HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-05-13 Info Packet~ - ~
~~~.®dr~
~III~ ~
,~®~~~
-~..._._
CITY OF IOWA CITY
vrww.icgov.org
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET
May 13, 2010
MISCELLANEOUS
IP1 Council Meetings and Work Session Agenda
IP2 Memorandum from the City Clerk and City Attorney: Initiative Petition re: 21 Bar Entry
IP3 Memorandum from the Associate Planner and Planning Intern: City of Dubuque Historic
Preservation Financing Programs
IP4 Memorandum from the Director of Public Works and the Director of Planning and Community
Development: Update: Flood-related activities
IP5 The Planner -May 10, 2010
IP6 Email from Garry Klein to the City Clerk: Error in Voting Results [staff response included]
DRAFT MINUTES
IP7 Parks and Recreation Commission: April 7, 2010
IP8 Board of Adjustment: April 14, 2010
~ _ i
_ ~ 05-13-10
' ""'®'~~ City Council Meeting Schedule and
-•....._
CITY OF IOWA CITY Work Session Agendas May 13, 20,0
www.icgov.org
TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE
SUBJECT TO CHANGE
• MONDAY, MAY 31
Memorial Day Holiday -City Offices Closed
• TUESDAY, JUNE 1 Emma J. Harvat Hall
TBD Special Work Session
7:OOp Regular Formal (Continue Work Session if necessary)
• FRIDAY, JUNE 4 Emma J. Harvat Hall
8:OOa Special Work Session -City Manager Search
• MONDAY, JUNE 14 Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:30p Regular Work Session
• TUESDAY, JUNE 15 Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:OOp Regular Formal Council Meeting
• WEDNESDAY, JUNE 30 North Liberty
4:OOp Joint Meeting
• MONDAY, JULY 5
Independence Day Holiday -City Offices Closed
• MONDAY, JULY 12 Emma J. Harvat Hall
TBD Special Work Session
7:OOp Special Formal Council Meeting (Continue Work Session if necessary)
• MONDAY, AUGUST 16 Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:30p Regular Work Session
• TUESDAY, AUGUST 17 Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:OOp Regular Formal Council Meeting
• MONDAY, AUGUST 30 Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:30p Special Work Session
• TUESDAY, AUGUST 31 Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:OOp Special Formal Council Meeting
~~ r -~
~~.m-~
CITY OF IOWA CIT1 IP2
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 12, 2010
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk ~'
A referendum petition was filed late Tuesday, May 11 seeking to repeal the recent
ordinance changing the bar entry age to the "legal age". Pursuant to our City Charter
the petition must be filed with the City Clerk at one filing and must contain on its face at
least. 2,500 signatures of registered Iowa City voters.. The petition filed May 11tH
contained over 3,300 signatures on its face.
Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attorney
RE: Initiative Petition re: 21 Bar Entry
A current voter registration list has been obtained from the Johnson County Auditor and
the City Clerk's office will begin the verification process to ensure each person who
signed the petition is a "qualified elector", and that process must be completed within 20
days. After checking each signature against current voter rolls, one of two procedures
will occur:
1) The required 2,500 signatures will be verified and a "Certificate of Sufficiency"
issued, and the Certificate submitted to you at your next scheduled Council meeting.
O r,
2) If the petition lacks the required 2,500 signatures a "Certificate of Insufficiency" will
be issued. The petitioner will be notified by registered mail. If the petitioner wishes
to amend and submit additional signatures the City Charter provides for the filing of
a "Notice of Intent to Amend" within 2 days and the filing of a supplemental petition
with additional signatures within 15 days. Additional signatures will be verified in the
same manner as the original submission.
Once a petition has been certified sufficient the Council must either repeal the referred
measure within 30 days after the date the petition was determined sufficient, or it must
submit the measure to the voters at the November election. The state deadline for
submission of ballot language is August 25.
S/refere nd um petition2010
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 12, 2010
To: City Council
From: Christina Kuecker, Associate Planner and Jake Rosenberg, Planning Intern
RE: City of Dubuque Historic Preservation Financing Programs
You requested information on the City of Dubuque's Historic Preservation Financing
Programs. Staff has looked into this and presents the following information
Overview
Dubuque implements a number of historic preservation programs for financing the
rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of historic structures. Supported by the
Preservation Commission, Dubuque has implemented preservation incentives for
homeowners, commercial properties, rental properties, developers and
neighborhood associations in order preserve and protect historically significant
properties and districts in the city.
Historic Preservation and Rehabilitation Financing
Residential
Historic Preservation Housing Grant
The City offers a Historic Preservation Housing Grant (in the form of a forgivable
loan) on a competitive basis to income-qualifying owner-occupants and to qualified
non-profit organizations in any historic district. The grant targets specific
rehabilitation projects that preserve the original building materials and character
defining features of the home.
Eligible properties must be located in a Historic Preservation District (or designated
as a City Landmark) and be at least 50 years old. Improvements include exterior
repair, restoration, and painting that meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards
and Guidelines for Rehabilitation as well as specific design standards established for
the Historic Preservation District.
Eligible Applicants
• Owner-occupants of single family, duplex, or 3-unit property;
household cannot exceed moderate income levels (80% of area
median income, adjusted for family size)
• Qualified non-profit organizations providing residential facilities to
income-eligible tenants.
Grant Amounts
• Owner Occupants: Up to $5,000 forgivable loan; fully forgivable after
five years if the applicant remains in the home. If the applicant moves
within the five-year period, then 100% of the grant must be repaid.
May 12, 2010
Page 2
• Non-Profit Organizations: Up to $5,000 forgivable loan, fully forgivable
after five years is the applicant continues to provide residential facilities
to HUD income-eligible tenants. If the applicant ceases to provide
these services within the five-year period, then 100% of the grant must
be repaid.
The program is funded with a Community Development Block Grant administered
through the Housing Department. Staff administering this program said the $5,000
forgivable loan is often not enough for the owner occupants with income limitations
and would recommend for the maximum loan amount to be increased or the income
limitations relaxed.
Historic Preservation Revolving Loan Fund
This program provides preservation loans that are available on a competitive basis
to property owners in four primary residential historic districts. The loan is for
exterior rehabilitation projects that meet the Secretary of Interiors Standards for
Rehabilitation. Property must be at least 50 years old and located in one of the city's
historic districts. Any property owner is eligible.
Loan Terms
• 3% for 10 years
• Maximum loan amount of $25,000
• Monthly principle and interest payments begin after project completion,
but no longer than six months after loan closing
• Limit one loan outstanding per building
Premier Bank loaned $200,000 at 0% interest to the City of Dubuque to match the
$200,000 put aside in the CIP budget to establish this loan program. The City
functions as a bank and the HPC is responsible for project reviews. The loan is
approved by the Housing Department. Dubuque staff commented on the popularity
of this program and said there is a waiting list of applicants.
Lead Paint Program
The Lead Hazard Reduction Programs provides for the administration of HUD
funded forgivable loan for lead hazard reduction by providing financial assistance to
low and moderate-income homeowners and rental property owners to reduce or
eliminate lead-based paint hazards in their properties. The program is specifically
targeted to assist families with children under the age of six.
Grant funding, in the form of three-year forgivable loans, is provided for lead hazard
reduction activities, inspection, and risk assessment of enrolled properties,
community awareness, education, and training. The duration of the current grant
activities is 36 months, from January 2008 through December 2010 and the City has
applied to HUD to continue the funding. Income guidelines vary for rental housing
and homeowners.
May 12, 2010
Page 3
Based on the scope of the lead hazard work to be completed a loan threshold is
determined, There are three thresholds of funding available ranging from $2,000 for
stabilization to $12,000 for total lead abatement
This program is administered through the Housing Department who oversees the $2
million in funding received from HUD. The ceiling for Lead Hazard Control and Total
Lead Abatement has recently increased to $12,000 to better reflect the cost of lead
control and abatement.
Commercial and Downtown
Downtown Rehab Loan Program
The Downtown Rehabilitation Loan Program is designed to further the goals and
objectives of Dubuque's Greater Downtown Urban Renewal Plan by creating the
financial incentives needed to encourage revitalization effort and to retain or create
employment opportunities and/or new housing units within the district. A maximum
of $300,000 per building will be loaned during the life of the program. Projects may
be phased with a minimum of $10,000 loaned at any one time. The loan includes a
3% per annum and will extend out 20 years. Conditions include approval by the
Historic Preservation Commission and compliance with all applicable codes and
ordinances. All loans require approval from City Council. A portion of the loan is
forgiven for each non-retail job created or housing unit created.
Interest and Amortization
• 3% per annum extending 20 years
Repayment
• Interest only payments- years 1-5
• Principal/interest payments- years 6-20
• Monthly payments
The Downtown Rehab Loan Program is part of Dubuque's Downtown Revitalization
Program and Urban Renewal Plan. This program as well as the Facade Grant and
Design Grant programs is funded through a Revolving Loan Fund whose revenue
comes from the creation of Urban Renewal TIF Districts in the historic downtown.
There is a waiting list for applicants requesting loans from the Downtown Rehab
Program and grants from the Facade Grant, and Design Grant Programs. The
combinations of loans and grants have been successful in financing dozens of
projects in the Urban Renewal District.
Historic District Public Improvement Program
The Historic District Public Improvement Program (HDPIP) provides 3:1 matching
grants on a competitive basis to neighborhood associations and neighborhood
groups for streetscape improvements in the City's five historic districts. The program
is intended to enhance the public places and streetscapes in the historic districts to
May 12, 2010
Page 4
retain and augment their sense of place. The minimum grant amount is $3,000 and
the maximum amount is $100,000. The program covers up to 75% of project costs.
Neighborhood associations and groups are required to provide a 25% match.
Projects funded:
• Purchase and instillation of permanent exterior improvements installed
in public right of way or public places, such as parks, in an historic
district.
• Architectural and engineering fees associated with the project.
• Streetscapes amenities
This program is funded through the City's general fund. Previously, $100,000 a year
has been allocated to this program; however, recent financial constraints have
limited funding to $10,000. Staff commented on the success of this program,
particularly the benefits of funding public components like benches, planters, signs,
visitor stations, and historic restoration projects.
Application to Iowa City
Goal 3 of the Iowa City Historic Preservation Plan is to establish economic
incentives to encourage the preservation of historic buildings and neighborhoods.
The objectives of this goal include:
• Establishing and marketing tax incentives. This could be through local
tax abatement, federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentives, and State
Historic Preservation Tax Incentives;
• Developing different funding sources for the downtown through the use
of SSMID, the National Trust Main Street program, State tax credits for
cultural and entertainment districts, and the Urban Renewal District;
• Developing a private loan program,
• Using Community Development Block Grant funds to develop a
municipal loan program; and
• Creating a coordinated grant application writing effort for state,
regional, and federal grant programs.
We have attached pages 41-46 of the Historic Preservation Plan, which provide
more details. After completion of the Historic Preservation Guideline revisions, the
Historic Preservation Commission will research and develop specific proposals for
economic incentives for consideration by the Council
CC: Dale Helling
Jeff Davidson
HPC
significant archaeological sites are identified, the City's authority to require
retention of an archeological site as private or public open space through a
mandated design of the site plan, planned development or subdivision should
be stated more clearly and affirmatively. In this paragraph the word "require"
should be used rather than "attempt:' Like all land use regulations, care must
be taken to avoid any "takings" claims. Barring that requirement, however, it is
certainly within the power of the City to deny an application that impacts such
resources.
b) Paragraph 14-5I-12(G) establishes the ability of the City to limit development
in the area of burial sites and to require designation as public or private open
space. This is an appropriate standard, however, care must be taken when
dealing with some types of burial sites, particularly those falling under the
standards of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act,
to avoid identifying the area as such in public records in order to maintain
protection for these sites. Instead of prescribing a specific buffer size, it may
be more appropriate to include a more general standard for site design that
requires integrating the burial area and buffer into the overall site plan.
Objective 13: Re examine C~ policy regarding brick streets to assure protection and funding
are in place for conserving and restoring significant areas both inside and outside
of historic and conservation districts.
Objective 14: The last resort for preserving a historic building is moving it. This complex issue
should be examined b~a_~o~ representing various parties responsible for such
actions (HPC P&Z ZBA HIS Traffic Engineering utility companies, moving
companies etc Zto determine if a new ordinance or revised set of policies should
be adopted.
Objective 1: Assess the economic impact of historic preservation on Iowa City by conducting
a study based on section "V. Model for Evaluating Economic Impacts;' beginning
on page 111. Examine the impact of historic rehabilitation expenditures, the roles
preservation and district designation play in property values, and the value of
heritage tourism. As a part of the assessment, identify current impediments-both
public and private-to redevelopment.
Objective 2: Develop a comprehensive set of economic incentives aimed at resolving
impediments to redevelopment. Although some issues were identified during
the current planning process, others need to be more fully evaluated. Once the
impediments have been fully identified, the preservation incentives developed in
other communities and states that are outlined below should be considered.
41
Objective 3: Establish and market tax incentives for historic buildings.' Ongoing promotion of
these incentives should be undertaken by the HPC as well as the staff for the City's
Economic Development Division; Friends of Historic Preservation, the Downtown
Association, and especially the Cultural and Entertainment District. A more
complete discussion appears in Appendix K.
a) Promote local property tax abatement through the City's Urban Revitalization
Program for the CBD or the state-wide tax abatement program (Iowa's
"Temvora~ Historic Property Tax Exemption") for properties outside of the
Urban Revitalization Area.
b) Along with the State Historical Society of Iowa staff, investigate the merits of
establishing a statewide property tax abatement incentive such as a temyorary
ro ert tax freeze linked to anon-rehabilitation measure such as local
landmark or district designation.
c) Promote use of the federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentives nro>?ram
for income_generatin~g vronerties undergoing rehabilitation that are listed
on the National Register or eligible for listing. The incentive creates a 20%
federal investment tax credit for property owners completing qualifying
rehabilitations.
d) Promote the use of the Iowa State Historic Preservation Tax Incentive Program
for income=generating~roperties undergoing rehabilitation that are listed on
the National Register or eligible for listing. The incentive parallels the federal
tax credit program and offers a 25% state investment tax credit for property
owners completing qualifying rehabilitations. Because of current rules
governing this program, properties located within Cultural and Entertainment
Districts, such as in Downtown, have a competitive advantage for receiving
credits.
Objective 4: Downtown: Consider combining aSelf-Supporting Municipal Improvement
District (SSMID) for the central business district with the Main Street program;
promote use of the State Investment Tax Credits for historic buildings made
available through the Cultural and Entertainment District program.
a) When the SSMID objective was proposed in 1992 it was aimed at use
in existing historic districts. Since that time, an effort has been made to
establish an SSMID in the Downtown. Though unsuccessful in 2005, based
on interviews with Downtown leaders it is believed that conditions may have
changed in the central business district in terms of ownership support. A
SSMID remains an opvorrtunity for a regular source of funding to underwrite
a facade improvement program a revolving low-interest loan program, and/or
'Even though some of these measures require action at the state level, they are offered here as guidance for
all of the government agencies involved in their enactment.
42
full time staff~osition for the Downtown Downtown supporters of such a
measure and the Downtown Association should take the leadershiv role in
establishin,.g a Downtown SSMID.
b) It is also recommended that Downtown leaders look at combining a SSMID
effort with the "Main Street A~vroach" for organizing its staff efforts. This
approach seeks to integrate the goal of economic development within the
context of historic preservation.
The Main Street Approach8 has four overall concepts and a set of guiding
principles:
Business Improvement -This element involves diversifying the
downtown economy by identifying potential market niches, finding
new uses for vacant or underused spaces and improving business
practices.
• Design -Utilizing appropriate design concepts, the visual quality of
the downtown (buildings, signs, window displays, landscaping, and
environment) is enhanced.
• Organization -The organizational element brings together the public
sector, private groups and individual citizens, with coordination by a
paid program manager, to work more effectively in the downtown.
• Promotion - By promoting the downtown in a positive manner, a
community can begin to focus on downtown as a source of community
pride, social activity and economic development potential.
• Guiding Principles
- Incremental Process
- Comprehensive Four Point Approach
- Quality
- Public and Private Partnership
- Changing Attitudes
- Focus on Existing Assets
a"The Main Street Approach," Iowa Department of Economic Development; available online at http://www.
iowalifechanging.com/community/mainstreetiowa/approach.html; accessed 11/21/06.
43
Downtown, historic buildings along South Clinton Street.
- Self-Help Program
- Implementation Oriented
c) In 2004, local efforts were successful in having the Downtown designated as
part of the Old Capitol Cultural and Entertainment District (CED). This State-
designation identifies compact, mixed use areas of Iowa towns and cities where
cultural facilities and services are concentrated. A primary advantage of this
designation currently is access to the State tax credits to assist property owners
in completing rehabilitations of historic buildings within CEDs as described in
greater detail above. Downtown.provert~ owners should be encouraged to take
advantage of the State income tax credit for historic rehabilitations of buildings
in the Old Ca itol Cultural and Entertainment District.
d) Develop closer coordination between economic development staff,
preservation planning staff, and HPC for Downtown projects.
e) Develop agrant/loan program for Downtown business/property owners who
participate in voluntary rehabilitation guidelines. (see Objective 5 and Objective
6 below)
Objective 5: Private Loan Program: Establish a private loan pool for rehabilitating historic
buildings.
When this objective was identified in 1992, leadership for this effort was broadly
directed at both public and private sectors with interest in historic preservation.
Successful models for revolving loan pools and interest write-downs in other
communities were suggested as examples. Since then, the only organization that
has stepped forward to lead such an effort has been Friends. Their efforts have
included modest rehabilitation grants to individual historic property owners and,
in the wake of the 2006 tornado, a grant program coordinated with matching
funds from the National Trust for Historic Preservation focusing on technical
assistance.
Based on comments received at neighborhood meetings and in interviews,
there is a continuing need for a private loan or grant pool for rehabilitating
historic buildings. To better focus the establishment of such a program, it is
recommended that future efforts couvle a rehabilitation loan/grant yrogram with
other needs such as was done with the post-tornado vrogram. These could include
neighborhoods containing affordable housing such as Goosetown, properties
transitioning from rental units to owner-occupied, buildings undergoing
design review in both historic or conservation districts, buildings undertaking
ADA improvements, etc. In all cases, the recipient building would also be an
individually significant building or a contributing building in a conservation or
historic district. Work funded through such a program should comply with the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards and/or the HPC's design guidelines.
44
Objective 6: Municipal Grant/Loan Program: Expand existing grant or loan programs using
Community Development Block Grant funds or other municipal sources to
underwrite the costs of sound rehabilitation work on buildings undergoing design
review in historic and conservation districts.
The City's federally-funded Community Development Block Grant and HOME
Investment Partnership programs focuses efforts on providing financial
assistance to low and moderate income homeowners wanting to make repairs and
improvements to their homes. Since 1992 these efforts have shifted from older
neighborhoods in the central city to outlying areas. This maybe partially due to
requirement for lead based paint testing and abatement.
In 2003 the City established the Targeted Area Rehabilitation Program (TARP) to
compliment CDBG/HOME programs without the same income requirements of
the federal programs. The purpose of TARP is to stabilize and revitalize targeted
neighborhoods, which also include areas of the city containing several historic
and conservation districts as well as a number of National Register properties. The
program allows the City to offer low-interest loans that are repayable over a 20-
yearperiod, with the money awarded to qualified homeowners on a first-come,
first-serve basis. There is potential for TARP to be marketed more effectively in
historic conservation districts.
Low-interest loans .and grant programs have been developed in a wide variety
of communities nationally to help offset the costs of rehabilitating designated
historic structures. In Cedar Rapids two popular and well-regarded programs
have been established for designated historic districts. The City's Paint Rebate
program provides exterior paint rebates for consumable painting materials up
to a maximum of $400 if the homeowner paints his or her home. This program
will provide rebates up to 50% of labor costs or $1,200, whichever is less, for
a homeowner to hire a paint contractor. Though the dollar amounts are not
significant, the effect of this program has been to develop good will in districts that
prohibit installation of synthetic siding.
Other communities provide grants to property owners to hire a preservation
architect or other professional to assist in preparing rehabilitation plans. A related
form of incentive provides low- or no-interest loans to property owners to assist
with project costs. All of these programs aim to encourage property owners to
perform appropriate rehabilitations and to help offset the costs of maintaining
historic properties. Establishment of a~aint rebate program similar to the Cedar
Ra ids ro ram tar eted at buildin sin conservation and historic districts should
be considered. With modest annual funding to encourage painting for buildings,
such a program can demonstrate good will and help property owners to realize
that their preservation efforts are appreciated in the community.
45
Recognizing the traditionally strong real estate appreciation in the Iowa City
market, tie any historic grant programs to a repayment plan that would obligate
recipients to repay grants if a property is sold within five years. Repaid grants
would be incorporated into a revolving fund available for new grants. As with a
private grant/loan program, work funded should comply with the Secretary of the
Interior's Standards and/or the HPC's design guidelines.
Objective 7: Re u_g latory relief: Many communities allow designated historic buildings to
qualify for exemptions or variances from building code and zoning standards
such as parking requirements and setbacks. Iowa City has taken advantage of this
approach and these provisions should be maintained in future building code and
zoning revisions. Relief to parking requirements could be tied to use of specific
surface materials (see Goa12: Objective 9 d).
Objective 8: Non-local Grants: Establish a more coordinated approach to preparation of non-
local grants by giving grant writing responsibility to City staff members including
the half-time historic preservation planner and other Planning and Community
Development staff. 'Through the HPC and City staff, the City of Iowa City has had
considerable success in securing State grants since 1995 with eight grants received
during the following decade through the State Historical Society's Historic
Resource Development Program and Certified Local Grant Program. Despite
this success rate, the effort has been uneven depending to some extent on the
individual capacity of staff members or the interests of HPC members. To improve
the number and amount of grant income to support HPC operations, greater effort
should be made to secure grants through the timely preparation of grant requests.
Also, federal grant opportunities through the National Park Service and private
grant programs offered through such organizations as the National Trust for
Historic Preservation should be considered for eligible projects.
Objective 1: In the 1992 Historic Preservation Plan> this objective focused on providing
technical assistance to owners of historic buildings undergoing the design review
process. If funding became available, the objective recommended establishing a
new staff position with this responsibility. Since then both aspects of the objective
have been accomplished. During the intervening years, the HPC's responsibility
for design review cases has grown 8-fold from approximately a dozen per year
to nearly 100. The response of the Planning and Community Development
Department has been to change the qualifications of the staff planner responsible
46
Objective 9: Encourage urivate individuals and non-profit organizations to identify eligible
proiects for the State Historical Society's grant programs and assist in grant
writin .State programs include the Historic Sites Preservation Program and the
Historic Resource Development Program.
r --
~~®~~ CITY O F I O W R CITY Ip4
. ~~ o u ~
RAN
E~~
~~
Date: May 12, 2010
To: City Council
From: Rick Fosse, Director of Public Works
Jeff Davidson, Director of Planning and Community Development
Re: Update: Flood-related activities
Engineering and Public Works Administration
The Showers Addition demolition of the structures is ongoing.
Relocation of North Wastewater Treatment Facility
• Engineering agreement executed with Stanley Consultants.
EDA personnel to visit Iowa City and hold project management conference on May 13.
Project kickoff meeting with Stanley/Brown & Caldwell on Friday, May 14.
Dubuque Street Elevation and Park Road Bridge Replacement
• Technical Advisory Committee met and reviewed the draft RFQ focusing on design objectives
and project goals.
• RFQ has been submitted to EDA for approval.
Planning and Community Development
• This week, two properties in the Parkview Terrace neighborhood were acquired with CDBG
funds. This brings the total number of properties acquired with Federal and State funds up to 42
properties. Of the 42 properties, 30 of the homes have been acquired through the Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program (FEMA), eight with Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
funds, and four with Community Disaster Grant (CDG) funds. As of today, 28 properties have
been demolished in the Parkview Terrace and Taft Speedway neighborhoods.
• On May 12`h, staff participated in a monthly disaster recovery teleconference with the Iowa
Department of Economic Development (IDED), Iowa Finance Authority (IFA), the Rebuild Iowa
Office (RIO), and other government agencies administering disaster assistance funds.
Planning staff attended the Brownfields Conference in Coralville on May 12`h. The conference
was designed to give cities more information about EPA brownfields grant opportunities
for environmental assessment and clean up, and tips to improve a community's application for
funding to assess and clean up brownfields.
• Staff continues to review Jumpstart applications for disbursing State Jumpstart 2 and State
Jumpstart 3 funding for housing rehab/repair, down payment assistance and interim mortgage
assistance. A total of $1.65 million in State Jumpstart funding has been used to assist 71 flood-
impacted residential households and $861,000 in Federal Jumpstart funding has been used to
assist 17 households.
• The City is now accepting applications for the two new business assistance programs: Equipment
Reimbursement Assistance Program, and Flood Insurance Reimbursement Program.
• The I-JOBS Board of Directors will be meeting in Coralville during the morning of June 2"d. The
Board will be visiting Iowa City during the afternoon of June 2"d. They will be visiting the two
projects funded during the 2009 legislative session -- expansion of the South Treatment Facility
and construction of Fire Station #4.
IP5
VOLUME 2, ISSUE 9 Week of MAY 10, 2010
Newsletter for the Iowa City Planning & Community Development Department
Urban Planning ~ Historic Preservation ~ Housing Rehab ~ Community Development
Economic Development ~ JCCOG Transportation Planning ~ Neighborhood Services ~ Public Art
Calendar
A schedule of upcoming meet-
; ings appears inside. Page 7.
Inside
Historic Preservation
May is National Historic
Preservation Month, and in
addition to learning about
upcoming events, we thought
you might like to learn
about the role the City plays
in preserving our community
treasures. Page 3.
~~~ Upcoming events highlight
local reservation efforts
P
May is National Historic Preservation Month -and two events sched-
uled this weekend highlight local preservation efforts.
New flood programs
Local businesses that were
impacted by the floods may
be eligible for assistance from
two new flood relief programs
that have been introduced by
the State. Page S.
Bike to Work Week
Time to head to the garage and
get the bike cleaned up -
because next week is Bike to
Work Week! Several events
are planned in Iowa City to
support the program and
encourage bike transportation.
Page 6.
Have you subscribed?
To subscribe to The Planner,
go to: www.icgov.org/subscribe
then to "Newsletter..." then
click on "Planner Newsletter."
Historic Preservation in the Corridor
Representatives of area Historic Preservation Commissions will present
a series of case studies demonstrating how six Corridor communities
have dealt with natural disasters -tornadoes, floods, and fires -that
threatened or destroyed historic structures over the past couple of
years. Christina
Kuecker, City of
Iowa City Associ-
ate Planner, will
present "The Day
History Blew
Away," evaluating
the impact of the
2006 tornado on
Iowa City's his-
torical structures
and districts.
Other presenters
are scheduled
continued on page 2
On the tour
This home at
19 Evans Street
suffered severe
damage in the 2006
tornado -but four
years later, it's being
featured on the
2010 Parade of
Historic Homes.
The tour is scheduled
this Sunday.
The Planner, 5.10. I 0 -page 2
Historic preservation
continued from cover
from Cedar Rapids, Waterloo, Marion, Mount Vernon, and Linn County. The event is scheduled this Saturday,
May 15, from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. at the Mary and Carl Koehler History Center at 615 I st Avenue SE in Cedar
Rapids. The public is invited to attend; no registration or participation fee is required. For more information,
contact Dr. Richard H. Thomas, Linn County Historic Preservation Commission Secretary, at 319.329.8348.
Iowa City Parade of Historic Homes
Another event planned for this weekend is the Iowa City Friends of Historic Preservation Parade of Historic
Homes. Scheduled Sunday, May 16 from I to 4 p.m., this is the group's fourth annual home tour. This year's
featured homes include:
^ 1021 E. Market Street
^ 19 Evans Street
^ 1036 Woodlawn Avenue (home and carriage house)
^ I OI I Woodlawn Avenue
^ 1005 Muscatine Avenue
^ 1104 Muscatine Avenue
The program will focus on Woodlawn, Iowa City's first "suburb." Located just beyond the east end of Iowa
Avenue, Woodlawn boasts some of Iowa City's oldest homes. Two homes and a carriage house will be open
for viewing, and an annotated walking tour of the neighborhood will also be available.
Other stops on the tour focus on "foursquares," a design that remains a favorite of homeowners for its sym-
metry and efficient layout. The three featured foursquare homes, one on East Market and two on Muscatine
Avenue, have undergone extensive interior renovations.
Admission is $10 per adult; children 12 and under are free. Tour proceeds will support the work of Friends of
Historic Preservation. For more information, visit www.ic-fhp.org.
Architectural
details
The Parade of Historic
Homes, scheduled this
Sunday, provides a peek into
some of Iowa Crty's most
beautiful historic homes -
and as this photo demon-
strates, some of the most
stunning architectural details
can be found on the exterior.
This home, located at
101 I Woodlawn Avenue,
is one of the stops on this
year's tour, sponsored by
the Iowa City Friends of
Historic Preservation.
The Planner, 5.10. I 0 -page 3
Historic
Preservation
Commission
The responsibility of the City's
Historic Preservation Commission
is to "identify, protect, and pre-
serve the community's historic
resources in order to enhance the
quality of life and economic well-
being of current and future gen-
erations," according to its mission
statement. The Commission, com-
prised of local volunteers, makes
recommendations to the City
Council regarding neighborhoods
that should be designated as con-
servation or historic districts, and
individual properties that should
be designated as historic land-
marks. It then reviews proposed
changes to the exteriors of these
properties through the historic
review process.
Historic
Preservation Staff
The Urban Planning division's
Historic Preservation Planner
reviews applications for changes to
properties in historic and conser-
vation districts, and makes recom-
mendations to the Historic Preser-
vation Commission to help ensure
that any proposed change is com-
patible with the historic character
of the home, building and/or
neighborhood. Project reviews
include replacement doors, win-
dows or siding to construction of a
new addition. Staff also helps coor-
dinate local historic preservation
training opportunities and educa-
tional workshops.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION:
The role
of the City
Safeguarding and preserving
Iowa City's historic legacy of
homes, buildings, landmarks,
and neighborhoods requires
a cooperative effort across
the community, ranging from
City staff to historic
preservation enthusiasts to
homeowners and contractors.
On this page are some of the
roles the City plays in local
historic preservation efforts.
Salvage Barn
The Salvage Barn, a volunteer effort
by the local nonprofit, Friends of
Historic Preservation (FHC), offers
old house parts, vintage light fix-
tures, claw foot tubs, plinth blocks,
cedar siding, hardwood flooring, old
doors and more for homeowners
who are undertaking restoration or
building projects. Materials are sal-
vaged from old buildings and homes
to provide a source for historically
appropriate materials. The City's
role in the operation of the Salvage
Barn includes notifying FHC when
demolition permits are issued so
that they can explore possible sal-
vage opportunities, and also pro-
vides space at the Iowa City Landfill
for the Barn's operation. If not for
the Salvage Barn, much of this mate-
rial would end up in the landfill.
Historic
Preservation Plan
In 2006, the City Council adopted
the Iowa City Historic Preservation
Plan, which outlines a plan of action
for stewardship of historic proper-
ties. Under the plan, historic neigh-
borhoods and buildings are pro-
tected by the designation of historic
districts, conservation districts, and
historic landmarks. Any planned
changes to the exterior of a historic
property or landmark must first be
reviewed and approved by the His-
toric Preservation Commission.
Copies of the plan are available
online at www.icgov.org/historic
preservation or may be purchased in
the Planning Department at City Hall.
Preservation
Handbook
The City maintains and publishes the
Historic Preservation Handbook,
which contains guidelines for the
historic review of properties and
an explanation of the historic pres-
ervation process and its regulations.
The handbook is currently being
updated with changes that would
allow some requests for alterations
to historic properties to be approved
administratively by the Historic Pres-
ervation Planner, rather than
requiring all requests to go before
the Historic Preservation Commis-
sion. Adraft copy is available at
www.icgov.org/historicpreservation.
Comments on the proposal are due
by noon on May 13. The current
handbook is also available online at
the same website address. Printed
copies are available for sale in the
Planning Department in City Hall.
Historic
The Planner, 5.10. I 0 -page 4
Iowa City's Historic Preservation
and Conservation Districts
a
N
0 0 o cl
r~~°~""~'~ o
°~ 0000
D
a 0 00~®0 ~Q
^o oo°r~o°o°o^~
~~ooo~oc~ooooc~
000 ooc~o o~~
0000 ooc.~o~o~~0
~^~ooo^ooo
W a
^o~ C
^ O ° ° D ~--
0000 aG
loooo~ ~ ~
~ooooo ~ .
10000 e
~^oaaooooo ^
~a ^ ^ oa oo nn a ~JD
I II I ~ nn
~^oooo^o
~o o. ao
Iowa City has seven historic districts that are on the National Register of Historic Places and are protected by
local historic preservation zoning: Summit Street, Longfellow, Northside, East College, College Green, Wood-
lawn, and Brown (Ronalds) Street. The Jefferson Street and Melrose districts are on the National Register but
are not designated as local historic preservation zoning districts. Iowa City also has four conservation zoning
districts: Lucas-Governor, Clark, College Hill, and Dearborn.
The Planner, 5.10. I 0 -page 5
..............................................
STEVE LONG
Community Development
Coordinator
3 19.356.5250
New flood relief programs
introduced for businesses
Two new flood relief programs designed to assist flood-impacted busi-
. nesses have been announced by the Governor's office: the Equipment
Reimbursement Assistance Program (ERAP) and Flood Insurance
Reimbursement Program (FIRP). Applications for both programs are
now being accepted by the City of Iowa City.
Eaui~ment Reimbursement Assistance Program: This offers financial
assistance to businesses that owned their own building or leased rental
space during the 2008 flood that sustained physical damage to machin-
ery, equipment, furniture, inventory or supplies. Business must be able
to document a loss for which they did not receive private/business
insurance, federal funding, state or local grants, forgivable loans or pri-
vate bank loans for replacement purposes. Awards are limited to 75%
of replacement cost, not to exceed a total amount of $75,000 per busi-
ness. Businesses eligible under the Business Rental Assistance Program
(BRAP) are not be eligible for assistance under this program.
Steve-long@iowa-city.org Flood Insurance Reimbursement Program: This provides financial assis-
Web page: tance to reimburse businesses for the cost of flood/sewer backup and
www.icgov.org/commdev related business interruption insurance coverage. Qualifying businesses
must have had water in their building as a result of the 2008 flood in-
volving overland flow or sewer backup; and/or must have been located
in the 100- or 500-year floodplain; and must be open and operating at
the time of application. Businesses that located to either floodplain subsequent to the disaster may also be eligi-
ble for assistance. The flood insurance policy start date must be January I , 2010 or later, and businesses must
provide an insurance policy declaration page and proof of payment. If approved, reimbursement will be a one-
time payment for one year of coverage, up to $5,000 per qualified business.
The deadline to apply for either program is December 31, 2010. Application forms are available on the City's
website at www.icgov.org/defaultJfs/?id=1881. Home-based businesses are not eligible. For more information,
contact Community Development Planner Doug Ongie at doug-ongie@iowa-city.org or call 356.5479.
......................................................................................................... .
Buyout update
A total of 40 Iowa C-ty properties
have been acquired by the City with
federal and state acquisition funds.
Thirty were purchased through the
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
(FF_/MA), six with Community Develop-
ment Block Grant (CDBG) funds, and
four with Community Disaster Grant
(CDG) funds. So far, 28 properties
have been demolished in the
Parkview Terrace and Taft Speedway
neighborhoods as part of the City's
flood mitigation efforts.
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
The Planner, 5.10. I 0 -page 6
MAY 16 - 2 I
Bike to Work Week
The League of American Bicy-
clists reports that although more
than half of the U.S. population
lives within five miles of their
workplace, only a small percent-
age of people commute by bike.
To encourage more of us to opt
for the bike rather than the car
or bus, several bicycling events
are planned next week as part of
Iowa City's observance of Bike
to Work Week, including:
Sunday, May 16
To get warmed up for the work
week, a breakfast is scheduled at
9 a.m. on Sunday at Geoff s Bike
and Ski at 816 S. Gilbert Street.
And after breakfast? A ride, of
course!
Monday, May 17
A free Commuter Breakfast will
be provided from 7:30 to 9:30
a.m. at 30th Century Bicycle at
310 Prentiss Street.
Tuesday, May 18
One of the City's annual B2WW
events is a race by three com-
muters to see who can make it
from library to library in the
shortest amount of time: a bicy-
clist, adriver, or a bus rider.
This year, the starting point will
be the Coralville Public Library
~'.
J
~'
way ~~~e
tv wvr~?
i. It's tuNl
Biking to work builds morale,
encourages camaraderie, and is a
great way to get active in your
. community. .
z. It's >"~~t>"y~
Active employees are more
alert, take fewer sick days, and
are more productive.
3. It's ~R~~NI
Biking reduces your carbon foot-
print, reduces traffic congestion,
and can save you money! .
at I I :50 a.m. Commuters will
head to the Iowa City Public
Library and we'll see who wins...
Wednesday, May 19
The Ride of Silence - an 8- to
12-mile bike ride that honors
fallen and injured cyclists and
advocates for bicyclists' rights-
will begin at 6:45 p.m. at the
north entrance to the Ped Mall
(the intersection of Washington
and Dubuque Streets).
Thursday, May 20
A Bike to Work Week tradition:
the Mayors' Ride. The event will
begin at 5:30 p.m. at Chauncey
Swan Park in Iowa City and con-
clude at the New Pioneer store
in Coralville. As always, there
will be FOOD! MUSIC! PRIZES!
Friday, May 21
This year's Bike to Work Week
will conclude with an after-work
gathering at Vito's on the Pedes-
trian Mall in Iowa City. Stop by
on your way home!
Other events
For more information on these
or other events scheduled as
part of Bike to Work Week,
visit www.b2wwic.org.
The Planner, 5.10. I 0 -page 7
UPCOMING MEETINGS
..................................................................
Wednesday, May 12
Board of Adjustment
5:15 p.m., Emma Harvat Hall, City Hall, 410 E. Washington Street
On the agenda: Discussion of an application submitted by Nila
Haug and Dennis Nowotny for a special exception to allow a bed
and breakfast inn to operate in the Central Business Service (CB-2)
zone at 51 I E. Washington Street.
Thursday, May 20
^ Planning & Zoning Commission
7 p.m., Emma Harvat Hall, City Hall, 410 E. Washington Street
Thursday, June 3
^ Public Art Advisory Committee
3:30 pm, Lobby Conference Room, City Hall, 410 E. Washington Street
^ Planning & Zoning Commission
7 p.m., Emma Harvat Hall, City Hall, 410 E. Washington Street
Wednesday, June 9
^ Board of Adjustment
5:15 p.m., Emma Harvat Hall, City Hall, 410 E. Washington Street
Thursday, June I 0
^ Historic Preservation Commission
b p.m., Emma Harvat Hall, City Hall, 410 E. Washington Street
Thursday, June 17
^ Housing & Community Development Commission
6:30 p.m., Lobby Conference Room, City Hall, 410 E. Washington Street
To view agendas
& meeting packets
for City meetings
Agendas have not yet
been written for some
of these meetings.
To find out what's on
the agenda, visit the
City website prior to the
meeting. Go to the
City's Calendar page at
www.icgov.org/defaultl
apps/G E N/calendar.asp,
click on the date of the
meeting, and then on the
name of the group that will
be meeting. Agendas and
meeting packets for all
scheduled meetings are
posted to the web at least
24 hours in advance.
Around town
While the weather the past
couple of days has cast some
doubt on what season it really
is, there's one sure sign that
Spring is here: the opening of
the Farmers' Market This
photo shows the large crowd
that arrived for the market's
opening day this year -ready
for fresh produce, baked goods,
homemade items, flowers
straight from the garden...and a
chance to run into old friends.
^ Planning & Zoning Commission
7 p.m., Emma Harvat Hall, City Hall, 410 E. Washington Street
WHO SHOULD YOU CONTACT?
.............................................................................................
PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
General Phone: 319.356.5230 Fax: 319.356.5217
Department Web Page: http://www.icgov.org/PCD
ADMINISTRATION
Jeff Davidson
Director
3 19.356.5232
j eff-d av i d s o n @iowa-c ity. o rg
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
Steve Long
Coordinator
3 19.356.5250
steve-long@iowa-city.org
JCCOG
John Yapp
F~cecutive Director
3 19.356.5252
john-yapp@iowa-city.org
Janet Dworsky
Administrative Secretary
3 19.356.5230
Janet-dvorsky@iowa-city.org
Jodi DeMeulenaere
Public Information Assistant
319.356.5236
Jodi-demeulenaere@
iowa-city.org
URBAN
PLANNING
Robert Miklo
Senior Planner
3 19.356.5240
bob-miklo@iowa-city.org
Urban Planners:
Karen Howard
3 19.356.525 I
karen-howard@iowa-city.org
Christina Kuecker
Historic Preservation
3 19.356.5243
Christina-kuecker@
iowa-city.org
Sarah Walz
Board of Adjustment
319.356.5239
Sarah-walz@iowa-city.org
Community
Development Planners:
Tracy Hightshoe
3 19.356.5244
tract'-hightshoe@iowa-city.org
Doug Ongie
3 19.356.5479
doug-ongie@iowa-city.org
David Purdy
3 19.356.5489
david-purdy@iowa-city.org
Housing Rehabilitation
Specialists:
David Powers
319.356.5233
david-powers@iowa-city.org
Jeff Vanatter
3 19.356.5 128
jell-vanatter@iowa-city.org
Liz Osborne
Program Assistant
3 19.356.5246
I iz-Osborne@iowa-c ity.org
ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
Wendy Ford
Coordinator
3 19.356.5248
Wendy-ford @iowa-city.org
Transportation Planners:
Brad Neumann
319.356.5235
brad-neumann@iowa-city.org
Kent Ralston
3 19.356.5253
kent-ralston@iowa-city.org
Kristopher Ackerson
3 19.356.5247
kri stopher-ackerson @
iowa-city.org
Darian Nagle-Gamm
3 19.356.5254
darian-nagle-gamm@
iowa-city.org
Human Services
Planning:
Linda Severson
Coordinator
3 19.356.5242
I inda-Severson@iowa-city.org
NEIGHBORHOOD
SERVICES
Marcia Bollinger
Coordinator of
Neighborhood Services
& Iowa City Public Art Program
3 19.356.5237
marcia-bolli nger@iowa-city.org
OS-13-10
IP6
Marian Karr
From: Marian Karr
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 7:59 AM
To: 'Garry Klein'
Cc: Dale Helling; Council
Subject: RE: Error in Voting Results
Thank you. I will correct it.
Marian
-----Original Message-----
From: Garry Klein [mailto:the3rdiowac~mchsi.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 2:59 AM
To: Marian Karr
Cc: Dale Helling; Council
Subject: Error in Voting Results
Marian,
There is an error in the voting of # 18 that your office reported last night. The actual
vote was 4 to 1 with Dickens abstaining and Wright voting in the negative.
ITEM 18. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 8, ENTITLED "POLICE REGULATIONS," CHAPTER 5,
ENTITLED "MISCELLANEOUS OFFENSES," SECTION 2, ENTITLED "AGGRESSIVE PANHANDLING," TO
PROHIBIT SOLICITING FOR MONEY IN LIMITED AREAS IN THE DOWNTOWN. (SECOND CONSIDERATION)
Comment: In June 2009, the City adopted an ordinance limiting soliciting in certain areas
in the "downtown." The Downtown Association (DTA) recently requested additional
restrictions. Staff recommends expedited action due to the summer schedule. Correspondence
included in Council packet.
Action: Second consideration, 6/0, Champion absent
Garry Klein
628 2nd Ave,
Iowa City, IA 52245
1
IP7
MINUTES
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
APRIL 7 2010 - 5:00 p.m.
PRELIMINARY
MEETING ROOM B, ROBERT A. LEE COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER
Members Present: David Bourgeois, Clay Clausen, Maggie Elliott, Craig
Gustaveson, Jerry Raaz, John Westefeld
Members Absent: Lorin Ditzler, Aaron Krohmer, Margaret Loomer
Staff Present: Mike Moran, Terry Robinson
Others Present: Andy Dudler, Ann Dudler
CALL TO ORDER
Meeting was called to order at 5 p.m. by Chairman Gustaveson.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL:
None
OTHER FORMAL ACTION TAKEN:
Moved by Raaz seconded by Westefeld to approve the March 10, 2010 Parks
and Recreation Commission minutes as written Motion passed 6-0 with Ditzlers
Krohmer and Loomer being absent.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None
TERRY TRUEBLOOD RECREATION AREA PRESENTATION - SNYDER &
ASSOCIATES:
Brian Gutheinz and Don Marner, Landscape Architects with Snyder & Associates,
gave a presentation to the Commission regarding the Terry Trueblood Recreation
Area. Gutheinz stated that the two goals for this evening are to update the
Commission as to what has been completed and what the future holds for planning as
well as get input from the Commission on ideas for the future planning Gutheinz and
Marner presented a memo to the Commission outlining the park programming and
master plan (copy attached). They will revise the master plan for TTRA based on
comments and suggestions and return with a final plan to a future Commission
meeting. Gutheinz noted that the trail construction has started and should be complete
in mid-May.
Comments and questions from Commission Members as follows:
Westefeld asked about the parking lot plans, confirming that there will be four lots with
one being larger than the other three. Gutheinz and Marner confirmed this to be the
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
April 7, 2010
Page 2 of 5
case stating that the large lot will accommodate up to 150 vehicles. This lot will be
adjacent to the lodge. Westefeld also asked what the vision is for the beach area.
Gutheinz reported that there is an area that has very sandy soil and is fairly flat so
would be a logical location for a beach and would not require too much work to put that
in place. Moran reported that staff would recommend that such a beach would not be
staffed by a lifeguard. Marner reported that it was one of the last items on the priority
list received from staff. Moran further stated that staff is not committed to placing a
beach at TTRA. Raaz feels that with the good water quality and sandy soil etc., that
there really should be a beach at this location as it would bring more kids to the park.
He also asked where the closest play area is to the park. Moran stated that the closest
play areas are at Napoleon and Wetherby parks. Gustaveson agreed that a beach
would be a good addition to the park.
There was some discussion regarding the lodge. This building is felt to be an important
structure to this park as it will make a big impression to the Community. Moran
reported that it will be built in such away to allow for additions if necessary down the
road. The lodge will accommodate 150 people.
Moran reviewed the money allocation for this project. He stated that there is a fairly
significant amount of money left from Phase I that can carry over to Phase II. Phase II
will include more cleanup of the property. Moran said that while staff would like to get
the lodge constructed sooner than later, there is no money in place for that at this time.
He said that staff can apply again for a Vision Iowa Grant this fall for FY12 funding.
There is money in place to move forward with the phases in 2012 and 2013 ($2 million
in 2012, $3 million in 2013). Gustaveson asked if we have to have a certain amount of
funding in place prior to applying for the Vision Iowa Grant. Moran said that the money
that was previously raised can be accounted for in that case as long as none of it has
been spent prior to that. Moran noted that there is still concern with acquiring more
property requires more maintenance staff and will address this issue with Council in
June.
Westefeld commented that he likes that the north side of the park plan provides for
more activity while the south side provides for more private quiet areas.
Moran asked for comments from Commission regarding fishing piers, specifically if
they would like to see the piers go out over the water or just along the lake. It was
consensus that they do not need to be built out over the water.
Moran noted that Snyder & Associates staff will return to Commission with a finalized
master plan in the near future.
SPRING/SUMMER OPENINGS & DEDICATIONS:
TTRA Trail System: Moran asked Commission if they would like to schedule this
dedication upon completion of the trail or perhaps schedule it on the anniversary of the
passing of Terry Trueblood which would be July 3. Moran will confirm date and let
Commission know soon.
Wetherby Splash Pad: Moran reported that staff had originally planned on having a
soft opening Memorial Day weekend and then a formal dedication the following
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
April 7, 2010
Page 3 of 5
weekend. However, as Arts Fest is scheduled that particular weekend, staff has since
decided to have soft opening in mid May and then a formal opening Memorial Day
Soccer Park Statue Dedication: Robinson will contact Waunita Trueblood to discuss
her schedule and then will plan a date for this dedication.
COMMISSION TIME/SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
Claussen asked Commission if they would like his wife to come and give a
presentation regarding fundraising opportunities as she works for a firm that can help
determine where best to go for donations etc. Gustaveson said that that request would
be better presented to the Parks and Recreation Foundation. Moran and Claussen will
discuss.
Westefeld complimented staff on a great Summer Activity Guide. He also noted that he
has visited Waterworks Park and Court Hill Trail and noted that they are both getting a
lot of use.
Raaz asked what the concrete columns are that have gone up at Pheasant Hill Park. k.
Robinson reported that they are called "plinths" which are part of the Public Art
process. High School art students will be decorating similar to the bench that they did
in the past. Raaz would like Commission to be better informed of these projects. While
he understands that it was Public Art money and their project, it would be helpful if
Commission was informed in instances where they are asked questions about
projects.
Elliott praised Linda Schreiber for her efforts on cleaning up the downtown area.
Westefeld asked about some no parking signage that has been placed at the Iowa
River Power Company side of the river where the bridge is located stating that the way
they are written and placed is quite confusing. Moran stated that that is handled by
Coralville
CHAIRS REPORT:
Gustaveson said that he would like to have affiliate groups come to Commission
meetings on a regular basis to report their activities. He suggested that DogPAC
present at the May meeting since Commission will be revisiting their contract in May as
it comes up for revote in June.
Gustaveson reminded Commission that he would like to have members make
presentations at Council meetings on a quarterly basis. Members to let Moran know if
they can attend.
Gustaveson would like to schedule a future Commission meeting at the Beckworth
Boathouse. Moran will look into doing this.
DIRECTORS REPORT:
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
April 7, 2010
Page 4 of 5
Gifts/Naming Policy: Dale Helling received five responses from boards and
commissions. As he was disappointed in such few responses, he has asked for more
before moving ahead on this.
Superintendent Search: Moran, Robinson and other City Staff will be interviewing
candidates this week. Moran hopes to make an offer by the end of April with a new
Superintendent starting in June. He received 87 applicants and will be interviewing 4
in-house candidates and 4 from the outside.
Affiliate Group Update: Council removed this item from their April 5/6 agenda. They
will place on the April 26 work session and April 27 formal meeting agenda. Moran will
be writing a memo to Council to explain the process. Kickers have written a letter to
Council regarding their concerns. Commission members encouraged to attend. Moran
will report back to Commission following this meeting.
Council Meeting Schedule: Future council meeting dates are as follows: May 10,
June 1, June 15, and July 12. Moran will keep Commission informed of these dates in
his Friday Updates.
Trail Counts: Moran noted that there is a trail count report in their packets for their
information.
DogPAC: Staff and DogPAC have discussed the agreement vote coming up in June.
DogPAC is very supportive of the idea of hiring staff to monitor the dog parks and
paying from the revenue received. Moran suggested that perhaps Commission discuss
doing this on a one year trial. Moran and Dudlers' noted that they have been
monitoring the park recently and have found that about 75% of patrons are not paying
entry fees or have obtained tags for their dogs.
ADJOURNMENT
Moved by Westefeld, seconded by Claussen to adiourn the meeting at 6:40.
Motion passed 6-0 with Ditzler, Krohmer and Loomer being absent.
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
April 7, 2010
Page 5 of 5
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
YEAR 2010
NAME
{h
O
O
~
~
01
~
~ eh
. o
~
N
TERM ~ M
~" N M ~ in ~ ti r
oo °' o
~- r
:-
EXPIRES
David 1/1/11 O/E O/E O/E X X
Bourgeois
Clay 1/1/14 X X X X X
Claussen
Lorin 1/1/13 O/E X X X O/E
Ditrler
Maggie 1/1/13 X X O/E X X
Elliott
Craig 1/1/11 X X X X X
Gustaves
on
Aaron 1/1/13 X O/E X X O/E
Krohmer
Margaret 1/1/12 X O/E O/E X X
Loomer
Jerry Raaz 1/1/12 X O/E X X X
John 1/1/14 O/E X X X X
Westefeld
KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting LQ = No meeting due to lack of quorum
* = Not a member at this time
IP8
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
APRIL 14, 2010 - 5:15 PM
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert Anderson, Barbara Eckstein, Will Jennings,
Caroline Sheerin, Leanne Tyson,
MEMBERS EXCUSED: None
STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Sara Greenwood Hektoen
OTHERS PRESENT: Jeff Clark, Geoff Franzenburg, Yasser Gaber,
Mohamed Hassanein
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
None.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Caroline Sheerin at 5:17 p.m.
An opening statement was read by the Chair outlining the role and purpose of the Board and the
procedures governing the proceedings.
ROLL CALL: Anderson, Eckstein, Jennings, Sheerin (Tyson not present at time of roll call).
CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 10T" 2010:
Jennings offered three typographical changes to the minutes. Eckstein noted that the minutes
were extraordinarily detailed and accurate; Sheerin concurred.
Anderson motioned to approve the minutes as amended.
Eckstein seconded.
The motion carried 4-0 (Tyson not present at time of vote).
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2010
Page 2 of 22
SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS:
EXC10-00001: An application submitted by Jeff Clark for a special exception to allow off-
site parking in a municipal parking facility to satisfy the minimum parking requirements
for a mixed use building to be constructed in the Central Business (CB-10) zone at 225
South Gilbert Street.
Walz pointed out the location of the property on an overhead map, noting that it was the former
site of Happy Joe's, which was destroyed a few years ago by a tornado. The applicant is
proposing a five story mixed-use building with commercial uses on the ground floor and
residential uses above. Walz said that off-street parking is now required for residential uses
located in the CB-10 zone. The residential use will consist of sixteen apartments. Based on the
number of bedrooms per apartment, the minimum required parking for the project is 24 spaces.
Walz explained that the applicant has proposed eight parking spaces on-site. She said there
are restrictions on where those spaces can be located within the structure; generally, they are
underground or at the back of the building. The applicant has requested permission to provide
the other sixteen required parking spaces in the Chauncey-Swan public parking ramp. This
ramp is located about 500 feet from the subject property. Walz said there are approximately
475 spaces in the Chauncey-Swan ramp, 400 of which have had permits issued for them,
leaving 75 spaces open for spontaneous public use. Walz noted that not all permits are used
regularly, and usually there are more than 75 spaces available. She said that the ramp is rarely
at capacity except for occasionally during a Farmers' Market (which takes place on the ground
floor of the ramp) or other large events downtown.
Walz stated that prior to 2009, there were no parking requirements for residential uses in the
CB-10 zone. In fact, she said, if a developer wished to provide parking on-site they had to seek
a special exception to do so. Part of the reason for this was to restrict the amount of land
devoted to parking in the Downtown in order to encourage better land use, and that parking
downtown should be primarily for commercial purposes and be provided in the ramps. Walz
said that at the time the old code was written there was not a lot of demand for residential uses
in the downtown area. She said that as demand for residential units downtown began to grow,
the City realized that there was an imbalance, and that needed parking was not being provided
because the code actually discouraged it.
As a result, and at the direction of the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council, the
code was rewritten to ensure that an adequate number of parking spaces were being provided
for residential units downtown. Provisions were made within the code to allow developers to
provide parking spaces off-site through the special exception process; 100% of the spaces
could potentially be provided off-site; however, each case is reviewed individually. Walz said
that staff believes the requirements for the special exception have been satisfied because:
1) The subject use is in the CB-10 zone;
2) Although the 600 foot requirement does not apply in this case, the subject property is
located 500 feet from the ramp;
3) The applicant has requested 16 spaces for long-term rental and the Director of
Transportation Services has indicated in writing that these spaces are available, and the
capacity of the ramp will not be exceeded by granting them;
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2010
Page 3 of 22
4) There are 475 spaces at the ramp and the permits that are assigned there are reviewed and
adjusted annually;
5) The location of the off-street parking is appropriate because the locations of the property
and the parking are in close proximity to each other, with safe and controlled sidewalk and
intersection access between the two;
6) The proposed site is in a municipal parking ramp which is designed to provide safe
vehicular access, and ingress and egress from the ramp are designed with good visibility;
7) The ramp is already constructed so there will be no changes to the area that result from
granting this special exception.
Walz said that with regard to the requirement for a written agreement, the applicant has
provided a letter from the Director of Transportation Services indicating that the 16 spaces are
available for use on a long-term basis. She said that the because the off-site location being
requested is a City-owned facility, staff recommends that the applicant submit the required
written agreement as part of the building permit application based on the number of spaces
approved by the Board. Staff also recommends that any agreement provide that the parking
permits must be offered to residents of the subject property at a rate not to exceed that
determined by the Director of Transportation Services; that rate will be based on the market ate
at the time of leasing. Walz said that there is nothing in the code that necessarily ties those
spaces to the residents of the building, as the residents may not even want or need parking.
Walz said that it is nonetheless staff's belief that the spaces should be offered to residents prior
to being offered to anyone else.
Walz said she would not go over the general standard but would let the Board ask her questions
if they have any.
Sheerin invited the Board to ask questions of staff.
Jennings said that he understood that 16 spaces will be allocated whether or not the tenants in
the subject property decide they want to use them. He asked if it was correct that the spaces
would remain allocated regardless of whether they were actually used. Walz said that was
correct. Greenwood Hektoen clarified that the spaces would not be assigned; there would be
no particular set of spaces that were reserved just for this property. Rather, the residents would
have a permit with which to find a space somewhere in the ramp. Sheerin asked if a member of
the public could park in that space. Walz said that a member of the public could park in any
space as residents will not have specific parking spots reserved, nor will they necessarily be
guaranteed a space on a given day. The permit system operates on afirst-come/first-serve
basis.
Jennings said that he was attempting to ascertain whether the Board was discussing actual
parking spaces or simply permits. Walz said the issue at hand involved permits, which grant the
right to park when space is available at no additional hourly charge. Jennings asked how the
number of required parking spaces was calculated. Walz said the figure is drawn from the
number of residential units and the number of bedrooms per unit. She said the parking
requirements are different for atwo-bedroom apartment and athree-bedroom apartment.
Jennings pointed out that the parking requirement is for actual space, not the prospect of space.
Walz said that the intent of the code is for the space to be provided. Walz said that any three-
bedroom unit in Iowa City has a parking requirement of two spaces. Jennings said that the
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2010
Page 4 of 22
physical space that is being required by the code is not actually being provided; a permit is
being provided. Walz said that the Transportation Services Director evaluates whether there is
a reasonable expectation that a space could be found in the ramp on a regular basis. Walz
noted that she did not believe that spaces would be allocated in a ramp that was regularly over-
capacity. Greenwood Hektoen stated that it is in the City's interest to allow multiple people to
use a given space. She said the parking director has analyzed the matter and has expressed a
preference that such spaces not be assigned. Jennings said that his issue is that under the
findings it says that the applicant has requested 16 spaces for long-term use, not 16 permits.
He said the applicant has requested actual space, not the possibility of space. Sheerin said this
might then be a question for the applicant. Walz said she thought it had more to do with what
the City Council had legislated as the appropriate means for providing parking spaces. She
said the idea was to manage demand, and City Council had specifically determined that
demand could be managed by providing parking permits at a municipal ramp. She said she did
understand, however, Jennings' concern with the terminology of spaces versus permits.
Jennings said that he is concerned about the language. He said if the intent of the requirement
is that for so many occupants there must be a certain number of parking spaces provided, then
that would mean that actual space, not just a permit, should be provided. Sheerin asked if he
would be more comfortable if the language used the term "permit" as opposed to "spaces".
Jennings said that he also has concerns with the implications of language like "in perpetuity"
and "long-term." He said that he was concerned that a whole system of phantom parking
spaces was being created, where the City was leasing spaces in perpetuity to developers
providing parking for residential units, when, in fact, the "spaces" were not really there.
Greenwood Hektoen said that Chris Obrien has provided a letter to the Board stating that in his
analysis as Director of Transportation Services the spaces are there and are available. She
said that Obrien uses a very complicated system to make that determination and that the Board
probably either needs to trust that analysis, or call Obrien before the Board to answer any
questions they might have about that decision.
Jennings said that it is not that he does not trust the analysis; rather, for him, the question is one
of using the term "space" in conjunction with terms like "in perpetuity" and "long term." Walz
explained that Obrien has indicated that there are 400 permits currently held in the Chauncey
Swan ramp. By the time the proposed building is constructed, all of those permits will have
come up for renewal. She said her understanding is that the idea is to keep 75 spaces open
and available for public use, so the current permit holders would be reduced by the number
necessary to accommodate the proposed use (16 spaces). She said that it is true that this is
not a guaranteed, 24/7 parking space for the residents of the subject property; rather, the idea is
to provide a likelihood that on most occasions there will be a spot available to them. Jennings
said that his sense of the code is that occupancy of a building is tied to available parking
spaces. He asked what would happen if the parking spaces were no longer available; if
demand increased to such an extent that the 16 spaces that had been promised "in perpetuity"
could no longer be granted to the developer. The City could not then go back and prohibit the
apartments from being occupied. Walz stated that as demand for permits increases, current
permit-holders could be shifted to other facilities, or more parking ramps could be built to
accommodate increased demand. Walz said the idea is to manage downtown parking
demand. She said this demand will continue to increase because most of the lots downtown
are too small for developers to provide on-site parking. She said the idea is to put those permits
into the ramps; this has been the plan since the change to the zoning code requiring residential
parking was made. Tyson asked if it was correct that if these particular 16 spaces were granted
in Chauncey Swan ramp, then they would forever be at that ramp. Walz said she believed that
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2010
Page 5 of 22
was the case. She noted that the Director of Transportation Services would set it up at the
outset so that the spaces could be transferrable to another ramp if he foresaw that as an issue.
Sheerin asked how the City would account for unforeseen demand increases that might make it
so that in the future the 16 spaces were no longer readily available to residents. Walz said that
if demand increased to that extent the City would build more ramps. She noted that at some
point someone will make a request for off-site parking that will exceed current capacity. Sheerin
noted that off-site parking requests are a variable the City can control for; however, the City
cannot control the demand by the general public. Walz said the parking director regularly
reviews demand and capacity issues, and when he finds that ramp capacity is frequently being
reached, he will recommend that a new ramp is built. Jennings asked if he could have a more
specific working definition of what "long-term" or "in perpetuity" means in this case. Greenwood
Hektoen said that it means in perpetuity; for as long as the subject property is used for its
intended purposes, the developer would have to rent 16 spaces in a municipal ramp and the
City will guarantee that those permits are available. Jennings said it is not his intent to come off
as being against this request; rather, he is simply concerned about the language of "space"
versus "permit". He said that space is either literal or pretend, and as he lives in a
neighborhood in which there is plenty of "pretend" space for parking, he understands that what
might be technically true in terms of parking availability, may not be literally true. He said that
he wonders about the allocation ratios of bedrooms to parking spaces and whether they are
adequate or realistic; though he realizes such concerns are outside the purview of considering
this particular application. Greenwood Hektoen said that while she thinks those are important
things to be considered, the ratios are a matter for City Council consideration as the Council is
the legislative body and the Board of Adjustment is aquasi-judicial board. Jennings said he
understood this, however, when the matter comes before the Board, he has to wonder how the
whole system of consideration was engineered. Walz said that it truly is a legislative issue and
that the City Council had itself gone back and forth with this issue. She said that the Council
had specifically wanted the code change to allow a reasonable amount of parking in the ramp.
The previous code required no parking whatsoever for residential units in the downtown area.
As a result, there was no tracking or true management of demand. She said that City Council
had decided that if there is going to be residential demand downtown, then the City needs to
build enough ramps or other facilities to account for those apartments. Jennings noted that
there might be greater competition for parking spaces when there are downtown events such as
The Farmers' Market. He asked if such events presented egress/ingress concerns. Walz said
that access from the Washington Street side of Chauncey Swan is limited during Farmers'
Markets; however, the College Street entrance is still available.
There were no further questions for staff, and Sheerin invited the applicant to address the
Board.
Jeff Clark, 414 East Market Street, said that he did not have much to say about the application.
He noted that in order to build this project downtown he needed to meet the requirements of the
zoning code. He said that parking requirements did change in 2009, and he had attended every
meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council in regard to that change.
He said that he had not really fought the measure, and that he had agreed that parking in the
downtown area was getting more difficult, and there was some need for management of it. He
said that he believes the code offers a good solution to the problem. He said he had spoken
with Obrien, and believed that he was on top of the issue and would be able to issue the permits
that Clark needs to move forward with the project. He said that the tenants in the subject
building will not necessarily use the parking spaces made available in Chauncey Swan, as he
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2010
Page 6 of 22
has other parking spaces in the downtown area whose availability varies from year to year.
Clark said that on average the 16 spaces will be used by someone in his tenancy. He said that
parking demand does vary from year to year for his tenants.
Clark said he understood Jennings concerns about whether a "permit" actually equals a parking
"space". He said that he could only address those concerns by stating that these were the
provisions of the zoning ordinance, and the assumption of the code is that most often the tenant
will be able to find a parking space. Clark said he hopes that the zoning changes work as
intended. He said that he believes this is one of the first residential buildings to request parking
spaces since the code was changed. Clark asked if he was correct in his understanding that he
could lease the spaces out to other people if the building residents did not wish to rent them.
Greenwood Hektoen said that as Clark would be the lessee, what he did with them was his
prerogative so long as he followed the requirement of first making them available to his tenants
at the same rate he is leasing them from the City. Clark said as they own multiple downtown
properties, it may make sense for them to lease the spaces to tenants of buildings that are
closer to the ramp, and make other spaces available to the tenants at the former Happy Joe's
site. Greenwood Hektoen cautioned that Clark would not be able to use those spaces to meet
his parking requirements for other buildings. Clark said that he understood that; he was simply
talking about the most efficient way to manage his parking spaces for multiple residential
properties. Greenwood Hektoen said that his name would be on the permit so he could manage
the spaces as he saw fit, so long as he fulfilled the requirements of the code. Clark said he
would be happy to answer any questions from the Board, and that he hoped they chose to
approve the special exception.
Tyson said she understood Clark to have said that he had other "options" for parking. Clark
said that he did not necessarily have extra spaces to meet the parking requirements; rather,
from year to year the locations where he might have parking available can change.
Eckstein asked how the parking in the lower level of the building would be assigned. She noted
that that part of Gilbert Street is often congested and heavily traveled. She asked if those
spaces would be open to anyone living in the building, or if they would be assigned to particular
units. Clark said the spaces in the building would be assigned to a particular vehicle; it will not
be open parking so there would be no trolling for spaces.
Sheerin opened the public hearing.
There were no other speakers on the topic, so Sheerin invited a motion.
Anderson motioned to approve EXC10-00001, an application submitted by Jeff Clark for a
special exception to allow up to 16 parking spaces in a municipal parking facility to
satisfy the minimum parking requirements for a mixed use building to be constructed in
the Central Business (CB-10) zone at 225 South Gilbert Street, subject to the following
conditions:
1. All approved spaces will be provided in the Chauncey Swan Ramp according to
the terms set by the Director of Transportation Services; and
2. The applicant must submit the required covenant for off-site parking prior to
securing a building permit. The covenant shall include a stipulation that the off-
site parking be made available to residents of the subject property at a cost not to
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2010
Page 7 of 22
exceed the market rate determined by the Director of Transportation Services at
the time of leasing.
Tyson seconded.
Sheerin invited discussion. There was none.
Sheerin closed the public hearing.
Greenwood Hektoen noted that Walz had reformatted the staff report to assist with the findings
of fact.
Findings of Fact• Specific Standards (14-5A-41 ):
Eckstein stated that the applicant has submitted an aerial photograph showing that the subject
property is within 500 feet of the Chauncey Swan parking ramp. Eckstein said that the
requirement was for the ramp to be within 600 feet of the off-site parking if that parking is not
housed within a municipal ramp.
Eckstein stated that as the proposed parking is located in a municipal ramp, the applicant must
meet only the minimum parking requirements. These requirements have been met because:
1) The subject use is located in the CB-10 zone;
2) The Director of Transportation Services has indicated in writing that the 16 spaces are
available for long-term use and the capacity of the ramp will not be exceeded if the
special exception is granted;
3) There are 475 spaces in the Chauncey Swan ramp; 400 permits are issued and 75
spaces remain open for use. Not all permitted spaces are regularly used, and the
Director of Transportation Services analyzes the use and demand for parking in this and
other ramps annually.
Jennings said that the ramp is in close proximity to the residential use (approximately 500 feet
walking distance) with sidewalks and a controlled intersection connecting the two sites; the
proposed site is in a municipal ramp in which the parking is designed to provide safe vehicle
access, and ingress and egress for the ramp are designed with good visibility. The ramp is
already constructed so there will be no change to the area.
Findings of Fact• General Standards (14-4B-3):
Jennings stated that the Director of Transportation Services has reviewed the request and has
indicated that there is more than adequate capacity in the Chauncey Swan ramp to
accommodate the request without compromising the space available for shoppers and other
downtown visitors.
All utilities, access roads, drainage and other facilities are in place to serve the parking facility
and the development of the proposed building.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2010
Page 8 of 22
Jennings reiterated that the municipal facility in which the off-site parking is being requested has
safe ingress and egress to adjacent public streets and is designed to minimize congestion of
public streets.
Eckstein added that the Board understands that the building will actually require 24 spaces, and
that eight of those spaces will be on-site.
Jennings noted that the eight on-site parking spaces are not open, but will be assigned to a
specific vehicle. The 16 permit spaces will be made available to tenants upon leasing.
Anderson said he would like to reiterate that the Director of Transportation Services submitted a
letter stating that there is available space at this facility, and that makes this a very reasonable
exception to grant.
Sheerin said she agrees with the findings and she too would like to note the letter from the
Director of Transportation Services.
Greenwood Hektoen noted that one of the criteria is that there is a covenant, and she asked the
Board to address that in their findings.
Tyson said that the applicant must submit a written agreement as part of the building permit
application based on the number of spaces approved by the Board; the agreement shall state
that the parking will be made available to residents of the subject property at a cost not to
exceed the market rate determined by the Director of Transportation Services.
Greenwood Hektoen noted that at this point the applicant did not technically meet the
requirement for a covenant; however, it is a condition of approval. The Board indicated
agreement with this statement.
A vote was taken and the motion was approved 5-0.
Sheerin declared the motion approved, noting that any party desiring to appeal this decision to a
court of record may do so within 30 days after this decision is filed with the City Clerk's Office.
EXC10-00002: An application submitted by Quality Associates for a special exception to
reduce the minimum off-street parking requirements for a business located in the
General Industrial (I-1) zone at 2630 Independence Road.
Walz explained that the subject property was in an area designed for industrial uses. She noted
that Quality Associates is a packaging company that works with Proctor & Gamble. Currently
the site is set up around warehouse uses and has a lot of space devoted to trucking and
docking. Walz said that the proposed use would designate approximately one-third of the
building to packaging services, one-third of the building to Quality Associates' warehousing
needs, and one-third of the building to Proctor & Gamble warehouse space. She said the
warehouse facilities would not have many employees present at a given time.
Walz explained that parking requirements are based on square-footage. She said that this
sometimes becomes complicated when considering warehouse facilities, as there is a lower
parking requirement for general warehouse uses than there is for warehouse uses that have a
production element to them. Walz noted that a breakdown of this distinction can be found in the
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2010
Page 9 of 22
staff report. She noted that the applicant did have the space available to provide all 211 of the
required parking spaces, though it would require some redesign of the paved areas. Walz said
that the applicant has explained that at peak capacity the maximum number of employees that
will be on-site would be 95. She said that shifts are staggered to provide ahalf-hour lapse. The
applicant is asking for their parking requirement to be reduced to 142 spaces. Walz said that
the zoning code allows the Board to grant reductions in parking requirements where it can kie
demonstrated that a specific use has unique characteristics such that the number of parking
spaces required is excessive.
Walz said that staff feels the applicant has demonstrated that the parking requirements for their
particular uses are excessive. Even with the reduction, the applicant is providing nearly 50%
more spaces than they will actually need at any given time. The warehouse uses have only a
minimal number of employees present on an occasional basis.
Staff believes that the proposed reduction would not be detrimental to the public health, safety,
comfort or general welfare; will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the
immediate vicinity, and will not diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood; nor will it
impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for
uses permitted in the zone in which such property is located. The following reasons are given
for these conclusions:
1) The proposed reduction will provide nearly 50% more spaces than the maximum number
of employees anticipated during a single shift, and the shifts are staggered by one-half
hour to minimize overcapacity on the site;
2) There is sufficient space on site to construct all required parking should the use expand
in the future.
Walz noted that when an applicant puts forth a statement regarding the number of employees
they will have, the applicant's estimates are generally accepted; in this case, the facility is in an
I-1 zone where there are no parking issues at present. She said if there are complaints or
observations to the contrary made at a later date, the City would investigate.
Staff recommends land-banking the extra space that would normally have been dedicated to
parking, setting it aside so that no additional structures can be built on it. If in the future it is
determined that more parking is needed, this set-aside can be used to meet the requirements.
Walz said that all access roads, utilities and other facilities are already established to serve this
industrial area. The area is designed for industrial vehicles and industrial levels of traffic.
Walz noted that the proposed parking area has not yet been reviewed by the Building Official to
verify that the proposed 142-space parking area is in compliance with all requirements of the
code. Approval of the final site plan is required in order for the applicant to receive an
occupancy permit for the building. Staff recommends that approval of the final site plan is a
condition of the special exception.
Walz stated that the Comprehensive Plan indicates that the area is appropriate and desirable
for industrial uses because it provides good access to the highway and railroad. However, the
Comprehensive Plan does not directly address the issue of parking requirements or reductions
to those requirements.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2010
Page 10 of 22
Walz concluded by stating that staff recommends approval of EXC10-00002, an application by
Quality Associates, located at 2630 Independence Road, for a special exception to reduce the
number of required parking spaces within the I-1 zone from 211 spaces to 142 spaces subject
to the following conditions:
1) The applicant must land-bank an area sufficient to provide the additional 60 spaces that
would ordinarily be required. This area should be indicated on the final site plan;
2) Final site approval by the Building Official for the proposed 142-space parking area;
3) The parking reduction is limited to Quality Associates and the proposed use of the
property as described in this application.
Sheerin asked if there were any questions for staff.
Eckstein asked if the applicant would be required to report changes in maximum occupancy that
might affect the parking needs. Walz noted that if the applicant wished to expand their facility
they would have to come to the City for a building permit, and at that time the parking would be
reviewed again. Eckstein asked what would happen if the facility expanded its operations but
not its building. Greenwood Hektoen said she was not sure how to answer that question. She
said that if the applicant needed additional parking she believed they would need to come back
before the Board so that the Board could readdress whether it was necessary for them to come
into compliance with parking lot standards. Sheerin asked if language could be added to the
special exception requiring that the company come back before the Board if the number of
employees increases. Walz said that they could make that a requirement. Tyson asked if the
Board would do that by specifying a percentage or specific number of an increase in employees
that would trigger a return to the Board. Greenwood Hektoen said staff had had quite a bit of
discussion about this, and that the Board may want to discuss that with the applicant. She said
the applicant is providing parking spaces in excess of the number of employees that will be on-
site. She said that even if the applicant hired, for example, 15 more employees, they would still
have sufficient parking space even at the level of the requirement reduction. Tyson asked how
that would be monitored. Walz said an investigation would be triggered by complaint or
observation of a problem. Walz noted that there is an inherent incentive for the applicant to
provide the appropriate number of parking spaces, in that failure to do so would make it more
difficult for their own employees to report to work on time.
Sheerin invited the applicant to address the Board.
Geoff Franzenburg, 3500 J Street SW, Cedar Rapids, appeared on behalf of the applicant. He
said that he is a representative of Septagon Construction, the general contractor for the project.
He said he would be happy to answer any questions the Board might have.
Anderson asked if there was any possibility that overtime for the first shift workers would cause
strain on the parking facilities if the requirement was reduced to the level requested by the
applicant. Franzenburg said that the calculations for the number of spaces needed by the
company were based on the potential need for shift overlap as demonstrated at other facilities
owned by the applicant. He said the applicant has six facilities throughout the United States.
He said that the applicant has found that with this type of production there are a number of
employees who carpool, walk to work, or take public transit. Franzenburg said that the
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2010
Page 11 of 22
company had studied the parking lot usage for similar facilities and used those numbers to
calculate the need for this facility. He noted that multiple shifting is set up to try to avoid the
expense of overtime. He added that if need be, the applicant would go to a third shift to meet
production demands.
Tyson asked if it was the case that Franzenburg's firm had looked at other sites in this area.
Franzenburg said that was correct; they had evaluated nearby competitors with similar facilities
and production needs.
Jennings asked how the shift-change calculations were determined, through observation or
conjecture. Franzenburg said that the calculations were made by observation of their own
facilities in other locations. He said that the additional 50 spaces beyond the observed need
was intended to leave room for flexibility or change in parking needs.
Franzenburg noted that he understood the land bank issue in staff's recommendation.
However, he wanted to ensure that language was added to clarify that the land will only be
banked for the duration of Quality Associates' lease. Walz clarified that the entire special
exception will be null and void when and if Quality Associates leaves the property. Franzenburg
said everything else looked good to him.
Sheerin opened the issue for public discussion.
There were no additional comments from the public, staff or Board on the matter, and the public
hearing was closed.
Sheerin invited a motion.
Tyson moved to approve EXC10-00002, an application by Quality Associates for a special
exception to reduce the number of required parking spaces within an I-1 zone from 211
spaces to 142 spaces, located at 2630 Independence Road, subject to the following
conditions:
1) The applicant must land bank an area sufficient to provide the additional 69
spaces that would ordinarily be required. This area should be indicated on the
final site plan.
2) Final site plan approval by the Building Official for the proposed 142-space
parking area.
3) The parking reduction is limited to Quality Associates and the proposed use of the
property as described in this application.
Jennings seconded.
Sheerin asked for findings of fact.
Findings of Fact Specific Standards (14-SA-4F-5):
Eckstein stated that the applicant has provided a statement indicating that at peak capacity, the
packaging facility will rely on two shifts of employees, with 95 workers on first shift and 85
workers on second shift, and aone-half hour offset between shifts to control congestion. She
said that the applicant has indicated that Proctor & Gamble's space is for inventory only and
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2010
Page 12 of 22
therefore has a limited number of employees present in the facility, and even that is only on an
occasional basis. Eckstein said that this indicates that the proposed 142 parking spaces should
be sufficient for the proposed use of the property, rather than the 211 spaces that would
normally be required.
Findings of Fact• General Standards (14-4B-3):
Jennings found that because the proposed parking plan provides approximately 50% more
spaces than the maximum number of employees anticipated during a single shift; work shifts
are staggered by one-half hour to minimize overcapacity on the site; and there is sufficient
space on-site to construct all required parking should the use expand in the future, the specific
exception is appropriate.
He noted that the applicant will be required to land-bank additional space, setting it aside
without constructing structures on it, so that it is available in the future if the demand for parking
increases. Jennings pointed out that the land-banked space would not have to be paved,
striped or landscaped, and as a result the applicant would be saving the expense of actually
constructing the additional parking.
Eckstein stated that the final site plan has not yet been reviewed by the Building Official to
ensure that the parking proposal is in compliance with all other requirements of the zoning code.
She stated that approval of the site plan is required in order for the applicant to secure a
certificate of occupancy.
Tyson found that the proposed use would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as
amended because the plan identifies that area as appropriate for industrial uses. However, the
plan does not specifically address parking requirements or reductions.
Sheerin added that all necessary access roads, utilities and drainage are already in place to
serve the industrial area. Independence Road is designed for industrial use and provides
access to Highway 6 via a signalized intersection. All access drives for the site are signed to
support this level of traffic, so adequate measures have been taken to provide proper egress
and ingress.
There were no other findings and a vote was called for.
The motion carried on a 5-0 vote.
Sheerin declared the motion approved, noting that any party desiring to appeal this decision to a
court of record may do so within 30 days after this decision is filed with the City Clerk's Office.
EXC10-00003: An application submitted by Yasser Gaber for a special exception to allow
a Vehicle Repair Use to be located in the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone at 1911
Keokuk Street.
Walz pointed out the location on an overhead map. She noted that all abutting properties are
also zoned CC-2, with the exception of the properties to the south and west which are zoned
CI-1.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2010
Page 13 of 22
Walz explained that the CC-2 zone is designed to support uses that generate a lot of traffic.
She said that vehicle repair uses are allowed in this zone by special exception for properties
that are located more than 100 feet from a residential zone. Walz noted that this particular
property is located more than 600 feet from the nearest residential zone, which is to the south of
Southgate Avenue. Walz said that the specific criteria for this special exception focus on
screening vehicle use and vehicle storage areas from surrounding properties, the public view,
and rights-of-way.
Walz pointed out that there are some other uses being established on the property that are not
within the purview of the special exception. She noted the uses in order to inform the Board of
what was going on with the site plan. She said there is a car sales facility on the lot as well as a
small convenience-type grocery store. The vehicle repair use and the vehicle storage area will
be at the back of the property behind a wing of the building.
Walz noted that because there is a change in use for the property, the entire property must be
brought into compliance with current zoning code. Tyson asked Walz to clarify on the overhead
map where specific uses will be occurring on-site, and Walz did so.
Walz said the specific criteria for the vehicle repair use have to do with screening. The vehicle
storage area is screened by the building from the Keokuk Street right-of-way, as it will be in the
rear of the building. She noted that there is a parking area adjacent to the vehicle repair use
that will have the required S-2 landscaping, though the vehicle repair use may be visible from
the trail and the frontage road. Because of this, staff recommends that the screening
requirement along the northwest property line be changed to S-3, tall dense landscape
screening.
Walz said that another specific requirement is that other vehicle use areas such as parking
drives, stacking spaces, etc., be set back at least ten feet from the public right-of-way. She said
that the site plan shows that the applicant is doing this, and that they are providing the required
S-1 and S-2 landscape screening.
Where the outdoor storage areas abut other properties, the applicant is required to provide S-5
screening (opaque solid fencing), in addition to S-3 tall landscape screening. Walz explained
that the Board of Adjustment may waive the requirement for the landscape screening if the
planted screening cannot be expected to thrive due to site characteristics. Walz said that City
staff has recommended that the required landscape screening not be required because it would
interfere with a 10-foot easement for a sewer line. Staff suggests that the applicant provide the
required S-5 fencing along the vehicle storage area; however, the area is paved almost directly
up to the easement line. Therefore, placing the fence outside of the sewer easement would
require the applicant to remove some of the pavement in that area. Alternatively, the applicant
might choose to locate the solid fencing inside of the easement; in which case the City would
require the applicant to sign an agreement stating that the City is not liable for any damage to
the fence incurred as a result of working on the sewer line in the easement area.
Anderson asked Walz to further clarify that statement. Walz stated that staff is asking the
applicant to either place the fence 10-feet in from the property line, or to sign an agreement that
the City will not be held responsible for the repair or replacement of the fence if it is damaged or
removed in the event that the City must repair the sewer. Greenwood Hektoen said that the
agreement simply reiterates that if a property owner puts something in the City's easement
area, it is the property owner that assumes the risk.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2010
Page 14 of 22
Walz noted that staff recommends waiving the S-3 screening requirement in a small area along
the south side. She explained that given the layout of the property, landscape screening in that
particular area would likely serve little purpose and would not likely be properly maintained.
Walz briefly went over the General Criteria for the Board. She said that the proposed exception
would not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare
because the property would be brought into compliance with all requirements of the zoning
code, including all of the setbacks, screening and design of the vehicle use areas. This will
separate vehicle use areas from pedestrian areas and the-right-of-way, thereby making the
property safer.
Staff believes that the submitted site plan shows compliance with nearly all of the areas of the
zoning code, but the final review of the Building Official will ensure that all areas of the site are
in compliance with code requirements. Staff recommends that approval of the final site plan be
a condition of the special exception.
Walz said that the exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in
the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the
neighborhood provided that the applicant provides the recommended S-3 screening. She said
that when that is done, the applicant will have satisfied these criteria because:
1) The vehicle storage area is located to the rear of the site and behind the building,
effectively screening it from the Keokuk Street right-of-way;
2) The submitted site plan shows the required S-5 opaque fencing necessary to screen the
vehicle storage area from adjacent properties to the west and south. Staff recommends
that the fence be a minimum of six feet in height;
3) By providing the recommended S-3 landscape screening along the parking area located
on the north side of the vehicle storage area, the applicant can effectively screen the use
from the adjacent property and from the Highway 6 right-of-way;
4) In order to establish the change of use on the property, the final site plan must be
reviewed by the Building Inspector to ensure compliance with all elements of the zoning
code. Bringing the property into compliance with code requirements will help to make
the site safer and more attractive.
Walz noted that adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities are
already in place to serve the entire commercial area.
Staff believes that adequate measures have been taken to provide ingress and egress. The
transportation planners have reviewed the site and have verified that there are no traffic
concerns associated with this site. The site plan shows that the entrance drive will be in
compliance with the maximum curb cut standards, and there is adequate space for vehicles to
stack when exiting the site.
Walz said that staff is asking for a condition requiring final site plan approval and the waiver of
the S-3 landscape screening along the rear property line. Other than that, the proposed
exception seems to conform to the applicable regulations and standards of the zone in which it
is to be located.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2010
Page 15 of 22
Walz said that the proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as amended. The
Future Land Use Scenarios for the South District Plan show this and surrounding properties as
General Commercial and do not anticipate major changes to the area. The zoning code allows
flexibility in the types of commercial uses allowed in this zone based on the specific criteria,
which are focused on screening outdoor storage areas from surrounding properties.
Walz concluded that staff recommends approval of EXC10-00003 subject to:
1) The applicant securing a building permit to establish the change of use on the property;
2) Approval of the final site plan by the Building Inspector to ensure compliance with all
requirements of the zoning code;
3) The required S-5 opaque fence or wall along the west and south side of the vehicle
storage area should be a minimum of six feet in height to screen the vehicle storage
area;
4) S-3 landscape screening shall be provided along the property line north of the vehicle
storage area, between the parking and the adjacent commercial property, in order to
screen the use from the Highway 6 right-of-way;
5) If fencing is to be installed within the sanitary sewer easement, the applicant must
provide a signed agreement stating that the City will not be responsible for repairing or
replacing any portion of the fence that is damaged when the City maintains or repairs the
sewer. The agreement must be on file prior to the City issuing a certificate of
occupancy.
Staff further recommends waiving the requirement for the S-3 landscape screening in the area
of the sanitary sewer easement, based on the City's need to maintain access to this area.
Sheerin asked if there were questions for staff.
Eckstein asked if the code addressed the issue of water retention in areas such as this where
there is a great deal of pavement. Walz said that part of the code requirement is that all areas
that are not required for drives or parking have to be landscaping, or something other than
pavement. Walz acknowledged that there is a lot of pavement used on commercial sites. She
said that water retention requirements do not generally come into play for individual properties;
rather they are generally put into place at the time of larger subdivision development. Walz said
she did not know if water retention requirements were in effect with this particular property
because it was developed quite a long time ago. She noted that narrowing drives and not
occupying excessive amounts of the property with pavement will be addressed in the site plan
approval process. She said that setback areas and the landscaping required there also serve
as a means of water absorption. Eckstein said it sounds as though the code does not allow a
retrospective approach to fixing things that had been done wrong initially. Walz said that if this
were alarger-scale redevelopment of the whole area that might be addressed.
Eckstein noted that the options listed for opaque fencing materials included mortar, and she
wondered if this would include concrete block. Eckstein said she assumed that it did, unless the
Board specified that they wished to prohibit that material. Eckstein asked if the provision
whereby cars could not be stored on the lot for more than 45 days needed to be spelled out as a
condition of approval. Walz said it is a requirement and therefore does not need to be
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2010
Page 16 of 22
specifically included as a condition. Greenwood Hektoen said that it is one of the requirements
that the applicant must satisfy. Tyson asked if this too was enforced only on the basis of
complaints or observation, and Walz said that was correct.
Anderson asked if there was room to put the fence on the applicant's property, or if doing so
would impede on the operations of the applicant. Walz said there is adequate space.
Tyson asked if the applicant determines what type of materials the fencing will be made of.
Walz said that it would be up to the applicant unless the Board could find a reason to
recommend a specific material. Tyson noted that the Board had been down the path of
"opaque" materials before. Walz noted that the last time the Board was waiving the solid
fencing requirement, whereas this special exception does not have a provision whereby the
fencing requirement could be waived. Tyson asked if the Board could require that the fence be
made of brick, for example. Walz said that if the Board had a reasonable reason for doing so it
could. Sheerin asked if aesthetics would be considered a reason. Walz said that if the area was
highly visible it might be a good reason. In this case, the fence is not particularly visible, and the
Board would want to consider whether or not that material would be reasonable. Walz said that
it is typical of a CC-2 zone to have parking in the front of the building. Tyson said her concern is
that if the applicant chooses to use wood instead of brick, then maintenance might become an
issue. Walz said that the applicant would have to maintain the fence so that it provided the
required screening.
There were no further questions for staff and Sheerin invited the applicant to speak.
Yasser Gaber, 3410 Shamrock Drive, said he wanted to thank Walz for her assistance on this
matter. He said he would be happy to answer any questions from the Board.
Anderson asked Gaber if he felt it was possible to put the fence inside his property line. Gaber
said that at first he did not want to sign such an agreement, but once he understood the rules
and saw how hard Walz was working on the case he agreed to sign a document releasing the
City from liability if the fence needed repairs or replacement due to City maintenance of the
sewer line. He said he would prefer not to have a fence at all and to just do S-3 landscaping;
however, if it is required they will do it. Walz clarified that the applicant has the option of putting
the fence outside of the easement area; in that case, no agreement will be required. An
agreement releasing the City from liability is only necessary if the applicant locates the fence
inside the easement area. Anderson said he was not certain how a financial agreement of this
nature was related to granting a special exception for this land use. He said that it seemed as
though the City was requiring the applicant to accept terms that were somewhat unrelated to the
case before the Board. Walz said that typically property owners are not allowed to construct
anything of any kind in a sewer easement. In this case, the fencing is required. She said the
agreement is a way of offering the applicant flexibility. The City could instead say that the
applicant could not provide the screening in the easement at all. Allowing them to put the fence
in the easement and waive the City's liability for damages is intended to benefit the applicant in
terms of offering them more options than would typically be available to them. Jennings asked if
it was the applicant's preference to build the fence outside of the easement, thus making the
agreement unnecessary, or to build in the easement and to enter an agreement with the City.
Gaber said that he would like to see as much of the land as possible used by his vehicles. He
said he would prefer to sign the agreement and put the fence in the sewer easement and simply
hope that nothing happens. He said the best option would be to make a deal with his neighbor
to renew the neighbor's existing fence which is outside the sewer easement. Greenwood
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2010
Page 17 of 22
Hektoen said that the Board did not have jurisdiction to impose requirements on the neighboring
property or the authority to waive the fencing requirement for this property. Because the
neighboring property is not a part of this application, the Board cannot impose a regulation on
that property. Gaber said that is unfortunate because if the City could be somewhat flexible,
that arrangement would be beneficial to all parties. Walz said that Greenwood Hektoen was
saying that the City does not have legal authority to be flexible in this respect. Anderson asked
if the applicant would like to withdraw this application and come back with a separate request for
an exception on that side of the property, and to submit a letter from with the neighboring
property expressing willingness to participate in that plan. Walz said that Greenwood Hektoen
is saying that that could not be allowed-there is no such relief available in the code. Gaber
thanked Anderson for trying to accommodate the request. Walz explained that the requirement
is for Gaber's property and the City cannot encumber the other property with a requirement that
is for Gaber's property. Anderson said he understood that; he was just wondering if there was
a way for the applicant to ask for a special exception on that side of the property. Walz said that
there is not a way for that to happen.
Tyson asked about the condition the cars in the vehicle storage area would be in. She noted
that the applicant has a cab business as well as an auto sales business on-site. Gaber said that
he had owned aused-car dealership, and that unfortunately he has some inventory remaining
from that. Additionally, on the auto-repair side of the business, sometimes people do not have
the funds necessary to pay for their repairs and get in a position of having to leave their car
there for a couple of weeks. Gaber said that their goal is not to store cars for more than a few
days. He noted that the requirement says cars cannot be stored for more than 45 days, but that
45 days is much longer than they wish to store any car. He said the cars will be fully functioning
cars. Tyson asked if in addition to cars on-site for repairs there would be cars being bought and
sold on the lot. Gaber said that the present use is for auto repair. He said that in the future he
would like to have a dealership, but that was not presently part of this application. Walz noted
that there is a requirement that no car can be stored in the vehicle storage area for more than
45 days, regardless of why the car is on-site.
Mohamed Hassanein, 738 13th Avenue, asked if the 45-day restriction applied to only the
vehicle storage area or if it applied to the front of the lot as well. Walz said it only applied to the
vehicle storage area. She noted, however, that they could not store vehicles waiting to be
repaired at the front of their lot. Hassanein said that his concern was in regard to a car that they
might be trying to sell. Walz said that was different, and would not fall under the 45-day
requirement.
There was no one else who wished to speak to this issue and the public hearing was closed.
Tyson motioned to approve EXC10-00003, a special request submitted by Yasser Gaber
to allow a Vehicle Repair Use in the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone at 1911 Keokuk
Street subject to the following conditions:
1) The applicant must secure a building permit to establish the change of use on the
property;
2) Approval of the final site plan by the Building Inspector to ensure compliance with
all requirements in the zoning code;
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2010
Page 18 of 22
3) The required S-5 opaque fence or wall along the west and south side of the
vehicle storage area should be a minimum of six feet in height to screen the
vehicle storage area;
4) S-3 (tall) landscape screening shall be provided along the property line north of
the vehicle storage area, between the parking and the adjacent commercial
property, in order to screen the use from the Highway 6 right-of-way;
5) If fencing is to be installed within the sanitary sewer easement, the applicant must
provide a signed agreement stating that the City will not be responsible for
repairing or replacing any portion of the fence that is damaged when the City
maintains or repairs the sewer. The agreement must be on file prior to the City
issuing a certificate of occupancy.
Eckstein seconded.
Sheerin excused herself per prior arrangements and left the meeting. Eckstein, as Vice-Chair,
assumed the duties of the Chair for the remainder of the meeting.
Eckstein invited discussion on the matter.
Anderson said that his sole complaint about this application is the fact that the City is requiring
the applicant to install a fence along the west side of the property while simultaneously requiring
them to sign a waiver of financial liability. He said he found this unpalatable, although he
understood that the applicant was willing to accept this condition. Tyson said she disagreed;
the rules are the rules, and the City does not allow fencing in easements anywhere else so they
should not in this case either. Walz clarified that the City is not requiring the applicant to put
their fence in the easement; the location is the applicant's choice. Anderson said that he
understood that. Tyson said she would like to require that the fence be on the applicant's
property and outside of the easement. Greenwood Hektoen said that the City had contemplated
making that a requirement; however, they recognized the applicant's concern that placing the
fence outside the easement would essentially require them to abandon a portion of their land.
Walz said that Public Works had wanted the fence outside the easement. The Building Official
raised the concern that when a portion of property is fenced off, the fence becomes the
assumed property line over time and causes confusion as to ownership and maintenance. She
said that in offering the agreement, the City was attempting to find a way not to require the
applicant to make ten feet of their property essentially inaccessible. Tyson said she was
concerned that the City would make an exception for one property owner, allowing them to build
in an easement. Greenwood Hektoen said that this is a position the City takes in easement
agreements frequently: building in an easement is not allowed, and doing so is done at the risk
of the property owner. She said she has not been able to determine the exact language or
origin of this easement agreement, and it is possible that the City is already covered. She said
that language contemplating this type of eventuality is typical in current easement agreements.
Anderson said that he understands the issue; however, his objection is that the easement
agreement is being required as a condition of the special exception. He said he believed the
issue of the easement and the issue of the special exception should be separate issues.
Greenwood Hektoen said that the City already has rights established on that property, and is
simply trying to protect its property interests. She said that she would be more inclined to agree
with Anderson's perspective if the City were simply requiring an agreement. However, the
applicant retains the option not to impede the City's property rights, and can avoid the
agreement altogether simply by building outside of the easement. Anderson said that he
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2010
Page 19 of 22
understands the City's position, but he, as a Board member, is not the City; it is not his interest
to protect. Walz said that the agreement is in the public interest and the taxpayer's interest-
the taxpayers would pay the cost if the fence needs to be removed and is damaged in the
process. Anderson said he could accept that reasoning. Jennings said that any business
owner engages in all manner of risks and one of the risks being acknowledged here is that if the
property owner opts to retain maximum use of their property by putting a fence in the easement,
then there is a liability and a risk in that. Jennings said that the applicant is being provided with
a choice of gaining maximum use of their land or assuming a certain amount of risk by building
in an easement. He said that given the different interests at play, this provides about as much
flexibility and choice as possible while protecting the various property interests. Eckstein noted
that the fencing will have very little visibility to anyone. Tyson said she would like to see a
material sturdier than wood for the opaque fencing material. She said she could easily see the
fence getting backed into with all of the comings and goings on the property. Anderson asked if
it was possible to add something to the motion stating that the fencing material is subject to staff
approval. Walz said the fence would have to meet the solid fencing standards. Tyson asked if
the Board could ask that the fence not be made of wood. Walz said that she thought if the
Board could do appropriate findings to indicate why the material should be other than wood they
could make that specification. Greenwood Hektoen said that the Board should probably discuss
the matter further given the fact that the fence will likely be in an easement area and may be
subject to removal. Eckstein asked if it is normal procedure for the City Engineer to discuss with
the applicant where and how the fence is built in an easement area. Walz said that she
believed that if the fence is built in an easement the City would likely favor a material that could
be somewhat easily removed, replaced, and repaired. She said there is a slight change in
grade where the pavement ends on the property and her sense is that the fence will not be
subject to being regularly bumped into by cars. Greenwood Hektoen said that one of the
conditions of the motion is that the final site plan is approved by the Building Inspector. She
noted that the Building Inspector will review the fencing materials and will determine if further
discussion on the fencing is warranted at that point. Eckstein said that there is both the issue of
the potential need for removal and of the weight of certain fencing materials. Jennings said a
fence would be considered a permanent fixture, and as such the property owner would be
charged with its upkeep and maintenance regardless of the material chosen. Therefore, if a
wooden fence is bumped into or broken, the property owner would still have to maintain and
repair that screening. Jennings said that this fence may be built on a particular type of
easement there may be structural elements that dictate that some materials are more
appropriate than others. Jennings noted that some plans for the fence would have to be
proposed, and at that time the fencing materials would be subject to approval. Walz noted that
typically the zoning code considers certain types of screening differently depending on where it
is located. Walz said that screening in view of the public right-of-way is considered more strictly
than that which is less visible.
There was no further discussion on the matter and Eckstein invited the findings of fact.
Findings of Fact: Specific Standards (14-4B-4E-5):
Anderson found that the property is a sufficient distance from the nearest residential zone, and
that the applicant has indicated that the vehicles will not be stored for longer than 45 days. The
vehicle repair use area is to the rear of the property, which mitigates the view from public streets
and rights-of-way. Walz noted that this was in regard to the Keokuk Street right-of-way.
Anderson noted that the vehicle storage area is in view of the Highway 6 right-of-way, and that
parked cars are not always present to provide the sense of separation of screening between the
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2010
Page 20 of 22
storage area and the adjacent property and Highway 6. He stated that the required 10-foot
setback from the public right-of-way on both sides of the entryway drive is present. The
applicant has acknowledged the City's desire to have a waiver of liability signed in the event that
the applicant chooses to build the required fence in the sanitary sewer easement. Anderson
found that the submitted site plan shows the required S-5 fence/wall screening along the vehicle
storage area where it abuts the neighboring properties, and that S-3 (tall) landscape screening
along the parking stalls to the north of the vehicle storage area will provide effective screening
from the neighboring property and right-of-way.
Findings of Fact: General Standards (14-4B-3):
Anderson said that he acknowledged that the applicant is required to bring all areas of the site
into compliance with the zoning code, including the landscaped 10-foot setbacks to separate the
vehicle use and display areas from the public right-of-way; design of drive aisles, and required
parking; pedestrian access from the public right-of-way, and curb cuts for the vehicle entrance
to the site. The purpose of these requirements is, in part, to ensure the safe movement of
vehicles and pedestrians on and across the site.
Anderson noted that the final site plan will be approved prior to the special exception being
granted.
Anderson stated that the vehicle storage area is located to the rear of the site and behind the
building, effectively screening it from the Keokuk right-of-way, and that the submitted site plan
shows the required S-5 opaque fencing necessary to screen the vehicle storage area from
adjacent properties to the west and south. Staff recommends that the fence be a minimum of
six feet in height.
Anderson found that the applicant has satisfied the requirement such that there will be no
impediment to the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding
property and that adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities are
already in place.
Anderson stated that transportation planners have reviewed the site and found no traffic
problems associated with it.
He stated that the Future Land Use Scenario for the South District Plan shows this and
surrounding properties as General Commercial and does not anticipate major changes to the
area.
Tyson added that vehicles could not be stored on the property for more than 45 continuous days
and the storage area must be setback at least 20 feet from any public right-of-way including
public trails and open space, and must be screened to the S-3 standard. Tyson stated that the
applicant must secure a building permit to establish the change of use. She noted that the
Board is waiving the requirement for the S-3 landscape screening in the area of the sanitary
sewer easement based on the City's need to maintain access to the area.
Jennings noted that if the fencing is to be installed within the sanitary sewer easement, the
applicant must provide a signed agreement stating that the City will not be responsible for
repairing or replacing any portion of the fence that is damaged when the City maintains or
repairs the sewer. This agreement must be on file prior to the City issuing a certificate of
occupancy.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2010
Page 21 of 22
Eckstein stated that she found the waiver of the landscape requirement on the south corner to
be reasonable. Greenwood Hektoen said she believed that was covered by the waiver of the
landscape requirement in the sanitary sewer easement. Walz said that that particular corner is
not in the easement and would have to be reached by going through other people's property.
Greenwood Hektoen acknowledged that this should in fact be a separate waiver. Eckstein said
she would like to support that waiver.
Tyson said that she really appreciated that the applicant is trying to improve this area and she
hopes that they make every effort to make it attractive.
Eckstein called for a vote.
The motion carried 4-0 (Sheerin absent at time of vote).
Walz stated that the motion had been approved, and noted that any party wishing to appeal this
decision to a court of record could do so within 30 days after this decision is filed with the City
Clerk's Office.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION:
Walz said she was going through the orientation packet to try to provide updated and more
thorough information. She provided Board members with a fresh copy of some of the pertinent
documents.
Tyson said she had received a letter in the mail regarding Leighton House from Sarah Holocek.
She asked if this letter was strictly informational. Walz said that it is, as no current Board
members were on the Board at the time of the original application. She noted that this issue is
not to be discussed by and between Board members.
Walz said she felt like progress was being made on doing the findings of fact and she thought
the Board was doing a great job. She reminded Board members that if they have different
observations, opinions, or conclusions than those outlined in the staff report, that is absolutely
fine; they simply must be able to do findings of fact for those conclusions.
ADJOURNMENT:
Jennings motioned to adjourn.
Tyson seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-0 (Sheerin not present at time of vote.
The meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m.
Board of Adjustment
Attendance Record - 20 I 0
Name Term
Expires I / l 3 2/ I 0 3/ I 0 4/ 14 5/ 12 6/9 7/ 14 8/ I I 9/08 10/ 13 I I / 10 12/8 Other
Robert Anderson 01 /0 I/ 12 X X X X
Barbara Eckstein 01 /0 I / 14 O/E X X X
Will Jennings 01 /0 I/ 15 X X X X
Caroline Sheerin 01 /0 I / 13 X O/E X X
LeAnn Tyson 01 /0 I/ I I X X X X
KEY: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
--- = Not a Member (Member either [a] resigned during the year, or [b] had not yet been appointed)