Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-10-04 Bd Comm. minutes5bo MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 10, 1988 - 4:30 P.M. CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Messier, Randall, Winegarden Subjact to Approval MEMBERS ABSENT: Mask, Pelton STAFF PRESENT: Franklin, Moen, Rockwell, Michel, Boyle (arrived at 4:40) CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES: Winegarden moved to approve the June 8, 1988, minutes. Messier seconded. The motion passed unanimously by a 3-0 vote. Winegarden moved to approve the June 9, 1988, minutes. Messier seconded. The motion passed unanimously by a 3-0 vote. Messier moved to approve the July 13, 1988, minutes. Winegarden seconded. I The motion passed unanimously by a 3-0 vote. VARIANCE ITEMS: 1. V-8806. A public hearing on a request submitted by Thor, Inc. for a variance to modify the sign requirements for property located at 1445 Boyrum Street to permit a drive-thru restaurant menu sign that exceeds the size limitations of the Zoning Ordinance. Moen reviewed the staff report dated July 13, 1988. Staff recommended that a variance to permit a drive-thru restaurant menu sign that exceeds ten square feet in area for property located at 1445 Boyrum Street be denied. Dean Thornberry, owner of the orooerty, stated he did not own the property at the time consideration was being given to extending Boyrum Street north of Highway 6. He stated that the fact he was a proponent of the road should not place a hardship on him and affect his ability to obtain a variance. The reason for the application for the sign variance was because of a letter from the Burger King Corporation which stated only one standard menuboard sign Was available. In order to get all the menu items on the menuboard, this size of sign was required. Considering that 50% or more of the business comes through the drive-thru, it was very important to meet the following criteria: 1) Six cars stacked from the drive-thru window to the menuboard. 2) Get the proper size menuboard so that all the items may be displayed properly. The size that is permitted by Code would not allow all the items to be displayed, thus causing a major hardship on the business. Thornberry stated he did go through the Zoning Code Interpretation Panel, and the three-member panel was split on whether the proposed drive-thru menuboard was actually a sign. The City Manager now needed to decide whether the proposed menuboard was a sign or not. 14Z53 Board of Adjustment August 10, 1988 Page 2 Thornberry stated there was no drive-thru restaurant in Iowa City or Coralville that complied with the ten square foot menuboard size requirement due to the fact that sign manufacturers don't make such a sign. There are three companies in the United States which make menuboards for restaurants and none of them make a sign that is ten square feet, all of them are bigger. The smallest one he could use was the one he was requesting a variance for. Thornberry stated Wendy's in Iowa City was his closest competitor and the total square footage of their menuboard is 32.27 square feet; he presented a picture of it. Thornberry also had a picture of the Burger King sign in Marion which was smaller than Wendy's and measured 27.38 square feet. This is the smallest one in town, with the exception of Rocky Rococo's which only has 17 menu items on it. The Coralville Arby's store measures 32.4 square feet, McDonald's in Coralville measures 51.78 square feet, Hardee's in Iowa City has two menuboards totaling 33.19 square feet and Wendy's board in Iowa City has 32.7 square feet. He stated all he was asking for is 27.38 because there are no menuboards that are ten square feet. Thornberry felt this ordinance was extremely limiting to the extent that if no variance was given, there will never be another menuboard erected in Iowa City, because they don't make 10 square foot menuboards. He stated he cannot obviously put a menu on a sign they don't make. He presented pictures of signs similar in size to the menuboard he requested. As far as the staff's recommendation about a menuboard visible to the public from the right-of-way which was 2.7 times larger than any other menu sign, Thornberry felt this was not accurate. Also, he had a letter from Dr. Hottel of the Eye Associates of Iowa City stating that, using a formula which was employed to ascertain visual accuracy, most people would be unable to read words made up of 3/4" letters beyond 60-65 feet and that no one would be able to make then out at 100 feet. The menuboard's closest distance to a public right of way is 120 feet, hence nobody would be able to read the menuboard. There have been other instances where some sign ordinances have precluded the size of a menuboard that is requested. One example was Marion County in California and, in every instance throughout the United States, a variance had been granted for a menuboard for a Burger King drive-thru restaurant. There had never been an instance where they could not put a menuboard in for a drive-thru restaurant. He stated the Burger King on Boyrum Street is presently being constructed and they need to put the menuboard in soon because they are pouring the drive-thru concrete now. He presented a design drawing of the proposed Burger King. As far as the illumination of the menuboard that can't be seen from the right-of-way, he believed the sign only had four fluorescent bulbs across it and was dark brownish in color. Thornberry pointed to the location and direction the menuboard faced on the overhead that was displayed. He explained the positioning was so that one car can see the sign and the one behind can also be looking at it and be making a decision as to what they are going to order. There is a six -car stack between the menuboard and the window if the cars were bumper -to -bumper. Realistically, the number was five. Only the letters themselves are visible through the menuboard so there is not /W53 Board of Adjustment August 10, 1988 Page 3 much illumination. The City has required him to build a fence parallel to Boyrum Street, on the street's east side, that is 400 linear feet and eight feet high made out of wood that can't be seen through. Presently there is a chainlink fence in the same location. In any event, no light would be seen from the houses along Boyrum because the fence will be built there. The properties on the north side of Highland Street are commercial. With a fence extending from Highland Street to the highway, the sign would not be visible from the homes with back yards fronting onto Boyrum Street. He feels that as far as the light, that is a moot point because the people can't see it. As far as the unfair advantage, he felt it would be an unfair advantage not to allow him to have a menuboard sign. He stated everyone else in the town, state and country has a menuboard sign. The only other way to reposition the menuboard would be to face it directly north and he stated he had tried this. If the sign faced directly north, the second car would not be able to see it and he would also have to provide more fence which would effectively block the whole view of Burger King and he felt this would be unfair. He stated this is not a sign to get people to come into the restaurant. He has a very large sign in the front of the building and big Burger King letters on the side of the building that have already been approved by the City. Also there is the main Burger King sign that is visible from the highway. The menuboard is not a sign to bring the people in because you can't ever see it from the right-of-way as the doctor stated. He stated he was asking to be competitive with the rest of his local competition, all of whom have menuboards exceeding ten square feet. Randall asked if Thornberry was not aware of the restrictions on signs. Thornberry replied that when he went to the City to get the licenses, he gave them the drawings and all the specifications and it was not mentioned at the time. They said a menuboard could be a monument sign, which was permitted in the CI -1 zone. They did tell him a few problems with the sign. One was that the main menuboard sign was required to be made smaller than he originally wanted it. They also wanted an "exit only" sign to be placed on the property. Thornberry stated this sign was too close to the public right-of-way so they wanted him to move it back. Instead, he eliminated the sign altogether. He also had a sign which said "drive-thru entry" and the sign had to be made smaller at considerable cost, an extra $17,000. He stated again that he could not buy the recommended size menuboard because they didn't make one. Randall stated the Board of Adjustment was not a legislative body. The City Zoning Ordinance defines and restricts the Board's powers. Randall explained the three tests that a variance must meet. Thornberry referred to a letter from Burger King Corporation that said that 50-55% of Thornberry's business would come through the drive-thru. If it was 50-55% less, Thornberry stated, he would not be in business because it would not be viable. / f45.3 Board of Adjustment August 10, 1988 Page 4 Randall stated the Board was not saying Thornberry could not have a menuboard, the Zoning Ordinance was just saying he could not have the size he wanted. Randall stated it appears to have been determined that the menuboard is a sign and the Zoning Ordinance states if the sign is visible from the street, it cannot be more than ten square feet in size. Randall stated Thornberry had to prove to the Board that a ten -foot menuboard would be an unnecessary hardship. Thornberry replied 1) they don't make a sign ten square feet in size, and 2) he could only get one-third of the items on the menuboard, mainly his breakfast items. Thornberry stated the menuboard he wants is smaller than his competition has. Thornberry feels it would be a hardship if he could not have a menuboard. Randall stated that Thornberry's competitors' menuboards are not visible from the right- of-way of the street and, therefore, they are not signs. Thornberry stated no other drive-thru through in town had three streets around it, and this was not a situation of his own making. Thornberry stated he didn't own the property when Boyrum Street went in and this was a unique animal. If he sold the northern part of the property, this would curtail his business because he wouldn't have enough parking. Randall stated he was not arguing with Thornberry, he was just pointing out the restriction the Board operates under. Moen explained that the Zoning Code Interpretation Panel considered whether the particular menuboard proposed for Burger King's use was a sign. The Panel is a three member board that, in instances in which the Zoning Ordinance is ambiguous, interprets the intent of the Ordinance. The three member board has to come to a unanimous conclusion as to what the meaning of the Zoning Ordinance is. In this case, the vote was split 2-1 as to whether the proposed menuboard was a sign. As a result of this split, the City Manager must determine whether the menuboard is a sign. Depending upon the City Manager's determination, if this particular menuboard is not a sign and, therefore, not subject to the sign'regulations of the Zoning Ordinance, then this application would not have to go before the Board of Adjustment. The City Manager is out of town until August 22 and, after that time, Mr. Thornberry may wish to have the question go to the City Manager for his determination. If the City Manager should determine this particular board is a sign, then the application could come before the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Thornberry stated this decision had to be made before August 22 because they were waiting to pour the pad of concrete the sign rests on. Randall stated that none of the Board members had a chance to look at the site since Boyrum Street was blocked off on both ends and they could not get near the site without difficulty. Winegarden asked if there was any way to put a fence up on the north to shield the sign from view of Highland Avenue. Winegarden felt it was unique that every other place had its sign on the back of the property, hidden from the street. This was the only three -sided restaurant in town. He also questioned if there was any way to shield it with a fence. Moen replied the Department of Housing and /4Z53 L Board of Adjustment August 10, 1988 Page 5 Inspection Services (HIS) had indicated to Mr. Thornberry there was a way of shielding the menuboard that -would prevent the sign from being regulated by the Zoning Ordinance. The screening or fence option that Mr. Thornberry had told the Board about was suggested by HIS. Winegarden questioned if there was an option for some kind of screening along the street. Thornberry showed the location and angle of the sign and also showed the place a fence would have to be erected. The regulation states that if anyone can see the sign from the public right-of-way, then it falls under the sign jurisdiction. He didn't know how to place this sign so portions of it couldn't be seen down the drive. Randall questioned whether the problem of turning the sign to the north was that fewer cars could see the menuboard at one time. Thornberry stated this was correct and this also hurts their 50 second service time. He also pointed out people would have to wait until they got to the menuboard to view the items on the board. If the sign faced directly north, this would require extensive fencing along the whole block to shield the menuboard from the right-of-way. Randall stated if the sign was oriented north. The sign face could not be seen, but the pedestal would be visible. Randall asked if staff knew why one Panel member thought the proposed menuboard was not a sign. Moen stated that, in spite of the fact that it would be visible from the right-of-way, he felt it did not meet the second test as far as its intention to direct attention to the business. Randall stated it must be visible to the public from the street or right-of-way in which it is used or intended to be used to direct attention to the business products. Boyle said he was on the panel and there was no question about the structure's visibility. The issue was whether visibility from the street also applies to the lettering on the sign. Obviously, the 3/4" letters were not readable from the street so, in that case, they would not be considered visible. There was a split of opinion as to how this particular section should be interpreted. Randall questioned whether there would be any letter on the menuboard higher than 3/4". Thornberry said no and there was also nothing that said Burger King. Winegarden said he felt it was not contrary to public interest to have a fence to screen the entire neighborhood where it was residen- tial and, on the commercial side, no one was down there at night so no one would see the sign anyway. As far as the three tests, uniqueness was a gray area but Winegarden was leaning toward the idea that the menuboard was not a sign. Winegarden stated when there are gray areas as far as reasonable use and uniqueness he would probably lean toward approval because he didn't feel it was a sign and he didn't feel it would harm anything. Randall asked how many feet the sign was from Boyrum Street and Thornberry replied it was 120 feet from the closest point and 150 feet from Highland Street. He pointed out this was from the sidewalk and not the street. /,e133 Board of Adjustment August 10, 1988 Page 6 Moen asked the legal staff whether the issue before the Board was, assuming that this structure is a sign, whether a variance is justifiable in this case or whether the issue was whether or not the particular proposed structure was a sign. Boyle replied that the Board was the ultimate arbiter of the meaning of the Code. Messier stated he had no problem with the request. He stated in the past, sign situations have created some interesting scenarios. Every time an issue like this comes up he thinks about the first meeting he attended as a member of the Board when it disapproved a sign. Two weeks later the Ordinance was changed and the sign was legitimate. He felt they could get into the issue as to whether the menuboard was a sign or not. In his opinion, a menuboard of this type was designed to serve a specific purpose and the fact that the gentleman had gone out of his way to do other things to comply with areas of the Ordinance led him to believe this was not a problem. Winegarden moved to approve V-8806, a request submitted by Thor, Inc. for a variance to modify the sign requirements for property located at 1445 Boyrum Street to permit a drive-thru restaurant menu sign that exceeds the size limitation of the Zoning Ordinance. Winegarden asked if they needed to put in any specific size so they didn't get an 80 sq. ft. sign. Moen stated that was up to the Board. Winegarden further stipulated the sign should not exceed 28 sq. ft. Messier seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously by 3-0. 2. V-8807. Public hearing on a request submitted by Express Stop to modify the sign ordinance requirements of the CH -1 zone for property located at 2545 North Dodge. Franklin reviewed the staff report dated August 10, 1988. Staff recommended the variance requested for a 16 ft. X 16 ft., 65 foot high second free-standing sign at 2545 North Dodge Street be denied since all of the requested tests for granting a variance had not been met. Bill Boyd, owner of Express Stop, stated he was really present as a businessman with a problem and was backed into a corner with nowhere to go except the appeal process at this point. Boyd said he and others had purchased the property in December, 1986. He then related how he had tried to comply with the City's sign regulations only to be prohibited by the Iowa DOT from using signage acceptable to the City. All they were looking for was a logo sign that was lighted which says they are close to the Interstate and they are open. Boyd asserted that his business was a gas station and convenience store which had to have Interstate traffic as well as traffic from Highway 1 to succeed. He presented sales figures to show the difference between when Express Stop had a sign visible from I-80 and when the Express Stop was without such a sign. He didn't know what else he could do to show a financial hardship. /A�-'53 Board of Adjustment August 10, 1988 Page 7 In addressing the issue of uniqueness, Boyd explained the 660 foot distance from the Interstate which defined IDOT's jurisdiction. He noted the Sinclair station was not under this jurisdiction since it is outside the 660 feet. He stated that there are only a few properties zoned CH -1 near the Interstate in Iowa City, one is the Highlander's 19 acres and the other is Howard Johnson's and the Iowa City Tennis & Racquet Club. He said he had talked to some of the owners at the Tennis Club and they said they were not interested in attracting interstate traffic. Howard Johnson's currently has a sign although Denny's does not have a sign with their specific name on it. Boyd felt Express Stop had a unique situation where they were located. He said they were within the 660 foot right-of-way of the Interstate, subject to two sets of rules to follow, and their competition, Denny's and Howard Johnson's, are presently advertising j their business within the 660 ft. right-of-way. Franklin noted that the City's sign regulations were more restrictive for on -premises signage than the state rules and that the City Code applied regardless of the 660 -foot boundary. Randall asked wasn't their competition Sinclair? Boyd replied it certainly was and he was trying to point out that they are outside the 660 ft. limits and so • they are somewhat different than Express Stop in terms of the location. He stated it was a fine line and he was not saying Sinclair should not have a 65 ft. high sign. Boyd stated that as far as the public interest was concerned, he would refer the Board to the letters in support of his application from neighboring property owners. He stated they were the ones that were going to have to try to get a return on investment for the money they had spent on their property. He said NCS and Reipe, Buchanan, Piper all want to see his gas station be successful. They would rather see a high rise sign than something that is not conducive to business in the area. Boyd noted that since 1963, until the station was sold, there was a 65 ft. high sign. In December 1986 when they conformed with the City requirements placed upon them, Express Stop removed the sign. He stated the neighborhood, for the last 20 years, had a sign there and for 18 months they haven't, and he didn't feel there would be any complaints from the neighbors at all. In summary, Boyd stated Gaskill Sign Co. had been asked to determine what would be adequate signage; Gaskill advised a 75 foot high sign. Boyd was asking for a variance to allow the sign now that he had tried all possible avenues to meet the City Code and State Code. Boyd told the Board that on August 28 the sign near the Interstate would have to come down and he was really not interested in spending another $40,000-50,000 for another high rise sign. They had a sign that was put up and paid for that met City code and attracts enough Interstate traffic to satisfy them, but because of the IDOT require- ments he had no other alternative. Randall asked if the variance was not granted, what would Boyd do, put up the 25 -foot sign? Boyd said he had a 25 -foot sign that was in compliance with the City code and that it currently faces north /1V53 Board of Adjustment August 10, 1988 Page 8 and south. They need the highrise sign to be located to meet the state requirement which states the sign has to be located within 50 feet of the business activity and this was where they currently ran into the problem. Boyd's interpretation of the business activity was the 19 acres of land they operate the hotel, restaurant and conven- tion center on. Boyd stated they needed the highrise sign to let Interstate travelers know there was a gas station and that somebody was at this gas station at night. Winegarden asked if Boyd would take down the sign on Highway 1, if the large sign was allowed. Boyd said this was certainly an option he would consider. He felt, however, that the business depended on Highway 1 traffic and Interstate 80 traffic. Boyd stated if he took down the sign on Highway 1 which was presently facing north and south, Highway 1 traffic would not see the station until they are right an top of it and they will not know if they are open because they will not have a lighted sign out front. Boyd stated it was also very important in the convenience store business to have a price per gallon sign posted. Statistics have shown you have to be competitive on a price per gallon basis in order to get people to come in. If they could have some kind of pricing sign that was smaller on Highway 1, this would be acceptable. He felt they need to have something to show people on Highway 1 that they are located there. Since they have already bought and paid for the sign, he would hate to have to replace it and he would also hate to pick up interstate traffic only to lose Highway 1 traffic. Randall asked if he was currently allowed only one free-standing sign. Franklin replied yes, and the request was related to three prongs of the sign regulations, the height, size of the sign face and the number of free-standing signs. Franklin clarified exactly what the size of the sign was that was being requestedIn the original request, it was 65 feet high with a 16' x 16' sign face, and as she understood Boyd to say, at this point, he was asking for a 75 -foot high, 16' x 16' sign. Franklin stated Mr. Gaskill's letter refers to 600 square feet per sign face which is far in excess and the staff would have strong opposition to a 600 square foot sign. Boyd stated he was not so much concerned with the 600 square feet. Boyd stated Phillips has signs available for him to purchase in different sizes. One was 16 feet x 16 feet and he thought the other ones were 12 feet x 12 feet or 14 feet x 14 feet, but that he didn't know exactly. The 16 foot x 16 foot sign was currently the biggest one available. Boyd stated he would be willing to go to a smaller size sign than 16 feet x 16 feet in order to keep the height of 75 feet, which was the height of the original sign. Boyd was more concerned with the 75 - foot height and not so much with the size of the sign face itself. Winegarden noted a 600 square foot sign face would be 20x30 which he felt was a large sign. Boyd said his point was they had taken down a 75 -foot high sign and he wanted to put up another one 75 feet high. Originally, when he put the application together, he thought it was 65 feet. Gaskill Sign Co, recommended at least 75 feet from the ground to the base of the sign. Boyd stated he was certainly willing to compromise on what was on top of the 75 -foot pole. Franklin 144:.3 Board of Adjustment August 10, 1988 Page 9 stated the 12 foot x 12 foot was certainly closer to the requirement; they would have 144 square feet per sign face and the requirement was 125 square feet per side. A 16 foot x 16 foot sign was 256 square feet per side. Boyd stated the 600 square feet was not what he was after. All he really wanted to do was have a sign high enough in the air that people a couple of miles back could see a lighted logo sign saying that they were open and that the location was convenient to get off and come to the store. Randall said he certainly sympathized with Boyd and it had been a long and difficult process; however, he didn't think that Boyd had met the requirements of uniqueness or hardship. Messier stated that he agreed with Boyd that the Express Stop situation was unique in that the Sinclair station was outside the 660 -foot right-of-way limit. Messier hoped the Board maintained some degree of fairness and noted Sinclair was denied the request to put a larger sign out, but they never took the initiative to come to the Board of Adjustment. If the Board was concerned about setting a precedent here, this was the only place in town where they were setting a precedent. He felt the situation was unique for a couple of reasons: 1) Express Stop is within 660 feet of I-80 and Sinclair is not, and 2) the only other businesses which exist on that corner, Howard Johnson's and Denny's, were essentially being advertised, although Denny's was not being advertised explicitly. Randall stated that he didn't see how Express Stop was any different from the Sinclair station and asked Messier how he handled the hardship question. Messier responded that in his opinion he felt the figures laid out for them in the report gave an indication as to a hardship as far as the opportunity to operate the business on a profitable basis. Randall said this proved they were losing money, but not that it was unreasonable. Messier felt that that kind of loss of income was a hardship and it was difficult for the Board to determine how much income loss is a hardship. Randall said the applicant had to prove it. Messier said in his opinion the hardship had been proven. Messier stated they could ask for more information, like mortgage payments and so forth to determine how close the income comes to meeting the business's expenses and profits. Boyd said he thought it showed $30,000 in gross income without the sign during January and February, and for cash flow they needed at least $60,000 in gross income with the current debt. Boyd said if this meant giving the Board all his financial statements, he would be more than happy to do so. Randall said it was common when existing interstates to see signs that state there is gas at that exit. These signs help you to know whether to turn right or left after exiting the Interstate. Messier said he felt 65 -foot high signs up and down the Interstate were much more the rule than the exception. Franklin said if the Board was finding there was a problem with the ordinance, generally, the proper process was not to grant variances but to make recommendations for change in the legislation, because what they were saying was there was a problem with the Code and not with this particular situation. Board of Adjustment August 10, 1988 Page 10 Messier said he knew what she was saying and that was, in fact, what he referred to earlier with the previous application. What disturbed Messier was what the Board had seen happen in the past, when the Board denied a situation and found out later the law was changed. The Planning and Zoning Commission basically changed it to allow the situation to comply. Franklin asked if this was at the Board's recommendation. Messier replied no, it was by the individual property owner. He said that was exactly the issue and he understood Franklin's situation but right or wrong, he also understood they had a businessman who had to take a sign down by August 28 and he felt the Board should give some consideration to what Boyd was going to 'face in the interim while the Planning and Zoning Commission decided whether this should be changed. Randall stated a 65 -foot sign did not offend him and he was sure it would bring more business, but he was trying to follow the directions that were imposed on the Board by the Ordinance. Winegarden stated he didn't think it was contrary to public interest to have a sign out there. The sign had been there for 25 years and all that changed was the name of the gas station. He questioned if this was self- imposed. Franklin stated if there was a hardship, it was not a self- imposed hardship. Winegarden thought there probably was and with a business on the Interstate he could not imagine it succeeding without a sign to attract business. Was it unique? Winegarden stated it was the only gas station in Iowa City within the 660 -foot DOT footage requirement. Sinclair was farther down the road and at least twice as far and he didn't see any harm in this. He felt it might meet enough of the requirements and he would probably vote in favor of it. Dean Jones stated he was a member of the company that built the gas station originally. They bought the property before the Interstate went through. At the time they bought the property, the property did not extend far enough north to give them access so they bought a little triangular piece where the service station is located. With the additional purchase of 21 acres, he erected the service station with the sign. He felt this case was very unusual because they were outside the City limits at that time and they were asked to be annexed into the City as commercial. Knowing that they were going to have commercial activities on the property, they erected the 75 -foot high sign at that time. It was a DX sign and later they sold the oil business and the service station. He felt the business was in kind of a tough spot because the Highway Commission tells you this and the City tells you that. You spend a lot of time and money putting a sign up on the highway. Boyd was granted a permit for this and then the Highway Commission came back and said you have to take the sign down. It hadn't been up there very long and it was a tough situation. The original sign was erected at 75 feet in height and the base of the sign was still there for the original sign. When it came time to take down the sign because it didn't comply, Boyd did. He felt Boyd had been very fair all along and he hoped the Board would take that into consideration. He stated there was no place to appeal the Highway Commission's 14450 Board of Adjustment August 10, 1988 Page 11 decision. Even with the money that had been spent, they give you no place to protest. Winegarden asked if this could be appealed to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Franklin said the Board could bring it to the Planning and Zoning Commission's attention as a problem with the Zoning Ordinance. Obviously, the Board sees when individuals have a problem with the Zoning Ordinance. People come before them to request relief. If the Board sees an instance in which something happens repeatedly or it is apparent in the Board's judgement that the Ordinance could stand revision,'the Board could make a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council that the Ordinance be revised. This does not mean the Code will be changed, but it puts the issue in the legislative process. The process is for those instances when the Board can't find something unique about a property and sees there is a problem generally with the Code and not with the particular situation. Winegarden asked if they still had to make a ruling. Franklin said the Board can defer until Planning and Zoning makes a legislative decision; then the question would either become moot or the Board would address the same question over again. Winegarden asked how long an Ordinance amendment would take. Franklin replied that an average Ordinance amendment takes about three months. Winegarden said he still felt the applicant had a unique situation; he stated again they are the only gas station within the IDOT right-of-way within the entire City. Messier moved to approve V-8807, a variance to the height and size regulations of the Sign Ordinance to locate two free-standing signs on a single lot, one sign which is 75 feet in height, with a 256 square foot sign face at 2545 North Dodge Street. Winegarden seconded. The motion was denied by a 2-1 vote with Randall voting negative. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: SE -8815. Public hearing on a request submitted by Northgate Develop- ment Company for a special exception to permit a child care facility use in a CO -1 zone for property located at 2717 Northgate Drive. Rockwell reviewed the staff report dated August 10, 1988. Staff recommended that the special exception request by Northgate Development Company for a child care facility at 2717 Northgate Drive, be approved subject to compliance with all City ordinances and in accordance with the site development plan submitted on July 29, 1988 with the condition that the site plan be revised to comply with Section 36-73, regulating the placement of trees along the right-of- way. Glenn Siders representing Northgate Development Company, stated that Darlene McNulty, who proposed to build and operate the child care facility was available if they had any questions concerning the facility and its operation. Siders presented development sketches to /iye53 Board of Adjustment August 10, 1988 Page 12 show what the new facility would look like because the building design was different from the 1986 proposal. The design of the interior and exterior of the building and playgrounds had been changed. However, the application was the same as previously submitted in that the facility would serve a minimum of 131 students with 35+ square feet of accessible, usable floor space per child. The site plan provides the required number of parking spaces. Randall and Winegarden stated the plans and proposed use of the site sounded fine to them. They had no problems when the proposal was submitted previously, and had no objections to the current proposal. Winegarden moved to approve SE -8815, a request submitted by Northgate Development Company to pemit a child care facility as a use in the CO -1 zone for property located at 2717 Northgate Drive subject to compliance with all City ordinances and in accordance with the site development plan submitted on July 29, 1988, with the condition that the site plan be revised to comply with Section 36-73, regulating the placement of trees along the right-of-way. Messier seconded. The motion passed unanimously by a 3-0 vote. 2. SE -8816. Public hearing on a request submitted by Marty Lantz and Garry Hamdorf for a special exception to allow an auto and truck oriented use in the CC -2 zone for property located at 1455 South First Avenue. Rockwell presented the staff report dated August 10, 1988. Staff recommended that the special exception to establish an auto and truck oriented use as generally proposed on the site plan submitted on August 9, 1988, for property located at 1455 South First Avenue be approved. Rockwell stated that although the developer had worked out utility easement agreements with the City Public Works Department, approval of the use should not be construed as a commitment on the part of the City to issue a building permit, which is subject to compliance with all City ordinances. Max Selzer, stated he had several interests in the property; as one of the owners of the adjacent Plamore Lanes bowling alley property and as the architect who was designing and constructing the proposed car wash. Selzer pointed out to the Board that the dotted area to the lower left of the car wash building which was marked "future," was seriously being considered for lube bay construction. This would make the site a complete car care center. Selzer stated that the site was developed through a cooperative effort by himself and his partners including Mr. Alberhasky who was present. It had taken a great deal of time and effort to put it all together and they both felt it would be an excellent addition to that commercial portion of the community and would in no way be detrimental to the area. Since none of the neighbors were there, Selzer thought they probably didn't see any problem with this proposal. /$453 Board of Adjustment August 10, 1988 Page 13 Boyle stated the application did not specifically include the lube bays at this point and he felt the Board should be aware that a special exception would be required -if the lube bays were added to the plans. This specific plan did not include it. It was not covered in the staff report and had not been reviewed by staff. Randall questioned if there was any problem with including the two lube bays as part of requested special exception currently before the Board. Boyle stated he thought the staff's position would be that if it came down to a building permit, the staff would say they had to ask for a special exception to enlarge the facility because it would be an expansion of the facility. If he was going to build it now, that was was a different matter. Selzer stated what they were asking for was a change in the use of the property to an auto and truck oriented use, and he thought that lubing cars would be an auto oriented use just as washing cars would be. Boyle stated he was not suggesting that it would constitute a different use, but he was suggesting that if the applicant established a car wash and then added the lube bays on later, it would be considered an expansion of the use on the site. That would be an expansion which required a special exception. Selzer stated he did not understand this. He was led to believe this would not be a problem. At this point the situation was that if the dollars would work, they would want to add the lube bays. Mrs. Garry Lantz stated that she was certain Mr. Lantz and Mr. Hamdorf wanted the lube bays added immediately. Boyle was not sure if this changed the analysis any and he suggested it probably wouldn't change whether the Board could approve this. He felt it should be specifically referenced in the Board's decision to document whether the Board was approving the lube bays at this time. Boyle didn't want anybody to misunderstand the issue and then have to come back for another special exception. Randall asked Rockwell if she had any problems with including the lube bays as part of the requested special exception. Rockwell said she didn't see that this would change the staff's recommendation. However, the applicants would need to provide any additional required parking. The lube bays use would be consistent with the requested use. She didn't know about the discarding of the oil. Selzer stated he thought that this would be covered by other City requirements. Rockwell recommended that the Board decision include a specific statement concerning required compliance with all City ordinances. Tom Alberhasky said that he owned much of the property in conjunction with the proposal and he also owned more property in the area. He wanted to see the property develop in the manner proposed and so he was there to speak for it. He felt it was a nice improvement and would blend in with the area. He stated it also fit in with his overall development plans for the area. Board of Adjustment August 10, 1988 Page 14 Winegarden stated he had no problems with this application; that it looked better than the first proposal the Board had approved for this type of use. Messier moved to approve SE -8816, a request submitted to establish an auto and truck oriented- use, a car wash and mini -lube facility, as generally proposed on the site plan dated August 9, 1988, for property located at 1455. South First Avenue. Approval of the use should not be construed as a commitment on the part of the City to issue a building permit, unless the site plan submitted demonstrates compliance with all City ordinances. Winegarden seconded. The motion passed unanimously by a 3-0 vote. The meeting was adjourned at 6:33 p.m. Minutes submitted by Greg Michel. /tf53 MINUTES IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION THURSDAY, AUGUST 18, 1988 MEMBERS PRESENT: Jack Ashby, Dick Blum, Pat Foster, John Ockenfels, Harry Lewis STAFF PRESENT: Ron O'Neil, Bill Sueppel GUESTS PRESENT: Fred Zehr Chairman Ashby called the meeting to order at 7:35 PM. Attendance and guests were noted. The minutes of July 21, 1988 and August 9, 1988 were considered. A correction was made to the July 21, 1988 minutes. It was noted that Fred Zehr was in attendance at that meeting. Blum asked for and received a clarification of the August 9, 1988 minutes. After these clarifications, the minutes were approved. The bills for August 1988 were presented by O'Neil. A brief discussion concerning payment to Rid -A -Bird was held. Blum questioned whether the bill should be paid until the issue of the damage to Dr. Cornish's plane had been resolved. O'Neil stated that the service contracted for was completed and the damage was a separate issue. Sueppel concurred with O'Neil. The bills were approved as presented. Iowa City School Lease The Iowa City School system has a series of one year leases with the airport. O'Neil billed the school system and the bill was paid. He questioned whether it was necessary to sign a new lease document. Sueppel expressed the opinion that another lease did not have be signed. The lease was considered extended when the payment was made. FY88 Budget Carryovers O'Neil stated that several line items should be carried over in the budget. Because there was no one to direct the daily maintenance through the spring and early summer months, certain repairs were not made. Some of those repairs still needed to be conducted. Zehr stated that in the past, all excess funds were transferred to the Airport Improvement reserve. He stated that the money could be withdrawn as needed for repairs. The Commission directed O'Neil to transfer the funds to the Airport Improvement fund. 1988 National Airport Convention Ashby stated that O'Neil had expressed an interest in attending the 1988 National Airport Convention. The travel funds are limited but it would be possible for a Commissioner and the Airport Manager to attend the convention. The Commission directed O'Neil to make reservations for two people and a decision would be made at a later date on who would represent the Commission. Blum expressed interest in attending. 9 Airport Commission August 18, 1988 Page 2 Fly -in Breakfast, August 28, 1988 Blum stated that the advance ticket sales were almost doubled as compared to last year. A yard sale would be held in conjunction with the breakfast. O'Neil stated that he had attempted to contact the journalism students that worked on the Airport history project. Neither of the two students that still had Iowa City telephone numbers could be reached. O'Neil stated that unless the project is now at the publishers, it would not be available by the time of the breakfast. Ockenfels expressed an interest in lifting the ban on ultra -light pilots and inviting the pilots to the fly -in breakfast. Blum stated that the City had expressed a concern about the insurance for events at the breakfast. The general consensus of the Commission was not to lift the ban. Zehr stated that he was against lifting the ban because the ultra - lights were controlled by unlicensed pilots. Airport Layout Plan O'Neil stated that Ery Moses from N.R. Green Company was still on vacation and no updated plan had been received. Blum stated that he had discussed airport zoning with Don Schmeiser and would discuss zoning matters further with him. The corrected plan will be presented to the Commission as soon as it is completed. Zehr suggested that the Commission consider reviewing other engineering firms to assist in future airport projects. The Commission appointed Lewis and Ockenfels to initiate procedures for reviewing other engineering firms. Chairman's Report Ashby expressed his support for the Chamber of Commerce's plan to operate transportation for the 1988 Ag Expo at the Amanas. Ockenfels stated his belief that the airport would have increased traffic from the Ag Expo. O'Neil stated that the Good Year Blimp would like to have been stationed in Iowa City during the Expo. The crew had not been able to obtain room reservations in the Iowa City Area. They will be based at the Cedar Rapids Airport, but Iowa City will be their first option if they decide not to base in Cedar Rapids. Commissioner Members' Input Blum stated that he would like to discuss the Rid -A -Bird situation. He requested the issue be scheduled on the agenda for the next meeting. His concern was directed towards the insurance liability of the Commission in connection with Rid -A -Bird. O'Neil will schedule this item for the next agenda. Lewis suggested requesting a copy of Rid -A -Bird's certificate of insurance. /*-51ez Airport Commission August 18, 1988 Page 3 Administrative ReDort O'Neil stated that Commission had not yet been billed for the work conducted to repair the lightning damage from the August 8, 1988 storm. Moore Electric has spent a considerable amount of time repairing runway lights. O'Neil said that the Commission's insurance, which is through the City of Iowa City, has a $10,000 deductible and would more than likely not cover any of the damages. On another matter, O'Neil informed the Commission that some of the Airport records could be microfiched to make them more accessible and to provide more filing space. Steve Miller from the Iowa City Survey Crew had been contacted and will attempt to locate the obstructions on Runway 24 so the VASI lights could be installed. O'Neil contacted Midwest Janitor Service. The current contract with Midwest Janitor was written in 1982. O'Neil will review the contract to decide if it needs to be updated. The next meeting of the Airport Commission was scheduled for September 15, 1988 at 7:30 PM. It was decided that future meetings of the Airport Commission would be held every third Thursday of the month. Blum moved for adjournment with Ockenfels seconding the motion. The motion passed unanimously and the meeting was adjourned. Minutes submitted by Ron O'Neil. ?airpersona-&—y /7. 7 MINUTES HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION AUGUST 29, 1988 - 6:30 P.M. SENIOR CENTER CLASSROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Rosalie Reed, Chia-Hsing Lu, Harold Weilbrenner, Fred Mims, Terry Powell, Ray Haines, Lois Smithart MEMBERS ABSENT: Haywood Belle, Anthony Haughton GUEST PRESENT: Butch Devine, Mediator, Conciliator for the Office of Iowa Civil Rights Commission STAFF PRESENT: Dale Helling, Ruby Abebe I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Rosalie Reed, Chairperson. II. Selection of. Next Meeting Date: September 26, 1988 Place: Senior Center Classroom Time: 7:00 p.m. III. Approval of Minutes of July 26, 1988: Ray Haines moved to approve the-minutes of July 26, 1988. Seconded 'by Terry Powell. Motion carried. IV. Recognition of Public and News Media: Butch Devine, Iowa Civil Rights Conciliation Specialist, was present. He is in charge of the Conciliation Training for the Commissioners after the meeting. V. Community Education: See VIII.B. VI. Report of the Commissioners: Terry Powell was the hostess for our guest speaker, Butch Devine. Terry Powell, on behalf of the Iowa City Human Rights Commission, took Butch Devine to dinner. Chia-Hsing Lu went to Maxi's. They still have Ladies' Night. He inquired if they knew it was wrong and the management responded that they (Maxi's Bar) knew the Iowa Civil Rights Commission was against it. They (Maxi's Bar) do not advertise and they don't think its illegal. Human Rights Commission August 29, 1988 Page 2 VII. Old Business: A. Ladies' Night There is no proof that the letters went out. It was discussed as to whether a letter should be sent out. It was suggested by Rosalie Reed that we sent the letters, then drop the issue. Ray Haines asked "Why send the letter about Ladies' Night out to all the bars if we're going to drop it? Why raise the issue and then drop it?" Harold Weilbrenner said it's "wishy washy anyway. Baseball is discrimination, but for basketball it's okay. For pro -basketball you can have Ladies' Night. For baseball you cannot and that is what the courts have ordered. Is it an issue worth dealing with?" Terry Powell said "then we run around with such things as senior citizens' discounts because you're over 62, children's half-price or $1.00 off at theaters. The theaters are trying to encourage families to come." Rosalie Reed: "If a citizen wants to file a complaint, we will investigate it; but the Commission itself will not go out and file a complaint as a Commission on the bars." It was moved by Harold Weilbrenner that we no longer work on Ladies' Night. It was seconded by Chia-Hsing Lu. Motion carried. B. Annual Awards Breakfast Nomination letters were handed out. Commissioners can also nominate. Mailings will be sent out by Wednesday. Holiday Inn will provide seating arrangements for 80-100. C. Conciliation Timetable Commitment was made by the Commissioners to speed up concilia- tion to assist cutting the backlog. VIII. New Business: A. Would like updated laws from BNA Legal Digest. B. Committees were set up and the chairs are as follows: Commission Training: Setting up training for Iowa City Human Rights Commission and to train them in their specially needed areas. Harold Weilbrenner, Chair. Commission Presenter: Presentation by the Commission should be consistent and agreeable amongst all the Commissioners. A packet as well as presentation will be set up. Ray Haines, Chair. HUD Van: The Fair Housing Van will be in the Iowa City area September 12 and 13, 1988. Vocation and public relations. Fred Mims, Chair. / 05-.5 Human Rights Commission August 29, 1988 Page 3 IX. X. HUD Mandatory Training: It is required that we have 4-5 Commissioners/staff in training to fulfill our obligation with HUD. We have decided to set up our training session. Terry Smithart, Chair. Civil Tongue: Television show covering human rights - human issues. Tony Haughton and Terry.Powell, Co -Chairs. Civil Writes: News publication sent out quarterly. Chia- Hsing Lu and Haywood Belle, Co -Chairs. Conciliation: Rosalie Reed, Chair. C. Conciliation teams were set up. Team A Chia-Hsing Lu Harold Weil brenner Lois Smithart Team B Fred Mims Terry Powell .Haywood Belle Team C Rosalie Reed Anthony Haughton Ray Haines Staff Report: Requested the Commissioners review handouts. Adjournment. 9La) I MINUTES DRAFT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FORMAL MEETING THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 1988 - 7:30 P.M. CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Cook, Cooper, Dierks, Hebert, Wallace MEMBERS ABSENT: Clark, Scott STAFF PRESENT: Beagle, Boyle, Kritz CALL TO ORDER: Vice -Chairperson Dierks called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: 1. Recommend approval of an application submitted by Michael Flynn to rezone a 1.99 acre parcel, located 1.5 miles east of Iowa City, from A-1 to RS. 2. Recommend approval of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow businesses in the CH -1 zone within 1,000 feet of interstate highways one free-standing sign 65 foot tall maximum with a total area of 500 square feet, 250 square feet per sign face. 3. Recommend parking on Samuel Drive be limited to one side only. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 1, 1988: Cook moved to defer the consideration of the September 1, 1988, minutes to the October 6, 1988, meeting. Cooper seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0. ZONING ITEMS: 1. CZ -8825. Public discussion of an application submitted by Michael Flynn to rezone a 1.99 acre parcel, located 1.5 miles east of Iowa City, from A-1 to RS. Beagle reviewed a memorandum dated September 6, 1988. Staff recommends the Commission recommend the City Council forward a comment to the County recommending that the request be approved. Cooper moved to recommend that the City Council forward a recommendation to the County to approve CZ -8825. Hebert seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0. /4156 9 MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FORMAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 15, 1988 PAGE 2 2. Public hearing on an amendment to the 1983 Comprehensive Plan Update to change the land use classification of 528 and 530 Iowa Avenue and 15 North Johnson Street from Residential: 25+ dwelling units per acre to Mixed Land Use. (In conjunction with) 3. Z-8810. Public discussion of a request submitted by the University of Iowa Community Credit Union to rezone properties located at 528 and 530 Iowa Avenue and 15 North Johnson Street from RNC -20 to CB -2. (45 -day limitation period: October 6, 1988.) Beagle reported Wednesday night's HistoricIV Preservation Commission meeting where representatives of the University of Iowa Community Credit Union addressed the Commission. Beagle said that after )K hearing the arguments presented by the representatives, the Commission voted unanimously to uphold the previous recommendation reported to the Planning and Zoning Commission expressing a desire that the subject properties not be rezoned. Beagle concluded by reviewing phone calls received concerning the proposed rezoning. X phone Calls Re.Credit Union: 8/22/88 Ardell Lund, 27 N. Johnson Street. Commented that character of whole area was changing and did not object to Credit Union rezoning. Mr. Kim Merker, 604 Iowa Avenue. Indicated house is on the National Register and strongly objected to proposed rezoning because of impacts on the neighborhood. 8/31/88 Elizabeth Kahler, 19 Evans Street (337-3018) X Objected to rezoning because of influenceX on stability of remainder of the neighborhood. 9/1/88 Eric Carlson, 528 Iowa Avenue (337-6771) Was tenant of residence and objected to potential loss of such a distinctive residence. Richard Wayne, 14 N. Johnson Street Opposed rezoning because of impact on neighborhood. Lea VanderVeldt, 947 Iowa Avenue Opposed rezoning because of encroachment on neighborhood. MINUTES PLANNING 8 ZONING COMMISSION FORMAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 15, 1988 PAGE 3 9/14/88 Daniel Songger, 10 N. Johnson Street Had no objection to the rezoning and felt it was appropriate. Donald Macfarlane, 943 Iowa Avenue, stated that he was opposed to the rezoning and would like to see the neighborhood remain as residential without the encroachment of intensive commercial land uses. Fred Krause, President of the Credit Union, stated that the Credit Union has received sealed bids to purchase and move the two homes on Iowa Avenue to new locations. One of the houses is reported to be used as a bed and breakfast inn. Krause presented a photograph of the area taken in 1974 when the Credit Union purchased the land. Krause stated that the Credit Union did raze some of the homes in the area, but only those that were beyond repair and in general the area was in need of renovation. Krause concluded by saying the Credit Union has helped to improve the area aesthetically. Gary Applebee, Credit Union, presented revised graphs illustrating the growth of the Credit Union. Applebee also addressed the comments made at recent meetings as to why the Credit Union does not open up a branch office. Applebee stated that part of the proposed expansion of the Credit Union on Iowa Avenue is to construct 1,700 square feet of office space in order to allow centralized accounting and other support necessary for their growth and operations. Applebee continued and said that a drive -up facility elsewhere would still require the central support and administration that would be located at the Credit Union on Iowa Avenue. Wallace asked Applebee how long the proposed facility expansions would support the Credit Union's projected growth. Applebee replied that it would be very hard to pin down when the Credit Union might outgrow the proposed expansion, but that the Iowa Avenue office will continue to be the home base of the Credit Union. Cook asked what portion of the Credit Union's members were students. Applebee replied that eight to ten percent of their membership are students, but noted that students were only allowed into the Credit Union as members a year ago. Larry Lynch, attorney for the Credit Union, pointed out that the proposal represents the maximum development for that area and that the Credit Union on Iowa Avenue does and will continue to serve as the home base for the operation. Cook asked how they felt about the Historic Preservation Commission's recommendation. Steve Greenleaf, attorney for the Credit Union, replied that he felt the Credit Union representatives got a fair hearing and that the Historic Preservation Commission has several charges as a Commission. Greenleaf continued and said that he told the Historic Preservation Commission that the proposed changes to the area would enhance the quality of the area and not represent a negative effect. Greenleaf stated that he felt they did not get 14156 MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FORMAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 15, 1988 PAGE 4 enough feedback from the Historic Preservation Commission in support of their recommendation. Greenleaf concluded by saying that the two homes, while valuable on Iowa Avenue, are not so historic in nature that moving them would represent a significant loss in historic value of the neighborhood. Cook moved to defer item i2 and Z-8810 to.the October 6, 1988, meeting. Wallace seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0. OTHER BUSINESS: 1. Public discussion of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to address signage near the interstate. Beagle reviewed the pertinent details of Mr. Boyd's proposed amendment. Bill Boyd, applicant, stated that he has exhausted all possible avenues and feels that he has adequately been able to express his view to the Commission. Boyd concluded by thanking the Commission for their time and patience and listening to his views. Dierks asked whether Mr. Boyd had attempted to remedy the situation through the Iowa Department of Transportation. Boyd replied that he had extensive contacts with officials at Iowa DOT, but they would not make any allowances. Wallace moved to recommend that the proposed ordinance amendment to the Sign Ordinance be approved to allow properties in the CH -1 zones within 1,000 feet of the interstate one free-standing sign a maximum height of 65 feet and a maximum sign area of 500 square feet or 250 square feet per side. Cook seconded the motion. Wallace stated that she was in favor of the amendment and feels that the height and size allowance of the proposed amendment is suitable for the CH -1 zone within 1,000 feet of the interstate. Cook stated that he wasn't satisfied that this was the best solution and for aesthetic reasons will vote against this amendment. Cooper stated that he feels that this amendment could present problems in the future, but will vote for the amendment. Dierks stated that she was concerned about aesthetics at entrances to Iowa City and since the amendment does not limit the number of 65 foot high signs in an area and that there is no limit on how close the signs can be to each other, that she will vote against the amendment. The motion was approved 3-2, Cook and Dierks voting nay. 2. Public discussion of posting no parking signs on Samuel Drive. Beagle informed the Commission that if no parking was allowed on either side of Samuel Drive, it would place the burden for on -street parking during special occasions on nearby streets. Beagle recommended that limiting parking on just one side would provide overflow parking for activities at the homes on Samuel Drive and still provide for two-way traffic on the street. /4" MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FORMAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 15, 1988 PAGE 5 Cooper moved to recommend to Council that parking be allowed on only one side of Samuel Drive. Wallace seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION INFORMATION: There was no information presented. Cook moved to adjourn the meeting. Wallace seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:29 p.m. Minutes submitted by Kyle L. Kritz. Approved by: Kenneth Cooper, Secretary MINUTES DRAFT HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 1988 - 7:30 P.M. CLASSROOM, SENIOR CENTER MEMBERS PRESENT: Russell, VanderWoude, Kern, Scott, Sierk, Licht MEMBERS ABSENT: Vacancy STAFF PRESENT: Beagle, Rest GUESTS PRESENT: Gary Applebe, Steve Greenleaf, Kim Merker, Jim Harris CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Russell called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. REVIEW OF AUGUST 10, 1988 MINUTES: Beagle made suggested corrections. In "Discussion of Budget and Commission Expenses", the third sentence of the first paragraph should read "The Urban Planning division not only staffs the ...". Within the same discussion recorded on the second page, fourth paragraph, the first sentence should end with a period, not a question mark. The fourth sentence should read "Russell questioned whether if the Commission raised supplementary funds, the Council might diminish direct funding from the City. Franklin agreed that this was a possibility." Next paragraph should begin "Franklin suggested ways the Commission could plug into the budget system." Kern moved to approve the August 10, 1988 minutes as amended. VanderWoude seconded. The motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC DISCUSSIO Beagle indicated the Credit Union submitted a proposal to rezone three (3) residential properties located at 528 and 530 Iowa Avenue and 15 N. Johnson Street from RNC -20, Neighborhood Conservation Residential Zone, to CB -2, Central Business Service Zone. In a Staff Report dated September 1, 1988, the Planning Department recommended against the proposed rezoning, finding it to have an adverse impact on the character and stability of the surrounding, established residential neighborhood. Beagle stated the Credit Union has negotiated purchase offers with the three subject residential properties with the intention of either razing or moving these properties to accommodate the Credit Union's expansion. The Planning Staff in its evaluation objected to the proposal on two principal factors: (1) it is contrary to Iowa City's Comprehensive Plan; and (2) land use issues related to the rezoning. ��7 1 Minutes Historic Preservation Commission September 14, 1988 Page 2 The Comprehensive Plan encourages properties immediately west of Johnson Street to develop for high density residential land use and the area east of Johnson Street encouraged to develop for medium density residential land use. The area immediately west of the three subject properties including the Credit Union is designated for mixed land use which could accommodate residential as well as commercial land uses. The Staff could not see any justification for amending the Comprehensive Plan to extend the mixed land use category over to Johnson Street. The Planning and Zoning Commission has decided to defer this issue to their October 6, 1988 meeting to allow for public discussion and proper consideration of the Comprehensive Plan in terms of its policy to en- courage rehabilitation and reinvestment in existing neighborhoods and to maintain the existing housing stock and preserve desirable neighborhood characteristics. DISCUSSION OF CREDIT UNION REZONING: Steve Greenleaf, attorney representing the Credit Union, noted the concerns expressed in Russell's memo to the Planning and Zoning Commission and was anxious to address those concerns. He explained the Credit Union is proposing the purchase of three properties on the block where the main building of the Credit Union is now located. The opportunity has arisen in terms of growth in membership and services provided, to expand the facility. He thought it could be accomplished with minimal encroachment on the surrounding neighborhood and that it could actually serve to improve the neighborhood. Greenleaf further stated that their proposal was in conjunction with the charge of the Commission. In addition to preserving structures in areas of cultural and historical significance, Greenleaf noted that the Commission is to help stabilize and improve property values, foster civic pride in the beauty and achievements of the past and strengthen the economy of the City. The house located on N. Johnson is not historically nor economically significant, nor an aesthet- ically significant house. The two structures on Iowa Avenue, former law office of Emnitt George and the current home of Connie Keeling, are "nice big old houses." If possible the Credit Union would like to move those two houses. The Credit Union has placed sealed bids to move those houses though they are not as especially significant or unique. The Credit Union, he said, wants to impress upon the Commission the options that are available for these houses. The property at 528 Iowa Avenue has not been used as a single family residence since at least 1980. It is now used as a boarding house with 7 or 8 persons living there. Connie Keeling, through her daughter, appeared at the Planning and Zoning Commission and made public their intention to sell 530 Iowa Avenue, indicating that the second buyer had the obvious intention of using the house as a rooming house. ��j Minutes Historic Preservation Commission September 14, 1988 Page 3 For preservation and enhancement of the area this plan is probably not the best route to go. Greenleaf invited each of the Commissioners to take a tour of Iowa Avenue in the 500-600 blocks. It is a mixed neighborhood with houses of varying quality and upkeep. It is as the City staff has said in their report, an area of transition. The question becomes one of merely maintaining the status quo versus allowing change as it is appropriate in each particular instance. Greenleaf said the lost hope of the RNC -20 zone is to maintain that area as strictly as a single family residential area. The character of that neighborhood is essentially lost. It is a very mixed area with some single family residences, but primarily a "boarding house" type of area. One of the arguments that he said they heard at the Planning and Zoning i Commission from some of the people who did come and state opposition was that if one allowed this to occur the next thing that would happen would be that City High would be torn down to allow expansion of the downtown. It is always difficult to draw a line, to say this is the end, to go no further; but that can be done, and if it is appropriate, it should be done. The appropriate boundary on the Comprehensive Plan is not in the middle of a block but in using Johnson Street which is a natural boundary. Right now, he said, the Credit Union is in a commercially zoned area which is right next door to an RNC -20 area with no greater separation that a row of hedges. Greenleaf believed the values and contentions of this Commission can be realized and are not really in conflict with what the Credit Union really wants to do. The Credit Union asked if the Commission would recognize that the Credit Union is not going to accomplish anything that would harm the neighborhood or be a detriment to the historical, cultural landmarks in our city. Gary Applebe, Credit Union Vice President, presented a site plan for the proposed development. The existing drive up lanes pass through the alley under the second floor of the building. As shown, he said the Credit Union has grown very dramatically in the last 18 months. It is beginning to tax the present facilities. The Credit Union is concerned about the traffic patterns and the problems created by the increased driveup traffic. Applebe said they have looked at other alternatives, but chose an effective alternative for the membership to get the best possible development. The Credit Union had not considered the Keeling property until it was offered to them after negotiation with the other two property owners. The Credit Union talked to some homemovers from Cedar Rapids and Des Moines, who expressed concerns that the size of the houses would not allow them to be moved to the North Side because of the street size there. They could be moved, however, out Iowa Avenue or down Gilbert Street. Beagle mentioned that unfortunately we do not have specific survey material concerning the three residences. While it is known the 528 and 530 Iowa Avenue homes were constructed in 1912 and 1914 respectively, and the 15 North Johnson St. house was constructed in 1885, the historical and Minutes Historic Preservation Commission September 14, 1988 Page 4 architectural significance of these properties has not been fully investi- gated nor evaluated. He said, however, that the homes are significant in contributing to the character and stability of the surrounding established neighborhood. Kim Merker, 604 Iowa Avenue, asked several times if the Credit Union had contingency plans if the current proposal failed. Greenleaf responded that one plan they had considered was to expand to branch offices. They did, not plan on the rapid expansion in membership that they have encountered. Merker expressed his concern over the proposed expansion of the Credit Union. His statements ranged from supporting student lifestyles to defining what constitutes a neighborhood. He felt that this addition of asphalt would threaten the nature of the neighborhood and the architec- tural distinctions of the buildings would be lost. He further stated the construction will certainly endanger the historical and cultural sig- nificance of the area and his home which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Jim Harris, 219 Ronalds, stated that he was sorely troubled by the use of the term "transition zones". He questioned the intention of the transi- tional phrase. It would be appropriate to make use of existing buildings and it would be appropriate within the land use regulations to create more rooming houses within the three properties rather than raze or move them. Kern commented on the statistics provided by the Credit Union, especially since some growth would normally be experienced at the beginning of each new school year that would eventually die down. Greenleaf stated that the predictions were actually flattened, and currently the Credit Union is 4 to 5 months ahead of projections. VanderWoude asked if there was any way for the Credit Union to use the existing buildings as their extension offices. Beagle noted any commer- cial conversion would still require rezoning and parking demands would still need to be met. Once rezoned there was essentially no protection for the houses against future development. Russell asked Commissioners for their verbal vote supporting or not supporting the existing policy statement represented by the memo. All Commissioners expressed their support for the memo. Russell thanked the Credit Union representatives and other guests for their attendance and input. DISCUSSION OF REHABILITATION PROJECTS: 714 N. Linn Street 728 Bowery Street 1115'/ Minutes Historic Preservation Commission September 14, 1988 Page 5 Licht addressed the building development located on Bowery Street indicating her support for the project. HillCrest would like to use it as a rooming house for chronic mentally ill persons. The project is also requesting Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding and as already received funding from Gannett. While the windows are architecturally significant, most of the major work that needs to be done is within the structure and the impact on the neighborhood is minimal. Beagle recom- mended the Commission pass it on to -the State without comment. VandwerWoude so moved. Seirk seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Beagle stated the property on Linn Street needed tuck point work around the foundation. Beagle said the Commission may wish to address the siding options which include restoring the insul brick to going back to the original siding. Seirk moved to recommend the proposed rehabilitation without comment. Licht seconded. The motion passed unanimously. As addressed in the July 13, 1988, memo, Russell said staff made the initial review of other rehabilitation projects that were felt to not involve historic properties and submitted them to the State and presented to the Commission only those properties which could be considered historic for their review and consideration. Russell noted the action by Staff was appropriate in this matter. DISCUSSION CONCERNING NORTH SIDE HISTORIC DISTRICT: The following suggestions were discussed at the July 13, 1988 meeting as possibilities for future Commission activities in promoting Historic Preservation, the North Side district in particular: Russell and Vanderwoude will pursue providing educational publica- tions for the public. Sierk will "network" with other groups for developing a Speaker's Bureau; speakers, sponsors, etc. Scott will continue to work on the development of a logo for the Commission. Vanderwoude will research tax incentives and City ordinances to search for ways to make historic preservation "profitable" for the public. Licht will investigate a revision of the "Who to" booklet which listed previous rehabilitation projects, who to contact about potential projects, etc. I Minutes Historic Preservation Commission September 14, 1988 Page 6 Russell mentioned the possibility of taped walking tours of the historic districts distributed out of the library. Beagle noted that while the Rehabilitation program is targeted towards specific neighborhood areas, only partial information is available on these residential areas. Currently staff is seeking CLG funding to do surveys to recognize potentially distinct neighborhoods. DISCUSSION OF COMMISSION LOGO: Scott noted the cornice piece from Barbara's bakery provides an asymmetri- cal design that is both interesting and recognizable as unique to Iowa City. Further suggestions from Commissioners included the placement of additional information, such as the address and the founding date. Scott will bring more examples next meeting. Russell appreciated the Commissioners' stance towards the Credit Union's proposal and added that it was certainly appropriate to comment on public issues which affect historic or culturally distinct properties. Annual report update has been submitted. Russell sent Nowysz the leftover funds and accompanying letter. Noted Old House Owner's workshop brochure which is included in the September 14, 1988 packet. VanderWoude suggested to Russell as Chairperson to send letter to Bob Burns to laud his efforts to preserve the old county home. ADJOURNMENT: Kern moved. Licht seconded. The motion was unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Minutes submitted by Susan Rest. 1-1s7 N PRELIMINARY MINUTES Subject to Approval DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1988 - 4:00 P.M. IOWA CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY - ROOM B MEMBERS PRESENT: Amert, deVries, Haupert, Nagle, Novick, Sinek, Welt MEMBERS ABSENT: Nelson, Seiberling, Waters STAFF PRESENT: Cain, Elmer GUESTS PRESENT: Jeff Duffy, Gary Fink, Mark Ginsberg, John Hayek, Dale Lenz, Jim Mack, Earl Murphy, John Murphy, Eileen Sherman, Ken Taube RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL The Committee recommended that the Iowa -Illinois Gas & Electric transformer proposed to be located near Washington and Clinton Street intersection be installed underground. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Novick called the meeting to order at 4:04 p.m. and made introductions. IJi]IIIYL•14us 2.1liPjlat>•yi Jm"t1RFI� Novick asked if anyone had any amendments to the last meeting's minutes. Nagle moved to approve the minutes of August 4. Sinek seconded. The motion passed unanimously. REVIEW OF TRANSFORMER PLACEMENT ON WASHINGTON STR Cain circulated photographs supplied by Iowa -Illinois Gas & Electric Company. The photos show a pad -mount electric transformer in the proposed location. She said the Committee should make recommendations about the placement of the transformer to the City Council. Ken Taube, Iowa - Illinois Gas & Electric Co., noted that the transformer proposed was shorter than the one shown in the photos. Novick said the one proposed was wider, however, and covered more square feet. Novick asked how the proposed transformer compared in size to an existing transformer on Clinton Street. Taube said the new transformer would be exactly the same size. Welt asked if there were any other place to put the transformer; he stated that the aesthetics of placing the transformer in the proposed location were not desirable. Nagle asked if the transformer could be constructed underground. Taube said it was possible, but it would be more expensive. The total cost of a pad -mount transformer is $24,100 and to install the transformer underground would cost $62,200. Taube noted that two submersible transformers must be purchased to have a spare in case of failure. Haupert confirmed from Taube that the total cost for a submersible transformer was $62,200 and that the added cost would be absorbed by all Iowa -Illinois customers in the billable area. MINUTES DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE SEPTEMBER 22, 1988 PAGE 2 Sinek pointed out that the Committee voted on the location of transformers on Iowa Avenue and asked how the placement of the transformer on Dubuque Street had been selected. He noted that a precedent for locating transformers above ground in the downtown area had been set and wanted to know why. Cain suggested the placement may have been part of the initial urban renewal streetscape program. Taube noted that the City had approved all previously installed transformers. Haupert suggested that Iowa - Illinois' regular routine maintenance schedule for scraping and painting transformers must be a burden but was still not frequent enough. He noted the pad -mount transformer would be plastered with graffiti which would be removed only occasionally and would become an eyesore by default. Cain distributed a letter from John Hayek, the owner of the building at 110 East Washington (see attachment). Hayek said he opposed the proposed location of the transformer. He said much work had been done to maintain the streetscape and that Iowa City taxpayers have spent millions of dollars to beautify the downtown area. He also noted that Ginsberg had spent considerable funds to restore the building's facade and stated he was appalled that Iowa -Illinois would place their transformer in front of this building. Hayek said he was concerned about the impacts of the proposed transformer location on the 110 East Washington building and noted the Committee has a duty to preserve aesthetics of the downtown. Hayek stated that the transformer must be located underground, even if it meant spending $50,000 or $60,000. Earl Murphy said he had been promised by Dick Plastino, then Director of Public Works, that all future utilities would be placed underground and that a letter stating such was on file at City Hall. Welt asked if any members of the public present were in favor of installing the transformer above ground. No one responded. Ginsberg noted that although he understands the need for transformers, the store sponsors concerts on the sidewalk outside their building on Friday afternoons. He said that even without obstacles on the street, graffiti exists. He also mentioned his concern for the security of his jewelry store employees leaving the building on Washington Street and noted that people could hide behind the proposed transformer. He said he did not oppose the idea of paying additional payments to have the transformer located underground. Taube pointed out the transformer would be placed at the curb and that people could hide behind other objects like a car parked near the curb. deVries asked why the transformer could not be located in the alley. Taube responded that a clearance problem existed, and the transformer would be difficult to service in an emergency if it were placed in the alley. Novick asked if other transformers in the alley area would be removed. Duffy said this would be possible after service was moved to the front. He noted there was some degree of flexibility in locating the transformer up or down the block. Haupert asked where the transformer would go if it were submerged. Taube responded that the ideal location is the one proposed. Duffy suggested that it could also be installed in the landscaped island. Haupert made a motion that the Committee recommend locating the transformer underground. Welt seconded the motion. /7 -0 MINUTES DESIGN REVIEW CCi'fiITTEE SEPTEMBER 22, 1988 PAGE 3 Cain asked if other transformers would have to be located in the public right-of-way for all service to be removed from behind the building. Taube said the proposed transformer should take care of electric needs for some time. Duffy noted that all overhead wiring could then come out but that no one would be forced to move wiring until the tenants were ready to upgrade their service. Nagle noted that Iowa -Illinois fought a recommendation to install an underground transformer in the Village Green neighborhood. Duffy pointed out that submersible transformers have more problems and that they are eventually replaced with pad mounts. Taube stated that because of open gratings on the top of the vault, salt and water leak downward causing corrosion. Fink asked if electric meters would need to be moved eventually. Duffy said eventually meters would be moved for those who decide to rewire. Fink asked who would pay for moving the meters. Duffy responded that everyone in Iowa City who uses electricity would pay. Haupert said that this was a unique location and that it deserved special care. deVries asked why transformers have not previously been placed in alleys rather than on main streets. Duffy said there was an access problem in alleys, and on streets access was never a problem. He pointed out that Io-a•Illinois spent more than. $2.5 million in downtown Iowa City already and they were concerned about going vault. deVries asked if future transformers would be needed in this area. Taube said that in this block, new transformers would not be required for a long time. Duffy noted that if the transformer were moved further to the east it became more difficult to serve downtown customers. He also noted that they tried to place the transformer as close to a blank wall as possible. Cain said she was contacted by Ms. Byington, owner of the closest building. Ms. Byington was opposed to the proposed location; she was out- of-town and unable to come to the meeting. deVries asked if Iowa -Illinois had other submersible transformers in its service area. Duffy said they did not have any like the one that would be used here. Duffy noted that there have recently been stepped up efforts by Iowa - Illinois to clean and paint the transformers in downtown Iowa City. Novick said there were posters on every one of the transformers except those in the landscaped islands and no one could go every day to remove posters. Novick called for a vote on the motion to recommend locating the transformer underground. The motion passed unanimously. Novick thanked the visitors for attending. deVries asked if the Committee should look at other possible design alternatives for transformer location. Sinek stated it was not the Committee's responsibility to design. /,115-9 ■ MINUTES DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE SEPTEMBER 22, 1988 PAGE 4 COMMITTEE BUSINESS Adopt -A -Bed Update: Haupert said that all beds have been adopted and they were waiting for the plants. They have postponed plantings due to the weather. He noted that three beds have not been designed yet. Haupert noted the fall City Plaza clean-up date was set for Saturday, October 1, from 8:00 a.m. to 12 noon. Members were invited to participate. Newspaper Vending Machine Regulations Update: Cain said that the City Manager had met with representatives of the newspapers and was awaiting a proposal from them for the voluntary regulation of vending. The proposal was expected by Monday, September 26. Report on the Proposed Downtown Study: Cain said there had been no further action on this item. It was still pending. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION Cain announced that large temporary signs prohibiting skateboarding would soon be located in City Plaza. These were needed to increase enforcement efforts. The next meeting was scheduled for Thursday, October 20. The meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m. Minutes submitted by Steven Elmer. //a W1 WILL J. HAYEK (1096.1002) JOHN W. HAYEK C. PETER HAYEK C. JOSEPH HOLLAND JAMES C. LAREW DAVID E. BROWN HAYEK, HAYEK. HAYEK & HOLLAND ATTORNEYS AT LAW EREMRR BUILDING IEOK EAST WASHINGTON STREET IOWA CITY. IOWA SEE40.0976 September 20, 1988 Design Review Committee Civic Center 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Re: Transformer Location on East Washington Street Members of the Design Review Committee: AREA COOK 319 337.9606 We are writing to you as owners and occupant of the building located at 110 East Washington Street in Iowa City. This building is occupied by Ginsberg Jewelry Store. We are writing to strongly object to the plan to place a utility company transformer on the public pedestrian plaza very close to the front of this building. We believe that the placement of a large utility company transformer on the sidewalk would be unsightly and would substantially detract from this area. Recently, the Ginsbergs invested a very substantial amount of money in remodeling 110 East Washington Street. This project, by the way, received awards for its architectural and design excellence. previously, in the 197019, this building had been recognized for design and construction excellence in connection with private urban renewal related redevelopment. The City of Iowa City has spent millions of dollars and many people have invested years of effort to improve the visual environment in downtown Iowa City. Installation of this transformer would be a great mistake, we believe. We do not think it is asking too much to ask the utility company to find an alternative way to provide eelctricalduals service. After the taxpayers and so many private indivihave invested so much in downtown redevelopment, we think the utility company can be asked to spend some additional money #59 I i I Design Review Committee September 20, 1988 Page Two to find an acceptable alternative. We strongly urge you to deny the application by Iowa -Illinois Gas a Electric Company. Very truly yours, Jo r<W H ek Ma k nebe JWH:meID cc: Iowa City City Council c/o Marian Karr, City Clerk Civic Center 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Thomas Hoogerwerf Manager Iowa -Illinois Gas i Electric Company 1630 Lower Muscatine Road Iowa City, Iowa 52240