny the appeal. Brandt stated he concurs with his colleagues, because the issue before the Board is whether the building official followed the law the way it was written. He said there are a lot of laws that leave a lot of room for interpretation, and the Board is faced with the situation that everyone has opinions on how to interpret the stated laws and ordinances which were placed in front of them. He said he agrees that the law may need to be looked at, but this Board is not the place to try to change the law to get rid of any ambiguity and interpretation by individuals in the building department or City staff. Therefore, Brandt stated that he believes it is not within the power of the Board to do anything other than take the law as it is written and abide by that law. Brandt said he would vote to deny the appeal. The motion failed on a vote of 5-0. Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes February 13, 2002 Page 8 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, March 13, 2002. In response to a query from the Board last month regarding whether Budget Rent-A-Car had complied with the Board's decision on property on Riverside Drive, Howard had the building department check into that, and she included in the Board's packet letters from Julie Tallman to the applicant that address the requirements for landscaping. She said the applicant has not complied with the conditions, but she believes Julie Tallman is working with them to meet compliance. She asked the Board to read the correspondence and let her know if they had further questions. Howard said that this chamber will be used by the City Council during the regularly scheduled meeting in April. She suggested that the Board meet on Tuesday, April 9~ at 5:00 p.m. The Board concurred. Howard asked if the Board would like to take on as an item at the next Board meeting the issue of timeliness of appeals. She said that the Board could amend its Bylaws to specify a time for reasonable appeal. Behr said that the Bylaws would then be approved by City Council. Behr advised that the Board has the power to make this determination, and they can state that any appeal must be made within "x" number of days of the determination being appealed from. He said the actual time would run from the time the person aggrieved has actual notice of the determination. He advised that there is merit in setting a time frame. Paul asked that Behr draft something for the Board's review at a later meeting. ADJOURNMENT Maurer moved to adjourn, seconded by Paul. The meeting adjourned at 6:29 PM. Board Chairperson Board Secretary Minutes submitted by Neana Saylor t: shared/pcdlm[nutes/boa02- ~ 3 ~2 d cc MINUTES FINAL/APPROVED IOWA CITY BOARD OF APPEALS MONDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2002, 4:30 P.M. CIVIC CENTER LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Fehr, Gary Haman, Anna Buss, Wayne Maas, Doug DuCharme STAFF PRESENT: Tim Hennes (Sr. Building Inspector), Pat Hansen (Electrical Inspector), Loren Brumm (Building Inspector), Roger densen (Fire Marshal[), Sue Dulek (Asst. City Attorney), dann Ream (Code Enforcement Asst. acting as minute taker) OTHERS PRESENT: Kevin Perez, Gerry Ambrose, Kevin Digman (Monkey House - Sycamore Mall) Dwight Doberstein, Scott Palmburg (Neumann Monson Architects -Monkey House) Glenn Siders, Jim Walker (Southgate Development) Pat Moore (Advanced Electric) RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: None MOTION: Wayne Maas moved that Doug DuCharme be acting chairperson for the meeting. Haman seconded. Motion passed unopposed. GALL TO ORDER: Acting Chairperson DuCharme called the meeting to order at 4:37 P.M. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES: Minutes from the January 22, 2002 meeting were reviewed. MOTION: Maas moved to approve the minutes. Fehr seconded. Motion passed unopposed. Appeal of the Buildinq Inspector's interpretation of the Buildinq Code (1600 Sycamore Street -The Monkey House/ Scott Palmburg (Neumann Monson Architects) passed out a packet which had copies of the floor plan for Monkey House showing the 3 main areas of the business: restaurant, video arcade area and play area. The Building Inspector considered each of these areas as a principal use when figuring the occupant Icad. Occupant Icad determines the required fixture count for the bathrooms. Palmburg's packet also showed the calculations of occupant Icad - both the City's calculations and the architect's calculations. He explained that the proposal before the Board was to designate the play area and the video arcade area as accessory uses (per Section 1003.2.2.2.1 of the 1997 UBC -Areas to be included) which would effectively lower the occupant Icad to 309 and therefore lower the required fixture count. He explained that the facility currently has 4 fixtures for both the men's and women's bathrooms which would be adequate for an occupant Icad of 600 for a restaurant that does not serve alcohot. Palmburg also explained that currently, according to the City's interpretation of determining the occupant Icad, 5 fixtures need to be added - either to the Monkey House itself or 5 fixtures dedicated to the Monkey House from the mall area fixture bank. Actual occupant counts were presented showing an average occupant count of 315 per day over the ten hours the business is open. Haman asked if the business was serving alcohol. Perez stated that because of the lease of Diamond Dave's which has a liquor exclusive at Sycamore Mall, they are not serving alcohol at this time. He stated that he had a liquor license and served beer for few days and then had to stop. Ambrose stated that they were asking the Board to consider the proposal for a restaurant that does not serve alcohol. Henries stated that the matter before the Board was not really a reduction of the fixture count but rather if the play area and video arcade area could be considered as accessory uses. He explained that it has been the policy of the building inspector when reviewing plans to look at the use of each area and figure the occupant Icad of each area separately. All of the occupant loads added together become the total occupant Icad of the building or tenant space. As an example of how Section 1003.2.2.2.1 had been applied in the past, he explained that a conference room in an office building could be considered accessory since the occupants would either be in the office area or the conference room. They would not be occupied at the same time. When a floor plan is presented to a plan reviewer that shows equal space devoted to the dining area, play area and video arcade area such as the Monkey House, those areas are given equal consideration with their own occupant Icad calculation. Perez explained that usually people come in and dump their coats and shoes on the dining tables and then go to the play area or video arcade area. He presented a short video showing the Monkey House in use on a Saturday afternoon. He said that in reality no more than 300 people could actually physically fit into the business. Hennes stated that from Perez's comments and the video tape it seemed more like the restaurant was accessory to the play area and video arcade area. Dulek reiterated that what needed to be determined per Section 1003.2.2.2.1 was if the play area and video arcade area (proposed accessory areas) were ordinarily used only by those persons who occupy the main area (dining area). Ambrose stated that that was the case. Hennes stated that if the play area and video arcade area were considered accessory, then the maximum occupant Icad would be determined only from the dining area and party rooms which would be 225 - and therefore 225 would be the maximum occupant Icad of the premises. Digman asked if the Board could just make an exception and lower the occupant Icad down to 600. Ambrose reminded the Board that the public restrooms in the mall were available as well. Hennes reminded the meeting again that the question before the Board was not the fixture count but if the play areas and video arcade area were accessory uses. Ambrose requested that the Board make a special exception and simply designate the appropriate occupant Icad to suppod the current fixture count. Buss asked if the original plans did not show this problem. Henries explained that the original plans did not show the play area and video arcade area. These spaces were shown as vacant on the original plans so they could get a permit to start on the project before the special exception was approved by the Board of Adjustments to allow the commercial recreational use in a CC- 2 zone. They were told to submit revised plans which did not occur until after the final inspection. It was determined at that time that the fixture count was not adequate for the occupant Icad. Hennes stated that the Monkey House could count fixtures in the mall area toward their fixture count but what was required was a designation from mall management showing how that would correspond with future tenant use and the required fixtures for those uses. Discussion occurred concerning the age of customers and who is allowed in without their parents. Doberstein stated that because there is no real definition of what the Monkey House is in the UBC, a problem was created in determining occupant Icad. The way the business is working, they consider the play area and arcade area as accessory to the restaurant. So the request was to officially designate these areas as accessory so the occupant load could be reduced enough to allow the fixture count to be adequate. Haman said that if just the play area was considered accessory that would lower the occupant load enough to make existing fixture count sufficient. MOTION: Maas moved that the play area only be considered an accessory use to the restaurant thus effectively lowering the occupant load. Haman seconded. VOTE: Motion passed unopposed 5-0. Request for use of alternate materials or methods of construction - Section 709.5 Nonsymmetrical Wail Construction and Section 1004.2.4 Separations of exits or exit- access doorways. (Harlocke Street) Hennes explained the Board has addressed the non -symmetrical issue at least two times before. In those instances, the 2000 iBC has been applied to allow for the non symmetrical wall construction. Hennes stated that this case was the same. The other issue is that in the 2000 IBC in a fully sprinklered building the exit separation is reduced to 1/3 of the diagonal from the1/2 of the diagonal required in the 1997 UBC. Staff had no problem with allowing the reduction to 1/3 of the diagonal. Hennes stated that the original appeal requested that the building be reviewed as a whole under the 2000 IBC. Hennes called Siders (Southgate Development) to determine if those were the only two issues. Siders concurred. So the request was changed to a request for use of alternate material or method of construction. Hennes said the use of alternate materials or construction in both the non-symmetrical wall construction and the separations of exits met the requirements of suitability, strength, effectiveness, fire resistance, durability, safety and sanitation. MOTION: Haman moved that the request for the use of alternate materials or methods of construction be allowed for all three proposed buildings based the required criteria being met and the request being limited to the two requested items of non-symmetrical wall construction and separations of exits and Maas seconded. VOTE: Motion passed unopposed to allow the request. 5-0 Request for use of alternate materials or methods of construction - 99 National Electrical Code (NEC) Section 336-4 Uses Permitted (350 Dublin - Melrose Meadows) Hansen explained the existing problem. The building is Iarge structure that contains several different occupancy classifications. The area of the building in question was classified by the architects as an I-2 occupancy (Institutional - limited care). It was staffs understanding at the time of the plan review that this classification was designated by the architect in order to relieve the requirement of egress windows in the sleeping rooms. The area was initially specified as an Alzheimer's area and later changed to assisted living. The original plan check notes stated the electrical requirements for each occupancy in the structure as a whole. The 1999 NEC states that Romex can be used in any structure of three floors or less whether commercial or residential. Iowa City's local amendments to the NEC are more restrictive; Romex is only allowed in R (residential) occupancies. The I-2 occupancy of the structure has been wired in Romex which is not allowed by Iowa City's local amendments. Pat Moore (Advanced Electric) is requesting that Romex be allowed in this structure in the I-2 occupancy as an alternate material or method of construction. Hennes explained that in order for the Board to allow Romex in this case they must meet the criteria of Section 14-5C-5 of the Code of Ordinances of Iowa City (adoption of the NEC) in that they must find that alternate material is at least the equivalent of that prescribed in the code in suitability, strength, effectiveness, fire resistance, durability and safety. Staff's position is that it is not an equivalent or it would have been allowed in the first place. Moore explained that they wired the I-2 section of the building with Romex, which is allowed by the NEC, and they have done similar buildings in Iowa City with Romex. There are 22 units wired and the ceilings are sheet- rocked. He does not disagree with the amendment; they had just not checked the amendments. The general contractor had not informed the sub-contractor (Advanced Electric) of the plan check notes which specified the wiring method for the I-2 occupancy. The bid and contract from Advanced Electric actually occurred before the plan check notes were signed. Maas asked if the occupancy could be reclassified as an R(residential) occupancy at this time. Hermes explained that because there were no egress windows in the units, it could not be changed. Mass and Fehr said that what needed to be determined was if the Romex was actually lesser quality than what was required by the local amendments. Moore explained that the use of the rooms will be the same as the part of the building rated with an R occupancy and he is asking that the same wiring method be allowed as an alternate material.. Moore explained that it would be a major project to tear out the Romex and cost approximately $22,000.00. Discussion occurred as to why the Iocat amendment was inserted into the code. Maas suggested that the Board consider this as a modification instead of an alternate method. The criteria to allow it as a modification would be that it met the purpose and intent of the code, and did not lessen health, life and fire safety requirements. Maas felt that it met the requirements for the need of a modification because of the hardship involved in replacing the wiring at this point. Hennes asked what staff could possibly have done to make the code requirements any more clear. The required electrical parameters were specified at every step of the review and permitting process. Fehr asked if this request had been made during plan review would it have been allowed. Hennes answered no. Hermes reiterated that because there are no egress windows in this area, it cannot be classified as a residential occupancy. Maas said that he was trying to reconcile the request because the architect and general contractor had been informed. MOTION: Maas moved to allow the request to allow Romex in the I-2 occupancy area of 350 Dublin because of the practical difficulty of changing all the wiring so modification is needed and there is no lessening of health and life safety requirements per Section 14- 5C-6 of the Iowa City Code of Ordinances (Adoption of the 1999 NEC). Maas said that the local amendment was intended for commercial facilities and not residential ones. Buss seconded. Hennes noted that although this structure is being used for human occupancy, it is not a residential facility. VOTE: The motion passed 4-1 with DuCharme voting in the negative. Other Business: Hermes stated that he was working on a final proposal for the code updates which he would present to the Board before the next meeting. Because of scheduling conflicts with members of the Board and/or staff, the next available meeting date was 3/18/2002. The next meeting was scheduled for this date. ADJOURNMENT: Maas moved to adjourn the meeting. Buss seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 6:16 P.M. John Roffman, Board of Appeals Chair Date IOWA CITY HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION FINAL/APPROVED CITY MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM January 22, 2002 MEMBERS PRESENT: Jan Warren, Charles Major, Lisa Beckmann, Sue Joslyn, Paul Retish, Keri Neblett, Lucia Page, Bob Peffer MEMBERS ABSENT: Rick Spooner STAFF MEMBER: Heather Shank 1. CALL TO ORDER: Meeting called to order at 7:02 p.m. 2. INTRODUCTION OF COMMISSIONERS -NEW AND OLD: Warren had Commissioners, new and old, introduce themselves. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Motion: Major moved to approve minutes. Beckmann seconded. Motion passed by a vote of 8-0. 4. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: None. 5. APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR: Motion: Warren made a nomination of Lisa Beckmann as Chair for the next year, seconded by Josyln. Motion: passed by a vote of 8-0. Motion: Warren made nomination of Paul Retish as Vice Chair, seconded by Josyln. Motion: passed by a vote of 8-0. 6. PREAMBLE-ELEANOR DILKES: Deferred until February Meeting due to conflict with Council Meeting. Discussion regarding the reason Dilkes is speaking to the Commission in February. Beckmann explained that back in September discussion was held about the purpose of the Human Rights Commission and what they accomplish. A decision was made at that time that a Preamble would be written for the Human Rights Commission section in the city code. An attempt was made and Dilkes had an issue with some of the language used. Thus Dilkes will return for further discussion on her concerns versus the Commission's concerns. 7. COMMISSION CO-SPONSORSHIP: Shank states that there is a panel on March 12th at the City Library in Meeting Room A. This will be the International Woman's Panel put together by Dorothy Paul and Shank. Last year the Commission co-sponsored the event and Mettle Thomobulos was panelist. This year's event is entitled, Women, War, Peace & Human Rights. One of the panelists will be Elite Kiray from the Congo. Ms. Kiray received asylum to come to this country without her children being allowed. The law school helped Ms. Kiray to retrieve her children. The forum will be held on March 12, from 7 p.m.-9 p.m. Shank asks if the Commission would be willing to co-sponsor this event. Motion: Retish moves to approve co- sponsorship of this event. Neblett seconded. Motion passed by a vote of 8-0. 8. SUBCOMMITTEES, APPOINTMENTS, REPORTS, VOLUNTEERS: a. Latino Conference: Warren and Neblett had volunteered previously to be on a sub- committee and they wanted one of the new members to join them. The subcommittee will review the options for Commission involvement and then report back at the next meeting, possibilities being a display or a declaration, something with the school district, economical development, Meet Your Neighbor Program. The addition of Page finalized membership on the sub-committee. Shank states that e-mail communication between members of the sub- committee is allowed. Warren states she will report back at next meeting. Shank states that John Paul was also interested in someone presenting a program at this conference. Shank asked if anyone is interested in making a presentation. Warren stated it might be possible for a presentation on what the Human Right Commission does, how you file a complaint, etc. Warren will get back to John Paul Chaisson and tell him about the Commission presentation. Warren states that it could possibly be given in Spanish too. Shank said Pittman might be willing to translate. b. Community Forum: Members on the sub-committee include Retish & Joslyn. Ernie Cox, in the previous Commission retired. Josyln indicated that on Tuesday, March 5th from 7-9 p.m. in Iowa City Public Library, meeting room A, there will be a panel discussion sponsored by the Human Rights Commission, entitled "Determining the Fine Line Between Hate Speech and First Amendment Rights." Bill Buss from the Law College agreed to be on the panel in addition to Carolyn Dyer from the School of Journalism. Page suggested Belinda Stewart, Managing Editor of the Press Citizen or Mike Beck, the publisher. Retish may ask persons at the FBI to be on the panel. Bob Peffer agreed to be the new member of the subcommittee. Warren wants Beckmann to follow up and let Dan Brock know the date and time of the forum. Shank states that she will draft a poster after the panelists are all confirmed. Warren suggests inviting all of the people that attended the Commission meeting in which the issue of hate speech was raised. Shank suggested that Dan Brock could let the other people know as opposed to a personal invitation. Warren feels that these people all had concerns about the meeting and they should know what we're doing. Retish explained to the new Commissioners the background involving KCJJ radio station. Shank suggested inviting Marian Coleman to discuss hate-speech in the school system. Retish would prefer smaller panels, less talk and more questions from the audience. Josyln suggested a five minutes limit from each panel member. Warren suggests planting questions in the audience. Advertising will be on the City Government channel and the newspapers. The moderator will be chosen by the sub- committee and will provide this information at the next meeting. c. Diversity Day shifts: Looking for two more volunteers- Peffer and Retish volunteered to take the 12:00 to 2:30 shift. Page and Major will work at the information table from 2:30 to 4:30. 9. NEW BUSINESS: Menu for HR Breakfast- Shank states that we are still running $150 in the red after advertising expenses and awards, though tickets were $15 each. This was the 19th annual breakfast with Philip Hubbard as keynote speaker. This year's breakfast is September 26th. Retish asks if we can negotiate costs between $5.50 and $8.50 for breakfast. Shank thinks they do not offer that option, but will check. A question was put out on a keynote speaker for next year. Shank indicated that at one of the breakfasts, a politician won an award and made a political acceptance speech. This caused discomfort for some people who attended because the breakfast has been considered a non-partisan breakfast. Possible suggestions for speakers: Dave Leshtz, State Civil Right Commissioner, John Paul Chaisson, and Corliss Moody, Director of the Iowa Civil Rights Commission. At the next meeting the Commission will come up with two names. Warren wants to know where the press material came from about Goldie Hawn and a program called "Words can Heal." Shank explained it came from Pittman and it was included in the packet because it was interesting article. Warren spoke of Phil Hubbard's speech at the past breakfast. Dr. Hubbard received the Lifetime Achievement Award at the breakfast and he has since passed away. Warren spoke at his memorial service at his son's request. She states she spoke on behalf of the Human Rights Commission, and speech consisted of talking about him not so much as a university person but as a community person, and being on a committee to write the first ever Fair Housing Ordinance in Iowa City. She also stated that Hubbard helped pass the first Civil Rights Act in the State of Iowa. Retish added Hubbard started many programs in Iowa and Iowa City throughout the university and the city. Shank talked about how important the awards are to people. Hubbard's award was displayed at his memorial. 10. OLD BUSINESS: This area was combined with New Business. 11: REPORTS OF COMMISSIONERS: Neblett talked about the Supreme Court ruling on a disability case. She stated that the decision was very pertinent to the work the Commission does and will limit the findings for persons with disabilities. Retish stated that a person with a disability not only has to have limitations on the job, the person has to have limitations during their every day life activities and life functions. He also talked about the effects of ADA in the schools and community. Warren spoke of the events at the University for MLK. She also talked about the disturbing advertising on television about immigration. The advertisements link immigration to terrorism, and the INS. Warren went to advertiser's web site which is called USA, United to Secure America, and she states there is a lot of legal litigation going on right now to limit the number of legal immigrants entering our country and the need to enforce borders. She suggested the Commissioners take a look at this web site. Major indicated that the Commission was awaiting a Court decision on the constitutionality of the legislation passed by the San Franciso Civil Rights Commission that made every company that contracted with the City be bound by the Human Rights Ordinance. The Iowa City City Attorney's office is keeping track of the case in the Courts and will let the Commission know when it has news. Major would like to move on this but until a decision is made, we must wait. Secondly, Major stated that San Francisco has adopted weight discrimination as a protected category.. Beckmann talked about the possibility of litigation against corporations who encourage us to be unhealthy, i.e., smoking, McDonalds. 12. STATUS OF CASES: Shank has opinions for Team C and Team A to sign. In the next few weeks Shank may have Beckmann call a special meeting so the Commission can hear a request from the Asst. City Attorney for permission to pursue in District Court a Motion to Compel certain answers to a questionnaire from a respondent who has thus far failed to comply to several requests. Shank stated that many persons are coming to the office to file complaints. 13. ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 8:17 p.m. FINAL/APPROVED IOWA CITY HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION EMMA HARVAT HALL February 26, 2002 MEMBERS PRESENT: Jan Warren, Charles Major, Lisa Beckmann, Sue Joslyn, Keri Neblett, Lucia Page, Bob Peffer, Rick Spooner MEMBERS ABSENT:Paul Retish STAFF MEMBERS: Anne Burnside, Human Rights Investigator; Eleanor Dilkes, City Attorney 1. CALL TO ORDER: Meeting called to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. INTRODUCTION OF COMMISSIONERS -NEW AND OLD: Beckmann had Commissioners introduced again for the benefit of Rick Spooner who was absent during the January meeting due to illness. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Page asked that there be a correction of a name in the previous minutes from Belinda Steward to Belinda Stewart. Motion to approve the minutes as revised passed 8-0. 4. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: None. 5. ELEANOR DILKES-DI$CUSSION RE: PREAMBLE LANGUAGE: Beckmann asked to review the preamble language drafted by the Commissioners. Back in September Retish asked an academic question as to why the Commission existed and why the Human Rights Ordinance included some protected categories but not all. Retish said at the September meeting that it would be great not to have discrimination or labels. After Commission discussion during the September meeting, it was decided to draft a preamble that would preface the part of the City Code that included the Human Rights Ordinance. The goal of the preamble was to set forth the overall intent of the Ordinance. It would not be specific but general in nature. A sub-committee was formed which included Josyln, Retish and Beckmann. Research was conducted as to the language used in preambles adopted by other communities and universities. A preamble was drafted using some of the language included the research documents. The language was discussed by all of the Commissioners and some revisions took place. Eventually the language was adopted by the Commission and approved unanimously. The Commission asked that the revised Ordinance be placed on the agenda under the heading recommendations to Council After reading the minutes from the Commission meeting Dilkes expressed some concern regarding the preamble language. Warren added that Retish's comments came about when Shank and Warren were commenting on the fact that the ICRC was thinking about recommending to the legislature that sexual orientation be added to the state code. Warren indicated that Retish wondered why this category was being considered as opposed to others. He wondered how the Commission made a decision as to what was protected and what was not and "why not give everyone their human dignity, respect everybody." The Commission did not want a preamble that stated that the Commission protected everybody but one that established the Commission respected everybody. Beckmann confirmed that this was what the Commission wanted to accomplish through the preamble. Dilkes stated her primary concern was that the proposed language included the following:: "[R]ecognizing the need to address the effects of bias, this ordinance has been developed in an attempt to assure that all persons within it's jurisdiction shall be protected in the enjoyment of human rights. "To take this in context, the Commission had a couple of discussions about it." During the October meeting, Commissions made the following comments, "[T]his [preamble] will broaden the umbrella to include everyone" and "because the current ordinance has specific protective categories it might appear that some people are not protected" and "there's a danger that people may perceive they are not protected if they are not included in the category." After reviewing the past minutes Dilkes stated she still has a concern although she said the Commission could choose to go ahead with what they want. Dilkes indicated that while she understands the bigger philosophical discussion, the Iowa City Human Rights Ordinance does not insure all human rights, "it doesn't give people the right to food, shelter, it doesn't give people a right to a number of things, it gives people the right not to be treated differently because of their sex or race or one of the other protected characteristics." Dilkes said that we often have situations in which people have been treated unfairly as opposed to in a discriminatory fashion. The ordinance, however, "does not insure fairness, it insures that you're not treated differently based on one of those characteristics, which we at times have to explain to people." Dilkes does not think it's a good idea to include statements in the Ordinance that make the issue between what is fair and what is against the law potentially even more confusing. If this preamble had been included in the original Human Rights Ordinance, as just one of those "whereas clauses," Dilkes assumes people wouldn't "pick apart" the preamble. However Dilkes thinks it's not a good idea to give people misleading messages about what the ordinance is about. Discussion was asked for by Beckmann. Peffer asked Dilkes for clarification on what she meant by giving the impression that the Ordinance provided "giving food and shelter?" Dilkes replied by asking him to consider the language of the current Ordinance which states that the purpose of the law is "to protect citizens of the city against discrimination as defined in this chapter." In this chapter discrimination is defined as you won't be treated differently based on age, color, creed, disability, gender identity, marital status, national origin, race, religion, sex or sexual orientation. She believes that this is a very different statement than the proposed preamble, which states "This ordinance has been developed in an attempt to assure that all persons within its jurisdiction shall be protected in the enjoyment of human rights." The language that Dilkes proposed in her memo was basically just reiterating those characteristics included in the Chapter. Major wonders why there needs to be a change at all? He wants to keep the Ordinance as it as written and not add the proposed preamble. Several Commissioners felt that it was too bad that Retish was not available to comment on this since he spearheaded the whole discussion. Peffer indicated he did not want to speak for Retish but he got the impression from previous conversations about adding the categories of height or weight, Retish was wondering how a category was selected as one to be protected. How many categories can feasibly be added? Dilkes replied that this is the philosophical discussion. She is concerned about "taking the philosophical discussion and reducing it to a sentence in an ordinance that will be inconsistent with the rest of the ordinance." Beckmann suggested the Commission focus its attention on education and maybe attempt to "present an overriding spirit of what we would like the City to be like some day, which it may never be, you cannot legislate that (fairness)." Beckmann added that maybe the Commission's actions could communicate to the public the notion of respect for everyone rather than trying to fix the ordinance. Spooner agreed that this is better than changing the Ordinance. Beckmann would like to hold this issue over to next meeting so Retish can comment on this. Dilkes said that Retish could also call her if he wanted to discuss her feelings on this. Peffer asked Dilkes whether the bottom line is that the preamble is in disagreement with the ordinance. She said yes. Peffer asked whether the ordinances with preambles found in the subcommittee's research were different than Iowa City's Ordinance. Beckmann stated that in the material that was gathered the preambles applied to a broad intent, how the drafters wanted the world to be vs. the statement of the purpose which is more specific. Dilkes said that it might have been different if the language was adopted at the time the ordinance was adopted as more of a general statement on how the Commission wanted things to be. Beckmann voiced her belief that she thinks this is reasonable. Motion: Warren moves to table this motion. Peffer seconded the motion. Motion passed by 8-0. 6. Burnside indicated that Shank had requested that she find out what dates would be acceptable to Commissions in order to authorize the City Attorney or representative to request from the District Court a Motion to Compel information from the Respondent in a particular case. Dilkes responded that the City Attorney's office is not quite ready to take this step as of yet. 7. 1sT AMENDMENT FREE SPEECH V. HATE SPEECH PUBLIC FORUM Joslyn reports everything is pretty much set. Panelists include William Buss, a law professor, Carolyn Dyer, a journalism professor, Michael Beck, President and Publisher of the Press Citizen, and Anne (Burnside). Beckmann sent letter to Dan Brock to give him notice of public forum discussing Hate Speech. Shank spoke to Brock by phone and Beckmann assumes that he will attend. Major states that he was called by KCJJ in regards to an article in the Gazette that announced this meeting. The owner of KC J J, Steve Soboroff wanted to know what the forum was about. Major referred Soboroff to Shank. Joslyn indicated there may be people in the audience that bring up the radio station and Retish would also be giving background information on the motivation for the panel. Page asked for Michael Beck whether there was anything in particular he should prepare for. The panelists have been asked to speak five to ten minutes on their field of expertise in regards to how the First Amendment affects issues them in their occupation. The idea of writing questions a head of time was thrown out. It is hope of the planners that audience participation will be sufficient. Warren asks to make sure paper and pencils are available for people, Burnside will take care of it. Shank will also check into having food available. Beckmann wanted to confirm that it will be re-broadcast on channel 2 or 4, local access channel. Burnside will check into the availability of a time schedule for the re-broadcast. Questions were asked about press releases to the Press Citizen and The Daily Iowan, and appreciation was given for those that pulled this together. Major brought a newspaper article regarding the hate speech forum that was printed in the Gazette. 8. LATINO CONFERENCE: Warren reported on the conference coming up April 27th. She reminded the Commissioners that John Paul Chaisson came to a Commission meeting a couple of months ago asking the Commission and the City of Iowa City to get involved in the Latina-Latino conference. Warren, Neblett, and Page committed to five items. The five items include (1) A presentation at conference as part of a panel including state commissioners and commissioners from other areas. The three names that were provided to the organizers were Beckmann, Laz Pittman because she speaks Spanish and Page; (2) a human rights display handouts; also a (3) City and Johnson County presence/display, (4) host a reception at the Art Museum which would be from 5-8 p.m. Hosting means getting things organized, etc. (5) draft a proclamation. Warren asked John Paul what exactly he wants "proclaimed." Discussion will continue in the sub-committee. Possibly the Mayor or City Manager will give the proclamation at the reception. Warren wants people to be there as opposed to just posting flyers and posters. The reception is almost all organized, there are performers/magicians coming in. Burnside asked what the City display might be? Warren would like a display listing city services, pictures of city employees, etc. The conference starts at 8:00 with registration at 8:30, exhibit opens at 9:00, and an awards brunch at 10:00 with a keynote speech by Anthony Romero. There will be additional workshops in the afternoon, break from 4-5 to get display materials ready, and reception afterwards. Joslyn asked whether the Commissioners needed to register. Warren said she didn't think so but she would ask John Paul. AWARDS BREAKFAST KEYNOTE SPEAKER: Beckmann stated that the Commission had previously discussed a keynote speaker and came up with the following possibilities: a. Dave Leshtz b. Corlis Moody or c. John Paul Chaisson. Background information was provided on these possible speakers to those that did not know them. Chaisson works on the Commission on the Status of Latinos and he works at the University. Chaisson has also done a lot of work in the Community and in the last year or so he was involved in a fundraiser for persons affected by the hurricane in Central America. Warren also thinks Dave Leshtz would be a good choice, not only because he is from Iowa City and has done a lot for labor, he is a very humble person and has attended our meetings and is concerned about our needs. Burnside states he has been involved in many different activities for the community and stays in touch with Shank. Beckmann stated that if the entire commission is for Dave Leshtz, it should go ahead and nominate him as the first choice. Corlis Moody, the Director of the Iowa Civil Rights Commission, was selected as second choice/backup. Shank will make the necessary contacts and update the Commission at the next meeting. 9. OTHER NEW BUSINESS: Beckman checked out the Iowa Civil Rights Commission web page, it had links to local communities, many of those had live links. Iowa City was listed but it's link was not live, so she emailed the web master to activate our web page and had it up and running in fifteen minutes. She also asked for volunteers to check out other sites maybe nationwide, not sure of the benefits. Warren suggested possibly new employees to Iowa City or to show a model of our Commission to other places that aren't as advanced as ours. Beckmann will check with the university on expanding our web site to other areas. Beckmann was contacted by Shank about the English Only Bill. Beckmann states that she signed as representative for the entire Human Rights Commission as being opposed to the English Only Bill. Warren brought up the email info in the packet. Burnside clarified that most of the Commission meetings are public, but we need to think of email as not like a private phone call but as a public communication. The press might have the right to have access to that communication and it should be remembered. Burnside stated though that three or less members of the Commission sending emails to each other is okay as does not constitute a "meeting." In regards to the Diversity Day event, Peffer suggested the Commission needed to spice up the Commission's booth to make it more appealing. Burnside suggested that subcommittee be formed to help in this area. Peffer, Page and Major agreed to be on the subcommittee. Suggestions were offered on a variety of different displays, use of computer, standup display with photos, etc. The committee will report back at the next meeting. Neblett stated that she read the newspaper and an article indicated the UISG had sent letters to the commissioners. Beckmann said the article said that the organization was going to write a letter to 12 different Commissions in the City requesting a non-voting seat for students. Beckmann said she saw the article in the Daily Iowan on Monday. Warren said that she got a call on her answering machine from a reporter about it. Neblett confirmed that the Human Rights Commission was on the list as an entity that would receive a letter. Beckmann said it would be good for the Commission to think about it. Neblett said the students would be benefited in that it would help to inform them of what we do. Warren said they could find out about our educational benefits. Burnside stated the students are asking for a seat on the board that would be designated for a student. Beckmann suggested the Commission would check with Shank to see if she received a letter, and the Commission can continue with the discussion next month. 10. OLD BUSINESS: International Women's Month Events include a panel on Tuesday, March 12th. Burnside states that Shank has been working with Dorothy Paul on this and there might have been a decision to have just two or three members on the panel. Warren brought up the various activities going on that week. Beckmann encouraged the members to attend and to spread the word on the things the Commission is doing. Beckmann also indicated she had informed her chumh members through the church bulletin of the programs coming up and the response has been quite positive. Burnside thought this type of communication of the Commission's activities was a good way to spread the word. Warren also encouraged Commission members to attend the events it is sponsoring or co-sponsoring if at all possible. 11. REPORTS OF COMMISSIONERS: Major reported that he attended Diversity Day and talked with the Iowa Civil Liberties Union booth members and they asked whether we were involved in profiling with the police and had some discussion with them. He also brought up a story about a BI-sexual officer in the Army that is not allowed to resign. He will report back to the outcome if possible. Spooner has no report but states that he is glad to be back on the Commission and how important he feels his role can be. Page also attended Diversity Day. She talked about a group of people from the International Student Association trying to get people to sign a petition because of University "service fees" only assessed to international students. She also mentioned two articles she brought that were printed in the Press Citizen regarding Iowa's 5th Black judge and the English-only proposal. Neblett no report Peffer no report. Last month in Warren brought up the advertisements on television with an anti-immigration sentiment. She commented on a great billboard in Coralville welcoming immigrants that was produced by the Catholic nuns. Joslyn said the sign is a wonderful reminder that all native Iowans were once immigrants. Beckmann indicated that in the Waterloo Courier the paper had been focusing on stories reflecting the diverse population in their community. The articles have had a positive impact in Waterloo. 12. STATUS OF CASES: Burnside asks for any questions. Warren states how great it is that the caseload is being caught up and how quickly the department is handling them. 13: ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned. MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION (Formal Meeting) FEBRUARY 21, 2002 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Bovbjerg, Don Anciaux, Jerry Hansen, Dean Shannon, Beth Koppes, Benjamin Chait MEMBERS ABSENT: Pam Ehrhardt STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Karen Howard, Shelley McCafferty, Mitch Behr, Jeff Davidson OTHERS PRESENT: Richard Rhodes II, Steven E. Nelson, Glenn Brown, LeRoy Bird, Larry Schnittjer, Jim Quigley, Karol Bird, Jim Throgmorton, Glenn Siders, Robyn Shrader, Karen Dawes, Mike Pugh, Gary Fairchild, Lauren Lamp, Gary Reed, Dave KIockau, Amy Bouska, Tim Thompson, Judy Felder, Kevin Hanick, Robert Hagaman, Linda Hawley, Nancy Hitchon RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: Recommended approval, by a vote of 5-1 (Hansen voted no), to amend the Comprehensive Plan, South District Plan Map to show Option B as the general alignment of the future east-west arterial street and to amend the text of the South District Plan as follows: Page 9: Replace the first paragraph under Streets/Roads with the following text: Gilbert Street (Sand Road), Sycamore Street and Highway 6 are the principle streets that currently serve the South District. These arterial streets serve as neighborhood edges, and provide the framework for development in the South District. Segments of these streets need to be upgraded to city design standards, and an east-west arterial street or parkway should be constructed between Gilbert Street and Scott Boulevard in the general location shown on the Future Land Use Scenario updated in February of 2002. Long-range plans show this arterial street extending to the west and crossing the Iowa River to Mesquakie Park and connecting to Mormon Trek Boulevard as it is extended across the South Central District. A modified grid of collector and local streets are envisioned to complete the necessary street network. Page 10: Add the following guideline for Streets/Roads: Design the east-west arterial street in a manner that avoids to the extent possible sensitive environmental features of the land and important archeological sites. These are described more fully in Appendix A. By a vote of 5-1, (Shannon voted to approve), recommended amendments to the Comprehensive Plan to change the South District land use map to add a commercial area on the east side of South Gilbert Street east and south of Napoleon Park be denied. By a vote of 4-2, (Shannon and Chait voted to approve), recommended amendments to the comprehensive Plan to provide for the location of large apartment complexes and to amend the South District Plan land use map to depict multi-family development on the east side of South Gilbert Street east and south of Napoleon Park be denied. By a vote of 4-2, (Shannon and Chair voted to approve), recommended REZ01-00024, application submitted by D. J. Hammond & Associates for a rezoning from Interim Development Single Family (ID- RS) and Interim Development Multi-Family (ID-RM) to Planned Development Housing Overlay-12 (OPDH-12) on 17.64 acres to allow 'i68 dwellings in 18 buildings located on the east side of Gilbert Street south of Napoleon Lane be denied. By a vote of 6-0, recommended approval of REZ0'1-00022/SUB0'1-00024, an application submitted by Southgate Development for a preliminary plat of Napoleon Heights, a 146.68 acre, 3-1ct subdivision located on the east side of Gilbert Street north of the southern City limits. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Formal Meeting February 21,2002 Page 2 By a vote of 6-0, recommended approval of SUB01-00026, an application submitted by Southgate Development for a preliminary and final plat of Highlander Development Third Addition, A Resubdivision of Highlander First Addition, Lots 8 - 14, a 21.87 acre, 7-lot subdivision with 2 outlots, located at the eastern terminus of Northgate Drive, subject to approval of legal papers and construction drawings prior to Council consideration. By a vote of 6-0, recommended approval of SUB02-O0001, an application submitted by Arlington L.C. for final plat of Stone Bridge Estates, Parts 2-4, a 13.98 50-lot residential subdivision located east of Camden Road north of Court Street subject to approval of legal papers and construction drawings prior to Council consideration. By a vote of 6-0, recommended approval of SUB02-00002, an application submitted by Southgate Development for a final plat of Lindemann Subdivision Part One, a 15.05 acre, 33-1ot residential subdivision, and Lindemann Subdivision Part Two, a 16.97 acre, 29-1ot residential subdivision located north on Court Street, east of Scott Park Drive, subject to approval of legal papers and construction drawings prior to Council consideration. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Bovbjerg called the meeting to order at 7:35 pm. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEMS: Public hearing on amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, South District Plan, to depict the location of an east/west arterial street between Gilbert Street and Sycamore Street. Howard said in 1997 when the South District Plan was adopted it pointed out the need for an east- west arterial street in the south part of the City. The general alignment adopted with the plan crosses the Iowa River south of the sand mining operation. When the South Central District Plan was created, a more comprehensive environmental assessment was done which included neighborhood traffic circulation and particular environmental issues. It was decided that a better location for the river crossing would be further to the north. The decision was made to connect Mormon Trek Boulevard across the South Central District south of the airport and cross the river north of Mesquakie Park. Staff felt a review of the proposed alignment for the east-west arterial across the South District should be initiated at this time. Howard said much of the land is still outside the City limits in the growth area boundary and is largely agricultural. There would be a lot of leeway as to where the arterial alignment could go. Staff felt now would be a good time to make a decision before specific development proposals are received, so the street would not be designed in a piece-meal fashion, and so notice could be given to the public, property owners and neighborhoods that there is an intention to have an arterial street in that location. Staff feels the existing alignment shown in the plan has some problems which include several "T" intersections which would interrupt traffic flow across the district, decrease traffic circulation and decrease efficiency of the arterial across the district. In response to those concerns, Staff developed two alternative options, and provided pros and cons of each in their report to the Commission. Staff felt Option B had a number of advantages over either of the other two routes. It is the shortest route of the three proposals, so over time it would be less costly to build and maintain. As a more direct, shorter route, people would be more likely to use it as an arterial street and not cut through the neighborhoods. Howard said by choosing Option A or the current alignment, motorists might have more of a tendency to cut through the neighborhoods on collector and local streets once the areas were developed into neighborhoods. In the South District Planning Process in 1997, a neighborhood commercial area centrally located to the neighborhood was planned for. One way to make that Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Formal Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 3 economically feasible would be to locate it at the intersection of two arterial streets to have more traffic coming through and it would more readily serve the surrounding neighborhoods. As a rule of thumb, arterial streets are planned about 1.0 mile apart. Option B would also divide the district centrally and define the edges of two different neighborhoods, above and below the arterial. Due to the topography and existing environmental features, there is not a lot a possibility for further development south of Option A. Howard said Staff recommends Option B and recommends some amendments to the text language in the Comprehensive Plan. These recommendations would provide guidelines when development proposals come in as to how the arterial street should be designed and what sensitive environmental features should be avoided. Howard said by putting a concept alignment and relevant language into the Plan now, it would provide some flexibility and served as a guide to future decisions regarding the actual location and construction of the arterial street in the future. A change to the map is also necessary to reflect the general alignment of the street. Public discussion was opened. Richard S. Rhodes I!, 2014 Rochester Avenue, said he was involved in both planning meetings for the South District Plan. He said at that time, the river crossing had not been determined but Staff had strongly advocated not splitting the neighborhood with an arterial. Now it appeared Staff had taken a 180 degree turn. Rhodes said the proposed arterial would split what the neighborhood had envisioned as one neighborhood. He asked for a clarification from Davidson if the arterial would be constructed to the same width as was currently found at the north end of Sycamore Street where it intersected into Hwy 6. Davidson said it would be 34 feet in width, the same as Scott Boulevard. The area Rhodes was speaking of was 48 feet wide. The traffic analysis model shows a 2-lane street with good controlled access and turn lanes at the intersection(s) would be adequate for the south arterial. Rhodes said a development proposal that was on the evening's agenda showed a portion of the arterial constructed on the McCollister tract, now called Napoleon Heights. On the preliminary plat and potential construction easements, that roadway impinged into a pasture area that contained a small hibernation concentration area for ornate box turtles and a probable prairie remnant area. Hansen asked Rhodes how would someone go about excluding the turtles from a construction area. Rhodes said there were recommendations made during the installation of the trunk sewer shown on Option A. During construction (temporary) barrier fencing would be necessary of a mesh size that the turtles could not get through, sturdy enough so the turtles could not claw through, buried at least 3 feet deep into the ground and at least 2 feet above ground. Turtles were known to dig very readily. Rhodes said to permanently exclude turtles from an area, at minimum, 2 inch concrete slabs stood on end should be buried 3 feet into the ground with 2 feet above ground. All the measures should be installed during the turtle's dormant season. Careful observation and maintenance of the fencing would be necessary. Turtles were known to wander into pasture areas to feed on corn and to use mammal burrows, such as gopher burrows, to hibernate in. Rhodes said to permanently confine the turtles to the pasture area, the best habitat for them, would require expensive and severe measures. Hansen asked if the DNR was responsible for the turtle's habitat. Rhodes said it would be best for a DNR attorney to address Hansen's question. It was Rhodes understanding of DNR regulations that the DNR was responsible for the regulating of the taking of listed species. That could be shooting at eagles flying over, capturing an animal and carrying it away or digging up a protected plant and taking it away, could all be examples. Not the habitat they lived in. He suggested asking Tim Thompson from the DNR who was also in attendance the specifics of the DNR regulations. Steven E. Nelsoq, 1033 Sandusky Drive, said the argument for Option B to be an arterial rather than a collector street was a compelling argument, because people would cut through that area. His feelings were that if an arterial were to be designed, it should define the edge of development and not cut through the middle of development. With respect to the commercial area, an arterial would deter people from gathering together as a community shopping area whereas a collector street would allow access by bicycle or walking without having to fight traffic. It was more what was intended by the Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Formal Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 4 South Side District Plan rather than an arterial street. Nelson said a more southern arterial rather than one that cut through the center, was what the Plan defined. Glenn Brown, 4283 Sycamore Street SE, said he felt Option B would be better to serve as many people as possible. Placement in the center of the district would make more sense. Going down the long way by the creek and then cutting over as indicated by Option A, would not be a favorable option. "It would completely change a lot of things." LeRoy Bird, 4255 Sycamore Street SE, said he lived at the corner of the creek where the proposed alignment turned toward the east. This area was along his property line. He said with Option A alot of piling would be required as the area was all marsh, creek and watershed. He had lived in the area for 20 years and the creek had always been there. He had worked in construction with draglines, shovels, cranes and had placed pilings. With Option A, he felt it would require the placement of a lot of pilings to get a good surface to put the road on. The other area would not require pilings and there was already pavement poured on the other sides of the soccer fields. The City had filled in the marsh land with dirt and had destroyed the animals that previously lived there. He felt Option B would not cost the City as much money. In response to questions from Hansen, Bird said the creek should not be filled in nor removed because it fed into Cruz's golf course and the duck pond. Shannon asked Bird if he would like to see (favored) Option B. Bird said that was correct. Larry Schnittier, MMS, 1917 S. Gilbert Street, said he had worked on the preliminary plat for the proposed subdivision and wished to respond to Rhodes comments about the alignment. All but 15 feet of the east side of the alignment were within the original construction easement for the sanitary sewer. When the sanitary sewer impact study was done, a process was utilized for providing a temporary barrier for the existing tudles at that location. They anticipated using the same process for the construction of the road. Hansen asked what the process was. Schnittjer said it was basically a buried fence arrangement, but he was not on site when the sewer was built. Bovbjerg asked Staff if they had any knowledge if the fence barrier was effective. Miklo said they did not, but he would ask Public Works if they had any reports or knowledge. Schnittjer said he personally preferred the more southern route for the arterial. It needed to be at the perimeter of proposed development for the City and not cut down through the middle of it. The use of collector streets throughout the neighborhoods would disperse the traffic instead of having continuous collector streets like Friendship Street. Interruptions should be provided at various locations to handle some of the cut-though traffic. Schnittjer said it was widely known that motorists moved from collector to local to private streets to get where they wanted to go. Bovbjerg addressed Planning and Traffic Staff. She said the discussion had always been on an east- west arterial street. She asked if the discussion was for 'a wide street' that would go through or if it was specifically a constructed Arterial (capital A) street or would it be a collector or collector type street. "How specific was the agenda item for the type of street that was going to be built?" Jeff Davidson, JCCOG Transportation Planner, said they were proposing an arterial that was in the adopted arterial street plan for the urbanized area. It was considered to be part of the arterial street network. It would be designed for relatively high traffic volume with limited access, on the edge of a neighborhood. The land use implications would be very important regardless where the street was constructed. It should form the edge of a neighborhood. Davidson said they wanted to plan the street ahead of the development process so the road would form the boundary between neighborhoods and not go through them. LeRoy Bird asked how wide the road would be. Davidson said the road was proposed to be a 2-lane, 34 foot wide road. Bovbjerg asked what road in Iowa City would be similar to the proposed street. Davidson said they had been using Scott Boulevard as the example, but this arterial would have turn lanes at the intersection(s). They had found with a long street corridor, it you kept the intersections working well, the whole thing worked well. Bovbjerg asked what type of access there would be for Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Formal Meeting February 21,2002 Page 5 pedestrians crossing the street. Davidson said the pedestrian aspect was not in addition to the road, it was integrated right into the road. An 8-10 foot wide sidewalk on one side and a regular sized sidewalk on the other side of the street were planned. Controlled signalized intersections to allow pedestrian movements would be integrated into the design of the road. Davidson said a 100 foot right- of-way arterial corridor would be designed to allow 4-lanes in the future without having to purchase additional property. In constrained areas they could go down to an 85 foot width corridor. Davidson said through the Saddlebrook Area the street would go along the edge of the conservation easement (Snyder Creek bottoms area). There was still speculation with the developer if they wanted the street to run right along the edge of the conservation easement or move it up so development could be designed on both sides of the street. Either way, it would be possible to get the road in. Bovbjerg asked if using Option B would preclude any other kind of roadway further south. Davidson said going with Option B, would likely entail a series of local and collector streets down in that area. As Howard had mentioned, it still was planned in the arterial street plan, connecting the bottom part of the Sycamore Street L over to Hwy 218 interchange by the fairgrounds. Because there was very little development potential in that area due to the sensitive areas and environmental features, that would be something far in the future (15-25 years), justified by trying to improve traffic service and it would involve a river crossing. Anciaux said at one time, Scott Boulevard was the edge of town. Where would be the next arterial to the east be? Davidson said Taft Avenue. Anciaux asked if the Commission went with Option B or A, what would be the next arterial? Davidson said probably Napoleon, the street along the bottom of the sewer plant property. Anciaux asked if the proposed arterial would be the edge of town. Miklo said the area the City could sewer would be the edge of town, the growth area boundary based on sewer service. That would be the eventual, '20 years in the future', corporate limit line. Bovbjerg asked if the City ever built street(s) in the County. Davidson said no, but they planned streets out in the county. Many of the arterial streets are planned involving property that is currently in the county, that was how far into the future they needed to plan. Davidson said it was appropriate to consider the arterial street alignment while the area was still in the County. Shannon asked when an option was selected, when would it be a hard and fast decision as to where the specific alignment would be. Davidson said at some point in the future, when the construction of the road was imminent, it needed to be designed and built. Prior to that time was when all the environmental work would occur that would be a factor considered in the ultimate alignment of where the road was built. An additional year was built into the process to allow for the environmental assessments to be done. Two years ahead of when the road would actually be built, all the different alignments are looked at so the environmental impacts can be summarized for each one. The design and property acquisition are done one year in advance of when the road is built. Davidson said Council had not prioritized this road yet in the Capital Improvements program. LeRoy Bird, asked if it made sense to go from Mormon Trek, a 4-lane road, down to a 2-lane road. Davidson said because of the location of the interchange with Hwy 1, there was enough of a break in traffic volume. The traffic analysis model showed 2-lanes was adequate. The first section of the Mormon Trek (2-lane with turn lanes) was currently being designed and the City was preparing to build it. In the next couple of years Mormon Trek will be extended over to Riverside Drive. Davidson said beyond that point to the east, a decision would be made, as to how many lanes are needed. The City wouuld acquire enough right-of-way to have a 4-lane road in the future. Jim Qui~lley, 915 Pepper Drive, asked if the assumption with Option B was that there would be single family housing on either side of the arterial or would it attract another strip mall? Howard said Staff's planned land uses along the arterial would not change with the alignment of the street. What was planned for the South District was to have a small neighborhood commercial district along Sycamore Street, a strip mall was not the desired use. She said single family housing was planned with higher densities next to the neighborhood commercial area to support it. It was intended to be closer to a Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Formal Meeting February 21,2002 Page 6 Scott Boulevard type of street than a Hwy 6. Howard said a good reason for defining the edges of the neighborhoods and the street alignment now would be to allow for better neighborhood design, and to help influence the development process as it occurred in the future. Karol Bird, 4255 Sycamore Street, asked for a clarification about limited access onto arterial streets. Why were they designed with single-family housing on both sides of the street? Hansen said driveways would enter onto a street behind the arterial. Bird said if the current alignment were utilized, would the access for the persons currently living on their road be denied access? Public discussion was closed. Motion: Shannon made a motion to amend the Comprehensive Plan, South District Plan Map to show Option B as the general alignment of the future east-west arterial street and to amend the text of the South District Plan as follows: Page 9: Replace the first paragraph under Streets/Roads with the following text: Gilbert Street (Sand Road), Sycamore Street and Highway 6 are the principle streets that currently serve the South District. These arterial streets serve as neighborhood edges, and provide the framework for development in the South District. Segments of these streets need to be upgraded to city design standards, and an east-west arterial street or parkway should be constructed between Gilbert Street and Scott Boulevard in the general location shown on the Future Land Use Scenario updated in February of 2002. Long-range plans show this arterial street extending to the west and crossing the Iowa River to Mesquakie Park and connecting to Mormon Trek Boulevard as it is extended across the South Central District. A modified grid of collector and local streets are envisioned to complete the necessary street network. Page 10: Add the following guideline for Streets/Roads: Design the east-west arterial street in a manner that avoids to the extent possible sensitive environmental features of the land and important archeological sites. These are described more fully in Appendix A. Anciaux seconded the motion. Hansen asked who would be responsible for the environmental impact study when the road was eventually built. Miklo said the City would be. Hansen said he was very concerned about this project. It seemed no one seemed to want to take responsibility for known irreplaceable features of the property. Anciaux said the DNR had sent a letter to the Commission stating the box turtle was a threatened species and there would have to be steps taken to not damage the animal itself. Hansen said he had made numerous inquiries of Staff regarding what the City had done or was going to do about the fill on the property, but had received no response. It was also nearing March, the time when the DNR said the fill problem should be resolved by so as not to affect the turtles. Hansen said he felt there were many gray areas surrounding this proposed street and development. Miklo said the City had initiated an Environmental Infraction Process with the property owner, the person responsible for the fill in that area. Hansen said the street alignment had the potential to drift when the actual location of the street was decided in the future. He said he did not understand what the rush was, didn't the City wish to plan right or did they just wish to plan fuzzy. Bovbjerg said one of the problems with the Comprehensive Plan was it was solidly fuzzy around the edges. There were general areas, general uses and general lee-ways of density. The absolute alignment of any street was not exact because the final environmental study was not available. She said after the voting, people who had specific concerns could say, "We urge the Council to look at" or "We want the Planning Department to make sure that in the file" or '~Ve want the Legal department to maintain an active file on", so the City would be put on notice that the Commission had concerns when the decision came down to actual inches and feet. Miklo said the language suggested on page 4 of the Staff report did address those concerns. Hansen said when things were not on the map, the Commission couldn't get them on the map, and he felt the Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Formal Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 7 Sensitive Areas Ordinance was not something they could hang their hat on. Behr said the early planning was what allowed for the time and the cost of the full environmental assessment. Davidson said the step of concept planning or schematic planning where an alignment would go was typically the first step. Council had not said when they wanted to construct the aderial yet. Hansen said the Commission was dealing with a subdivision, a commercial zone and an apartment building, the project was driving itself (down the road). He felt the Commission did not have all the information they really needed. Davidson said he concurred that they certainly did not have all the information they needed, but doing this level of planning now would put the Commission ahead of the game compared to not doing it. The motion passed on a vote of 5-1, Hansen voted no. Public hearing on amendments to the Comprehensive Plan to change the South District land use map to add a commercial area on the east side of South Gilbert Street east and south of Napoleon Park. McCafferty presented Staff report. She said this amendment was in response to a proposed development for community commercial (CC-2). Currently the South District Land Use Plan called for neighborhood commercial use in the center of the district rather than in this particular area. If the Commission approved the proposal, it would be necessary to amend the Land Use Plan. The entire area that was being considered for a zoning change was not in any commercial designation, but rather multi-family and townhouse development. Koppes asked if the Commission approved the zoning request for Community Commercial, would the Neighborhood Commercial zoning go away or be in addition to it. McCafferty said it would most likely be in addition, but what should be given consideration was, could the area support two commercial areas - was there a market for both? McCafferty said Neighborhood Commercial had more design guidance involved with it. The intent was that it be a small, pedestrian friendly commercial area, more like what was found in a small town on main street or in a town square. Parking would be behind or beside buildings. Community Commercial was intended to serve a larger community, not just the neighborhood. It allowed uses such as big box stores retail or grocery stores or very large stores, parking could be in front of the building. It was more the type of commercial found along highways in Iowa City. Bovbjerg asked if Neighborhood Commercial, as currently in the code, allowed for apartments overhead. Miklo said it did. McCafferty said the South District Plan called for mixed uses within the Neighborhood Commercial area, including residential on the second story above commercial as well as different business types, institutional uses and multi family adjacent to the neighborhood commercial area. Public discussion was opened. Jim Throqmodon, 1020 Church Street, said by listening and looking at the map, he could not tell what the Commission was proposing to do. Second, he had not heard a good rational for making the change. Third, it seemed the Commission should not make a change until they had a much clearer idea of what the likely consequences would be. Throgmorton said just to hear the Commission's discussion, it sounded like they were going to put in strip commercial development along Sand Road. "Why would you want to do that?" Bovbjerg explained the proposal in front of the Commission was going from an Interim Development to Community Commercial (CC-2), it would require a change in the Comprehensive Plan. Glenn Siders, Southgate Development, requested no decision be made on the Comprehensive Plan Commercial Zone issue until discussion of the commercial rezoning application had occurred. Behr said the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan did not have to be done in the order listed on the agenda, but it would make sense to consider the Comprehensive Plan Amendment first. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Formal Meeting February 21,2002 Page 8 Robyn Shrader, 1104 Weeber Circle, said she had been before the Commission regarding zoning issues in the Weeber-Harlocke neighborhood. At that time they were told, "You have to follow the laws, you have to follow what is there. It may or may not make sense, but you just have to follow what is there. The way you can effect change is to get involved and work on a plan. Make sure that you have a plan that reflects the views and values of the people living in that area. That was how they could protect them selves in the long run." She said many persons from the neighborhood had stopped coming to the P&Z meetings because they were going to Southwest District Planning meetings trying to very actively and aggressively padicipate in those meetings to make sure they were a part of the plan that would be devised for where they lived. Shrader said she didn't know how any one could have any faith in a Comprehensive Plan for the Southwest District once it was adopted, if it could be significantly altered, not by community interest but by the tail wagging the dog, by a property owner who desired a complicated project. Shrader said she had been told the developer purchased the property after the adoption of the South District Plan. The developer knew the law when they bought the land. She asked the Commission to respect the public process that went into the Plan itself. The Plan had had good planning that the Citizens bought into and had had the opportunity to provide input into. Shrader requested the Commission to tell the property owner the same thing they had told the Weeber-Harlocke neighborhood residents for weeks, "We have to follow the law." Karen Dawe~, 1055 Briar Drive, said given Hansen's concerns about the location of Option B for the arterial street, if the Commission approved a rezoning to Community Commercial (CC-2), would that mean that development could begin there and would it reduce the options and little bit of wiggle room where the road could go based on a survey of the more sensitive things that were on the land. Miklo said the plat, a later item on the agenda, would remove the flexibility of the wiggle room in terms of moving the street. If it were determined there was an overriding need to move the street and if the plat had not been approved, the street could still be moved. Once the preliminary plat was approved, the flexibility with regards to the location of that portion of the street would be lost. Richard S. Rhodes II, said the Commission was dealing with one tract of land that had six different issues tied to it. Each item considered by itself probably would not have that big of an impact, but taken as a whole, they would have a devastating impact on a unique natural area in Iowa City. Rhodes said one use that had not been mentioned yet was the other open space. At the neighborhood meetings, the open space was very carefully placed on the pasture in the Showers-McCollister tract because of its potential for sand prairie remnants and the presence of ornate box turtles. Citizens, Staff, and developer's representatives had been present and were fully aware of what was going on at the time. The developers had purchased the land tract within the approximate past 12 months, so Rhodes felt they were fully aware of what the Comprehensive Plan was when the purchase was made. Rhodes said he was concerned that Staff continued to point out all the things that had to do with human concerns and human development, but ignored the natural areas shown on the map. Hansen said Staff had recommended deniallof the rezoning to Community Commercial. Rhodes said that was correct, but Staff supported the arterial which made the C0-2 zoning possible. Hansen said he had previously asked which was driving which. LeRoy Bird, suggested consideration of the other side of the road where the quarry was. The plan was to create two parks in that location, one on either side of the road. Plans were only being made for one side of the road. Bird said the whole big picture (the entire dog) should be considered and not just the front part of the dog. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Shannon made a motion to approve amendments to the Comprehensive Plan to change the South District land use map to add a commercial area on the east side of South Gilbert Street east and south of Napoleon Park. The motion died for lack of a second. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Formal Meeting February 21,2002 Page 9 Motion: Hansen made a motion to deny amendments to the Comprehensive Plan to change the South District land use map to add a commercial area on the east side of South Gilbert Street east and south of Napoleon Park. Koppes seconded the motion. Hansen said he would support the South District Plan and felt the Commission should stick to what the people wanted. Koppes said she did not see a pressing need to make a change to Community Commercial. If the Commission stuck to the South District Plan by maintaining the Neighborhood Commercial zoning in the center of the neighborhood rather than where the applicant now proposes CC-2. ~t would make a nice neighborhood. Anciaux said he agreed with Hansen and Koppes. He did not see the need for Community Commercial right now, nor the need for Community Commercial as opposed to Neighborhood Commercial in the center of the District. The Commission had the input of the Community and they needed to go along with that. Shannon said he agreed with the sentiments, but wondered if business would grow there. He said people might want it, but people had wanted downtown urban renewal and that was a failure. Shannon felt consideration should be given as to what business interests thought should go there, land use was driven by the needs of what would flourish in the location. Bovbjerg said she was looking at the land itself and what the people had said they wanted. Staying with the Plan the way it was, was the best for the land and for the City. The motion passed on a vote of 5-1, Shannon voted no. Public hearing on amendments to the comprehensive Plan to provide for the location of large apartment complexes and to amend the South District Plan land use map to depict multi-family development on the east side of South Gilbert Street east and south of Napoleon Park. McCafferty said this proposal was also driven by a rezoning proposal that was on the agenda. D.J. Hammond & Associates had proposed for rezoning to allow large apartment complexes on this particular piece of property within the Napoleon Heights subdivision. Staff recommended denial of that particular use because it did not comply with the Comprehensive Plan or the South District Plan Land Use Map. The Comprehensive Plan called for two small lots for small apartment buildings on either side of two arterials. Duplexes, small lot family housing and townhouses were called for in the surrounding area. The language of both the Comprehensive and South District Plans with regards to multi family housing, discouraged large concentrations of apartment complexes in new neighborhoods. The goal of the two plans was to provide diverse housing types which would support a diverse, well balanced neighborhood. The Plan said no more than 24 units should be located in this location. The proposed complex had 168 units with a total of 624 bedrooms. The plan also said medium density housing should be similar in height and appearance to single family housing. Bovbjerg said the Commission should look at the land itself, the plan itself, other kinds of things such as topography or traffic for any large 'multi-family' complex in this district regardless of any particular features in any particular application because the particulars of an application could muddy the water, and could not be guaranteed by zoning. McCafferty said an issue that needed to be considered was the large apartment complex issue. Regardless of what would happen on that particular parcel, did the Commission wish to open up the language in the Comprehensive Plan to allow for large apartment complexes in newly developing neighborhoods. The Comprehensive Plan was re-written five years ago. In response to citizen input, the City had made the policy within the Comprehensive Plan to not allow large apartment buildings (large concentrations of populations) in new neighborhoods. The Commission needed to decide if they Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Formal Meeting February 21,2002 Page 10 wished to go back and revisit the whole issue or if they preferred to keep the Comprehensive Plan and verbiage regarding large apartment complexes as it was. Public discussion was opened. Mike Pugh, 321 E. Market Street, legal counsel for D.J. Hammond & Associates. Pugh said the Commission was very close to creating a procedural error by not considering the Comprehensive Plan and rezoning items together. He disagreed with the opinion that an amendment was necessary to the overall Comprehensive Plan, but felt a specific reference could be made in the Comprehensive Plan to allow larger apadment complexes if approved for and designated in the district plans themselves. Pugh said they proposed amending the Comprehensive Plan to allow larger apartment complexes if approved within the specific districts; then look at the smaller districts themselves, be site and criteria specific, and give a rational basis as to why the land use map should be amended within that particular district. Pugh said he would request that the applicant's comprehensive plan amendment item and their rezoning request be considered at the same time. Pugh said the applicant felt there was a compelling reason to amend the Plan. He said the Comprehensive Plan and all the district plans did not mention the 30,000-plus college students that were in the community. A recent newspaper article indicated the UI student population had increased and was expected to continue growing. Pugh said an overriding principle of the Downtown District and Central District Plans was the specific goal of protecting the integrity of those particular neighborhoods. Pugh said those plans failed to provide a mechanism in order to assure that. This was an opportunity to help with that situation. ~t was a large apartment complex with Iow density in the perfect location near arterials. Pugh said a certain size complex was necessary in order to provide amenities such as a club house, volleyball court, recreational facility, etc. which would draw students away from downtown and north-side areas. There was a large concern about binge drinking in downtown, walking downtown on Saturday morning was not a pretty sight. That was due to the large number of students living near downtown that had nothing to do. If a location was provided where they could live in close proximity with their peers, and where amenities such as club house and swimming were allowed, that would be one way to combat that problem. Pugh requested the Commission amend both the Comprehensive and South District Plans. Their proposal was to make a reference in the Comprehensive Plan to permit larger apartment complexes developed under an OPDH zoning, if also permitted within the specific district plans themselves. He asked the South District Plan be amended to reflect a larger multi-family area in that particular area, a rational basis for doing so were the stated reasons: topography, ~rovision of a natural buffer, location at/near 2 major arterials, shuttle service provided, etc. Chait requested that the Commission suspend the public hearing and move to consideration of the rezoning item. Miklo said procedurally, as had been done in the past, when two closely linked items were on the agenda the two public hearings could be simultaneously opened. If someone wanted to speak to one or both, they identified that. Behr said everything having to do with the next item on the agenda was relevant to the public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan, although the two items would be voted on separately. Continuance of Comprehensive Plan Item #3 and REZONING ITEM: REZ01-00024. Discussion of an application submitted by D. J. Hammond & Associates for a rezoning from Interim Development Single Family (ID-RS) and Interim Development Multi-Family (ID-RM) to Planned Development Housing Overlay-12 (OPDH-12) on 17.64 acres to allow 168 dwellings in 18 buildings located on the east side of Gilbert Street south of Napoleon Lane. McCafferty said she had obtained the requested information regarding how the proposed complex would affect the City's emergency services. The City's police and fire departments had contacted their counterparts in Ames, where a similar complex was located. She said their concerns regarding the proposed development in Iowa City were outlined in the information she had given to the Commission. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Formal Meeting February21,2002 Page 11 Miklo said the concerns of the fire and police departments were not specific to this development, but they had had concerns about existing large complexes in other parts of the City and the number of calls they generated. McCafferty said the Parks and Recreation Commission had decided if the Commission approved the application, they would accept the dedication of the property as proposed by the applicant, provided the applicant build a trail and restore any of the prairie that would be disturbed during construction. McCafferty said Staff recommended REZ01-00024, an application submitted by D. J. Hammond & Associates for a rezoning from Interim Development Single Family (ID- RS) and Interim Development Multi-Family (ID-RM) to Planned Development Housing Overlay-12 (OPDH-12) on 17.64 acres to allow a 168 dwellings in 18 buildings located on the east side of Gilbert Street south of Napoleon Lane, be denied. Hansen asked which item would be voted on first, since they were being taken in combination. Bovbjerg said Comprehensive Plan because it would be the foundation for what ever else happened. Public discussion was opened. Gary Fairchild, Houston, TX, applicant's representative. He said the company had been 'doing this' for 5 years and had approximately 30 properties. Six were under construction and 5 more were in negotiation including iowa City. Fairchild said with respect to expressed environmental concerns: Hammond & Associates had done a site assessment and a wetland study which concluded a wetland study was not further warranted. Site observation concerns: % of the land was currently cultivated farm land, the other 4¼ was a mixture of pasture and uphill woodland area, a portion of which would be dedicated to Parks and Recreation. He said they would do what ever it took for environmental issues. They had erosion control in the form of fencing on the site that would help with turtle migration, if there were actually tudles on the site. Regarding traffic concerns/Transit Service: Hammond and Associates were not suggesting the bus come to their property. They would have their own transit system with a bus stop provided by the company. The City Transit Department had suggested Hansen and Associates purchase bus tickets for their residents, then the City might provide service to the complex. Fairchild said the company did not know if the City's transit service was good enough to get their residents to the campus and back in a timely fashion. Therefore, they have now decided that they would have their own bus stop and provide a shuttle, which would have a proposed 60% ridership. Regarding Fire and Safety: Fairchild had talked to the Ames Fire Marshall. Ames had a local Code amendment stating a pull box fire alarm system would be installed on every floor at each exit; residents had pulled the pull stations requiring the fire department to respond. Fairchild said changes were being made to stop the false alarms (almost a 90% rate) and alleviate that stress on the Ames Fire Department. Iowa City went by the uniform building fire code. If a building were supervised and fully sprinkled, pull stations were not required. Per Iowa City ordinance, the complex would have a pull box that could only be activated by the Fire Department, who would have the only key. The false alarm stress would not be present in Iowa City. Fairchild said Ames was the first city in 20 states that did not allow an officer to become a courtesy officer on site. They did not know about that ordinance in advance. Each club house was designed with a completely furnished, functional security unit located off the common area. He said if Iowa City had the same regulation, they would at least have a police officer on site on party nights - Thursday, Saturday and Sunday evenings. An additional policy to be implemented in Iowa City would be "no kegs on site". It would be part of the lease agreement and they had recently implemented the same policy in Ames too. Articles in the (Ames) paper had described a high degree of police calls regarding vandalism and burglaries. The perpetrators were not their residents, but persons living in the area, who helped themselves to stereos and other items. There had been noise disturbance calls and abuses of privileges. The City had given the residents a warning, Hammond and Associates gave them a fine which doubled the second time. Fairchild said they had a very successful product which ran at 98% occupancy in all cities but two. Those dropped down to 90% occupancy. The UI student population was expected to grow, their Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Formal Meeting February 21,2002 Page 12 complex provided an opportunity to have a student housing district near the city limits away from existing neighbors. They had shown that their complex would generate less traffic than single family housing units would. It would be hard to market single family housing units across from a public waste pump station and in a commercial zone. Lauren Lamp, 1534 Glendale Ave, Ames, Community Manager of the Sterling University Plaines Addition, Ames, IA. She assumed the position three weeks ago. Since then the number of (false) fire and police calls had decreased dramatically. Since management practices had changed, more attention was given to the property and to the residents themselves. They were taking more responsibility for themselves. She said information regarding the good that could happen with a complex of that type had been left out. Their policy called SUH Cares, allowed the students to become a part of the bigger community itself. The complex was a town within a town. The amenities were good for students and allowed their community to get together. Lamp said based on her observation, in Ames bus ridership was over 70%, sometimes a second bus was required to transport students. (Editor's note: the Iowa State University reposed a ridership of 25%). She said most information provided to the Commission was over six months old. Recently things had taken a 180-degree turn. Hansen asked how far from campus were they located. Lamp said approximately 3 or 3.5 miles from Campus. Koppes asked if she lived on site. Lamp said no, it was a rent-by-bedroom situation. Approximately 9 part-time office employees lived on site. Anciaux asked when the property opened. The property opened 7/21/2001. Lamp said it had been hard to calm the property as they were the only apartment complex and/or rental property in Ames that did not have a keg policy. They were currently discussing putting an addendum on the lease to prohibit kegs on site. Gary Reed, 11021 Aurora Avenue, Urbandale, IA. Representative of Kirkham, Michael & Associates. Reed said Kirkham and Michael had accomplished a traffic analysis of the Gilbert Street corridor adjacent to the proposed complex. Their analysis indicated that a level of service "B" would be maintained on Gilbert Street once the proposed complex was built. Level of service was a measure of effectiveness for traffic service conditions and was based on delay experienced by vehicles following other vehicles and average travel speed. Level of service ranged from "A" (the best) to "F" (the worst), with level of service A representing little or no delay and level of service F representing extreme delay. Level of service "C" or better was considered desirable, level of service "D" being acceptable in some urban situations. He said the Commission had been provided a copy of the report. It had also been submitted to Jeff Davidson for his input and they had received a timely response. Their overriding conclusion was, the corridor would be acceptable after full build-out of the proposed complex. Thus, the capacity of Gilbert Street was not the issue. With respect to pavement adequacy, Reed said typically percent truck traffic was used to determine pavement thickness design. One average 46,000 pound loaded dump truck would be equivalent to over 3000 average automobiles. Reed said their site would be 90%-95% automobile traffic. The City's Public Works facility entryway, which was used by loaded dump trucks, would be directly across from their project. With respect to the adequacy issue, Hansen and Associates did not feel their automobile traffic would be the problem nor did they feel their project was an impetus for widening and improving Gilbert Street to 4-lanes. Karen Dawes said it was not necessary to re-emphasize and re-discuss the number of problems Iowa City had seen over the years with large apartment complexes. Experience had shown it did not work very well. Five years ago there was a good reason for the Comprehensive Plan to say they should not be allowed, there were still many good reasons to have the Plan say no large apartment complexes allowed. Many problems were created for the neighborhoods that surrounded the large apartment complexes. Parents could see first hand the impact the residents of the complexes had on the neighborhood schools, which was a life-long impact on the children. The strain on City services was a concern and there was no guarantee that the apartment complex would stay occupied by students. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Formal Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 13 Dawes asked if the applicant had surveyed UI students to see if they would live at that padicular location in that type of complex. Fairchild said they had done an extensive marketing survey. In all the places they had been, Iowa City certainly needed help. With the assistance of Marcia Klingaman, they had sent out neighborhood notices far 300 and 600 feet, but had difficulty finding a neighbor, even at 2500 feet. Dawes said she had asked several students at her work if they would live at that location. They had all said no, it was too far out, too far away from downtown and their friends. She said it was disappointing to hear there had been problems in Ames, as they had been led to believe there would be excellent supervision from the start. She said she hoped if this project were approved the same problems would not occur in Iowa City. Dawes said the proposed project would significantly impact the prairie area. That issue had not been resolved yet, either. Jim Thro.qmorton said he supported Staff's recommendation and echoed Dawes' comments. For years there had been conflicts in the City with housing projects that had been considered of too high a density. Some of those projects had involved as few as 32 units. Individual citizens and the Comprehensive Plan said they did not want large apartment complexes in the City. He said this was not the right way to address the housing concerns of students. Throgmorton questioned what type of neighborhood would this type of project produce. He said neighborhood meant more than housing and commercial developments, more than just uniform homogenous developments. It meant integrated, well designed, well synthesized areas that people loved to live in. This would not be that type of neighborhood. Throgmorton said the Commission should ask themselves if this type of development was that kind that they would cherish in 30, 40 or 50 years. He did net think so. Throgmorton said the proposal displayed no knowledge of the growing body of literature and experience about how to design good neighborhoods. There was a huge amount of literature on that subject that had become available in the last 10 years. He said the proposed complex should be rejected for its inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan. If the Commission concluded it was consistent with the Plan or the Plan should be amended to allow large apartment complexes, it would be bad policy and a bad project for the City. Hansen asked Throgmorton how he saw student housing in the future. Throgmorton said the key thing was to disperse student housing throughout the City, into well designed, coherent neighborhoods. Apartments were very good if they were well designed to fit in to their surroundings. The scale of the proposed complex relative to the scale seen in Iowa City was inappropriate. Hansen asked about control of landlords, which went to the heart of whether he would vote for the project or not. Hansen said he saw landlords as being a huge problem in Iowa City and the lack of control they demonstrated over their properties. Many seemed not to want to obey the laws; over occupancy, the conditions of the buildings and what the tenants did in the buildings all being examples of the problem. Hansen said he felt that was the stumbling block that kept a project of this size from developing. Downtown parking was out of control, to add more complexes downtown was unbelievable. Hansen said he felt housing should be drawn out of downtown and provide bussing to bring the students back in. Throgmorton said he encouraged the Commission to work with a developer to revise the proposal significantly so it could make a good contribution to the neighborhood as a whole. Chait said by definition, this project was located in the middle of nowhere. He asked if it would generate some similar type of developments that would want to be near it as opposed to single-family housing that would not want to be near it. As a planning concept, it was an opportunity. Throgmorton said he supported the notion that this development would induce other development. The Commission needed to ask itself what type of development would be most attractive to the persons living in the project. Play the scenario out over time and give consideration to what type of changes to the Comprehensive Plan would arise over time te meet the types of developments that would be induced by that type of project. Also consider what would go just to the east of the site and get a sense of what kind of activity would actually be taking place around it. Would it be high quality development, meaning creating neighborhoods that people would cherish 30 or 40 years from now? Throgmorton said he felt the answer would be no. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Formal Meeting February 21,2002 Page 14 LeRoy Bird said he did not find too much fault with the project. However, it was right across from Napoleon Park, so the parties would be in the Park and not at the complex. Bird said the Commission should obtain in writing that the company would maintain the properties and have a police officer on site who would do his duty. Steve Nelson said the Staff report said stormwater detention would be detained off-site. He resided in the Pepperwood Addition with the Sandusky stormwater retention area and had had very bad personal experiences with it. Doing the calculations, 17 acres in total, capturing 10 acres with a 5 inch rainfall, would equate to 3-4 acre feet of water which would be 1.2 million gallons or more. Where would this quantity of water be detained and how was the City going to get it there within a 5-hour time span. Nelson asked if the City had addressed this issue. McCafferty said at this point, they had not asked the developer to proceed with engineering issues until they knew whether or not the development was going to go through. If the item was approved and went to Council, then a detailed development plan would need to be submitted. Nelson referenced an op-ed article from the Press Citizen and read his response to the question proposed by the article. Jim Quiqley said it was his understanding that there was a parking space for every resident of the proposed complex. He rode the Lakeside bus, but did not see a large ridership on the bus. Quigley said he suspected that the downtown traffic problems would become worse because many of those people would drive their cars downtown at least part of the time. With respect to the binge drinking problem, if it was difficult for the students to get downtown and kegs were forbidden at the complex, did that mean that bars would be attracted close to the complex to serve the students? He questioned if the figure 30,000 student population was current correct or perhaps over inflated. Dave Klockau, 1031 Briar Drive, said if the numbers from the Ames police department were correct, there would have been over 100 police calls between 8/1/01 to 1/29/02. That equated to 20 calls a month. Klockau said he was not taking a "Not in my backyard" attitude, his was "Not in my district". Klockau had been involved in working on the Comprehensive Plan. Things changed, amendments had to be made, but other things were rock solid. He said it had been decided by the neighborhood residents that they did not want any more high density housing in the district. The proposed density would be 35 people per acre, a high density. Klockau said he felt it was a concern that police calls would be to the complex while serious crime would be happening in other parts of the City and might not be able to be dealt with. KIockau said the area was a known threatened species habitat and there were turtles there who were protected under Iowa Code. Someone was going to have to step up and take responsibility to follow the law and protect the species. Rhodes said the sewer easement defined the pasture area. On the Comprehensive Plan it was shown as other open space where the turtles and the sensitive areas were located. McCafferty said the plat was not up to date. A 50-foot wide corridor was around the perimeter of the property which would allow for trail connection access. Part of the CZA would require the applicant to replant any damaged prairie and to provide a trail which was planned to eventually fit into the City's larger trail system. Pugh said the current Comprehensive Plan didn't show the area to the east of the sanitary sewer system as open space, it would be fudher to the east of the open space area. Pugh said an environmental assessment had been done on the property. It showed that 75%-80% of the property had already been cultivated, the rest was part pasture, wooded and sanitary sewer area. A Sensitive Areas Ordinance and Open Space Ordinance were in existence. They would comply with both as well as the State codes that dealt with environmental concerns. The box turtle issues would be dealt with at the State level. Pugh said he could guarantee that students would not live that far out of town in smaller complexes with nothing to draw them out to the area. He said the difference with this project was the amenities that were projected to be provided. To provide those amenities required a significant capital requirement. The developer's lender, in order to provide financing for the project, would not be able to sell the project unless someone else was willing to pay the price for installing the amenities. Pugh said the amenities themselves would drive which types of persons would live at the project. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes- Formal Meeting February21,2002 Page15 Hansen said he still had not received any resolution as to how the Commission could approve this project without allowing it in the rest of the City under other circumstances. Pugh suggested Hansen get counsel from Behr. He recommended an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan which allowed for larger multi-family apadment complexes if they were specifically approved for and designated in the district plans themselves. Then make amendments the South District Plan articulating reasons why this particular project should be permitted in that location. Pugh said the couds recognized that zoning was not static, circumstances changed and the needs of communities changed. Amy Bouska, 1049 Briar Drive, said she was disappointed in the environmental assessment that a floristic inventory of at least the pasture area had not been done. She said pasture areas in Iowa that had not been tilled which contained a mixture of native grasses and fords were prairie remnants. This area was not indicated on the Sensitive Areas Map as a sensitive area. She felt it was very important that an inventory for the site be done, the land and flora be looked closely looked at and given consideration for placement on the Sensitive Areas Map. Bouska asked if the proposed complex could (legally) be restricted to students only. Behr said it could not. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Chait made a motion to amend the Comprehensive Plan to provide for the location of large apartment complexes and to amend the South District Plan land use map to depict multi-family development on the east side of South Gilbert Street east and south of Napoleon Park. Shannon seconded the motion. Hansen asked Behr, if a specific amendment were made to the Plan as suggested by Pugh, could another developer who wanted to make a development of their own style of housing for who ever, use the arguments to amend this plan for this project as a basis to force his plan/housing into another district over the objections of the Commission. Behr said, no, not automatically. To make an argument, that person would have to fit within the specific criteria and conditions set forth by the Commission for this project, but even then, it did not mean automatic approval. Hansen asked what if they took it to Oourt. Behr said it boiled down to unique circumstances for each development. Hansen, speaking to Chairperson Bovbjerg, said he was uncomfortable voting on a motion without the criteria being discussed first. He did not want to vote on a motion to accept a change without knowing what that change would be. Miklo said the Commission would want to amend the motion to include criteria such as, consideration being given to large apartment complexes at the intersection of two arterial streets, or an arterial and a collector street provided there was an adequate transition of buffer between it and lower density areas. Miklo said that would be in compliance with the other land use goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Hansen could also put other criteria on the table for the Commissioners to consider. Bovbjerg said that approach could be handled in many ways, but she felt no Commission should try to make that type of decision at that hour of the night under current present circumstances for developing, championing and voting on specific criteria that would change a vote one way or another. She said she felt in this particular instance, the Plan - as it had already been presented, studied and discussed by the Commission, and been on the agenda for several weeks, was what they should look at. However, if in the future there would be criteria or conditions under which changes should be allowed, the Comprehensive Plan could always be brought up at any time. Chair said he had concerns regarding Bovbjerg's proposal. By not doing what Hansen suggested, the item had to be voted for, against or deferred. The Commission might be putting off something that was doable. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Formal Meeting February 21,2002 Page 16 Hansen said this particular proposed project had been especially difficult for him. He felt he had dealt with the landlord issues from a neighborhood point of view more than anyone else in the town. Having more landlords than fewer seemed to be a giant problem that no one could get their arms around. He said if someone offered a plan to try to be a better landlord, maybe through language they could assure the person would be a better landlord, but that could not be guaranteed. Hansen said he had always advocated for moving housing for students out of the downtown area, the amenities offered by Hammond and Associates might make a lot of the downtown landlords shake a bit and actually lower rents to keep renters downtown. The parking problems that had been created were huge for the neighborhoods that surrounded downtown. He would like to see the proposed project work, but had concerns that the Commission was letting the issue loose by having an open amendment. Hansen said he could not support an open motion to vote to just approve or deny. Miklo said any of the Commissions could make a motion to add criteria to the amendment. Chait said his experience on the Commission was they listen, but when they spoke, no one listened. His role on the Commission was to have an opinion. Each Commissioner ultimately spoke with their vote. Chait said he wanted to support the amendment; he wanted to make a statement and be heard with his vote. He said the issues were frequently back yard, neighborhood, district, but the issues did not stop there. It was not even just about Iowa City, Coralville and the County. Chait said the specifics he considered were: this development would put $10 million dollars into the economy, it would put hundreds of thousands of dollars into the tax base. The tax base, which everyone paid into, went to the public school system. This particular project would put no significant visible burden on the public school system. All items played together on the overall big picture in his thinking as to why he could support this type of project. The core essence of the Community was being eroded by recent decisions and changes made within the City and downtown area (ground floor housing and subterranean parking in the central business district). Chait said the Commission said one thing, the policies said one thing, yet that was not what happened. There was so much inconsistency and to be afraid of making a mistake, he felt many of the items the Commission approved were mistakes, yet they were not afraid to approve them. He hoped to be able to say things in a positive way that put the burden onto the applicant or developer that they could do a proposed project if they addressed the concerns, the concerns of the Commission, of the community, of the Staff and the Powers That Be. Chait said he would prefer to hear a proposed project could happen if specified terms and conditions were met. Then, if the developer said that was too onerous or too much money, they could choose not to do the project or to go somewhere. Chaid said the Commission needed to structure projects in such a way that they could happen, not why it could not happen. Shannon said he was confused and concerned. He had been on the Commission for 4 years, but during the last 2 or 3 years, Staff had said they wanted apartment complexes scattered around the City. Shannon supported that. Recently large tracts of older parts of Iowa City were downzoned, but he opposed that because he felt it was not a fair use of what the land demands would be, holding it to something that sounded like a good idea. His preference was to see land used to accomplish the needs of the time, not held onto for a 'maybe something' that would not be viable in the future. The Neighborhood associations had wanted to protect their neighborhoods from the students by having them live out of town. Shannon said that was not a reasonable expectation to him, but until this proposal came along, there were not viable options. The zoning within the city did not allow for a scattering around of (24-unit) apartment complexes. Shannon said he was not sure the proposed project was the right thing to do, but they should give it a chance. A lot of bad things could happen, but it seemed hypocritical of the community to sit there and say we can't do this/we can't do that, but this was a college town. He said he had lived here all his life. The students were a part of the community and made the community what it was. If persons didn't like the students, maybe they should not live here. If the City got rid of the students, they would be like Cedar Rapids. Shannon said he would like to give Hammond and Associates a chance to see if the project was doable, and look at the proposal in a positive frame, maybe something good would come of it. Koppes said she would like to see the motion split into two parts, the Comprehensive Plan and the South District Plan. She said she might be able to support an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Formal Meeting February 21,2002 Page 17 but not necessarily to the South District Plan. They did not seem to go together. Koppes said she lived in the South District and they did have an over abundance of apartment buildings in the district. She felt there had been a lot of good input into the South District Plan and she was not willing to change it, but she might be willing to change the Comprehensive Plan as proposed to allow large apartment complexes in other parts of the City. Miklo said they could make two motions: a motion to amend the larger Comprehensive Plan or study it and come back to it, and a motion specific to the Land Use Plan for the South District. Miklo said the Comprehensive Plan language did not mean anywhere in the City, the language applied to new neighborhoods. The Comprehensive Plan did identify areas appropriate for new high-density development, such as south of Burlington Street. Behr said to allow for it in the Comprehensive Plan, did not give the next applicant a vested right to have a large apartment complex. It allowed for a large apartment complex to be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. It would be changing the policy to no longer discourage large apartment complexes in the city. Anciaux said the citizen input they had received for the various districts plans had indicated a desire for no large apartment complexes in the districts due to residents past experiences with large apartment complexes. Bovbjerg said she could not see that amending the Comprehensive Plan for large apartment complexes was in the best interest of the City, at least not at this time. Not for the South District either. It was not a question of who would live there or how would it be built, it was a question of the largeness of this complex. The motion was denied on a vote of 2-4 (Bovbjerg, Hansen, Koppes, Anciaux voted no). Motion: Chait made a motion to deny REZ01-00024 an application submitted by D. J. Hammond & Associates for a rezoning from Interim Development Single Family (iD-RS) and Interim Development Multi-Family (ID-RM) to Planned Development Housing Overlay-12 (OPDH-12) on 17.64 acres to allow 168 dwellings in 18 buildings located on the east side of Gilbert Street south of Napoleon Lane. Shannon seconded the motion. Hansen said he felt very bad about the situation. The City was currently going through some big changes with the Neighborhood Housing Relation Task Force which was trying to deal with major issues that had driven citizens to the point to the rejection of large apartment complexes. Chait said given what the Commission just voted on, he was inclined to vote against the rezoning proposal. He would like to see terms and conditions be developed to allow for this type of project. The experience of a developer proposing this type of project had never been seen before in Iowa City. Chair said he did not want to project that something (negative) would happen before it actually occurred. He felt voting no was the only choice because there was not an opportunity to specify any further ways to address all the concerns and to lay out all the terms and conditions that would allow the community to be comfortable with the project. Shannon said he had always favored higher density and opposed urban sprawl. People talked about urban sprawl, but took no action against it, it was a good conversation topic. He was against chewing up farm land to build houses on. The proposed project was a higher density than people wanted, but he would vote for the project because he felt it could be a good thing. Anciaux said he agreed with Shannon on the higher densities, but was in favor of spreading the densities around with 24-units here and 24-units there instead of all in one spot. Bovjberg said she considered the project not in terms of who was going to live there or how it was going to be managed because the Commission could not consider those items in the long term. Bovbjerg said she considered if the proposed density on that land given the land itself and adjacent Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Formal Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 18 land, streets, Gilbert Street - was it the right thing to have there. Bovbjerg said for her, it was no. Since the Comprehensive Plan amendment was denied, there was no basis for the rezoning. She said looking at the applicant's plan, it was high density by Iowa City standards. This could be considered high density sprawl. She also considered how much impervious surface would be present. The amount of water that would flow off site was a large quantity. There was a small notation on an exhibit from a City Engineer which indicated the storm water would be permitted to the ditch located on the east side of Gilbert Street. It was not a big ditch and would flood the farm field. Bovbjerg said that was just one indication to her that it was too much in that place in that fashion. Chait said he wished to reframe the motion from deny to approve, which would make it more clear as to the votes and the positions. Motion: Chair made a motion to amend the motion that was on the floor from a motion to deny to a motion to approve. Shannon seconded the motion. The motion to amend the motion currently on the floor passed on a vote of 6-0. The motion to approve REZ01-00024 was denied on a vote of 2-4 (Koppes, Bovbjerg, Hansen and Anciaux voted no). Miklo said if the applicant requested the item go to Council, on March 19, 2002, they would set a ~ublic hearing for their first meeting in April, 2002. REZOl-00022/SUB01-00024. Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Development for a rezoning from Interim Development Multi-Family (ID-RM) and interim Development Single-Family (ID- RS) to Community Commercial (CC-2) for 9.79 acres and a preliminary plat of Napoleon Heights a 146.68 acre, 3-lot subdivision located on the east side of Gilbert Street north of the southern City limits. (45-day limitation period: 2/21/02). Glenn Siders, Southgate Development Company, requested to withdraw the request for rezoning. SUB01-00024. Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Development for a preliminary plat of Napoleon Heights a 146.68 acre, 3-lot subdivision located on the east side of Gilbert Street north of the southern City limits. (45-day limitation period: 2/21/02). McCafferty said there were 4 lots, 3 lots and 1 outlot. All lots would remain with current zoning of ID- RM and ID-RS. McCafferty said Staff recommended SUB01-00024, a preliminary plat of Napoleon Heights a 146.68 acre, 3-lot subdivision located on the east side of Gilbert Street north of the southern City limits, be approved. Public discussion was opened. Rhodes said it had been announced several meetings ago that there were no development activities on any of the (4) lots so consideration of a Sensitive Areas Ordinance was not necessary at the time. The City Attorney's representative had defined development activity to include filling and grading. Earlier in the meeting, Hansen had raised concerns about filling and grading activities that had already taken place on the properly. If that had occurred, there were development activities occurring and the Sensitive Areas Ordinance should be taken into consideration with respect to the proposal. McCafferty said the applicant had decided there would be development activity where hydric soils were located. Public Works had reviewed it with regard to the Sensitive Areas Ordinance and approved that particular plat. Once another development proposal was submitted for any of the areas, it would be subject to review and a Sensitive Areas Plan would be required. Rhodes said he was referring to actual development activities that had occurred in the northern portion of the pasture. If filling and grading activity had occurred there, it would kick in the Sensitive Areas Ordinance for the whole plat and proposal. Behr said filling and grading were considered development activity. If there had been Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Formal Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 19 what qualified as development activity on that property, it had not been done as a part of the plat. That is why it did not activate the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. What would bring it into play were the hydric soils, a site plan had been submitted and was approved. Miklo said notice of an environmental infraction had been sent because of the fill activity. It was important to consider the plat without regard to that development activity. Behr said the notice was responded to and a meeting would occur, which was what was required by the ordinance. In response to a question by Bovbjerg, Behr said there was no time limitation on it. Before the City could file a municipal infraction for an environmental infraction, it had to offer to participate in negotiations. The offer had been made and was accepted, and the negotiations would take place. Hansen asked if approving the item before the Commission would make the alleged activities legal. Behr said no, it would not. In a legal sense it would have no affect, it would not affect how the municipal infraction could proceed. Tim Thompson, Department of Natural Resources, said the ornate box turtles were primarily located in Outlet A and on the land tract that Showers-McCollister did not sell. The box turtle was listed as a threatened species, the Iowa Code did not differentiate between threatened or endangered species so the turtles had the same protection as an endangered species. Endangered was a worse classification because that meant the species was in a lot of trouble and was about ready to have something happen to it that it would no longer exist. A threatened species was a lower category where there was a lot of concern for the species, there were not a lot in existence, but there was not an immediate instance that would cause an immediate extermination of the species. The Bald Eagle was recently downgraded from being a federally endangered species to a federally threatened species. That did not mean that protection was no longer afforded to the bald eagle. In this particular case, the ornate box turtle was a state threatened species, so it was protected by State law. State threatened species meant, that in another state, it might not be threatened or might not exist in another state. Thompson said his only concern in regard to the request to the development, was to be reassured that Outlet A would also be reviewed again. The State knew there were box turtles on the site. They needed more information on the present population to make any determinations as to what the applicant or developer could do on the development site. Thompson had spoken with Siders and in his letter to the City, had indicated that the DNR needed to have some type of inventory done. The time frame for the inventory was possible only during a certain time of year because the turtles hibernated underground. The turtles would not be up and moving before April, so they would need a time period this spring to do some marking and tracking of the turtles to really figure out the extent of where the population was at; where they were hibernating which would be more difficult to figure out but the fresh diggings would be of some help. Thomson said the DNR had asked the developer to get someone that the developer, City and public believed would do a good job on the inventory project. There were people within the state that could be contracted to do the work. Thompson said they were not trying to put the development way down into the future, but it was necessary to wait until spring when the turtles came out. The DNR's second concern was the sand prairie, even though they did not have much authority over it, was a habitat for the turtle. If turtles were destroyed, it would be a direct violation of State code, if the sand prairie were destroyed, unless there was a threatened species of prairie plant on the tract, it would not be a direct violation of code. Thompson said if one got rid of the habitat they also got rid of the turtle, as that was what it ultimately needed to survive. Once the DNR had looked at the ornate box turtle population and figured out what was there, the DNR would make some judgments at that time as to their recommendations to the developer and to the Commission, to ensure that the turtle population stayed relatively intact and did not perish. Chait said the only activity they Commission would approve would be the subdivision of the property. There would be no rezoning or activity other than the division itself would occur. He asked Thompson if that threw up any red flags or raised concerns for him. Thompson said he did net want the Commission rushing into anything, then saying the DNR was the hold up on the whole project. There was a time frame, the project could not be worked on until the spring time. Hansen said if a significant Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Formal Meeting February 21,2002 Page 20 box turtle population was found, the DNR made their recommendations and relocation was a recommendation, how long a period of time did Thompson think it would take to mitigate all the circumstances. Thompson said he could not honestly answer that. In the past the State had not authorized the movement of threatened or endangered species out of an area so a development could occur. Hansen said the prairie remnants were not on the map and they could not be mapped until they were found. If the process took time up, why was the process not started now to get it completed at the same time. McCafferty said the road might potentially be graded so that would be the only development activity, otherwise the subdivision would only be defining lot lines. Siders told Hansen he did not know how much road would be graded. Behr said the DNR's recommendation on the plat would not remove anyone from the requirements of meeting the state law and meeting the Sensitive Areas Ordinance for future development activity. Hansen said prairie remnants that were not on the map had nothing to do with the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. It was a catch-22, when the tract came up for development there was not enough time to inventory it because at least a whole season (of non- grazed ground) was needed. Behr said an effort to rezone to show the remnants on the map could be done regardless of action on the subdivision. Hansen said if the Commission approved the subdivision and then next month the developer changed their mind and requested development activities, they would be up against the development and there would not be an adequate time frame to do an inventory. Miklo said the developer would have to get a rezoning to do the development. It was Miklos' understanding that some citizens were going to make a proposal to the City for designating some potential prairie. Bovbjerg asked if it was possible as part of the motion to request at least one or two commissioners make sure they stayed attentive to the issue and to require the developer to apprise the Commission about developments. Thompson said Siders had indicated that Southgate Development would have someone for both the turtles and to look at the prairie plants. He asked for a confirmation from Siders. Thompson said he was trying to work with Siders, not against him. Siders said the road to be graded appeared to be roughly 1200 feet in length. Siders said Southgate did not know what they were doing as they were waiting for correspondence from the DNR. He said it was his understanding of the correspondence that they would have to do a turtle assessment. He understood the assessment could not be done until the turtles came out of hibernation, the length of the assessment would depend on what was found. Siders said they would hire the appropriate, qualified staff to make the assessment, based on recommendations from Thompson. Kirkham, Michael & Associates had been a part of the Eddyville Project. They had already forwarded information to Siders and would be an asset in the process. With respect to the prairie plants, they would try to make an assessment of that. Bottom line was, it was not part of a Sensitive Areas Ordinance. The sensitive areas were the hydric soils that they were obligated to consider. They would try to research the property but would not hold development up. They were in the development business, not the prairie restoration business. Siders said they would comply with all the regulations, but prairie restoration was not one of the regulations they needed to comply with, however they would do an evaluation of it. Hansen said it seemed to him Southgate might make more money if they did some type of cluster development around the open space. Siders said that was operating on the assumption that they were not going to do that and the Commission did not know that for a fact. He said no one knew what they had planned for the site. Siders said the Commission could not obligate themselves until they saw a plat. The turtles were under the State authority, Southgate was working with the State so that issue as far as the City was concerned should be done. The prairie issue was not an environmental concern. As far as City ordinances went, that would be a moot point. Miklo said if the prairie were shown on the map, the Commission would be looking at it with any development activity. Hansen said it was not on the map because it had been missed. Siders said they were not going to blow off the potential for a prairie. Southgate would sell any amount of the prairie property to a buyer who wished to restore it to a prairie for a cash offer for the amount of money Southgate had invested in the property. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Formal Meeting February 21,2002 Page 21 Thompson said the concerns the DNR had were with the areas that had not been in agricultural crops because those would be potential turtle hibernation areas. Once summertime was here, it was known the turtles would go into the crops and into the present housing developments to the north. Turtles had been know to travel up to .5 mile or farther, but would home back to the area where they would over winter again. Thompson said the DNR would not have any problems with grading of areas that had been in row crops previously. Amy Bouska, 1049 Briar Drive, if the preliminary plat was approved, did that mean the construction of the road could be started right away. Miklo said generally infrastructure was put in after a final plat was approved. There could be grading done before the final plat was approved. Judy Felder, 335 Beldon Avenue, said she was interested in the environmental issues of the project. She asked what would be the ramifications to the open space on the South District Plan by platting the property now. Miklo said once the property was platted it could be sold off into individual pieces. The possibility of transferring the density from a portion of this area to other properties, which would be under the same ownership, had been discussed. However if the property were sold and the new owner agreed, the density transfer could also be done to an adjacent property under a conditional zoning agreement that involved all the properties. If the two properties were sold and the future owner was not cooperative, the ability to transfer density would be more difficult because there would be a smaller are to transfer to. Steve Nelson said he wanted to give his recommendation that the platting be approved. He had concerns and suggested restrictions be placed on the wording. If any area was sited for storm water retention, Nelson felt no development should be allowed on that land, it should be made into a wetland. Nelson read his response to a Press Citizen editorial with regard to what role should a government play in protecting Iowa's natural resources. He said Government must be the citizen's watch guard for the protection of Iowa's natural resources. He felt the City of Iowa City would sell its soul to increase its tax base at the expense of natural resource too rare to place a value on. Bird said he was concerned about the whole area. When it rained, the storm sewers were not adequate to handle the water, it stood in the yards. Bird said Pleasant Valley Golf Course was filling in a creek at their location which would stop the water from flowing down. Bird said the City sewer had a leak in it which created water across from his property. Bovbjerg asked Bird if he had notified the City. Bird said he had. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Anciaux made a motion to approve REZO1-00022/SUB01-00024, an application submitted by Southgate Development for a preliminary plat of Napoleon Heights a 146.68 acre, 3-lot subdivision located on the east side of Gilbert Street north of the southern City limits. Koppes seconded the motion. Anciaux called the question. The motion passed on a 6-0 vote. REZ02-00001, discussion of an application from Kevin Hanick for a rezoning from Rural Residential (RR-1) and Interim Development Single Family Residential (ID-RS) to Low Density Single Family Residential (RS-5) on 5.45 acres located at the northwest corner of Rohret Road and Phoenix Drive. (45~day limitation period: 3/17/02) McCafferty said the preliminary plat included lots 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the Southwest Estates Subdivision and an additional lot where a vintage brick house was located. The intent of rural residential was to provide zoning for areas in which there were not sewer or City services available. At this time there Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Formal Meeting February 21,2002 Page 22 was sewer service available to the location, so it would be appropriate to rezone it to RS-5. Currently the area east of Phoenix Drive was already zoned RS-5, so it would be a continuation of that zoning. The zoning transition would take place at the rear of the yard(s), which was a general principle of Planning. A condition of the rezoning would be that a sewer easement be provided along the west and south property line of lot 6 in order to provide future sewer access to lots 3 and 4. A second condition would be that no additional curb cuts be constructed on the Rohret Road frontage because it was an arterial street. Staff did not recommend additional curb cuts in addition to the existing two curb cuts. McCafferty said Staff recommended that REZ02-00001, an application submitted by Kevin Hanick for a rezoning from Rural Residential (RR-1) and Interim Development Single Family Residential (ID-RS) to Low Density Single Family Residential (RS-5) on 5.45 acres located at the northwest corner of Rohret Road and Phoenix Drive be approved subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement requiring a sewer easement along the west and south property line of lot 6 to provide future sewer access to lots 3 and 5, and that no additional curb cuts be constructed on the Rohret Road frontage. Mark and Jaime Sandier, owners of property on Tucson Drive, had called McCafferty to say they were not supportive of the rezoning. Shannon asked for a clarification as to where the City limits were in relationship to the property. Anciaux asked for a clarification of where the existing curb cuts were located. Koppes asked what would be the access to the single lot that was not incorporated into the Southwest Estates Subdivision. McCafferty said any further subdivision of the lots would have to share a drive with the existing curb cuts. Miklo said Lot 4 was owned by the church to the east, so they would have to have access through Lot 3. Public discussion was opened. Kevin Hanick, 1830 Friendship Street, said he owned the unnumbered lot that contained a small brick house that he was restoring. The lot was a little over 1.0 acre in size, he wished to divide the lot into two .5 acre parcels and construct a second house on the lot. He said the character in the area had changed recently to large lot, RS-5 Single Family zoning. City services were now in place so that would not be a problem. He said Lot 8 had never been developed and had recently changed hands. Hanick said he had been told that the new owner planned to put a single-family house on the lot. He said he had spoken to the neighbor who lived in Lot 7, to the Church, and to the man who had purchased Lot 5, they were in agreement with Hanick's plans. If he subdivided the lot into two parcels, they would both utilize the existing curb cut on the unnumbered lot. Robert Haqaman, 44 Tucson Place, said he was there to support what currently existed. The area had been platted and settled. He questioned the consent of the other land owners and requested proof. He said for four of the five lots there was no hard evidence that the owner's supported the proposed change, and if there was, he wished to see evidence in writing. Hagaman said the four lots were bound by protective covenants which stipulated none of the lots could be re-subdivided except with written permission of the owners of at least 2/3 of all the lots in the subdivision known as Southwest Estates Parts One and Two. Hagaman said he felt stability was important. Hanick could go ahead with his plans, he was not bound by the existing covenants, but it would throw the neighbors into a different form. Hagaman said without good reason for resubdividing, replatting and rezoning, it should not be done. They were entitled to a stability for which the whole division was set up. He was entitled to know whether or not people in the existing lots who were bound by the covenants did in fact agree with the zoning process. If they did, it was an anticipatory breech that had legal consequences. McCafferty said there would be a Conditional Zoning Agreement attached to the rezoning in which all the owners of the rezoned lots would have to approve and sign off on. Hagaman said once persons signed on to an agreement to rezone, it would be a statement of intent not to comply with the covenants by which they were bound. Hanick said all conversations had been on an informal basis, he did not wish to mislead anyone. He was only focusing on the one unnumbered lot. Chait asked why the owners of the shaded lots would need to be involved when Hanick was only requesting one lot. McCafferty said City policy was not to Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Formal Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 23 spot zone. Staff had told the applicant that if he wanted the area rezoned, he would have to do more than a single lot. McCafferty had looked at the old plats to verify Hanick's tract of land was not part of Southwest Estates. They had developed around the lot. McCafferty said she personally had not spoken with all the land owners or the Church. Mark Sines, the owner of Lot 5, had called her office and had given a verbal commitment to the rezoning. Behr said the lot owners had no obligation to sign the Conditional Zoning Agreement. Linda Hawley, 1630 Phoenix Drive, said her front windows and door faced across the church parking lot to see the brick house very clearly. She said it was a 'nothing special' old brick farm house. It was her understanding that it was the old Eicher farmhouse. She said from her participation in the Southwest District Planning meetings, it was her understanding that there was an interest in having housing in a neighborhood be compatible to other housing in the neighborhood. A modular home was proposed to be built on Lot 5. Additionally several 1920's homes currently owned by the UI on Grand Avenue Court were to be moved to the split lots. She felt those homes would not be compatible in type to the surrounding homes in the neighborhood which were built from approximately 1980 - 1995. The 40 acres to the west of the lots were owned by a development and had been platted to homes similar to those existing in the neighborhood. She said to move 1920% era homes into the neighborhood, which were not compatible by reason of age and design, would introduce them artificially to the area. Hawley said the lots to the side and to the back were one acre in size, they were not split lots. She asked how many homes could be placed on an RS-5 zoned lot. Miklo said in Iowa City it would probably be 2 ½ to 3 homes per acre. Hanick said he had intended the process to be a friendly one. He felt the covenants of Southwest Estates would prohibit the owner of Lot 5 from subdividing the lot. The covenants would be the dominant rule on those lots. Hanick said he was looking at a home currently owned by the UI that he felt would be extremely compatible with the existing brick house on the lot, however, it was only a preliminary thought. Bovbjerg asked that a copy of the covenants be available for the next meeting. Nancy Hitchon, 29 Tucson Place, said she did not approve of the rezoning. She said the land use map showed there was a large area that was zoned as one-acre development as opposed to RS-5 zoning. She did not wish the Commission to erroneously think that the RS-5 zoning was homogenous to the entire area. Pat Hitchon, 29 Tucson Place, lived on Lot 8. He and Nancy had purchased the lot in 1989 and were one of the earliest neighbors to move into the neighborhood when Eicher was still developing the area. One of the main reasons they moved into the area was the covenants that were available at the time. He said they would like to see the covenants continue to be implemented to protect the consumer, to protect them and to protect everyone. He felt the covenants should not be seen as old vehicles to be sold and traded in for newer vehicles. They should be respected, cherished and protected. For that reason, he felt the sectioning of the lots should not take place. Hitchon said he was against the rezoning of the area. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Hansen made a motion to defer REZ02-00001, an application from Kevin Hanick for a rezoning from Rural Residential (RR-1) and Interim Development Single Family Residential (ID-RS) to Low Density Single Family Residential (RS-5) on 5.45 acres located at the northwest corner of Rohret Road and Phoenix Drive. Anciaux seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. DEVELOPMENT ITEMS: Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Formal Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 24 SUB01-00023, discussion of a preliminary plat of Apex Commercial Park, a resubdivision of Lot 2, Donohoe Fifth Subdivision, a 6.55 acre, 9-lot commercial subdivision located south of Highway 1 West at Landon Avenue S.W. (45-day limitation period: Waived) Miklo said a motion had been received to defer this item. Motion: Chair made a motion to defer SUB01-00023, a preliminary plat of Apex Commercial Park, a resubdivision of Lot 2, Donohoe Fifth Subdivision, a 6.55 acre, 9-lot commercial subdivision located south of Highway 1 West at Landon Avenue S.W. Hansen seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. SUB01-00026, discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Development for a preliminary and final plat of Highlander Development Third Addition, A Resubdivision of Highlander First Addition, Lots 8 - 14, a 21.87 acre, 7-lot subdivision with 2 outlots, located at the eastern terminus of Northgate Drive. Miklo said this was now in order for approval. It had been confirmed that there were no jurisdictional wetlands. Staff recommended approval of the application subject to approval of legal papers and construction drawings prior to Council consideration. Public discussion was opened. There was none. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Shannon made a motion to approve SUB01-00026, an application submitted by Southgate Development for a preliminary and final plat of Highlander Development Third Addition, A Resubdivision of Highlander First Addition, Lots 8 - 14, a 21.87 acre, 7-lot subdivision with 2 outlots, located at the eastern terminus of Northgate Drive, subject to approval of legal papers and construction drawings prior to Council consideration. Hansen seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. SUB02-00001., discussion of an application submitted by Arlington L.C. for final plat of Stone Bridge Estates, Parts 2-4, a 13.98 50-lot residential subdivision located east of Camden Road north of Court Street. Miklo said the application was in order for approval. Staff recommended approval subject to approval of legal papers and construction drawings prior to Council consideration. Public discussion was opened. There was none. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Anciaux made a motion to approve SUB02-O0001, an application submitted by Arlington L.C. for final plat of Stone Bridge Estates, Parts 2-4, a 13.98 50-lot residential subdivision located east of Camden Road north of Court Street subject to approval of legal papers and construction drawings prior to Council consideration. Chair seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. SUB02-O0002, discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Development for a final plat of Lindemann Subdivision Part One, a 15.05 acre, 33-1ot residential subdivision, and Lindemann Subdivision Part Two, a 16.97 acre, 29-1ot residential subdivision located north on Court Street, east of Scott Park Drive. Miklo said Staff recommended approval of the application subject to approval of legal papers and construction drawings prior to Council consideration. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Formal Meeting February 21,2002 Page 25 Public discussion was opened. There was none. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Chait made a motion to approve SUB02-00002, an application submitted by Southgate Development for a final plat of Lindemann Subdivision Part One, a 15.05 acre, 33-1ot residential subdivision, and Lindemann Subdivision Part Two, a 16.97 acre, 29-1ot residential subdivision located north on Court Street, east of Scott Park Drive, subject to approval of legal papers and construction drawings prior to Council consideration. Shannon seconded the motion. Koppes asked if the hammer head-shaped vehicle turnaround had been put back in. Miklo and Siders said they had been. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. TEXT AMENDMENTS: Discussion of amendments to the Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1) zone te broaden the uses allowed and to revise the dimensional requirements and design provisions. Motion: Koppes made a motion to defer the discussion te the next meeting. Anciaux seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. Discussion of amendments to the Zoning Code, Article 0, Sign Regulations, to permit portable signs in the Central Business Service (CB-2), Central Business Suppod (CB-5) and Central Business (CB-10) zones. Motion: Koppes made a motion to defer the discussion to the next meeting. Anciaux seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. OTHER: CONSIDERATION OF FEBRUARY 7, 2002 MEETING MINUTES: Motion: Chait made a motion to approve the meeting minutes subject to corrections as provided to Miklo. Koppes seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. ADJOURNMENT: A motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 1:02 A.M. on Friday, February 22, 2002. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. Dean Shannon, Secretary Minutes submitted by Candy Barnhill t: shared/pcd/minutes/p&z/p&z02-21-02-formal doc MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 7, 2002 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL - CIVIC CENTER MEMBERS PRESENT: Benjamin Chair, Jerry Hansen, Ann Freerks, Don Anciaux, Ann Bovbjerg, Dean Shannon, Beth Koppes STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Shelley McCafferty, Mitch Behr OTHERS PRESENT: Kevin Hanick, Robert Hagaman, Linda Hawley RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: Recommended approval, by a vote of 6-1, (Anciaux voted no), of REZ02-00001, an application from Kevin Hanick for a rezoning of 5.45 acres from Rural Residential (RR-1) and Interim Development Single Family Residential (ID-RS) to Low Density Single Family Residential (RS-5), located at the northwest corner of Rohret Road and Phoenix Drive subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement requiring a sewer easement along the west and south property line of Lot 6 to provide future sewer access to Lots 3 and 4, and that no additional curb cuts will be constructed on the Rohret Road frontage. Recommended approval, by a vote of 7-0, of SUB02-0000~, an application submitted by Plum Grove Acres, Inc. a final plat of First and Rochester, Part 4, a 24.25-acre, 40-lot residential subdivision, located at the east end of Hickory Trail, subject to Staff approval of legal papers prior to City Council consideration of the final plat. Recommended approval, by a vote of 7-0, amendments to the Neighborhood Commercial, CN-1, zone to broaden the uses allowed and to revise the dimensional requirements and design provisions. Recommended approval, by a vote of 7-0, amendments to the Zoning Code, Article O, Sign Regulations, to permit portable signs in the Central Business Service, CB-2, Central Business Support, CB-5, and Central Business, CB-10, zones. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Bovbjerg called the meeting to order at 7:34 pm. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. ANNOUNCEMENT OF VACANCIES ON CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: Bovbjerg said a listing of current vacancies on the various Boards and Commissions was posted in the outer lobby. REZONING ITEMS: REZ02-00001, discussion of an application from Kevin Hanick for a rezoning from Rural Residential (RR- t) and Interim Development Single Family Residential (iD-RS) to Low Density Single Family Residential (RS-5) on 5.45 acres located at the northwest corner of Rohret Road and Phoenix Drive. McCafferty presented staff report. A copy of the Southwest Estates Subdivision protective covenants and restrictions were provided to the Commissioners. According to the covenants Lots 3, 4, 5, and 6 were included in Southwest Estates and were covered by the covenants. The unnumbered lot, owned by Hanick, was not included in Southwest Estates nor subject to the covenants. According to the covenants, Lots 3, 4, and 6 were to be used for church use, Lot 5 was a standard lot. McCafferty said there was nothing in the covenants that restricted a rezoning of the lots, only a subdivision. According to the covenants, any subdivision of any of the lots within Southwest Estates was subject to a two-thirds majority vote by the property owners within Southwest Estates. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes March 7, 2002 Page 2 McCafferty said Hanick had originally contacted the City about rezoning only his lot which is zoned Rural Residential (RR-1). Currently there is no Low Density Single Family Residential (RS-5) property that is contiguous to Hanick's lot so the City would have considered his request to be a spot zone, which the City does not support. Staff recommended to Hanick that he ask his neighbors to rezone the property that was adjacent to his lot contiguous with a RS-5 zone. McCafferty said a change in zoning would not affect the enforceability of the covenants on Lots 3, 4, 5, and 6. The unnumbered lot would need to be rezoned before it could be subdivided, which was the applicant's said intent for the lot. McCafferty said Hanick had given her a document from the owner of Lot 5 which stated his support for and consent of the rezoning. To date, no consent had been received from the Church. Because the Church would have to sign a conditional zoning agreement (CZA), the Commission could vote on the item and if the Church did not sign the CZA, the zoning would not go through. McCafferty said Staff recommended approval of REZ02- 00001, subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement which required a sewer easement along the west and south property line of Lot 6 to provide future sewer access to Lots 3 and 4, and that no additional curb cuts be constructed on the Rohret Road frontage. Public discussion was opened. Kevin Hanick, 1830 Friendship Street, said he would be happy to request a deferment if it would make the Commission more comfortable until the Church had responded to the rezoning request. Hanick said he had spoken through an intermediary to the pastor, who represented the Church. A document had been prepared which the pastor intended to sign, but he had returned to Korea on a family emergency. He was expected to return to Iowa City on the week-end. Per Hanick, the pastor was the authorized signatory for the Church. Robed Ha,qaman, 44 Tucson Place, asked what steps were necessary between the rezoning and a subdivision. Miklo said a subdivision would follow a rezoning. Public notice would be given, the rezoning would go before the Commission and their recommendation would go on to the City Council. Technically, both could go through at the same time but the subdivision would be contingent on approval of the rezoning. Public notice would require a letter being sent to all property owners within 300 feet and a sign posted on the property. The subdivision process would generally take at least one month. In response to concerns expressed by Hagaman about adjoining property owners right's, Bovbjerg and Behr said a rezoning would not change or affect the enforceability of any of the covenants that were currently binding on Lots 3, 4, 5, and 6. Behr said if an objection needed to be filed, an objection would not be made to the City, it would be a civil matter between himself and the other property owner. Behr said speaking very generally the owners of Lots 3, 4, 5, and 6 had a couple of obstacles to subdividing their lots: (1) zoning and (2) covenants and restrictions. The proposed rezoning would remove the first obstacle, it would not remove the second obstacle. Behr said he did not think the property owners consenting to the rezoning was necessarily evidence of an intent to subdivide. Miklo said the covenants stipulated that with the consent of two-thirds of the property owners, the covenants could be changed. There was the option that in ten years down the road, the majority of the owners of Southwest Estates could decide that subdivision was appropriate. Miklo said his point was that the rezoning in and of itself was not a statement of intent to re-subdivide or violate the covenants. Anciaux asked Hagaman if he had visited with the owner of Lot 5 or the pastor of the Church. Hagaman said he had tried but not been able to contact the pastor. He did not think the pastor had the right to bind the Church, it had to be the Church's Board of Governors. When Hagaman had requested to change the covenants in 1994, it required the Church's Board of Governors, not the pastor's signature. Hagaman questioned that the pastor was the appropriate party to contact in this case. Linda Hawley, 1630 Phoenix Drive, said she lived on Lot #20. The front of her house looked over the Church's parking lot toward the brick house. She read several sentences from an e-mail she had received from Mark Signs, owner of Lot 5. "We still plan to build a modular home on our lot. As far as that is concerned, either zoning is fine. The lots still have some old out of date zoning that should have been updated anyway." Hawley said she was concerned about the City advising someone to take the course of action that they had. She had participated in the Southwest District Planning meetings. The P&Z Commission had expressed an interest in having housing in a neighborhood be compatible in relation to the other housing in that neighborhood. The rezoning would allow at least one and possibly more (M. Signs') lots to be divided. Hawley felt placing a 1920's era home from the Grand Avenue Court area on Hanick's lot would result in the artificial introduction of non-compatible homes into the current Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes March 7, 2002 Page 3 neighborhood of homes which were built during 1977-1995. She felt subdividing the one-acra lots into smaller lots was not compatible in an area mainly made up of one-acre lots. Hawley asked the Commission to deny the rezoning request in the interest of keeping the neighborhood design compatible. Hanick said despite what the neighbors felt, what should be judged was if his was a reasonable request. The predominant zoning in that part of town was RS-5, the RR-I zoning was an inherited zoning that went back prior to the RS-5 zoning. Hanick said he had no intention or interest in owning the Church property or the lot to the West. Hanick said at no time had he encouraged anyone to think that they could or should violate the covenants of the Southwest Estates. They were bound by a legal obligation. His only interest was in the unnumbered lot, to split it at some point in the future and to develop the second tract of the land. He had just begun to investigate the possibility of placing a 1920's "classic arts and crafts" home on the lot. Hanick said if the neighbors preferred it, he would be quite happy to build a new house on the other piece of the lot. Hanick said he felt his was a reasonable request that clearly kept with the character of the neighborhood and the level of services that the City now provided to those lots. McCafferty asked Hanick if he would officially be willing to exclude Lot 6 from his request, based on indications made during his commentary. Hanick said "Sure, that is fine. As long as the covenants apply, I don't see that is particularly important, but if it makes the neighbors happier, I think that is fine." Bovbjerg asked if Lot 6 was also subject to the two-thirds vote. McCafferty said it was. Miklo clarified that the covenants said "may be used for Church use", so there was some option that Lot 6 could be used for residential also. Hawley said Lot 6 was the sewage leech area for the Church. There was a standing pipe in the area and she had seen septic/sewer trucks there on previous occasions. Hawley said she did not think Hanick intended to live in the brick house, but intended to sell it. She felt sometimes persons who did not live in a neighborhood did not share the same concerns about the neighborhood as did the people who actually lived in the neighborhood. Hawley said she had observed that the people who attended the church did not live in their neighborhood, the same cars came and went every Sunday morning and every evening. She felt they did not have the same concern except their property was there. Freerks asked Hawley if the church was there when she purchased her home. Hawley said it was, and she had no objection to it. The church had been a good neighbor and the parishioners had been very considerate. Hagaman asked if any property owner in the Southwest Estates could request that the lots be rezoned, now that there were City services to the area? Also, was it the City's policy that anytime there were city services in an area, they would support rezoning of it for RR-I? Would it be the same for Walnut Ridge or for any similar area? Miklo said it would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Bovbjerg said Walnut Ridge was put in as a large acre but fully sewered with city services. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Chair recommended that REZ02-00001, application from Kevin Hanick for a rezoning from Rural Residential (RR-1) and Interim Development Single Family Residential (ID-RS) to Low Density Single Family Residential (RS-5) on 5.45 acres located at the northwest corner of Rohret Road and Phoenix Drive be approved subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement requiring a sewer easement along the west and south property line of Lot 6 to provide future sewer access to Lots 3 and 4, and that no additional curb cuts will be constructed on the Rohret Road frontage. Shannon seconded the motion. Chair said he felt the concerns around the type, scale or age of housing was not within the perview of the Commission to determine those items. In the developed parts of the City, the minimum developed zone was RS-5, RR-1 zoning was an accommodation to the fact that a property was within the City but it did not have sewer services. A one-acre lot was the minimum size necessary to have a septic system. Chair said in his opinion the request was reasonable and he was willing to support it. The burden was on the applicant to get the necessary signatures from the land owners to do the rezoning. There was no intent to get anyone to violate any covenants. The unnumbered property was not part of the Southwest Estates covenants. Anciaux said he had a problem with someone requesting a zoning change for property that they did not own. He had the same feeling when the Commission was reviewing the proposed apartments on Benton Street. Anciaux said he would like the neighbors and the Church to have an opportunity to talk among themselves. He would prefer to have the item deferred until the next meeting. Fraerks said if the Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes March 7, 2002 Page 4 neighbors agreed with the request, it was inefficient to ask a number of people to make individual zoning requests. To do it all in one swoop made the best sense. Hansen said there were very limited design standards. In any subdivision, homeowners were limited as to what conditions they could impose upon their neighbors. It was up to the church to sign off on the CZA, without their approval the application would not go forward. Hansen said he did wonder who the correct signatory for the Church would be, but the situation would work itself out. Freerks said she felt there were stringent mechanisms in place through the covenants to prevent subdivision of the other lots. That was a separate issue. Looking at the possibility of future development in the surrounding area, RS-5 would be more the norm than RR-1. The motion passed on a vote of 6-1, Anciaux voted no. DEVEL©PMENT ITEMS: SUB02-00003., discussion of an application submitted by Plum Grove Acres, Inc. a final plat of First and Rochester, Part 4, a 24.25-acre, 40-lot residential subdivision, located at the east end of Hickory Trail. (45-day limitation period: 3/17/02) Miklo said late last year the Commission had recommended approval of a Sensitive Areas Overlay rezoning and a preliminary plat for this property. The preliminary plat contained a 'subject to' specifying that no building permits be issued until First Avenue was opened to traffic. Miklo said it was anticipated that First Avenue would be open to traffic in October or November of 2002 depending on the completion of Scott Boulevard. The preliminary plat also included the dedication of Outlot A to the City for future parkland, Outlot B for future parkland, and a sizeable conservation easement to protect the woodlands and critical slopes located on the property. Those features are all included in the final plat, which was in order for approval as submitted. The public works office had already reviewed and approved the construction drawings. The legal papers were being reviewed by Staff but would need some revisions prior to City Council consideration of the final plat. Miklo said staff recommended approval of SUB02- 00003, subject to Staff approval of legal papers prior to City Council consideration of the final plat. Chait asked if the Commission on previous occasions had allowed for construction but not occupancy prior to a street being open. Miklo said that was possible, but in this particular situation Staff felt that was not a wise thing to do given the past delays in First Avenue. Public discussion was opened. There was none. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Hansen made a motion to approve SUB02-00003, an application submitted by Plum Grove Acres, Inc. a final plat of First and Rochester, Part 4, a 24.25-acre, 40-lot residential subdivision, located at the east end of Hickory Trail, subject to Staff approval of legal papers prior to City Council consideration of the final plat. Chait seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 7-0. SUB01-00023, discussion of a preliminary plat of Apex Commercial Park, a resubdivision of Lot 2, Donohoe Fifth Subdivision, a 6.55-acre 9-lot commercial subdivision located south of Highway 1 West at Landon Avenue S.W. (45-day limitation period: Waived) Miklo said at this point Staff recommended an indefinite deferral of this item. Motion: Hansen made a motion to indefinitely defer SUB01-0002~, a preliminary plat of Apex Commercial Park, a resubdivision of Lot 2, Donohoe Fifth Subdivision, a 6.55-acre 9-lot commercial subdivision located south of Highway 1 West at Landon Avenue S.W. Koppes seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 7-0. TEXT AMENDMENTS: P~anning and Zoning Commission Minutes March 7, 2002 Page 5 Discussion of amendments to the Neighborhood Commercial, CN-1, zone to broaden the uses allowed and to revise the dimensional requirements and design provisions. Miklo said he would like to present some answers and possible revisions based on the discussion at Monday's informal meeting. Item C. Provisional Uses, #8 space limitations. Miklo said he had added some language indicating that if there were multiple story office uses, in no case should they exceed 5,000 square feet. The intent was to keep offices in neighborhood scale and not large corporate type offices. D. Special Exceptions, #4, applied to the 2400 square foot limitation on the first floor. Under #8, a first floor office was limited to 2400 square feet. CfA would allow someone to seek a special exception to increase that up to a maximum of 5,000 square feet for any one establishment. The 2,400 and 5,000 square feet could not be combined. There was a maximum of 5,000 square feet for any one office establishment. Item D. Special Exceptions, #1, Drive through lanes. Miklo said he had checked on the McDonalds located at Benton Street and Riverside Drive. The drive-through exit onto Riverside Drive was approximately 66 feet from the intersection, which was not ideal. Staff had not recommended it, but it had been approved by the Board of Adjustment. Special Exception drive through lanes would be limited to banks and pharmacies, fast food restaurants would not be permitted to have drive through lanes in a CN- 1 zone. They currently were not permitted to have a drive through lanes in a CN-1 zone. Banks and pharmacies would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis by the Board of Adjustment. In no case would an exit onto a street within 100 feet of an intersecting street be allowed. Item D. Special Exceptions, #5, Religious Institutions. Miklo said he had looked at some existing churches, excluding the older ones near downtown which were on very small pieces of land and generally did not provide parking. He had also excluded the mega churches. Examples of churches Miklo looked at were St. Mark's United Methodist Church on Washington Street, First Presbyterian Church on Rochester Avenue, Our Redeemer Lutheran Church at Court and First Streets, The Church of the Latter Day Saints on Bradford Drive near Mercer Park, and the Korean Methodist Church on Rohret Road. Miklo said gonerally these churches were 3 acres in size. As the language was written, the Board of Adjustment would review each request individually and they could put a size limitation on the request if they felt it was overwhelming the particular CN-1 zone. Staff would provide some recommendations in that regard. Miklo said if the Commission wished to add specific language limiting the size of the church, he suggested they consider something in the two to three acre range including the parking lot. Restaurants, Occupancy. Miklo said currently the occupancy load was limited to 100 persons. There was a provision to increase that to 125 persons provided the restaurant did some things including outdoor seating areas. The 125 occupancy load would include the outdoor seating space as well, although not all the new spaces would have to be in the outdoor area. Miklo said for restaurants wishing to increase to an occupancy load of 125, it was possible to put 10 outside and 15 inside or all 25 spaces or even 50 spaces outside, but all would count in the occupancy load. Motion: Koppes made a motion to change the language of Item D. Special Exceptions, #5 Religious Institutions to "Religious institutions limited to a maximum of 3 acres in size" which would include parking allowances. Hansen seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 7-0. Motion: Hansen made a motion to approve amendments to the Neighborhood Commercial, CN-1, zone to broaden the uses allowed and to revise the dimensional requirements and design provisions. Chait seconded the motion. The vote passed on a vote of 7-0. Discussion of amendments to the Zoning Code, Article O, Sign Regulations, to permit portable signs in the Central Business Service, CB-2, Central Business Support, CB-5, and Central Business, CB-10, zones. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes March 7, 2002 Page 6 Miklo said Staff recommended approval of an amendment to the ordinance of the same basic ordinance that had been adopted 1997 without the sunset clause. The ordinance allowed for one portable sign per first floor storefront provided they were limited to two sign faces of no more than 6 square feet, were placed only on private property or within a sidewalk cafb, were not lighted, did not block a doorway, were weighted so they would not blow over and were brought in every night. The exception to being on private property was for sidewalk cafes when they had permission to put the sign on public property. Motion: Anciaux made a motion to approve amendments to the Zoning Code, Article O, Sign Regulations, to permit portable signs in the Central Business Service, CB-2, Central Business Support, CB-5, and Central Business, CB-10, zones. Koppes seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 7-0. ELECTION OF COMMISSION OFFICERS: Chait nominated a slate of A. Bovbjerg, Chairperson; D. Shannon, Vice Chairperson; J. Hansen, Secretary. It died for a lack of second. Motion: Hansen made a motion to nominate A. Bovbjerg for Chairperson. Chait seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 7-0. Motion: Chair made a motion to nominate D. Shannon for Vice Chairperson. Hansen seconded the motion. A roll call vote was requested. The motion passed on a vote of 4 to 3 (Anciaux, Hansen and Freerks voted no). Motion: Koppes made a motion to nominate J. Hansen for Secretary. Chair seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 7-0. CONSIDERATION OF FEBRUARY 21,2002 MEETING MINUTES: Meeting minutes were approved subject to corrections as previously submitted to Miklo. OTHER: Anciaux requested that small stickers be made available for persons wishing to speak during public discussion times to sign their name and address on prior to standing at the podium. Miklo suggested that the Chairperson announce at the beginning of each meeting that if a person planned to speak, to please sign their name ahead of time on a sticker. Miklo reminded the Commission that they had been requested to attend a joint meeting with the City Council on March 18, 2002 at 6:30 pm in the Emma J. Harvat Hall. Southgate Development was going to make a presentation of a plan they had been working on for the Clear Creek area and a proposal for the construction of Camp Cardinal Road. ADJOURNMENT: Chair made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:11 pm. Koppes seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 7-0. Jerry Hansen, Secretary Minutes submitted by Candy Barnhill DRAF 4' b8 POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD MINUTES- MARCH 12, 2002 CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chair Loren Horton called the meeting to order at 7:03 P.M. ATTENDANCE Board members present: Bill Hoeft, Loren Horton, Bev Smith, and John Watson. Board members absent: John Stratton. Legal Counsel Catherine Pugh, and Staff Kellie Tuttle. Also in attendance was Lt. Dan Sellers of the ICPD, a member of the Daily Iowan and a member of the Press Citizen. RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL Accept PCRB Report on Complaint #01-06. CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by Watson and seconded Hoeft by to adopt the consent calendar as amended: · Minutes of the meeting on 02/05/02 · Minutes of the meeting on 02/26/02 · ICPD Use of Force Report- January 2002 · Memorandum from City Manager-Age of Consent for Search Motion carried, 4/0, Stratton absent. Watson wanted to know if they would be discussing age of consent and Pugh said that there was a memo in their packet from Stratton stating they would discuss it at the meeting on April 9. Pugh a~reed they could discuss it at this meeting as well as on the 9"'. Hodon suggested they discuss it under old business. NEW BUSINESS None. OLD BUSINESS Hoeft wanted clarification on age of consent., He was under the assumption that they were not going to discuss it until they were asked. Pugh stated the board had been asked by the City Council through the City Manager's memo. Watson will be gone at the April 9th meeting and wanted to voice his questions regarding age of consent. Watson verified with Pugh that there could be a search without consent under certain circumstances. He would like clarification on what those circumstances are and would like DRAFT to have some examples of urgent needs to search other than those. He questioned times when there is a necessity to immediately enter a home that don't fall under then exigent circumstances criteria. Hoeft gave the example of an officer having reliable information that someone they have a warrant for is inside a house. The officer can not just walk away from the house and it is not covered by the exigent criteria. Watson thinks the board should first consider whether there should be any minor consent, and why would they allow a home to be searched with the consent of someone who really doesn't have the right to give it. Watson asked if the Board feels minor consent should be allowed then the next issues to discuss would be for what and at what age a minor can give consent. In response to Horton, Pugh defined an exigent situation as an emergency, someone being harmed, or evidence being destroyed. Watson pointed out that another option would be to call someone in to watch the entrance and exit until the homeownedadult occupant could be contacted for consent or get a search warrant to conduct a search. Pugh will review the policy before the next meeting. Smith asked if this has been tested before. Pugh responded that it has been tested in various jurisdictions however there were not clear guidelines on how it was to be treated. It was just a balancing act of is the child mature enough and do they understand what their rights are. Pugh stated that one of the things that the City Legal Department had to take into consideration was how an officer is supposed to know how old a child actually is. Hoeft pointed out that the request in the memo says if you wish to comment any further and he wonders if the board really wants to get into this. Pugh feels the Council has opened the door for the board if they have any strong feelings and they want to make some recommendation. At this point the board has not been directed to make any recommendations so if they choose not to they don't have to. Watson feels that since they have already been reviewing age of consent and have had a complaint dealing with it, the board should make a recommendation. Watson's suggestion would be for a compromise and recommend using the age of 14 because that's the age where minors begin to take on more responsibility, like driving and age of DRAFT discretion. He again brought up his question regarding why there is a need to ask any minor for consent. Since Watson will be.gone the week of April 8th, the board discussed rescheduling the April meeting. Horton will call Stratton's office to see if they know when he will be back. Watson suggested that Tuttle check with Marian Karr or Steve Atkins to find out if the Council is waiting for them and if so would they wait until everyone could be in attendance. PUBLIC DISCUSSION None MEETING SCHEDULE · April 9, 2002, 7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room · May 14, 2002, 7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room · June 11,2002, 7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room · July 9, 2002, 7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room · August 13, 2002, 7:00 PM., Lobby Conference Room Horton asked that the board members check their schedules for the summer so if anyone is going to be gone they can figure those absences in. BOARD INFORMATION None STAFF INFORMATION Extension Granted for 01-06 at Council Meeting on 02/19/02, unanimous, 7/0. EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion by Hoeft and seconded by Smith to adjourn into Executive Session based on Section 21.5(1 )(a,) of the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records which are required or authorized by state or federal law to be kept confidential or to be kept confidential as a condition for that government body's possession or continued receipt of federal funds,and 22.7(11) personal information in confidential personnel records of public bodies including but not limited to cities, boards of supervisors and school districts, and 22-7(5) police officer investigative reports, except where disclosure is authorized elsewhere in the Code; and 22.7(18) 3 DRAFT Communications not required by law, rule or procedure that are made to a government body or to any of its employees by identified persons outside of government, to the extent that the government body receiving those communications from such persons outside of government could reasonably believe that those persons would be discouraged from making them to that government body if they were available for general public examination. Motion carried, 4/0, Stratton absent. Open session adjourned at 7:39 P.M. REGULAR SESSION Returned to open session at 7:46 P.M. Motion by Hoeft, seconded by Smith to accept the Public Report for Complaint #01-06. Motion carried, 4/0, Stratton absent. ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Watson and seconded by Hoeft. Motion carried, 4/0, Stratton absent. Meeting adjourned at 7:50 P.M. 4 POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City IA 52240-'i 826 (319)356-5041 TO: City Council Complainant Stephen Atkins, City Manager R. J. Winkelhake, Chief of Police Officer(s) involved in complaint 'FROM: Police Citizens Review Board RE: Investigation of PCRB Complaint #01-06 DATE: March 12, 2002 This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board's (the "Board") review of the investigation of Complaint PCRB #01-06 (the "Complaint"). BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, Section 8-8-7 B, the Board's job is to review the Police Chief's Report ("Report") of his investigation of a complaint. The City Code requires the Board to apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review to the Report and to "give deference" to the Report "because of the Police Chief's...professional expertise." Section 8-8-7 B.2 While the City Code directs the Board to make "findings of fact," it also requires that the Board recommend that the Police Chief reverse or modify his findings only if those findings are "unsupported by substantial evidence," are "unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious," or are "contrary to a Police Department policy or practice or any Federal, State or local law." Sections 8-8-7B.2(a), (b), and (c). BOARD'S PROCEDURE The Complaint was received at the office of the City Clerk on September 27, 2001. As required by section 8-8-5 of the City Code, the Complaint was referred to the Police Chief for investigation. The Chief's Report was received on December 21,2001. The Board voted to review the Complaint in accordance with Section 8-8-7B.1 (b), interview/meet with complainant and Section 8-8- 7B. 1 (e), which means performance by Board of its own additional investigation. The Board met on January 8, 2002, January 22, 2002, February 5, 2002, February 26, 2002, and March 12, 2002 to consider the complaint. PCRB 01-06 Page I FINDINGS OF FACT On an early July morning the complainant was a passenger in a vehicle stopped by an Iowa City police officer. The vehicle was stopped at the intersection of Lucas Street and Market Street for being driven the wrong way down a one way street. Officer A ordered the driver out of the vehicle and administered field sobriety tests. The complainant advised that while this was happening, a second officer (Officer B) arrived and ordered the complainant and two other passengers out of the vehicle. Officer B identified all 3 passengers. According to the complainant, he politely asked Officer B why his friend was being arrested. The complainant went on to say that Officer B apparently took exception to being questioned and told the complainant he had until the count of two to leave the area or be arrested, then immediately counted, "1,2". ¥.h.e ~'~ complainant estimated that this was way too fast for anyone to be able the scene. The complaint was subsequently arrested and charged withlp'u~biic: ~,~ -.!~ intoxication and obstruction of a peace officer. .: The complainant said that Officer B then approached the remaining two . passengers and told them to leave before they were arrested as well. T_:b~ complainant said he didn't resist being placed into the squad car as indicated by, Officer B in his obstructing officers charge. During the subsequent police investigation into the complainant's concerns of Officer B's conduct, Officers A and B, the complainant, and one of the two additional passengers were interviewed. Officers A and B both told investigators that the complainant's questions about his friends arrest were answered and that he was allowed to leave with the other passengers. The complainant started to leave but returned and continued to ask questions concerning his friend's arrest. Officer B told investigators he offered to speak with the complainant when he was sober. Both officers indicated the complainant was given 3 opportunities to leave the scene and that Officer B did count to three slowly, paused, and then arrested the complainant when he didn't leave. One of the passengers was interviewed on the phone by ICPD investigators. The passenger said that all the passengers were told to leave after the driver was arrested and they did so. When asked by investigators why he thought the complainant was arrested, he told them he thought it was for asking the officer questions. The complainant's information was the same as the complaint that he filed with the board, however he did tell police investigators that he did resist Officer B's attempt to place him in the patrol vehicle. PCRB 01-06 Page 2 On 20 February 2002 a member of the board conducted independent interviews with the complainant and the driver of the vehicle (the board member was unable to make contact with the other two passe.ngers). The driver said he was still on the scene and standing about 20 feet away from Officer B and the passengers for most of the incident. The driver said that all the passengers were told they could leave. The complainant stayed and continued to ask the officer questions. The officers told the complainant to leave two to three more times before he was arrested. The driver couldn't recall the officer counting and didn't see the complainant when he was placed in the squad car. CONCLUSION This complaint focuses on two issues: (1) Officer B's decision to arrest the complainant for public intoxication considering the circumstances surrounding the arrest (mainly the complainant being a passenger in a vehicle); (2) Whether there was probable cause for the obstruction charge. Chiefly, was the complainant allowed to leave, was he warned he would be arrested and did he resist being placed in the squad car after the arrest. Alle.qafion 1: The complainant was inappropriately arrested for public intoxication. While police officers are no longer at liberty to arrest a passenger directly from a vehicle for public intoxication, all the evidence presented to the board indicates that the complainant was allowed to leave and stayed of his own free will. At that point he was no longer a passenger in a vehicle but a pedestrian in a public place. Allegation #1 is NOT SUSTAINED. Alle,qation 2: The complainant was inappropriately arrested for obstruction of justice. All parties interviewed, with the exception of the complainant, said the complainant was initially allowed to leave with the other passengers, and that he was warned to leave at least twice prior to being arrested. With regard to whether or not the complainant resisted being placed in the squad car, the complainant told the police and a judge during the trial that he resisted the officer when being placed in the officer's car. Allegation #2 is NOT SUSTAINED. COMMENTS ~ .. None. :: ~'~ : ~ PCRB 01-06 Page 3 MINUTES APPROVE D/FIN 4,r~ (~ ~ SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2002 MEMBERS PRESENT: Lori Benz, Jay Honohan, Joanne Hora, Allan Monsanto, Charity Rowley, Deb Schoenfelder, Carol Thompson. MEMBERS ABSENT: Jim Schintler STAFF PRESENT: Michelle Buhman, Linda Kopping, Susan Rogusky and Julie Seal GUESTS: Eve Casserly CALL TO ORDER Honohan called the meeting to order at 3:00. MINUTES Motion: To approve the January minutes as distributed. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. Monsanto/Rowley PUBLIC DISCUSSION None SENIOR DINING/ELDER SERVICES INC Kopping, Honohan and Dulek are drafting a new lease for the Elder Service, Inc, nutrition program. The nutrition program has been operating without a lease since Elder Services, Inc. took over in January of this year. Honohan noted that the document will include a comprehensive list of kitchen equipment owned by the Senior Center. He asked Thompson to provide written documentation of the Board of Supervisors' recent donation of kitchen equipment to the Senior Center as well as a copy of the Board's most recent equipment inventory. 281= COMMITTEE UPDATE - Honohan Jay Honohan, Mike O'Donnell, Connie Champion, Pat Harney, Sue Dulek, Pat White, and Linda Kopping, attended a 28E Committee meeting earlier today. Committee members discussed the County's $45,000 reduction in Senior Center funding for FY03. O'Donnell and Honohan expressed concern about this unanticipated funding reduction and noted how arbitrary changes in the level of financial support provided by the County complicate the Center's budget planning process and operations. They questioned the County's intent and wondered if such actions would be repeated in the future. Based upon suggestions made by Harney and White, O'Donnell, Champion and Honohan agreed to attend the Board of Supervisors meeting on Thursday Feb 21, 2002 and request additional funding to finance a particular project, e.g. fire safety equipment. PARKING FACILITY STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE UPDATE- Honohan The law firm of Simmons, Perrine, AIbright & EIIwood, P.L.C. sent a letter responding to the Commission's request that the firm replace the flooring it installed in the west stairwell/elevator area on the third floor of Tower Place and Parking. The Commission C:\TEMP\feb.doc MINUTES 2 SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2002 18, 2001 had asked that the uneven flooring surface be replaced with something level and more "senior friendly". The letter indicated that the floor meets code and the firm had no plans to make any changes at this time. Honohan plans to talk to the firm again. FY03 Budget Update- Kopping Kopping reported that the City has made further cuts in the proposed FY03 operational budget. She mentioned that FY03 budget cuts and funding reductions are likely to have a noticeable impact on the Center's operation. Betty Kelly donated money collected in memory of her husband and former Senior Center Commissioner, Bill Kelly. In accordance with Kelly's request, this money has been deposited in the Gift Fund and earmarked for landscaping improvements around the Senior Center. Kopping also reported that Kelly is organizing a group of volunteers, including several local Master Gardeners, to help design and install the landscaping. SENIOR CENTER UPDATE Operations - Kopping The Volunteer Recognition event was scheduled for Monday April 22, 2002. Lori Benz, Deb Schoenfelder and Joanne Hora volunteered to serve on the planning committee for this year's program. The waterproofing project has gone well. With the exception of the Linn Street stairs, all the exterior work is done. Kopping reported that the schedule of one of the part-time maintenance workers has been changed from 5PM-9PM to 1PM-5PM. This change will facilitate program set-ups and enable the person to receive training in the management of the I-IVAC computer system as well as all the heavy equipment in the building. Up to now, the fulltime maintenance worker has been the only person familiar with these building systems. This shift change and training will lessen the demands placed upon one staff person and enhance maintenance coverage over weekends, on holidays, and during vacations or sick time. The change in hours will become effective on Monday Feb. 25, 2002. Proqrams - Seal Seal distributed a list of programs starting in March. Several events scheduled in March, such as the Downtown Gallery Walk and Life and Culture in Cuba, were highlighted. For a complete listing of programs, please see the March Post. Volunteers - Rogusky Rogusky reported that she has spent a lot of time updating the database and working on the volunteer hours. Kopping and Rogusky met with Kirkwood Community College staff to discuss the creation of cooperative programming at the Senior Center. Several Host Guides have resigned because they are bored with the current responsibilities and the location of the Host Guide desk. Recently, two computers that had been located on the second floor in the hallway were moved into the Host Guide room so the Host Guides could do data entry or be joined by other volunteers doing data entry during their volunteer shift. 03/27/2002c:\temp\feb.doc MINUTES 3 SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2002 18, 2001 Reports- Buhman Buhman distributed copies of the second quarter gift fund summary. There were no questions. A copy of the participation summary for calendar year 2001 was distributed and discussed. Thompson commented that the Board of Supervisors likes to see these padicipation reports, however, the Board is primarily interested in knowing how many Senior Center participants live in unincorporated areas of Johnson County. Thompson indicated that this information would be useful when redrafting the 28E Agreement for the operation of the Senior Center and establishing the level of funding provided by the County. Buhman reported on the difficulties and anticipated expense associated with the collection of detailed residential information on Senior Center participants. Several alternative approaches were discussed. It was proposed that current census data be used to identify the actual percentages of Johnson County seniors living in unincorporated areas and each of the 9 incorporated areas. Rather than tracking specific users, census data could be used to identify the number of seniors in each area who have Senior Center services available to them. Alternately, generalizations could be made to establish the percentage of users from each area. For instance, if 17% of Johnson County residents live in unincorporated areas, it is likely that residents of unincorporated areas represent 17% of Senior Center participants. Motion: Move that the Commission recommend to the staff that all work on this project be suspended until members of the 28E Committee have an opportunity to meet and discuss alternative approaches to collecting detailed residential information on Senior Center participants. Motion carried on a vote of 7-0. Rowley/Monsanto CITY COUNCIL - Rowley Rowley reported on weekend and after hour room usage and the potential problems associated with having the building open when Senior Center staff members are not present. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS -Thompson/Honohan Thompson indicated that members of the Board of Supervisors are concerned that the County is being viewed as not supportive of the Center because of the recent cuts in funding, Honohan reported that he had attended two Board of Supervisors meetings since the January Commission meeting with the hope that the Board could be persuaded to continue funding 20% of the Centers operational budget. COMMISSION DISCUSSION Motion to adjourn. Motion carried on a vote of 7-0. Monsanto/Hora 03/27/2002c:\temp\feb,doc