Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-06-17 Bd Comm minutesMINUTES $UJjnt t0 ApProvaal URBAN ENVIRONMENT AD HOC COMMITTEE MAY 13, 1986- 4:00 PM IOWA CITY RECREATION CENTER - ROOM B MEMBERS PRESENT: Baker, Hradek, Jakobsen, Jordan, Lundquist, Novick, Nowysz, Wachal MEMBERS ABSENT: Horowitz, Koch, Strait STAFF PRESENT: Franklin, Rockwell, Mullen RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL 1. The Urban Environment Ad Hoc Committee recommends that the City Council adopt measures which will encourage the preservation of existing tree cover and other natural features along all of Iowa City's entranceways, will encourage the development of entranceways in a manner that presents an attractive and inviting impression to the motorist entering the City, and which will discourage uses that blight the City's entranceways. These measures should include: Adoption of an overlay zone or similar designation which extends along the right-of-way and 150 feet from the paving on either side of it from the corporate boundaries to a point on each entranceway. The overlay zone would require the submission of a site development plan for any construction, expansion, or reconstruction which is located, in whole or in part, within the overlay zone, except for single-family dwellings and duplexes. Existing ordinances and statutes relating to nuisances should be strengthened to permit the City to take action to eliminate visually blighting conditions along entranceways. 2. The Urban Environment Ad Hoc Committee recommends that the City Council direct that the Planning and Zoning Commission in its review of the subdivision ordinance and Comprehensive Plan give consideration to buff- ers between different land uses and to scenic vistas. CALL TO ORDER AND CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES Baker called the meeting to order at 4:10 PM. Hradek moved to accept the April 8, 1986, minutes. Nowysz seconded. The motion passed unanimously. DISCUSSION OF ENTRANCEWAYS, BUFFERS AND SCENIC VISTAS Entranceways Franklin noted the major entranceways to the City as determined through previous UEAHC discussions. She had not included Highway 6 from Coralville, because she felt there is no distinct boundary and little that could be changed or protected as part of an entranceway. ZM -41 Urban Environment Ad Hoc Committee May 13, 1986 Page 2 Nowysz commented that the property by the Siesta Motel and the Grzette Build- ing had been purchased recently and new development was possible in the near future on that site. If Highway 6 was included in the list of entranceways, the City might have more control over the landscaping of such developments. Baker said that he was comfortable leaving it out. Novick noted that strip development does disappear at Rocky Shore Drive. Baker asked how the Committee could justify discriminating between various entranceways. Lundquist felt that all entranceways should be included in an ordinance. The Committee consensus was to include Highway 6 as a major entrancway. Franklin explained that she had included Rochester Avenue (Local Road) be- cause it was likely to become a major entranceway once Scott Boulevard was extended to the north. She considered Lower (Jest Branch Road a minor entranceway. Jakobsen asked about American Legion Road. Franklin replied that it was developed rosidentially almost all the way to the city limits. Lundquist stated that she felt uncomfortable picking and choosing major vs. minor entranceways. She wondered if a recommendation could be made that would include all entranceways and exempt single family dwellings. After some discussion of Lundquist's idea, consensus of the Committee was to in- clude all entranceway properties under the site review requirement, but exempt single family dwellings and duplexes. The Committee proceeded to discuss the concept of an entranceway overlay zone in which site development plans would be required. Most of the discussion centered on targeting development within an area 150' from the right-of-way. In response to a concern expressed regarding extra wide rights-of-way and the impact this concept would have on adjacent properties, Franklin suggested that the Committee consider measuring 150' from the pavement edge instead of from the right-of-way line, as a more reasonable requirement. Jakobsen agreed that in some cases where the right-of-way is set back a long way from the paving, the 150' from the right-of-way requirement might prove excessive. Jordan suggested that requiring site review of development on entranceway properties might be making it more difficult for developers. Lundquist responded that it depended on what was required as part of the site review process, and Franklin added that it would mean added review for lots less than 2 acres. Franklin pointed out that the developer may be able to use the natural environment that is already there to fulfill any requirements. Franklin asked the Committee's feeling about needing better control over public nuisances along entranceways. The Committee concurred that it would be a benefit to the community to clean up some of the unsightly existing uses in entranceways. Wachal asked if the Committee would like to consider the Iowa River as an entranceway into the City. Baker and Novick urged the Committee to stay with roads only to avoid slowing down the process. Wachal said the Riverfront Commission's major concern was for dumping that occurs between businesses and the river. Nowysz thought that the Riverfront Commission could obtain endorsements from other committees if they wanted to take separate action, but inclusion of the river as an entranceway would complicate the issue. t- Urban Environment Ad Hoc Committee May 13, 1986 Page 3 MOTION: Jakobsen moved to recommend that City Council adopt measures which will encourage the preservation of existing tree cover and other natural features along all of Iowa City's entranceways, will encourage the develop- ment of entranceways in a manner that presents an attractive and inviting impression to the motorist entering the City, and which will discourage uses that blight the City's entranceways. These measures should include: 1. Adoption of an overlay zone or similar designation which extends along the right-of-way and 150 feet from the paving on either side of it from the corporate boundaries to a point on each entranceway. The overlay zone would require the submission of a site development plan for any construction, expansion, or reconstruction which is located, in whole or in part, within the overlay zone, except for single-family dwellings and duplexes. sancs 2 sExistintrengthenedd to nces permitand thestatutes to take action to ieliminatehvisually bl- htin conditions.along entranceways. � 9 9 Nowysz seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Buffers, Scenic Vistas MOTION: Novick moved that the Committee recommend that City Council direct that the Planning and Zoning Commission in its review of the subdivision ordinance and Comprehensive Plan give consideration to buffers between dif- ferent land uses and to scenic vistas. Nowysz seconded. The motion passed unanimously. BUS TOUR REPORT Baker reported that he had spoken to Lundquist about delaying the bus tour until the Planning and Zoning Commission had an opportunity to discuss the scope of environmental regulations this fall. Jordan stated that Planning and Zoning had already begun the discussion. Lundquist felt the date should be changed to avoid a variety of conflicts. Hradek pointed out that the Parks and Recreation bus tour was scheduled for the same day (June 7). Novick asked if the Committee wanted Planning and Zoning to discuss the issues before or after the bus tour. Franklin suggested that the Committee invite athe Hme bout o cheduling,sthe sbus tour was sociation mrescheduleders on efor o July 19, fter more discussion 19, 1986. OTHER BUSINESS Baker pointed out that the next meeting (June 10) would be the as meeting of the Urban Environment Ad Hoc Committee. The agenda will include making final bus tour arrangements, discussing open space tax incentives, discussing the consolidation of some boards or commissions and formulating any recommen- dations to the City Council. U _A" Urban Environment Ad Hoc Committee May 13, 1986 Page 4 Novick reported that she and Seiberling were preparing a slideshow that will be viewed at the Library during July, 1986 and maybe at the mall during June. Novick would be setting up a work session, and each Committee member would be invited to attend if interested. Lundquist passed out a preliminary listing of people who will be invited to join the UEAHC bus tour. The Chamber of Commerce will call and remind people to come and will provide refreshments prior to the tour. Novick asked if the public was invited. After a brief discussion, it was decided that the public should be invited and public announcements would be made. Nowysz recommended that everyone drive by to look at the beautiful wild flowers on Rocky Shore that had been placed there by Project GREEN. She said that the City of Chicago had used Iowa City's project as a model, and had raised over $50,000 to carry out similar projects in the Chicago area. Meeting adjourned at 5:11 PM by acclamation. Minutes submitted by Christine Mullen. MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT nA U O DAPRIL 9, 1986 - 4:30 PM CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Fisher, Mask, McDonald, Messier, Randall MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Boyle, Franklin, Frantz, Van Steenhuyse The meeting was called to order at 4:35 PM. Randall moved that the minutes from the March 12, 1986 minutes be approved. The motion passed unanimously. APPEAL ITEMS: 1. A-8601. A public hearing on a request for an appeal submitted by Richard Ziock concerning issuance of a building permit for property located at 119 Myrtle Avenue. This item is continued from the March 12, 1986 regular meeting. Franklin said that the plot plan which was unavailable at the last meeting was included with the packet distributed to the members of the Board. This plan shows that the property in question has 24 parking spaces. However, Frantz recently inspected the property and found that 2 spaces shown on the plot plan are unusable. One, on the west side of the building, was removed when the disputed addition was added in 1979; the other is blocked by a stairway in the center of the building. Therefore, the building is one space short of the required 23 parking spaces. Fisher asked about the current status of the building permit. Boyle an- swered that it is currently suspended awaiting the outcome of the appeal, and would remain suspended unless the parking requirements are met. Fisher asked if the owner, Gregory Apel, had requested a variance. Franklin an- swered that Apel said he would remove the center stairway in order to bring the property into compliance. Richard Ziock of 207 Myrtle Avenue rose in favor of the appeal. He said that e a an abstract showing that he owned the disputed area of South Riverside Court. He also said that the evidence is clear enough to over- come the presumption that the city acted legally in granting the 1979 permit. He added that the lack of a plot plan from 1979 as well as Apel 's statement at the last meeting that Apel does not own South Riverside Court was enough to sustain the appeal. Ziock showed Boyle his abstract. Boyle said that the abstract did not show if the disputed area was include in the title, since there was no legal description outlining the boundaries of the property. Fisher asked for the date of the abstract; Ziock said it was made in 1983. Randall noted that the dispute involves a building permit issued in 1979, and Mask added that the issue is if anyone acted improperly in the issuance of that permit. Boyle said that if the 1979 permit was issued properly, then Apel is acting legally in expanding the building's interior into the addition built in Board of Adjustment April 9, 1986 Page 2 =Ik 1979. Mask said that there was still no conclusive evidence proving that the 1979 permit was issued improperly. Boyle reminded the Board that the burden of proof is on the appellant; in this case, Ziock. Gregor Apel of 116 Marietta and owner of 119 Myrtle, rose to say that the e ays in construction resulting from the appeal have been costly. He also said that while he did not own the property in 1979 when the addition was built, he felt that Ziock must have witnessed it being built, and wondered why Ziock didn't try to prevent it then. BOARD DISCUSSION Randall said that there wasn't enough evidence to sustain the appeal. Mask agreed, and added that since this is an interior expansion that does not add to the density of the area, she can see no reason to overturn the permit. Fisher asked Ziock when he moved onto his property. Ziock said he moved there after the addition was built. He said that he has not seen any evidence that Mr. Ziegler (who owned 119 Myrtle in 1979) owned South River- side Court at the time the permit was granted in 1979. Fisher asked Ziock to clarify which property he owned in the area. Ziock pointed out his properties on a map which he showed to the Board. He said that when he bought a parcel west of Apel's property, he also gained ease- ment rights over South Riverside Court. He said that these rights were given to him by the former owners of the lot. McDonald asked if there was anything in the 1979 permit which indicated the inspector assumed that South Riverside Court fulfilled the rear yard re- quirement. Franklin said no. McDonald asked if a plot plan missing from the building files is out of the ordinary. Frantz answered yes, it is. McDonald replied that this situation bothers him. Mask said that she was also concerned, but wondered if having the plot plan in the files would make a difference. Since the building permit was signed by a trained inspector, she assumes that the permit was issued properly. Fisher added that a plot plan may have shown that Ziegler owned South Riverside Court, or any of several other possibilities; there is no evidence to determine definite ownership. Boyle added that there must be some evidence produced showing that Ziegler did not own the property when the permit was issued. Fisher asked how the parking issue should be resolved. Boyle said that the building is currently in violation of the parking regulations. Franklin added that the current building permit will continue to be stayed so long as the parking regulations are not met. Boyle said that the Board could deny the appeal on the condition that Apel bring the property into compli- ance. He said that it would be best to vote on two motions: the first on whether to grant the appeal based on the legality of the 1979 permit, and the second based on the parking regulations. Board of Adjustment April 9, Page 3 Ziock asked if the building would still be in compliance with the building ere code if the center stairway were removeWouldabez sufficienttto meet the stairways at each end of thebuilding requirements of the Building rounds that the Masked moved that App and requirement was not Appeal Item A-8601 be sustained on tile g olled the Board. The vote was 0-5; the permit issued in 1979 was invalid because the rear met. Randall seconded. Franklin appeal was denied on the above grounds. rounds that the Appeal Item A-8601 be sustained on the grounds asked that Mask moved that Appeal Item parking regulations have not been met. Messier seconded. that ethe revoked unless the owner pro - tion be clarified. Mask amendepermi srtRandallion to rseconded the amended Al -8601 be sustained and the current arkingP p in favor of the vides the required nulled theer of Board. The vote was 5 0 motion. Franklin p motion. SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS: Gregory Apel for a on a request submitted by ro erty located 5E-8603. A public hearing fy ti'e rear yard requirement for property 1986 special excepeiAvenue.°d�This item is continued from the March 12, at 119 My regular meeting.ranted, w moot,le added that if 5E-8603 is 9 based on the decision made on Appeal Fisher asked if this item is no Item A-8601. Franklin said no. Boy then A-8601 would become moot. ranting the special Franklin p development of the area. She advised resented the staff report. She said that 9 appurtenances on the building that extended. over the lot line, exception would not affect the futbeeremovedp She sad that staff recom- that the abP and abutments, such as a balcony mends that 5E-8603 be approved.to modify the rear yard to 2 feet or lied that the request is for a reduction to zero McDonald asked if the owner is asking violate the one foot. Franklin replied appurtenances have to be removed. d Franklin feet. Randall asked why ro act °ver the rear lot line,en if the special answered that since they p be thus ate ranted. Franklin said that tlegalwanddconfo�ming, Thus spirit of the code. McDonald also asked what would happen exception were not it would make the building effect, but g avoiding problems in the future. to the Board, which showed Apel showed a photo of the rear of the building the appurtenances in question. He said that he would remove them. Ziock rose in opposition to the applicatnd He said that this request is an improperthe city would allow an illegal use and then use of a special exception and should be treated as a variance request. He questioned why ranting this request. He showed the Board a give it official sanction by 9 map showing a utility pole in South Riverside Court which he said serve peel's property only. He asked that it also be removed. Fisher asked if Board of Adjustment April 9, 1986 Page 4 the wires on the pole connect to any others. Ziock said no. Apel showed a photo to the Board which indicated that the pole in question was connected by wires to other poles. There was some discussion over whether the pole is privately owned or owned by the utility. Ziock then said that the dumpster serving Apel's building is his main concern; he said that it is currently in South Riverside Court, and he would like to have it removed. Fisher answered Ziock's contention that this request is more properly considered a variance by saying that the yard requirements are appropriate- ly considered under special exceptions. Boyle added that the Board does not have the power to consider the propriety of variance and special excep- tion law; that is under the purview of the City Council. BOARD DISCUSSION: Randall asked if it is proper to make conditions on the granting of the application in regards to the utility poles and the dumpster. Boyle said that he cannot see a connection between the application and Ziock's re- quests. Fisher said the he was concerned about reducing the rear yard from 25 feet to 0. He said that if this were an application for new construc- tion, he would probably vote against it. McDonald agreed. He asked if the assumption that the city acted properly in 1979 is still controlling in this case. Boyle answered that this request is not contingent on that assumption. Franklin reiterated the staff's position that granting the application would not negatively affect the public interest, nor would it affect the use and enjoyment of the surrounding properties. Mask said that she is also concerned about the large rear yard reduction, but she doesn't see any detriment because of the history of the property. McDonald said that the situation still bothers him because the city is missing the plot plans from the 1979 building permit. Randall said that the best way to improve the situation would be to grant the special exception with the condition that the appurtenances be removed. McDonald moved that SE -8603 be granted, with the condition that the appur- tenances be removed. Randall seconded. Franklin polled the Board. The motion was approved, 3-2, with Fisher and McDonald voting against. The meeting was adjourned at 6:10. Franklin reminded the members of the spe- cial meeting on April 15. Minutes submitted by Steve Van Steenhuyse. _A1 MINUTES BOARDpp�p BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT LTJ APRIL 15, 1986 - 4:30 P.M. CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Fisher, Mask, Messier MEMBERS ABSENT: McDonald, Randall STAFF PRESENT: Boyle, Franklin, Van Steenhuyse The meeting was called to order at 4:38 p.m. SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS: 1. SE -8605. A public hearing on an application submitted by the Iowa City omk an Catholic Vicariate Board of Education for a special exception to permit the expansion of a religious institution at 2140 Rochester Avenue. Franklin told the Board that the applicants wished to build an addition onto Regina High School which would house Regina Elementary. She explained that religious institutions are permitted in the RS -5 zone only as a special exception, so any expansions must be approved by the Board before construction can begin. She went on to say that the proposed expansion meets the specific requirements as well as the general stan- dards of the ordinance. The addition would not cause the building to be too close to adjacent properties. Therefore, she said that staff recom- mends that SE -8605 be approved, as shown on the applicant's plot plan. She also mentioned that the building permit for the addition is currently under review. BillSue el, representative for the Vicariate, rose in support of the 5551 pp kation. He said that several members of the Vicariate Board of Education, as well as the architect, were present to answer questions. Dan Glasgow, owner of Dan's Short Stop store across Rochester Avenue from the site, rose to lend his support to the application. No one spoke in opposition. Franklin said that staff had not received any opposition from neighboring homeowners. BOARD DISCUSSION: Mask asked how far the addition would be from the nearest properties. Franklin answered that the building itself will be 70 feet from the nearest property line. Assuming that the house on the abutting property has at least a 20 -foot rear yard, the addition will be 90 feet from the nearest building. Mask asked if there will be playing fields in this area. Franklin answered no, they are on the opposite side of the building and will remain there. Fisher asked if any conditions should be attached to granting the appli- cation due to the fact that the building permit is under review. Franklin said no; full compliance with the Municipal Code is expected. Mask asked if there would be any changes in the traffic flow. Franklin Board of Adjustment April 15, 1986 Page 2 _—Al answered that there would be no changes. Fisher asked where the drop-off point would be for the elementary students. Sueppel answered that it would be near the convent. Mask asked about parking compliance. Franklin answered that the school only has to show compliance for the addition, which they have done. She added that elementary schools are not required to provide as many spaces as high schools. Fisher said that he took no exception to the application. Mask said that since there have been no complaints from neighbors and there will be no traffic problems, she can see no reason to deny the application. Messier moved that SE -8605 be approved. Mask seconded. Franklin polled the Board. The vote was 3-0 in favor of approval. 2. SE -8606. A public hearing on an application submitted by the Eastdale azo wners Association, et al., for a special exception to permit off-site parking for Lots 7, 8 and 9, Eastdale Mall Addition, on Lot 11 of the same addition. Franklin explained that the applicants are asking to use parking on Lot 11 for uses to be constructed on Lots 7, 8 and 9. Lot 11 surrounds these lots and has excess parking in relation to its current use (the Eastdale Mall). The owners want to fully develop Lot 8 and not use any of its space for parking. They wish, therefore, to gain approval from the Board for the provision of off-site parking on Lot 11 for Lots 7, 8 and 9. Franklin went on to explain that Lots 7, 8 and 9 would not have exclusive rights to the off-site parking on Lot 11. However, in no case would uses be permitted on Lots 7, 8, 9 or 11 which would require a greater number of spaces than were provided. She mentioned that an adjacent child-care center and the Wendy's restaurant currently have non-exclusive off-site parking access on Lot 11; this is not required parking. She said that staff recommends that the application be approved, and stated that the applicants were requesting an extension of the order of the Board from 6 months to 24 months. Fisher said that the plot plan shows driveways in the lots. Franklin said that these provide access from one lot to the next. Fisher then asked if the parking on Lot 11 provided for Lots 7, 8 and 9 would constrain Lot 11 if new tenants move in. Franklin said that since the area is zoned for retail uses and the parking has been calculated based on retail use, no constraint is anticipated. If a use requiring more spaces than retail were to contemplate locating here, there might be a problem. Mask asked how the request affects the parking regulations. She wanted to know if there would be a problem if every use on every lot was using its full allotment of parking spaces. Franklin answered that each lot must provide the required number of spaces which should handle the de- mand. Because of differing hours of service, she does not expect a problem, but emphasized that lots cannot "share" parking without further action by the Board; shared parking was not anticipated. t� Board of Adjustment April 15, 1986 Page 3 Messier asked if the City can refuse a certificate of occupancy for a new retailer if the parking requirements are not met on her or his lot. Franklin said yes. Messier noted that this could be used as a way of policing the parking requirements for new retailers. Mask asked if Lot 10 is included in the application. Franklin answered no; Lot 10 must provide its own parking. She added that if the off-site spaces allocated to Lots 7, 8 and 9 are not used, they will be available for Eastdale Mall. Dell Richard, representing the Eastdale Mall Owners Association, rose in avor o t e application. He said that the Owners Association originally planned to develop the land as requested back in 1976. He said that they were surprised to find that a special exception would be necessary. He closed by saying that the Owners Association is requesting the special exception so that they can develop the lots as they originally intended. Fisher asked about the applicant's request to extend the order of the Board from 6 months to 24 months. Boyle said that the law does not restrain the Board from granting such a request. Richard said that he expects the affected lots to be developed within 6 months, but they are requesting 24 months in case some arrangements fall through. Mask asked if anyone had contacted staff in opposition to the applica- tion. Franklin said no. Fisher asked for a motion. Boyle said that granting the time extension should be in a separate motion. Franklin said that the required recordable agreements setting forth the allocations (as mentioned in the staff report) have been filed. Mask moved that SE -8606 be approved. Messier seconded. Franklin polled the Board. The vote was 3-0 in favor of approval. Mask moved that the Board extend its order from 6 months to 24 months in the case of SE -8606. Messier seconded. Boyle noted that substantial progress toward development must be made during this period. Franklin polled the Board. The vote was 3-0 in favor of extension. The meeting was adjourned at 5:17. Minutes submitted by Steve Van Steenhuyse. Approved by: 0=01 t' Mayor's Youth Employment Program 1{✓,,(Minutes Board of Directors Meeting May 21, 1986 Board Members Present: Doug Allaire, Bob Miller, Jan Liggett, Joan Jehle, Marsha La Follette. Staff Present: Peg McElroy, Teresa Win Call to Order: Joan Jehle called the meeting to order at 4:06 p.m. II. Approval of Minutes: Minutes from the March 12 and April 23, 1986, meetings were reviewed by the board. Jan Liggett/Bob Miller moved to approve them. MSC III. Financial Reports - January, February, March, and April, 1986: New expenditures are shown on the April report for the Summer Iowa Youth Conservation Corps project. The In -School Component fund balance is steady. A typographical error on the April report will be corrected. Marsha La Follette/Jan Liggett moved to approve the financial reports as corrected. MSC IV. Additional Agenda Items Peg reported that Bill Casey, publisher of the Daily Iowan, Is applying for the board position vacated by Mike Kennedy. At the June 17 City Council meeting the new board member will be appointed. Peg informed the board of the Residential Accessibility Grant Program. Through this program funds are available for work on the residences of elderly or physically limited individuals in the low/ moderate income range to improve accessibilty. Anyone interested should contact COIC Planning and Program Development. Peg has received the FY 85 Iowa Youth Corps Annual Report. It reports that 364 young people participated in the Summer Conservation Program and accomplished work appraised at $772,000. 933 were involved in the In -School Program with work accomplished valued at $840,558. The report was reviewed by board members present. VI. New Business Iowa Legislative Up -Date Peg has learned that the IYC In -School Programs and Summer Conservation Corps and the new Youth American Conservation Corps will receive lottery funds of $1,000,000 for FY 87. JoAnn Callison remains as the IYC coordinator in the newly organized Department for the Office of Economic Development in Des Moines. Peg reported that the legislature was considering merging the Iowa Youth Corps with Job Service of Iowa. The Iowa Association, of which she is a member, successfully hired a lobbyist to speak to legislatures on housing IYC In the Office of Economic Development. The new Youth American Conservation Corps will involve 18-24 year olds working In Iowa parks. It may be concentrated In the summer and will likely emphasize economically distressed counties. /�/�d PRSSicit�Review has completed a publicity review Peg informed the board that the Public Relations Students Society Of America, a group of U of I students, They also surveyed of Mayor's Youth. The brochure was the first step. 202 people about utheir alendarwasfcompletednshowingervit S,cwhat°canteen- Knowledge be done agers. A promotionalhad some very good by Ms, though9hout the year.some are costly•TJoanRsuggested putting up MYEP posters ideas, in City buses. Directors Evaluation ett volunteered to prepare the annual t Doug Allaire and Jan o b presented at the June 18 meeting, Directors Evaluation to be VII. Old Business FY 87 Budoet Approval approval of bodies, she will present the budget Peg stated that because she has not Yet received final FY 87 funding from some funding The City of Coralville revisions for approval at :he June meeting.is h. This has approved 81,750 {°thoughr$2 500twas requestedhe same level 0{ funding as last year, Quarterly Report ort. Peg will Board members have received copies of the the quarter Y report. give a comprehensive overview of the statistics at the end of year. th Cor s Iowa You - Summer Pro ram Report 18 summer IYC Peg reports that she has interviewed and selected C staff have chosen the site for the Napoleon Park res COIlaid the waterline a t - rooms to be built and Public ted a crew of 6 to work Works staff have youth. the parK. The Riverfront Commission has requesitness trail at on the riverbanks. Also, another crew will build a f the U of I Softball 'Complex, and party for May 29, 1986, from 4:00-5:30 p.m• at Shelter 012 in Board members are encouraged to attend the final workshop MYEP Youth on Thursday, Lower City Park. Refreshments will be served and recreati°na1 activities are planned. Doug Allaire/Jan Liggett moved to adjourn the meeting at 4:30. MSC Please note that the next board meeting will be held on June 25, 1986- If that date, please call the office. you have a conflict with Jo�JlPhlew ecresurer Teresa Ulin, Secretary 9 %10 t� MINUTES APPROWEN FORMAL MEETING PLAIIIIING E ZONING C011ISSION THURSDAY, MAY 15, 1986 - 7:30 P.M. CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Cooper, Dierks, Horowitz, Jordan MEMBERS ABSENT: Perry, Scott, Wallace STAFF PRESENT: Beagle, Boyle, Franklin, Manning RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL: 1. Recommend approval of S-8603, the revised preliminary plat submitted by Byron Beeler for Riverview Estates, Part Two, a County subdivision, locaton the resolutiontofotheodeficiwa enciest noted h of Stewart R the gentMay 8, 1986 staff report. 2. Recommend approval of S-8610, the final subdivision plat of Southwest Estates, Part Two subject to the final approval of legal papers. 3. Recommend approval of V-8602, the vacation of Hollywood Boulevard from a point approximately 400 feet east of the Broadway Street right- of-way to the east property line of the Iowa State Bank effective upon the completion and opening of the Broadway Street/Highway 6 intersec- tion. 4. Recommend to the City Council that the rezoning request submitted by William Boyd to rezone 3 acres east of Highway 1 and south of Dingleberry Road in the County from Al to RS be found inconsistent with the existing Area 4 policy which advocates agricultural use. REQUEST TO THE CITY MANAGER FOR STAFF ASSISTANCE: None. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Jordan called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC DISCUSSION: Al Wells, 751 Camp Cardinal Road, Coralville. Wells stated his support or a proposed OPDH ordinance permitting development of tracts of land less than two acres in size as planned development. Referring to the Emanuel House of Prayer site, Wells reiterated his proposal that was informally brought before the Commission a year ago to construct higher density structures utilizing an innovative design compatible with the Kirkwood neighborhood. For the past year, Dean Oakes, owner of the prop- erty, has extended tha purchase offer on the land, although losing $2,000 a month. If unable to develop the property because of the delay in ap- proval of the OPDH ordinance, Wells felt the property would be developed 99/ -I MINUTES PLAIIIIING & ZONING COMI4ISSIDII MAY 15, 1986 PAGE 2 in a way which would not benefit the community. Wells continued, adding that around the country, one sees many creative uses for areas like the House of Prayer. He stressed his purpose in development to benefit and improve the city and that his proposal for that site is the best option for the property. He concluded, urging the Commission to look hard at what they could do with the OPDH to make it acceptable. Jordan explained the Commission tabled the ordinance in order to allow further time for consideration. Franklin added the Commission wished to integrate discussion of the OPDH with discussion of new subdivision regulations and environmental regula- tions. She added that this work would probably not take place until late summer or fall. Horowitz stated she once championed the OPDH, but when she realized the number of multi -family units that could potentially be placed in a single family zone she was opposed. Some plats, according to a matrix distrib- uted by Franklin, could accommodate up to an 8-plex. She also felt the Emmanuel House of Prayer could be an example for testing the intentions and implementation of the OPDH and the environmental regulations. Dierks explained to Wells the Commission's concern with preserving the character of single family (RS -5, RS -8) zones. The Commission feared the potential misuse of the OPOH zone. Wells felt the Commission could tighten the ordinance to prohibit this possibility. He suggested the ordinance allow the Commission the final say on the design. He further stressed his frustration with the diffi- culty in doing something nice for Iowa City. Referring to an earlier remark from Wells, Jordan remarked that other cities could do what they wanted. Citizens and the Commission want to preserve the uniqueness of, Iowa City. Horowitz countered that she likes to see other ideas, and has an interest in what other cities are doing. Horowitz suggested the Commission bring the ordinance up for discussion at a future meeting where the majority of members would be present. Franklin mentioned there would not be a full commission until the July meetings. Dierks mentioned to Wells that another concern of the Commission involved parking. She expressed particular concern for the larger lots along North Dubuque St. where a 4-plex could be built, generating vehicular traffic that the neighborhood could not handle. Horowitz agreed, adding that parking is a problem particularly within the developed areas. Franklin stressed that the Commission does have the authority to deny a plan; if the preliminary plan is unacceptable, for example, if the Commis- sion does not want a 4-plex in a single family zone, then the Commission can deny the application. `A, MINUTES PLANNING Z ZONING COMMISSION MAY 15, 1986 PAGE 3 Horowitz moved that the motion which had been tabled regarding the Planned Development Housing Overlay Zone Regulations, Section 36-41, to permit the development of tracts less than two acres in size as planned developments, be brought back to the June 30, 1986 agenda. Dierks sec- onded the motion. The motion failed, 2-2 (Jordan and Cooper voting in the negative). The original motion to table consideration of the OPOH zone was, therefore, reaffirmed. CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF MAY 1, 1986: Franklin noted changes in the minutes since the informal meeting. Horowitz moved to accept the minutes of May 1, 1986 as submitted. Cooper seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously, 4-0. SUBDIVISION ITEMS: 1. S-8603. Public discussion of a revised preliminary plat submitted by Byron Beeler for Riverview Estates, Part Two, a County subdi- vision, located 1-1/2 miles north of Iowa City, south of Stewart Road. Beagle explained the revised preliminary plat submitted reduced the proposed number of lots from 20 to 12. Several items were yet out- standing but staff recommended the Commission forward the application to the City of Coralville with a recommendation for approval based on resolution of the seven items noted in Beagle's memorandum of May 8, 1986. Dierks expressed concern that there may still be major changes in the plan relative to sewer and water problems. Beagle noted according to Jud Te Paske, County Planner, the major concerns relate to the flood plain and are resolvable. Dierks focused her concern on the issue of the septic system. She noted that percolation tests haven't been completed. Franklin ex- plained that the plat is a preliminary one and all septic fields and wells must be approved before the final plat is granted approval. Horowitz agreed with Dierks feeling that the plat was being rushed through. Jordan pointed out that theirs was a courtesy review and the Commission should submit a recommendation while there is the opportu- nity. Cooper moved to approve the revised preliminary plat submitted by Byron Beeler for Riverview Estates, Part Two, a County subdivision, located 1-1/2 miles north of Iowa City, south of Stewart Road, contin- gent on the resolution of the deficiencies noted in the May 8, 1986 staff report. Horowitz seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously, 4-0. 99/ MINUTES PLA1111I1IG 8 ZOIIING C014141SSIOII MAY 15, 1986 PAGE 4 2. 5-8610• Publicf an subdon ivision onuplatted forbSouthwest Frank icr Es- tates, Part Two, a 22.64 acre tract of land located west of Freeway 218 and north of Rohret Road; 45 -day limitation period: 6/14/86, 60 -day limitation period: 6/29/86. Franklin informed the Commission that the legal papers requested had been received and that the other deficiencies concerning the labeling of easements on the plat had been met. Staff recommended approval of the application subject to the final approval of legal papers. Dierks moved to approve the final subdivision plat of Southwest EstatesPart Two - al Horowisubject tzs conded themoti n. The motion ce final arried unanimoroval of uslypapers. 0. VACATION ITEMS: 1. V-8602. Public discussion of a City -initiated application to vacate a portion of BHollywood roadway Street oe st of Boulevard rr Iowa State Bankom property. of With the approval of the rezoning for Pepperwood Place, the City Council and the developer agreed to the closing of Hollywood Boulevard to lessen traffic congestion. The street must be vacated before pavement is removed or the property is conveyed to a private entity. The conveyance will not take place until the opening of the Broad- way -Highway 6 intersection. Horowitz moved to approve the vacation of Hollywood Boulevard from a tieit0feet east the dnStreet he oheastproperyline ofthe IowaStateBakeffectiveupon the Coocompertion and secondedothemng of motion. Broadway4-intersection. O ZONING ITEMS: 1 Public s36n58(b)(4), to clarify the inte t of thioof an amendment to the Off -Street e provision. Section Beagle explained the change relates to use conversions and clarifies the term "physical limitations." The ambiguity in the Code concerned whether the intent was to limit parking compliance because of regula- tory limitations or because of limitations relative to the natural features of the site. nge as a clarifica- tion suggested theok r ecificallyatiany one natural feature. 1911 =11, MINUTES PLANNING Z ZONING COMMISSION 14AY 15, 1986 PAGE 5 In visiting the fraternity house which was the site that prompted the proposed amendment, Horowitz spoke to the house manager, who assured her there was no intention of parking between the tree and Burlington Street. The house intends to tear down a shed currently standing on the property and also purchase the adjacent property to accommodate parking. Horowitz noted the amendment proposed is one of the first steps toward implementing a part of the recommendations of the Urban Environment Ad Hoc Committee. Boyle interrupted discussion requesting a deferral to allow him the opportunity to revise the language of the ordinance. Horowitz moved to defer voting on the amendment to the Off -Street parking requirements pending review by the Legal staff. Dierks sec- onded the motion. In discussion, Horowitz mentioned she would like to see the ordinance encompass more natural features than just trees. Beagle pointed out if staff were to expand and include more natural features, more crite- ria for the limitations would be required. Franklin noted that devel- opment of criteria could be a lengthy process; criteria haven't been specifically defined by the Urban Environment Ad Hoc Committee. In voting, the motion to defer carried unanimously, 4-0. 2. CZ -8610. Public discussion of an application submitted by William Boyd to rezone 3 acres east of Highway 1 and south of Dingleberry Road in the County from Al to RS. Franklin noted the property is located in Area 4 of the Fringe Area Policy Agreement. The policy has not changed and still recommends agricultural use. Staff recommended a finding that the request is inconsistent with the existing Area 4 policy. Franklin mentioned the Fringe Area Policy Committee will be meeting May 30, 1986, at 8:00 a.m. in the Library. Horowitz moved to recommend to the City Council that the rezoning request be found to be inconsistent with the existing Area 4 policy which advocates agricultural use. Cooper seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously, 4-0. OTHER BUSINESS: Horowitz announced that the Historic Preservation Commission's proposal to designate the north part of Iowa City as a historic district is progress- ing. She informed the Historic Preservation Commission that Planning and Zoning may not be able to work with the proposal until the fall. Jordan noted that the Urban Environment Ad Hoc Committee bus tour should be coming up soon. The date of July 15, 1986, was announced. 99/ —Al MINUTES PLANNING L ZONING COMMISSION 14AY 15, 1986 PAGE 6 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Minutes submitted by Linda Manning. Approved by: 141z, Sally Yerks, Secretary eco MINUTES IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION MAY 8, 1986 MEMBERS PRESENT: Tiffany, Ashby, Sokol, Lewis, Knowling STAFF PRESENT: Zehr, Brown GUESTS PRESENT: E. Jones, D. Huston Tiffany called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Minutes of the April 10, 1986 Airport Commission meeting were accepted as presented. Zehr presented the bills for the month and explained them briefly. Final payment for engineering services on the Corporate Hangar to H.R. Green Company was included with the monthly bills. The bills were approved as presented. OFFICE SPACE: Zehr present a lease for the office space located at 1701 S. Riverside Dr. Mr. Dan Nolan has deposited with the Airport Commission the first month's rent and a $800 security deposit. Mr. Nolan intends to use the office space for an art gallery and general office space, which is consistent with the airport zoning ordinance. The term of the lease is for one year with a one year option to renew. It was moved and seconded to enter into the lease agreement. All members voting aye. ASSIGNMENT OF HIM HANGAR LEASE: Hansen Lind Meyer, P.C. has changed their name to Hansen Lind Meyer INC., and have requested a transfer of their hangar lease with the Airport Commission to the new entity. Brown explained the details of such a transfer to the commission and indicated that the paper work presented by HIM for the transfer was in order. It was moved and seconded to accept the transfer of the lease. All members voted aye. COMPLIANCE PROJECT REPORT: Zehr reported that the appraisals of the land will be completed by the end of the month and offers would be presented to the land owners and/or condemnation proceedings would commence. It is anticipated the construction could begin within two months of the offers being made to the land owners. Zehr informed the commission that Metro Pavers have accepted the commissions request to extend the offer period to 90 days. CHAIRMANS REPORT: Tiffany reported that the commission has recieved a vote from Council to proceed with the Compliance Project. Tiffany reported on an objection letter he has recieved that was addressed to Council and objects to the Airport Zoning Ordinance. Tiffany, Lewis and Zehr will review the letter and respond accordingly with Legal Dept. input. PUBLIC INPUT: Zehr requested input from the commission regarding summer meeting times. Summer meetings will begin at 7:30 P.M. Zehr informed the commission the security fence along runway 24 has been approved by the FAA and will be installed within the month. Airport access was discussed and decided a stop light was not needed. E.K. Jones suggested one-way entrance and exit drives be considered. Zehr informed the commission that the final lift of asphalt would be installed around the corporate hangar. Zehr described needed repairs to the west t -hangars. r will the ng Quotes ifvtheeen workedicandbeor the performedkunder'rwarranty. Zehrt'reportediheiwillcontractor be attending the National Airports Conference May 19-22, 1986. E.K. Jones informed the commission that he has recieved complaints about the concrete condition on the taxiways. Zehr will correct the problem. Meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m. MINUTES COMMITTEE ON COMMUNITY NEEDS MAY 20, 1986 - 3:30 P.M. LIBRARY R0014 B MEMBERS PRESENT: Becker, Cooper, Kubby, Kuhn, Lauria, Leshtz, McCoy, Parden, Patrick, Snider, Watts STAFF PRESENT: Milkman, Nugent, Barnes, Munson CALL TO ORDER AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Kubby called the meeting to order at 3:35 p.m. Kuhn moved to approve the minutes of the April 15 meeting. Becker seconded. The motion passed unani- mously. PUBLIC/MEMBER DISCUSSION: Kubby said that the ad hoc transportation committee set up by the Johnson County Council of Governments will make a recommendation to City Council that CC14 look at transportation issues periodically. Kubby wondered what the Committee thought of this. She said that the Council is reluctant to set up more bureaucracy and has therefore shied away from setting up a transporta- tion committee. After some discussion, the informal consensus of the Commit- tee was that CCN would look at transportation issues if the City Council would clearly define CCN's role and would listen to what the Committee had to say. Milkman reported that the City had purchased the house at 228 West Benton Street for $43,900. The City Council acted rapidly when the house came on the market. The City will wait to repair the culvert on Benton Street until University Heights repairs the sewer in that area. Cooper said she would inform Mr. Merle Trummel of the Miller/Orchard neighborhood. Nugent requested a change in the date for the next CCTV meeting, so that she and anyone from the Committee who wanted to could attend a meeting relating to housing finance in Des Moines on June 17. The Committee agreed to change the date of the next meeting to June 10. Kubby and Lauria both expressed interest in attending the conference. Kubby reported that the changes in the Community Development Plan were being typed and would be reviewed by the Community Development Sub -committee before they were brought to CCN. DISCUSSION OF CCN RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: Kubby reported that both of the recommendations that the CCN made at the last meeting to the Council had been approved. The first was the extension of the rental rehabilitation area. The second was the Residential Accessibility Granroram ho IowatCityghome which � owner who might benefitKfrom uhn rthoi'steprogr m d that anyone hould wknows contactKim Dittmer (356-5253). q9.3 t� Committee on Community Needs May 20, 1986 Page 2 DISCUSSI014 OF HUD REPRESENTATIVES' CDBG MONITORING VISIT: Milkman reported that HUD had reviewed Iowa City COBB funded activities and they were very pleased overall. When they found out that all projects except for one were initiated by the CCN or the public, they were astonished. Most cities do not do that well. They said programs in general are not well balanced. Iowa City for instance emphasizes human services, other cities emphasize economic development, housing, etc. The program is intended to serve a wide variety of the needs of low and moderate income residents. Other minor problems that HUD found included the justification of the Napoleon Park project. The City must show that the end result will serve low and moderate income residents. The Committee felt this would be no problem. Milkman basically agreed, but said that the census tract in that area includes a lot of higher income residents to the east of the area surrounding Napoleon Park. HUD representatives also found that one of the City's subrecipients kept inadequate ledgers (no funds were misused, however). HUD also suggested a way to simplify the income verification process on small loans which will save Pam Barnes a lot of time. In the exit conference with the Acting City Manager, HUD noted that the unallocated funds (from the Congregate Housing Project) had run close to the maximum. HUD understands what the situation was, and knows that the funds are now allocated. OF THE 4NNING ASSOCIAT: Nth Nugent said that the award will be given to individuals and organizations for their planning efforts in certain areas. In 1987 the emphasis is on planning for special populations, and the City has numerous programs that would be applicable. The Committee was interested in pursuing the award. QUARTERLY REPORTS FOR MAY: Systems Unlimited Group Homes - Becker reported that three adult houses are etng cons FuEfeu Tur the children in the Systems homes now who are growing up. They are expected to close on May 23 with HUD; after that construction will start. Terrell Mill Park Improvements - Leshtz reported that three benches would be u—1 FTacinge rive h bench will have a cement pad beneath it. Since they received only $1200 instead of the requested $1800, shade trees will not be put in. The Riverfront Commission found two benches in storage that can be used for the project. Lauria asked if the two free benches had been figured into the $1800 or if there was additional money to buy a few trees? Kuhn felt it would really be nice to include trees. Leshtz said he would check on it and report back. Residential Accessibility Program - Kuhn reported earlier. Emer enc Housing Project Repairs - Cooper reported that the project had not s are ye 'T use ey did not have the funds yet. Milkman said she ex- pected a final list of projects shortly and that the contract would be signed by Council early in June. 993 -A, I •. DID 0I• ... 'AW Awl -,AW AW AW A Committee on Community Needs flay 20, 1986 Page 2 DISCUSSION OF HUD REPRESENTATIVES' CDBG MONITORING VISIT: Milkman reported that HUD had reviewed Iowa City CDBG funded activities and they were very pleased overall. When they found out that all projects except for one were initiated by the CCN or the public, they were astonished. Most cities do not do that well. They said programs in general are not well balanced. Iowa City for instance emphasizes human services, other cities emphasize economic development, housing, etc. The program is intended to serve a wide variety of the needs of low and moderate income residents. Other minor problems that HUD found included the justification of the Napoleon Park project. The City must show that the end result will serve low and moderate income residents. The Committee felt this would be no problem. Milkman basically agreed, but said that the census tract in that area includes a lot of higher income residents to the east of the area surrounding Napoleon Park. HUD representatives also found that one of the City's subrecipients kept inadequate ledgers (no funds were misused, however). HUD also suggested a way to simplify the income verification process on small loans which will save Pam Barnes a lot of time. In the exit conference with the Acting City Manager, HUD noted that the unallocated funds (from the Congregate Housing Project) had run close to the maximum. HUD understands what the situation was, and knows that the funds are now allocated. DISCUSSIO14 OF THE AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION'S 1987 NATIONAL PLANNING AWARDSPROGRAM: Nugent said that the award will be given to individuals and organizations for their planning efforts in certain areas. In 1987 the emphasis is on planning for special populations, and the City has numerous programs that would be applicable. The Committee was interested in pursuing the award. QUARTERLY REPORTS FOR MAY: S stems Unlimited GroupHomes - Becker reported that three adult houses are Belt cons ruc a or the children in the Systems homes now who are growing up. They are expected to close on May 23 with HUD; after that construction will start. Terrell Mill Park Improvveme_nttss - Leshtz reported that three benches would be 75-77facin�river. aE cc Dench will have a cement pad beneath it. Since they received only $1200 instead of the requested $1800, shade trees will not be put in. The Riverfront Commission found two benches in storage that can be used for the project. Lauria asked if the two free benches had been figured into the $1800 or if there was additional money to buy a few trees? Kuhn felt it would really be nice to include trees. Leshtz said he would check on it and report back. Residential Accessibility Program - Kuhn reported earlier. Emergency Housing Project Repairs - Cooper reported that the project had not MERE ye ecause ey i not have the funds yet. Milkman said she ex- pected a final list of projects shortly and that the contract would be signed by Council early in June. 995 Committee on Community Needs May 20, 1986 Page 3 United Action for Youth - Patrick reported that they had $6000 but had not spent any of i ye o date, they had received three bids on the needed equipment that satisfied both HUD's requirements and affirmative action. They will be following up on these three bids, and expect to purchase equipment soon. OTHER BUSINESS: Milkman was asked about Handicare. She explained the numerous problems of the agency and stated that Handicare still must devise a system for dealing with their debts. Also they must submit monthly statements that add up properly. Milkman said that $3,000 has been released for a temporary ramp, but the current Board of Directors chose to wait until they could construct a permanent one. Milkman reminded the Committee that at the next meeting the CDBG budget amendments will be presented and that there may be funds to reallocate. She also told the Committee that Monica Moen will no longer work with CCN; Melody Rockwell will be replacing her. Leshtz moved to adjourn. Becker seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Minutes submitted by Christine Mullen. 99,E _A1 II f(!) MINUTES PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE Subject to Approval WEDNESDAY, JUNE 4, 1986 - 4:00 P.M. IOWA CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY - ROOM B MEMBERS PRESENT: Eckholt, Haupert, Nagle, Novick, Sinek, Welt MEMBERS ABSENT: Alexander, Amert, Seiberling, Sumnerwill STAFF PRESENT: Cain, Ramsdell GUESTS PRESENT: Glenn Siders and Dan Tease, Commerce Center; Laura Madewell and Dan Van Woert, Plaza Centre One RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL The Committee recommends approval of the monument sign planned for 325 E. Washington Street (Commerce Center). CALL TO ORDER Eckholt called the meeting to order at 4:10 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Sinek moved that the minutes of the April 16, 1986, meeting be approved and Haupert seconded the motion. The minutes were approved unanimously. CONSIDERATION OF COMMERCE CENTER SIGN APPLICATION Glenn Siders presented the background of the proposed monument sign for Commerce Center (325 Washington Street), explaining that the original sign proposed in November 1985 was too large to meet the sign ordinance regula- tions for the CB -10 zone. Since that time, the ordinance had been amended and the proposed sign had been modified to meet the new regulations of the ordinance. Dan Tease showed a drawing to the Committee indicating the location of the sign in the northeast corner of the lot. Tease commented that the dimensions of the new sign are 8 -feet by 3 -feet in comparison to the 12 -feet by 3 -feet dimensions of the original sign. He also pointed out that the letter style will be fenice regular and not the style shown on the drawing which had been distributed to Committee members. Tease also explained that the sign will be aluminum with cut-out letters, covered with plexiglass, and illuminated interiorly. He then showed a colored rendering of Commerce Center, saying that the background of the sign will be a dark bronze with the letters in a lighter color. He indicated that the landscaping had been completed for the most part. Siders added that the sod now in place where the sign will be located is only temporary. Haupert moved that the Committee recommend approval of the application to the City Council. Sinek seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Haupert, Novick and Eckholt commended the developer for the tasteful renova- tion of the building. MINUTES DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE JUNE 4, 1986 - 4:00 P.M. PAGE 2 a Siders mentioned that additional landscaping was being considered for the northwest corner of the lot, which appears bare, and for the southeast corner in order to hide the transformer located there. He asked for ideas from the Committee in this regard. Novick asked what type of plant would be put in these areas. Siders replied that probably European cranberry plants would be used. Novick commented that she agreed with the idea provided that the same varieties of plant were used. The general consensus of the members was that the additional landscaping was acceptable. CONSIDERATION OF PLAZA CENTRE ONE SIGN APPLICATION Cain explained that this application was coming before the Committee's review somewhat out of sequence from the normal procedure since before the Committee could recommend approval of the application to the City Council, a variance of the present sign ordinance must be granted by the Board of Adjustment. To save time, the applicant had specifically requested that DRC review the application and offer recommendations before the Board of Adjustment consid- ered the application for variance. Cain emphasized that any recommendation that the Committee might make could have no bearing whatsoever on the pro- ceedings of the Board of Adjustment. Laura Madewell added that if a variance were not granted, the other alterna- tive would be to go directly to the City Council and request an amendment to the City Code. Madewell said that tenants of Plaza Centre One had requested signage and that the proposed two monument signs were the design solution found to best complement the appearance of Plaza Centre One without disturb- ing the architecture of the building. She then outlined the four options for signage open to Plaza Centre One, mentioning a sign on the canopy, a facia sign, an awning sign which would require removal of the canopy, and a monu- ment sign. The most viable of these options was considered to be the monu- ment sign, and Madewell explained that one monument sign allows space for only four tenants while there was a need for space for six tenants. For this reason, two monument signs were designed. The present sign ordinance for the CB -10 zone permits only one monument sign and calls for a 5 -foot setback of the sign. Madewell remarked that the building was constructed up to the site line and that no setback was possible. She then showed a drawing of the proposed signs and indicated that the sign cabinet would be of aluminum with subsurface applied graphics. It would also be illuminated and in the same color scheme as that of the existing canopy. Eckholt asked what would happen if future tenants also wanted to appear on the signs. Madewell replied that only six of the occupants had requested space on the signs and, because the present sign ordinance allows for only four tenants per sign, another variance would be required should new tenants also want space on the signs. Nagle commented that the building had a much cleaner appearance without these signs and that the graphics of the proposed signs lacked consistency, as the logos of each of the tenants varied in letter style and size. Madewell responded that the signs had been designed as such in an effort to please the tenants while making the sign attractive. Eckholt expressed concern for the susceptibill`.ty of the signs to vandalism, mentioning that signs of this type MINUTES DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE JUNE 4, 1986 - 4:00 P.M. PAGE 3 -1 had been vandalized in the past. Madewell pointed out that a previous sign was free-standing and that the proposed signs would be attached to both the columns and the base of the building. Eckholt also inquired as to the effect of the signs on the traffic flow. Madewell showed on the plan that the location of the signs ten feet beyond the egress of the door with a distance of 16 feet between the two walls would create a sort of gateway to the building entrance. Haupert asked if a facia sign which did not require a variance would be considered. Madewell answered that the only location for such a sign on the ground level would be on the columns. She said that the problem with this option was that it would be difficult to install an illuminated facia sign and, for competition purposes, the tenants had specifically asked that the sign be illuminated. She pointed out that signage was already provided for those tenants on the perimeter of the ground floor. Eckholt asked if the Committee wished to make a recommendation at this time, and Cain stressed that the respresentatives of Plaza Centre One needed to hear the opinions of DRC before proceeding through the remaining steps to acquire a permit for the sign as proposed. She added that if the variance were not granted, it would be likely that any suggested amendment to the City Code would be referred to DRC for review and comment. Sinek suggested that if the lettering of the signs were of the same size and type, the proposed design would be more appealing and acceptable to the Committee.- Eckholt and Novick agreed, and Novick added that the type style of the lettering should also match that of the canopy. She also felt that a facia sign on the column would be a viable alternative if the monument signs were not possible. Nagle stated that he thoughtthe signs as proposed detracted from the build- ing. Welt commented that he understood the tenants' desire to be identified but that there was no neat place to p<:t a sign in this situation. He stated that the proposed signs were a workable solution with the exception of the inconsistency of the lettering. Nagle moved to recommend that the sign application not be approved; Novick seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 3-2-1, with Haupert abstaining and Welt and Eckholt voting no. Cain said that this recommenda- tion would not be sent to Council unless the Board of Adjustment granted a variance to allow the proposed sign. DISCUSSION OF THE CITY PLAZA ORDINANCE AMENDMENT It was announced that on June 3 the City Plaza Cafe Ordinance proposal was approved by the City Council after the third reading. Welt noted his concern about the litter problem on Sunday and Monday mornings when the City mainte- nance crews are off-duty. Other members also expressed their concern with this issue. 99 fe t- MINUTES DESIGN REVIEW C014MITTEE JUNE 4, 1986 - 4:00 P.M. PAGE 4 DISCUSSION OF STEPS FOR DESIGN REVIEW CODE RECOMMENDATION Eckholt suggested that the next meeting focus on the Design Review Committee discussion with the City Council at their April 21, 1986, meeting. He recom- mended that the meeting be set up at a time when more members could attend. Cain mentioned that representatives from the Downtown Association, Barbara Walters and John Gross, should also be asked to attend the meeting. The scheduled meeting for June 18 conflicted with the schedules of several mem- bers and it was decided to set up a meeting for sometime during the week of June 23. Several members expressed surprise at the public reaction to the Committee's proposal for changes. Eckholt commented that those opposed to the changes be invited to the next DRC meeting so that they be given a chance to communicate their ideas. He also said that the immediacy of the changes which had come across to the public was not created by the Committee. Welt said that he believed that public opinion was either strongly in favor of strongly opposed to the proposed changes. CITY PLAZA SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT Novick explained that the subcommittee was being reorganized to comment on plantings in City Plaza and had met with Terry Trueblood, the new Parks and Recreation Director. Cain said that in the written subcommittee report which she would distribute before the next meeting, it was stressed that coopera- tion and coordination efforts between the Committee and the Department of Parks and Recreation be continued. Eckholt suggested that Trueblood be invited to a future meeting. ADJOURNMENT Eckholt declared the meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m. `Al