Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-07-29 Bd Comm minutesMINUTES IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION June 12, 1986 MEMBERS PRESENT: Lewis, Sokol, Knowling, Ashby, Tiffany STAFF PRESENT: Zehr, Brown, Wright GUESTS PRESENT: J. Griffin, B. Neuzil, E. Jones -1 Lewis called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. Minutes of the May 8 meeting were approved. Zehr presented the bills for the month and explained them briefly. The bills were approved for payment as presented. Payments to Slades and Noel's Tree Service will be held until the work is complete. LEASE OF LAND: Zehr explained a plan to lease one acre of land in the northeast corner airport to the Iowa City Schools for equipment storage. While the rental fee of $300 per year is nominal, the agreement will provide an easement and access to 10 acres of farm land which can then be developed commercially. Zehr read a resolution to hold a public hearing to consider the lease on July 17, 1986, at 7:30 p.m. Sokol moved to adopt the resolution, second by Ashby, and all members voted in favor of the motion. COMPLIANCE PROJECT REPORT; plehr reported the appraisals of land needed for the runwa ro3ect ave een com leted and offers will be made within the week. The offers may be considered for10 days, after which condemnation proceedings may be initiated. The entire procedure should take no more than 60 days, and then construction can begin. i Zehr read a resolution awarding the contract for this runway project to Metro Pavers of Iowa City. Ashby moved to adopt the resolution, second by Knowling, and all members voted in favor of the motion. AIRPORT/HANGAR SECURITY: Zehr reported on a recent breakin and robbery at the airport. a os, a scanner, microphones, and numerous personal items were taken from the manager's office. Doors and locks on offices, hangars and airplanes were damaged. Zehr has investigated the cost of installing a security alarm system. Freeman Locksmith Service will install an alarm system for an original fee of $350 per unit (a unit being one office, shop or hangar room) and will monitor and maintain the system for a fee of $17 per month. The commission agreed to purchase two units (for Zehr's office and shop) and to invite the hangar lessees to participate. E.K. Jones expressed concern that the police are not patrolling the airport area as often as they used to. Zehr will check with the Police Department regarding their patrol activities. IOWA CITY FLYING SERVICE: Mr. Jones reported that his insurance costs have risen by per mon since March 1, 1986, and asked the Commission's consent to raise hangar rents by $15 per month to offset his increased costs. Zehr noted that the increased rents would still be in line with other airports in Iowa. Jones agreed to continue his search for cheaper insurance and to lower the rent if and when he can lower his costs. Sokol moved to endorse the rent increase for now, and to review the matter again in August, second by Ashby. Tiffany, Ashby, Sokol and Knowling voted in favor, while Lewis abstained. AR3to I Minutes Iowa City Airport Commission June 12, 1986 Page 2 I I CHAIRMAN'S REPORT: Tiffany spoke briefly on recent developments. PUBLIC INPUT: Zehr will be on vacation June 18-25, and has engaged an answering service to Fandle phone calls. He recommended this system in place of the recording machine, because the personal response can provide reference phone numbers as needed, thus greatly improving the service. Mr. Lewis will be available as needed during Zehr's absence. Mr. Jones reported having observed unsafe operating practices on the ramps and runways, and asked the Commission's endorsement in reporting the individuals who commit them. Zehr reported on his recent trip to Seattle, where he learned of new developments in group insurance rates for FBO's, and also new types of weather observation equipment. The Annual Airport Breakfast is scheduled for August 24, 1986. Dennis Knowling has resigned from the Commission because he will soon move to a home outside the city limits. The Iowa City Council has announced the vacancy and will make an appointment on July 15, 1986. The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Recorder: Priscilla Wright I i i /64 s0P M MINUTES IOWA CITY ,PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES REGULAR MEETING THURSDAY, JUNE 26, 1986 - 4:00 P.M. ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE ROOM I PRESENT: Buchanan, Cavitt, Cox, Drum, Gelman, Grimes, Pegnetter, Willis ABSENT: Lyman STAFF: Eggers, Craig, Spaziani, Jehle i OTHERS PRESENT: Pat Forsythe, Executive Director, Library Foundation Meeting was called to order at 4:00p.m. by President Riley Grimes. The minutes for the regular meeting of May 22 and the special meeting of June 11 ; were approved after two corrections. The July booksale is July 19, not July 12. Willis/Cavitt. On page one, item one, of the June 11 minutes, it should say "three additional holidays," not "days." Willis/Buchanan. The disburse- ments for May were approved. Cavitt/Drum. The director reviewed the year end status of the FY86 budget. About $158,000 was spent on library materials. This is close to last year's figure. The excess funds in the Gifts and Bequests fund have now been depleted and by FY88 the library will need interest income from the Foundation to maintain current spending levels. Funds for library materials for FY87 will be about equal to those available for FY86. Income from fines does not equal the original estimate but will be close to the revised estimate of $66,000 made in April. On a motion by Buchanan and seconded by Cox, the Board voted to confirm the director's salary increase of 5%. Eggers reported that she had mistakenly told the Board that the City was allowing 5% for administrative salary in- creases in FY87. The correct figure is 4.5%. The director also reported on the following: 1. According to Assistant City Attorney David Brown, the agreement with New England Merchants Leasing is nearly ready. The public hearing is on July 1 and the Council should approve the agreement by mid-July. 2. Iowa City Public Library is part of a new state interlibrary loan tool called the Iowa Locator. This employs CD-ROM technology similar to the library's new bibliographic system. It will provide a union catalog of the holdings of those Iowa libraries with machine readable records, This should greatly enhance the interlibrary loan process in this area. 3. The library's public microcomputer is now booked solid most of the time. The principal users have been children of all ages and Iowa City adults. There have been almost no University of Iowa students wanting to use the computer. #V Library Board of Trustees June 26, 1986 Page 2 4. The $5,000 to establish the Irving Weber Local History Fund was received at a luncheon meeting of the Noon Lions Club on June 18. A talk on the responsibility of the local public library to preserve and collect local history was presented. The president introduced new Board member Tom Gelman. He asked members if they wished to reconsider their regular meeting time of 4:00 p.m. on the fourth Thursday. He stressed that arriving on time was imperative if the time was to remain unchanged. He asked he Board's wishes about he tIt t was decided to hold itat theHolidayInno71Annn Bovbjerglwilla will be invited. Pegnetter will be unable to attend. Grimes announced the appointment of himself and Ellen Buchanan to two-year terms on the Foundation. Buchanan said she had only agreed to do it for one year. The trustees' self-evaluation form will be included with the July packet of materials. Dick Pegnetter announced that he will be resigning from the Library Board. On August 1 he assumes the post of Dean of the Business State University in Fort Collins, Colorado. the at Colorado Foundation President Cavitt reported that the Centennial Endowment Fund drive now stands at $317,000. The two new members of the Foundation's Board of Directors are Jim Baumgartner and Rebecca Reiter. Drum and Grimes presented a brief outline of their ideas for the information package being developed to explain the Board's decisions concerning service cuts necessitated by the shortage of library staff. A full draft will be distributed to Board members by Tuesday, July 1, and follow-up telephone calls will be used to get criticisms and suggestions. The revised draft will then be used for the July 9 and July 11 meeting with Friends and Foundation Boards and with library staff. Willis reported for officers for FY87: Lois Cox, Secretary. the Nominating Committee (Willis, Cavitt and Cox) on Riley Grimes, President; Charles Drum, Vice President; The slate of officers was approved. Willis/Pegnetter. The meeting was adjourned at 5:10 p,m. an U"ee y ggers. eco e s /.Z 4/0 I ARMS MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 14, 1986 - 4:30 P,M. CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Fisher, Mask, Messier, Randall MEMBERS ABSENT: McDonald STAFF PRESENT:. Beagle, Franklin, Ramsdell The meeting was called to order at 4:33 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mask pointed out two typographical errors in the minutes from the April 9, 1986, meeting. Fisher added that on page one, paragraph five, of the same minutes it was incorrect that there was no legal description when in fact there was, but the legal description could not be attributed to the property in question. Randall moved that the minutes be approved subject to the correction of the aforementioned errors. Mask seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Mask moved that the minutes of the April 15, 1986, meeting be approved. Messier seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 3-0-1 with Randall abstaining, VARIANCE ITEMS: 1. V-8602. Public hearing on an application submitted by the Iowa City Row ng Club to vary the floodplain hazard overlay zone regulations to permit the construction of a boathouse in CRANDIC Park. The applicant requested a deferral of the public hearing until the June meeting. Mask moved that the deferral be granted and Randall seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS: 1. 5E-8604. Public hearing on an application submitted by the Iowa City Cr7ss intervention Center to provide off-site parking for 528 Iowa Avenue at the Agudas Achim Synagogue, Beagle stated that the applicant had not officially withdrawn their application and suggested that consideration of the application be de- ferred until the June meeting. Randall moved to grant deferral and Mask seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. 2. 5E-8607. Public hearing on an application submitted by John and Rebecca aA rEeT—to decrease the parking requirements for a skating rink on Lot 16, West Side Park Addition. The application had been officially withdrawn. /0? 41 / Board of Adjustment May 14, 1986 Page 2 3. SE -8608. A public hearing on an application submitted by Clarence and oro y Haverkamp to modify the front yard requirement at 2842 Eastwood Drive from 20 feet to 14 feet. Beagle presented the staff report. He pointed out that although the request is only to reduce the required front yard by 5 feet 4 inches, the net result would be a 10 -foot difference from the established setback of Eastwood Drive residences since the previous Zoning Ordinance required a 25 -foot setback rather than the present 20 -foot setback requirement of the RS -5 zone. He further stated that in order to grant such a special exception, it must be shown that, owning to extenuating circumstances, the strict application of the RS -5 zone requirements would present practical diffi- culties to the property owner. Beagle said that staff recommends that the request be denied on the grounds that approval of the application without such evidence would be contrary to the spirit and intent of the setback requirement and would be precedent setting. Clarence Haverkamp of 2842 Eastwood Drive rose in favor of the applica- tion and, presented several photographs and a painting for the Board members' review. He also asked for a clarification of the distances in question, since there seemed to be a discrepancy between his measurements and those of staff. Beagle responded that assuming that the street is centered within the right-of-way, one should be able to measure back 30 feet to determine the front property line. Franklin also added that the property line is usually one foot inside the sidewalk. Haverkamp then referred to several of the photos which pictures different views of the front yard and house. He asked that Board members note the appearance of unclutteredness of the property as seen from the various vantage points. He also stated that he had measured the setback of the houses within 200 feet on either side of his and that the setback among those houses varied from 23 feet to 32 feet, demonstrating that the houses on Eastwood Drive are not in a straight line. Haverkamp said that in planning the construction of the porch, he had consulted "The Homeowner's Guide" published by Project Green in which it states that a fence or hedge should not exceed a height of four feet. He said that the sides of his porch would comply with this limit. Referring to the painting of the house and the design of the porch which had been distributed to those present, he explained that the house was 34 feet long and that the proposed porch would be 32 feet long and 10 feet wide, meaning that the porch would be indented one foot from the house on either side. He also pointed out that the porch would have a pitched roof to match that of the house and garage. Haverkamp concluded by saying that he is asking for the special exception so that he may enjoy his property more fully and emphasized that he is willing to compromise on his proposed pians in order to be able to build the porch. /07 /074// T Board of Adjustment May 14, 1986 Page 3 Randall asked that Haverkamp clarify the location of the porch in refer- ence to the painting and Haverkamp pointed out that the proposed porch would be open to the east and screened in on the west, with an entrance Off of the east side and another in the middle. Fisher asked if staff had received any letters or phone calls in support of the application and Beagle replied that none had beenreceived. Haverkamp mentioned that the six closest neighbors on either side of his property wished him well and that they considered the proposed porch a Positive architectural addition to the neighborhood. BOARD DISCUSSION: Randall requested that Beagle elaborate further on how this application is contrary to the purposes of the setback rule. Beagle restated the purposes of the 20 -foot front yard requirement as it appears in Section 36-69(b) and again stressed that in the case at hand there were.no ex- tenuating circumstances calling for a special exception to the require- ment. Approving the application would have an adverse affect on the neighborhood because the uniformity of the established setback would not be preserved and because it would set a precedent. Randall explained that the Board does not make decisions arbitrarily but rather on a very strict basis. He agreed that the support of neighbors is a factor to consider but that Eastwood Drive presently has an attrac- tive appearance due to the setback requirement and that he is personally reluctant to allow for a modification of this requirement. Fisher communicated his support for the front porch as an institution, but stated that in this case he could see nothing which distinguished the property at 2842 Eastwood Drive as being more deserving of a special exception than other properties. He said that he was reluctant to set such roundingp p operties.cedent becauseask concurreds with Randall and F1 her,ocomnenting that she saw no evidence of extenuating circumstances to allow for a special exception. She also stated that there is a lot to be said for the character of a neighborhood due to setback requirements. She sug- constrained toested that htheprequirementslicant sof the statute. structure which would be Messier asked for examples of what would constitute extenuating circum - es. Beagle estea tdorties of cshapeand slope, orhnature physical surrounding development becon-sidered extenuating circumstances. Mask mentioned an example of a spe- cial exception granted for these reasons near Rocky Shore Drive. Mask made a motion to grant the special exception reducing the front yard requirement from 20 feet to 14 feet 8 inches. Randall seconded the motion. It was pointed out that approval of the special exception re- quest required the affirmative vote of three Board members. The motion failed to pass by a vote of 0-4 and the special exception was denied. Board of Adjustment May 14, 1986 Page 4 4. SE -8609. A public hearing on an application submitted by George McCormick to modify the rear and side yard requirement at 230 East Fairchild Street from 20 feet to 3 feet and 5 feet to 4.5 feet, respec- tively. Franklin showed to the Board a plot plan submitted by the applicant for the construction of an attached one car garage and explained that the proposed garage would encroach 17 feet into the required rear yard and six inches into the required side yard. She recommended that in order to comply with the side and rear yard requirements, the proposed garage be pushed to the east along the north side of the house. The factors to be considered with this recommendation, however, were that a kitchen window and two basement window wells would be covered. Franklin said that perhaps these factors would cause practical difficulties of which she was not aware and that the applicant would have to speak to these. Since no evidence of practical difficulty to comply with yard requirements had been demonstrated, staff recommended that the special exception be de- nied. George McCormick of 230 East Fairchild Street rose in favor of the appli- cation. He gave the historical background of his house and neighborhood which had led to his desire to build a garage. He also pointed out that in drawing up the plans for the proposed garage, he kept in mind overall appearances of the structure so that it would be in congruence with that of the house and not appear to congest the area. McCormick submitted various photographs of his house and yard to the Board members for their reference as he addressed the practical difficul- ties of compliance with the rear and side yard requirements. He said that moving the garage further to the east along the north side of the house would remove the only kitchen window which would decrease the light and air to the kitchen and consequently decrease the value of the house. This location for the garage would also cover the only basement window wells. McCormick showed that, being that the basement is one hundred years old, accessibility via these windows is important. McCormick then discussed how the plan that he had proposed would have a minimum affect on the surrounding structures. He showed how other op- tions for building the garage, such as a detached garage, were not possi- ble within the limits of the present ordinance. He said he could not understand the reason that an attached garage requires a distance of 20 feet from the lot lines while a free standing garage requires only 5 feet. He explained that he was reluctant to modify the dimensions of the proposed garage because of the need for storage space. McCormick ex- pressed his wish to build within compliance of the rear and side yard requirements but was not convinced that, given this specific case, it be necessary to decrease the dimensions of the proposed garage nor to tear up the design of the house in the process. Margaret Nowysz of 1025 River Street rose in favor of the application . Based on her experience as chairperson of the Historic Preservation Commission and as a realtor, Nowysz recognized the importance of the McCormick house as a historic structure in the North Side District. She /0; 44 / irii Board of Adjustment May 14, 1986 Page 5 said that the desired structure would conform with the rest of the area in its appearance and location. Also, she pointed out that in order for older homes such as the McCormick residence to remain viable on the market, they must keep up with the times with a contemporary bath, kitchen and garage. James Harris of 219 Ronalds Street rose in support of the application. Being a resident of the North Side and involved in preservation and conservation efforts in the city, Harris stressed the importance of preserving the attractiveness of the area by preserving the present structures located there. He believed that McCormick had effectively established the practical difficulties of compliance in the construction of the proposed garage and that the alternative which he requested would be a step forward in the efforts of the City to preserve the North Side District. Duane Means of 720 East Fairchild Street and owner of three older homes ocaT ted on that street rose in favor of the application. Means stated that both he and his wife believed that McCormick's application for a special exception was a reasonable and viable request. Pat McCormick of 230 East Fairchild Street rose in favor of the applica- tion. he emphasized the safety aspect of having an attached garage as we 11 as the convenience .it would provide during the winter. McCormick said that the proposed garage would improve her family's and her living existence and asked the Board to reconsider the fact that the kitchen window would necessarily be removed if the garage were built in compli- ance with the current ordinance. Franklin pointed out that the two letters that she had distributed from owners of the properties surrounding the McCormick lot and mentioned that a letter had also been received from the Brumleys of 212 East Fairchild Street, all favoring the proposed plan for the construction of the ga- rage. BOARD DISCUSSION: Fisher commented that he was convinced by the applicant's presentation that there were real practical difficulties making compliance with the Present rear and side yard requirements impossible. Randall agreed that McCormick had presented an excellent persuasive case and said that he would approve the special exception provided that the five foot require- ment for the rear and side yards be met. Mask remarked that the staff report had not considered the consequences of blocking the windows as they had been considered in McCormick's presentation. She felt that the special exception should be granted contingent upon compliance with the five foot rear yard requirement as well as defining the exact square footage which any accessory structures in the rear yard would cover. McCormick expressed his willingness to decrease the length of the pro- posed garage from 25 feet to 23 feet in order to comply with the five foot rear yard requirement- But he requested permission to build the garage 12 feet wide in keeping with the original plan. Messier responded /07 fZ Wi Board of Adjustment May 14, 1986 Page 6 that in an exception of this type, six inches was a relatively insignifi- cant distance. especially in light of the fact that the applicant was willing to cut back two feet on the length. Fisher asked staff for a clarification of the area which would remain of the 30% of the required rear yard after construction of a garage 23 feet by 12 feet. Franklin responded that 270 square feet would remain. Mask moved to grant the special exception to permit the modification of the rear and side yard requirement at 230 East Fairchild Street from 20 more feet to 5 feet and 5 feet to 4.5 feet, respectively, provided that not than 270 future detached gaccessory -structures. Randall secondedard be othe emotion. The motion carried by a vote of 4-0 and the special exception was granted. The meeting was adjourned at 6:29 p.m. Minutes submitted by Lea Ramsdell. Approved by: -I MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 28, 1986 - 4:30 P.M. CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Fisher, Mask, McDonald, Randall MEMBERS ABSENT: Messier STAFF PRESENT: Beagle, Boyle, Van Steenhuyse VARIANCE ITEMS: 1. V-8603. A public hearing on an application submitted by Plaza Centre sA sociates to vary the sign regulations of the CB -10 zone to permit more than one monument sign at the site of the Plaza Centre One build- ing. Beagle explained that Plaza Centre One wanted to erect two lighted monument signs, one on either of the alcove entrances off of Dubuque Street, and situated on the front lot line. The signs would allow seven of the building's tenants to identify themselves. The monument signs would be mounted on brick bases which would abut the two brick columns on each side of the alcove entrance. The width of the en- trance will be reduced from 16 feet to 10 feet at the front property line by this proposal. Beagle said that the CB -10 zone allows only one monument sign to be erected on the property, and that it must be placed at least five feet from the property line. He went on to explain that to be granted a variance, they would have to pass the unnecessary hardship and public interest tests. Beagle said that the application does not pass the hardship test because other options for signage exist, such as facia signs, canopy, awning and window signs. Also, staff feels that the applicants have been and will be able to make reasonable use of the building without granting the variance. Beagle also said that grant- ing the variance would be contrary to the public interest because it would violate the integrity of the neighborhood. Under the Sign Regulations, consistency and uniformity in treatment is expected by all property owners. To grant the variance in the absence of a demon- strated hardship would be contrary to the intent and purpose of the Sign Regulations. For these reasons, staff, he said, recommends that the variance request be denied. Beagle also mentioned that any sign proposals for the property would i also be under review of the Design Review Committee, but that the decision of that body would not affect the decision of the Board. 1 Fisher asked if the building is located on the property line. Beagle said yes. Fisher asked if the section of the Zoning Ordinance re- stricting signs to be five feet back from the property line applies r only to monument signs. Beagle answered that it applies to both monument and free-standing signs. Fisher stated that it seems odd that buildings are allowed on the property line in the CB -10 zone, but /010/ T — 1 MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 28, 1986 - 4:30 P.M. PAGE 2 signs aren't. Beagle said that an amendment to the Sign Regulations which addresses this problem is under consideration, but that it has not yet been passed and is not a part of the current Zoning Ordinance. McDonald asked if the narrower entrance would inhibit easy exit in case of fire. Beagle said that the remaining ten feet should be sufficient. Laura Madewell, of Hansen, Lind, Meyer, P.C., and the designer of the sign, rose to speak in favor of the request. She said that she was representing Plaza Centre One as well as Hansen, Lind, Meyer, which is a tenant of the building. She said that they did look into the other options for signage, but determined that they were not feasible. The proposed design was selected because it provides the best presenta- tion, is the most aesthetically pleasing, and allows similar coloring to other signs on other buildings in the plaza. She said that the other types of signs allowed in the CB -10 zone limit the ability to be lighted or to use readable graphics. She showed the Board some photo- graphs of other signs currently on buildings in the City Plaza. She said that while other buildings have signs identifying their tenants, Plaza Centre One does not. Madewell went on to say that the Hardee's restaurant in the building has suffered from the lack of signage on Dubuque Street because of competition from the Burger King and Rocky Rocky Rococo's restaurants across the street, both of which have signs. She asked that the Board consider the aesthetic approach to the proposed sign; she feels that other types of permitted signs are not as aesthetically pieasin . She closed by saying that if the building is allowed to be on the property line, then the sign should be allowed there, too. Dick McKeen, manager of Plaza Centre One and franchise holder of First eaR My—,--Fefter Homes and Gardens, a tenant of the building, rose in favor of the application. He read a letter into the record that he had written detailing the need for signage and supporting the applica- tion (attached). He said that management had decided to advertise several tenants on the signs rather than just one, since such a deci- sion would have been unfair. Anne E. Donohue, manager of Answer Iowa, Inc., another tenant, rose in favor o e application. She said that other branches of her company in other cities have adequate signage; she feels that the small size of her branch is related to the lack of signage. She said the lack of a sign makes it difficult for customers to locate her office, as well as prohibiting their ability to attract passersby. Lee Staack, of Hardee's Restaurant, Plaza Centre One, also rose in Tiv—o`F-77he application. He said that when the restaurant was built, the plaza had not yet been completed. The signage which identifies the restaurant on college Street was sufficient until competing res- taurants opened along Dubuque Street. He said that the transient nature of the Iowa City population makes a sign necessary. He said that there has been a 30% decrease in sales since 1983, especially in the evenings. The presence of street vendors on the plaza has also /V? W, r MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 28, 1986 - 4:30 P.M. PAGE 3 had an affect. An illuminated sign would help to increase sales. He said that he was pleased with the proposed sign. He also said that Hardee's had recently commissioned a study which showed a lack of awareness of the Plaza Centre One location. Randall asked if there were any signs on the south side of the build- ing. McKeen answered that Josephson's Jewelers and Eby's Sporting Goods have facia signs, and that Hardee's has a facia sign set back 60 feet from the College Street side of the plaza. Beagle said that while the applicants had adequately demonstrated the need for signage, they had not shown that they could not provide signage unless the variance was granted. He said that opportunities for signage on Dubuque Street exist without approving the application. Madewell answered that the other options were not acceptable. She said that since a sign is an investment, it should be designed for optimum effect. She said that similar facia signs mounted on the brick same kind uofsgraphics gortlighting. McK ened in the Staff esaid that would Plaza Centre One management had talked with Hansen Lind Meyer and had determined that other sign options were not viable. He said that facia signs would be too small and illegible, and that awning or canopy signs would not be aesthetically pleasing. Fisher asked if a facia sign would overhang the public right-of-way. Beagle said that the right—of-way is not an issue, since the Design Review Committee would have to approve any sign for the building. He said that the Sign Regulations allow 15% of the total sign wall area to be used for facia signs. Madewell re- sponded by saying that the only viable and visible location would be on the brick columns; this restricts the size of the signs. Mask asked what restrictions apply to lighted signs. Beagle referred her to Section 36-63(d) in the Sign Regulations. Fisher asked what the that da fe and canopy is structurally incorporated rated cano. Beale building, whilean answered awning is attached by means of a metal frame and usually retractable. Fisher asked how many signs can be placed on a canopy. Beagle an- swered that signs on a canopy cannot exceed 12 square feet of the total canopy area. Fisher asked if this meant 12 square feet per facing side on the canopy, or 12 square feet of the total canopy area. Boyle said that it meant 12 square feet of the total. Randall said that a variance cannot be granted unless the hardship requirement is met. Fisher concurred, saying that while often the proposals in a variance request are aesthetically very nice, the law must be applied uniformly. McDonald asked how many people were em- ployed in worked there e building. asked if lthe estimated tenants about the0 eole building wanted to be included on the sign. Madewell answered that they did not request inclusion. /64 0/ MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 28, 1986 - 4:30 P.M. PAGE 4 Mask said that the applicants had not demonstrated hardship. Madewell asked, isn't the need of tenants for signage a hardship? Boyle ex- plained that the applicants must show that they cannot make a reason- able use of the building without granting the variance. He said that such requirements are Iowa Supreme Court standards, and cannot be bent by the local Board of Adjustment. Boyle said that while the proposed sign could not be built without a variance, it could possibly be built as a building sign. A building sign is any sign attached to a building which is not a base. Fisher asked if the columns supported the signs rather than the bases, would it not then be a facia sign? Boyle answered yes. The Sign Regula- tions allow more than one facia sign, and facia signs are not required to be five feet back from the property line. Facia signs are not restricted to five feet in height as monument signs. Madewell showed the Board a shop drawing of the proposed signs. It was suggested that the same design could be used, as long as the signs were supported by the columns .and not by the bases. McDonald asked if there was really any difference between the original proposal and the facia sign idea. Beagle answered that as long as the signs are flush with the columns and are not supported by the base, then they are facia signs and are permitted in the CB -10 zone. Beagle suggested continuance of the request until the next meeting in order to cane up with a sign configuration that meets the requirements of the Sign Regulations. Fisher asked Madewell if they would like the request to be continued; she said that they were not requesting it. Beagle explained that if the matter is not deferred, then the Board must act on the request immediately. He said that he would work with Madewell and Hansen Lind Meyer to come up with a sign which would meet the Sign Regulations, thus making it unnecessary to appear again before the Board. Fisher said that it was unlikely that three votes could be found in support of the variance. Madewell then asked for deferral. McDonald moved that variance item V-8603 be continued until the June 11 regular meeting. Mask seconded. The vote was unanimous in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 5:59. Minutes submitted by Steve Van Steenhuyse. Approved by: /A #A I MINUTES SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION JUNE 12, 1986 SENIOR CENTER CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Sandra Boutelle, Bill Coen, Don Crum, Henry Fox, Geri Hall, Bob Jackson, Mike Kattchee, Ruth Wagner, Dorothy Whipple MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Bette Meisel, Donita Devance, Nancy Timmer, Intern Program Specialist GUESTS PRESENT: Pat Westercamp, Graphics Services Technician, City of Iowa City; Bette Ockenfels, Johnson County Board of Supervisors; Agnes Kuhn ; Edith Boldt, Mary Slaymaker, Council of Elders CALL TO ORDER/MINUTES/PUBLIC DISCUSSION: The meeting was called to order at 3 p.m. The minutes of May 8, 1986, were approved. Guests were introduced. There was no public discussion. CHAIRPERSON'S UPDATE: Hall read a statement she had prepared calling attention to two issues of concern to her as Chair: 1) the inability of the Commission to work within the group in addressing issues and pulling together to carry out policy once it had been established, and 2) inconsistency in directing the Chair to carry out the mandates of the Commission. Hail recounted two incidents to substan- tiate her concerns, most recently the evaluation of the Senior Center Coordi- nator. Hall cited breakdowns in the protocol set at the May 8 meeting establishing input of all Commissioners in the evaluation process. Based on responses of some Commissioners she felt that her ability to be impartial was being questioned, therefore mitigating her effectiveness as leader of the Commission. Hall concluded that if her performance was displeasing to the membership, she would offer her resignation as Chair. Commissioners identi- fied and discussed several items pertinent to the problems cited by Hall in her statement. Kattchee suggested that it would be most effective to argue problems and concerns within the Commission. If there is strong disagreement on an issue it would be more efficient to enlist and lobby for support from other Commissioners in order to reverse decisions from within the voting body. He concluded that marshalling other forces was not an effective means to change opinions within the group and that Commissioners should at least be informed that a problem exists before it is reported elsewhere. Coen moved to recognize the efforts of the chair, commend her performance and exhibit continued support of her actions on behalf of the Commission. Fox seconded. Motion carried, ayes 6, nays 2. Boutelle asked to qualify her negative vote, stating that she felt that if the Chair was unhappy, she should be allowed to resign. /01 Senior Center Commission June 12, 1986 Page 2 SENIOR CENTER COORDINATOR'S EVALUATION: Meisel asked that the Commission move into closed session as provided for in the Code of Iowa Open Meetings Law (Section 21.5, i) to discuss the personnel evaluation. Fox so moved, Wagner seconded. Guests were excused from the room. Hall announced that the Commission had voted to recommend that the City Manager recognize the Senior Center Coordinator in an appropriate manner. SENIOR CENTER SPACE APPLICATION: Meisel explained that for some time there has been a room on the second floor used only to store furniture. It has been virtually unusable by agency staff because of the noise created by the air conditioner and heating unit which are located outside the window. These conditions have made it difficult to use the room for most office situations. Meisel introduced Pat Westercamp, Graphics Services Technician, City of Iowa City. Westercamp has requested the office space on a full-time basis. Westercamp explained that she had an office in the Planning Department for a number of years. The department will be relocating on June 20. Westercamp was unhappy to find out that there was no natural lighting in the proposed new office space. Her supervisor encour- aged her to find space that would be more suitable for her needs. Westercamp explained that when she was first hired it was best that her office be lo- cated in the Planning Department. Over the years her work load has shifted and she now spends approximately 40% of her time performing Senior Center and related agency tasks. Westercamp called attention to a portfolio she had prepared with examples of her work'for the Center. Because of the amount of time spent on Senior Center projects, Westercamp felt that it would be a more efficient use of her time to maintain an office in the Center. She has also suggested that volunteer leaders, who had requested an office space could use one end of this new office to maintain files and perform their tasks. Kattchee suggested that it would be proper to have the space application come from the department supervisor rather than from a staff member. He suggested that the application be reviewed in that form. Having ascertained that the space application was made with the consent and approval of the Planning Department, Kattchee moved to approve the space application made by the Department of Planning, directed by Don Schmeiser for the purpose of provid- ing office space for the Graphic Services Technician. Jackson seconded. Motion carried unanimous vote. TICKET POLICY: Meisel reminded Commissioners that staff had stepped up enforcement of the Senior Center parking policy. Tickets are currently being issued to people who do not have Senior Center stickers and to people who have stickers but are not in the building. Predictably there has been some public outcry. Many feel that they should be able to use the parking lot whether they are in the building or not. Meisel explained that as it is there are participants, some who are frail or disabled, who cannot park in the lot while violators use other downtown businesses, visit restaurants, the gym, etc. Complaints have found their way to members of the City Council and Board of Supervisors. By the same token, there have been continued complaints from participants who /tA $40L fi Senior Center Commission June 12, 1986 Page 3 have difficulty finding a parking space and who want staff to "do something about it." Meisel asked Commissioners to review the policy and make a deci- sion with regard to enforcement of the parking policy. The parking lot is paid for by the City on behalf of the elderly. It is routinely, but not fre- quently, patrolled by the meter maids and police. Therefore, if the Commis- sion decided to continue the parking policy, it would continue to be the duty of staff to patrol the lot. If the parking policy was not to be enforced, it would not be possible to control non -elderly parking in the lot. Coen moved to continue to enforce the current parking policy. Crum seconded. He added that staff should patrol the lot to the best of their ability. Kattchee suggested that staff be allowed to use discretion as to how closely the lot should be patrolled. For example, more often during the busy period and less often during the late afternoon. Motion carried, ayes 7, nays 0, abstentions 1. Commissioners agreed to revoke two tickets to a non -elderly volunteer who had knowingly violated the parking policy but to send a letter re-emphasizing the importance of complying with the policy. COUNCIL OF ELDERS: The Council of Elders meeting was rescheduled to June 18. COORDINATOR'S REPORT: Kattchee asked how the Council of Elders sponsored visits of public officials were coming along. Meisel explained that CoE members were being encouraged to emphasize what goes on in the Senior Center in terms of activities, classes, etc. Somehow the lunch had become the focus of the visits which was not the intended purpose. Meisel reported that the Volunteer Specialist had been hired. Susan Rogusky was selected from a field of sixty-six applicants. Of the eight individuals interviewed, Susan seemed the best suited to dealing with the challenges of the position. Susan is a social worker and has had considerable experience with volunteer programs. She has worked with the Davenport Police Depart- ment, Big Brother Program, Spouse Abuse Center and the Salvation Army volun- teer program. She was given glowing references concerning her personality and abilities. She is married, has two children and is looking forward to starting back into the work force with a half-time job. She will be intro- duced to the City Council and Board of Supervisors in July. REPORT ON SURVEY COMMITTEE: Boutelle reported that after much research, the survey Committee assignments had been completed. Another meeting will be scheduled in which to review the individual work of members and to raise questions and make further sugges- tions. A more detailed report will be given at the next Commission meeting. CONTRACTS: Meisel reported that the contracts had been prepared by the Legal Department and reviewed by the Commission Contract Committee. Agency contracts remained largely unchanged from those approved in the previous years. The contract /A 4407. r -r Senior Center Commission June 12, 1986 Page 4 committee recommended approval of the contracts. Kattchee moved to accept the recommendation of the Contract Committee. Wagner seconded. Motion icarried, unanimous voice vote. The meeting adjourned at 5:16 p.m. Submitted by Ruth Wagner, Secretary Senior Center Commission i Prepared by - Donita Devance Senior Center Secretary I I ' i' I i I, 1 i I f T MINUTES RESOURCES CONSERVATION COMMISSION MAY 12, 1986 LIBRARY MEETING ROOM B MEMBERS PRESENT: Crain, Vogel, Moreland, Duffy, Goodwin, Friedman STAFF PRESENT: None CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Ron Vogel, acting chair APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of March 10, 1986, were approved as presented. PUBLIC AND MEMBER DISCUSSION: No members of the public were in attendance. MEMBER DISCUSSION: R. Vogel noted that there were no members of the City Council in attendance at the Wes Birdsall presentation on April 9. Besides this fact, even though the general turn -out was low, the presentation was quite informative and encouraging. Vogel also suggested that since the Birdsall presentation was recorded by Heritage Cablevision, there should be more showings of the tape on the City's cable channel. Discussed the Coralville Mill Dam project - Vogel will try to obtain a copy of the recent report from the engineering firm, Shive-Hattery b Associates. Reviewed recent work of. RCC for new member, Hilda Crain. Discussed fran- chise, comments by RCC on franchise, RCC members meeting with City Council, and the Coraiville Mill Dam Project. Discussion of future speakers sponsored by the RCC - The letter from Dale Melling concerning the payment of expenses for Wes Birdsall and outlining the procedure for inviting additional speakers was read by R. Vogel. The letter stressed that the commission approach the City Council for permission to invite other speakers. A motion was introduced by Hilda Crain, seconded by Jeff Duffy, to have the RCC chair (Vogel) draft and send a letter to the City Council stating these points: Asking for permission to invite a speaker to address the issue of a private electric/gas utility purchase by a municipality; ask for the atten- dance of members of the City Council at this presentation. 6 yes votes; 0 no votes; 0 abstentions. /03 ov I irI d 9 Resources Conservation Commission May 12, 1986 Page 2 DISCUSSION OF THE INFRARED SCANNER: RVogel brought the fact that the City owns an infrared scanner device similar to the equipment Wes Birdsall demonstrated. It was suggested that if this equipmentccouldlbebusedc oedand sta t a city wthe Cidecoca servationet epr gramt, this The coouldbe son decided to funded, supervisedeandedevice as advertised. winvestigate These matters will be discussed at the next meeting. DISCUSSION OF THE IOWA CITY ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS: The Commission decided to obtain more information on the environmental regu- lotions and activities here in Iowa City; two years agontedt; the RCC wao get in a number of regulations involving environmental issues. John M said he would gather more information on this subject. oreland DISCUSSION OF "RESOURCE WASTER OF THE MONTH AWARD": No definitive decision was made about this program. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. i /d;? f�3 -I MIIIUTES FORMAL MEETING PLANNING 8 ZONING COMMISSION SUS%_C THURSDAY, JULY 10, 1986 - 7:30 P.M. CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Cooper, Dierks, Horowitz, Jordan, Perry, Scott, Wallace MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Beagle, Boyle, Franklin, Moen, Manning RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: 1. Approval of 5-8611, the final plat and planned development housing f plan for Ty'n Cae Subdivision Part Four. < 2. That the developer in the above PDH request provide an 8' sidewalk along Mormon Trek Boulevard, 1/2 to be paid by the developer and 1/2 by the City of Iowa City, to be installed at the time all other public improvements are done. '3. Approval of S-8612, the preliminary and final LSNRD plan for City Carton, subject to design changes to the subdivision that will bring it into compliance with the Storm Water Management Ordinance. i 4. Denial of S-8614, the preliminary and final subdivision plat of Dean Oakes Woods Addition, 1.12 acres located in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Rochester Avenue and Amhurst Street. 5. Approval of S-8613, the preliminary and final LSNRD plan for the Johnson County Farm Bureau, subject to the mutual agreement between the City of Iowa City and the Johnson County Farm Bureau stipulating the future installation of an 8' sidewalk along Mormon Trek Boulevard, proof of ownership, and that no object(s) be placed an the site which would exceed an elevation of 763 MSI.. 6. That the City Council suggest to the Johnson County Board of Supervi- sors elimination of the sidewalk ramp on the east side of Clinton Street extending from the sidewalk on the south side of Benton Street near the County Administration building. 7. That the City Council suggest to the Johnson County Board of Supervi- sors that the entrance to the parking lot of the County Administration building be made one-way east. REQUEST TO THE CITY MANAGER FOR STAFF ASSISTANCE: None. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Scott called the meeting to order at 7:42 p.m. /07 #$9 al Planning E Zoning Commission July 10, 1986 Page 2 PUBLIC DISCUSSION: None. CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF JUNE 5, 1986: Wallace moved to accept the minutes of June 5, 1986. Cooper seconded the motion. Horowitz recommended that the minutes be corrected as follows: i Page 3, item B4, second paragraph, "Beagle explained 'this' ordinance..." Paragraph five of the same item, "Wallace and Jordan agreed' with Horowitz' comments about the ordinance." 1 Page 4, second paragraph, last sentence, "Beagle noted the Commis- sion's concern with I. including other aspects of the Environmental Regulations..." � a Page 4, last paragraph, . 'would be a signal that the rest of the Environmental Regulations should be integrated into the City ordi- nances as soon as Possible."' The minutes, as amended, were approved unanimously, 7-0. ZONING ITEMS: i 1. Public discussion of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to prohibit the use of fully internally illuminated awnings. i Franklin explained that the proposed ordinance regarding ill uminated awnings would prohibit the illumination of the entire interior surface of the awning. Franklin introduced David Long who was present to iprovide additional information on how illuminated awnings have been used in other cities. Franklin mentioned to the Commission that members of the Design Review Committee were also present. The Comnis- sion will vote on this issue at the next formal meeting, July 24, 1986. i David Long, 2211 Nevada Ave., Iowa City, introduced his presentation and explained that most of the awnings pictured in the slide presenta- tion contained graphics . He added that the amount of graphics permit- ted on awnings in Iowa City is limited to 25% of the surface of the awnings. After Long's presentation, Franklin advised the Commission that if illuminated awnings are allowed, more definitions which describe the varieties of awnings should be considered. For example, the Commis- sion needs to discriminate between the type of awnings used on Mama Capone's on South Clinton and more opaque awnings. One method of regulating the brightness of an internally illuminated awning is to control the foot candles permitted. /dR 0 fe -r Planning & Zoning Commission July 10, 1986 Page 3 Scott noted for public record a recommendation received from an ad hoc citizens' committee which was formed after the original issue arose regarding fully internally illuminated awnings. Members of the Illu- minated Awning Committee are: Ted Holm, Jill Hoover, Dan Berry, Art Koffron, Daryl Lynch. The Committee, in its letter to the Commission, recommended in favor of fully internally illuminated awnings. A letter was also received from the Executive Vice -President of the 'Iowa City Chamber of Commerce. The letter summarized that although the City Relations Committee and the Chamber are not taking an offi- cial stand on the issue, they encourage Committee and Chamber members as individuals to participate in public hearings on this topic. Scott asked the members of the Design Review Committee for comments. Nancy Seiberling of North Liberty feels that the issue should be discussed by the Committee. After viewing the slide presentation, Seiberling felt some awnings were successful, but others can radically change the design of the building as well as the area. The City must question the role awnings are to play, and to view the issue as a design challenge. Scott mentioned that it was the Commission's intent to defer action on this issue until the July 24, 1986, formal meeting, and asked if that would allow enough time for the Design Review Committee to review the proposed ordinance. Franklin interjected that the Committee's next meeting is also on July 24, in the afternoon. Scott suggested that if Design Review feels it hasn't had adequate time to review the ordi- nance, the Commission could defer this issue on July 24. Craig Welt, 1150 Sunset, Iowa City, a member of the Design Review Committee and the City Relations Committee of the Chamber of Commerce, stated his support for illuminated awnings. He stressed that there should be limitations imposed such as size of the awnings relative to the size of the building, and the amount of graphics relative to the size of the awning. Welt mentioned that the only awnings to be re- viewed by the Design Review Committee would be those on City Plaza. He also suggested the possibiTity of illuminating the graphics portion of the awning only. Scott informed Welt that the amount of graphics relative to the awning is currently regulated by the Zoning Ordinance to 25% of the surface. Art Koffron of Iowa City and a member of the Illuminated Awning Com- mittee explained he had checked with the State Historical Society and found that awnings go far back although they were not illuminated. Currently awnings are allowed, although it is not something that necessarily goes before the Design Review Committee. Koffron felt a very positive benefit from the internal illumination of awnings is the safety feature around buildings. He also felt that external lighting, which is allowed, can spot the awning more than internal illumination. /Oft Planning C Zoning Commission July 10, 1986 Page 4 Horowitz mentioned to Koffron that the letter received from the Illu- minated Awning Committee was very positive. Horowitz asked if the Committee found any negative factors in allowing internal illumina- tion. Koffron acknowledged that the illumination can be gaudy or offensive, but that judgment on this is subject to the likes or dislikes of people. He felt regulations and limitations could handle this prob- lem, such as restricting the amount of foot candles. Horowitz asked if in studying the issue, Koffron found any preference in who makes the determination in subjective issues. Although unsure, Koffron felt he could learn more before the next meeting. In regard to the limitation on foot candles, Long pointed out that with the current sign ordinance, there is no limitation on illuminated .signs. Neon signs likewise can be bright and gaudy, or they can be as eful. He -conceded that awnings can change the character of a building. Through the Building Code there are limitations on such issues as projection. Franklin explained the only current regulation to illuminated awnings concerns the wattage, whether the illumination is exposed or frosted. Frank Seiberling of North Liberty informed the Commission that this was the first time he had heard about the issue of illuminated awn- ings. He pointed out to the Commission that awnings are, in effect, three dimensional, especially when illuminated. He felt there is a hazard in having a hodge-podge of illuminated shapes. Continuing, Seiberling realized the awnings can protect pedestrians from rain and snow and that it is possible to have an attractive sign, but he felt that most were monstrosities. He asked the Commission to consider the general appearance of the City. Horowitz requested more information on the historical aspects in the use of awnings, and how other historical districts have dealt with this issue. Mallace moved to defer action an the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to prohibit the use of fully internally illuminated awnings until July 24, 1986. Perry seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously, 7-0. SUBDIVISION ITEMS: 1. S-8611. Public discussion of an application submitted by Dynevor, Inc. for approval of a final subdivision plat and planned development housing plan for Ty'n Cae, Pt. 4, a 4.3 acre subdivision in the north- west quadrant of the intersection of Mormon Trek Boulevard and Gryn Drive; 45 -day limitation period: 8/11/86; 60 -day limitation period: 8/25/86. 'r Planning Z zoning Commission July 10, 1986 Page 5 Franklin explained the applicant is requesting approval of a final plat for a 22 lot residential subdivision. The final is in compliance with the preliminary. Of the deficiencies and discrepancies listed in the staff report, two items remained unresolved at the informal meet- ing - The conveyance along Mormon Trek has been resolved. The provi- sion for an 8 -foot sidewalk along Mormon Trek Boulevard has not been resolved. The options, Franklin stated, could be to have the sidewalk installed by the developer at their expense or installed as each lot is developed. The developer would pay for four feet and the City would pay for four feet of the width of the sidewalk. Horowitz asked what the precedent was on the subdivision developed before this one. She felt the sidewalk had been put in as each lot was developed. Boyle mentioned that the City Code provides that the sidewalk must be installed one year after plat approval. This could be delayed only for construction purposes. Scott questioned what would occur if the Commission approved the application and did not say anything about sidewalks. Franklin felt that the Connission would have to support what the legal papers say, that the lot owners must install the sidewalk when building occurs. Boyle added that since the issue was raised in the staff report, it should be addressed. Dierks raised the possibility of a sidewalk cutting through the subdi- vision to connect to Mormon Trek. Scot felt the homeowners next to the sidewalk would be opposed to neighbors walking through their yards. Dierks felt people would want to get to West Side Park, containing New Life Fitness Center, and other proposed projects. She felt the side- walk would be a benefit between Lots 107 and 108. Larry Schnittjer of Iowa City, who represents the developer, explained the situation to the Commission. The length of the cul-de-sac would be only 75 feet, or basically the length of one lot. Scott, on a suggestion from Horowitz, proposed that the issue of the sidewalks on Mormon Trek be voted on as an amendment to the main motion to avoid defeating the main motion. Horowitz moved to approve S-8611, the final plat and planned develop- ment housing plan for Ty'n Cae Subdivision Part Four. Dierks seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously, 7-0, Horowitz moved to recommend that the developer provide an 8' sidewalk along Mormon Trek Boulevard, 1/2 to be paid by the developer and 1/2 by the City of Iowa City, to be installed at the time all other public improvements are done. Dierks seconded the motion. / 01 V -K Planning 8 Zoning Commission July 10, 1986 Page 6 Scott mentioned that the motion, if passed, still allows the developer to escrow the money with the City. Boyle added that the escrow comes into play if all improvements are deferred. In voting, the motion carried, 6-1, with Jordan voting in the nega- tive. 2. S-8612. Public discussion of an application submitted by City Carton Cor a preliminary and final Large Scale Non -Residential Develop- ment Plan for City Carton on 3.06 acres located at 917 S. Clinton Street; 45 -day limitation period: 8/8/86. Beagle explained that the applicant, City Carton, is an industrial operation located at Clinton and Benton. They are wanting to make improvements to the existing operation by constructing an office building and vehicle maintenance building on the west side of the Crandic Railroad tracks bisecting their property. An existing storage building will be moved to accommodate the relocation. The Storm Water Management Ordinance is applicable to the expansion area. Parking, at the rate based on the expansion, requires 18 spaces; the plan identi- fies 24 spaces. At the informal meeting, most of the deficiencies and discrepancies outlined in the July 10, 1986, staff report were resolved. One item still outstanding is compliance with the Storm Water Management Ordi- nance. Beagle mentioned the plan submitted earlier in the day was still deficient as viewed by Public Works. Another issue unresolved is the identification of a sidewalk along the south side of Benton Street. After consulting Public Works, it was felt that the sidewalk on the north side of Benton would be sufficient. The signed statement of intent identifying the lease arrangement with Crandic Railroad has been submitted. Beagle presented the site plans for the Johnson County Administrative Office Building and the Benton Street bridge to give the Commission a perspective of the area. Beagle pointed out on the revised LSNRD plan the markings for future expansion of a storage building have been eliminated. Staff recommends deferral of this item until the next formal meeting based on the deficiencies of the stormwater management system. In addition, Beagle stated that for the western portion of the site which drains into a culvert under the railroad right-of-way, the applicant would need to provide a drainage easement across the adjacent parcel to the river or show a lease arrangement for this property, Wallace questioned the waiver of a sidewalk along the south side of Benton Street. Beagle had consulted with Frank Fanner who felt the sidewalk on the north side of Benton was sufficient. On the south side, only 6' separate the curb from the front property line. /W? *fl 47 �i Planning 8 Zoning Commission July 10, 1986 Page 7 Horowitz noted the utility pole on the corner of Benton and Capitol which blocks the vision of drivers. She felt this to be a hazard to vehicular traffic and pedestrians who would have to cross the street to pick up the sidewalk. Scott felt the issue of the sidewalk could be handled as a separate motion, dependent on how the LSNRD is voted. Boyle mentioned the City has nothing to do with the placement of utility poles, it is up to the franchisee. Dierks wondered if the City can recommend replacement. Boyle agreed, but stated the franchisee isn't obligated to change the placement. Perry moved to approve S-8612, the preliminary and final LSNRU plan for City Carton, subject to design changes to the subdivision that will bring it into compliance with the Storm Water Management ordi- nance. Jordan seconded the motion. Horowitz felt the placement of utility poles was germane to the issue of a sidewalk along the south side of Benton. As proposed in the plan, Horowitz stressed that people will be more likely to use the south sidewalk. Beagle explained to make a sidewalk on the south side conforming, in consideration of the 6' right-of-way, the walk would have to be placed on City Carton property, requiring an easement. Scott stated he was opposed to sidewalks on the south side because pedestrian traffic would be required to cross at an uncontrolled intersection which is a hazard. Horowitz felt with the construction of the County Administrative Offices, the City will see this become •a more sophisticated area. Horowitz suggested the use of pedestrian activated stop lights at the corner of Benton and Clinton Streets. She added that she has no opposition to City Carton's proposal for improvements, except in regard to the sidewalk. In voting, the motion carried, 5-2, with Wallace and Horowitz voting in the negative. 3. 5-8614. Public discussion of an application submitted by Michael Aoage for approval of a preliminary and final subdivision plat of Dean's First Subdivision, 1.12 acres located in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Rochester Avenue and Amhurst Street; 45 -day limitation period: 8/8/86; 60 -day limitation period: 8/25/86. Beagle explained the request is for preliminary and final plat ap- proval for a six lot subdivision. The site was the location of a 1983 subdivision proposal known as Lumpa's First Addition which was ulti- mately withdrawn. Contrary to that original request, Lower West Branch Road west of Amhurst Street will be retained. /0?V_$4 Planning 8 Zoning Commission July 10, 1986 Page 8 Beagle distributed a new revised plat. Of the deficiencies and dis- crepancies noted at the informal meeting, the dedication to the City of the south 35 feet of Rochester Avenue right-of-way has been re- solved. The construction plans for sanitary sewers has been received and is under review; and the legal papers have been submitted, al- though a different name was given for the subdivision. Boyle interjected that the papers are fine, except for the Lower West Branch Road issue. Two issues to be resolved by the Commission as noted at the informal meeting are: Lot 5 access to Rochester, and the current status of Lower West Branch Road west of Amhurst Street. Scott questioned how the sidewalks would be handled. Boyle stated the standard sidewalk provision is included in the legal papers. Public Discussion: Marion Neely, Iowa City, the attorney for Mr. Hodge, addressed the issue of Lot 5 access to Rochester Avenue. Neely understood there to be no limitation, by Code, to restrict access onto Rochester. Regard- ing Lower West Branch Road, Neely explained that it is currently boxed in and only serves as access to one lot. He added there to be nothing i in the Code specifying that the developer would need to improve the road to City standards. Regarding the name change , people objected to Dean Oakes' First', so the name was revised to 'Dean Oakes Woods Addition'. With regard to lot access onto Rochester, Beagle cited a provision to the 1978 Comprehensive Plan regarding access to secondary arterial streets, stating that access should be limited to commercial, indus- trial and multi -family uses. Horowitz questioned staff if there was a precedence to the issue of Lower West Branch Road. Boyle felt the closest procedure was Peterson Street. Although the case of Lower West Branch Road is an offsite case , the intent of the Code is that off-site is not subject to part of the assessment. The City has access to the north half of the street although not part of the site. Perry announced that he will be abstaining from voting and addressing this application. Beagle summarized the only deficiencies/discrepancies left was the name change and final legal papers. /07 V_1� . _f Planning 8 Zoning Commission July 10, 1986 Page 9 Horowitz moved to approve S-8614, the preliminary and final subdivi- sion plat of Dean Bakes Woods Addition, 1.12 acres located at the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Rochester Avenue and Amhurst Street, subject to approval of the final legal papers and name change on the preliminary and final plat. Jordan seconded the motion. Scott stated that he had no opposition to Lot 5 access to Rochester. The problem, he felt, was the issue of Lower West Branch Road not being brought up to City street standards. As a matter of precedence, he noted that all other subdivision streets have been required to be up to City standards. Scott felt it should be a requirement of every subdivision. Cooper supported Scott's statements. Boyle felt the requirement could be handled by an amendment to the main motion. Dierks still saw a problem with Lot 5 access to Rochester. With future development along Rochester, providing more and more accesses to Rochester will change its function as an arterial street, Dierks questioned the possibility of a private drive off of Amhurst Street. Franklin explained a private drive can only be used as part of a OPOH or with a subdivision that is classified as an unusual part. I Jordan, feeling there were still too many problems, suggested deferral of this item. Scott stated that the Conmission sometimes ends up redesigning the plat which takes too much time. He added that maybe the Commission should view what is presented and vote it up or down. The Chairperson requested a roll call vote: Wallace no Cooper no Horowitz no Jordan yes Dierks no Scott no Perry abstain The motion was defeated, 1-5-1. 4. S-8613. Public discussion of an application submitted by the Johnson County Farm Bureau for approval of a preliminary and final Large Scale Non -Residential Development on 2.81 acres located on the northeast side of Mormon Trek Boulevard; 45 -day limitation period: 8/11/86. Moen distributed revised preliminary and final LSNRD plans. The revised plan resolves many of the deficiencies and discrepancies listed in the staff report. The definition for the location of the /01 4 Planning & Zoning Commission July 10, 1986 Page 10 curb cut on Mormon, Trek Boulevard has been determined to be 200' from a point on the northwest corner of the lot perpendicular to the center line of Mormon Trek Boulevard. With regard to the sanitary sewer, the applicant is attempting to obtain an easement to have access to the City's system. If the ease- ment is not granted , a septic system will be installed pending ap- proval by the Johnson County Health Department. Moen distributed memoranda from Rick Fosse and Fred Zehr . both no violations of the Airport Overlay Zone. The only concern wasiin regard to the height of mature trees, and Fosse suggested limiting the height of any object to the elevation of 763 MSL. The issue of screening requirements has been resolved. Boyle mentioned the developer has agreed to install sidewalks, and a draft agreement has'been received for review and signature. Boyle saw i no problems with the agreement. Wallace moved to approve S-8613, the preliminary and final LSNRD plan for the Johnson County Farm Bureau, subject to the mutual agreement between the City of Iowa City and the Johnson County Farm Bureau stipulating installation fie and howoowner- shipand that object(s)be placed onthsite whicwould exceed the 763 HSL. Horowitz seconded the motion. The motion carried unani- mously, 7-0. OTHER BUSINESS: I. Planning and Zoning Commission Information. a) Franklin noted for public record a letter received from Dave Clark of Dave's Carpets. 510 Highland Avenue, stating disagreement with the Commission's denial of the Boyrum subdivision. Chairperson Scott refuted the second paragraph of the letter which stated that the decision was made hastily. b) Franklin also noted two letters received addressing the revisions to the OPDH ordinance amendment of less than two acres. One letter was received from Neely and Martinek representing Dean Oakes, requesting that the Commission bring the ordinance off the table for reconsideration. A letter was also received from tion. Lepic-Kroeger Realtors regarding the OPOH, requesting reconsidera- c) Dierks moved the Commission forward to the City Council for recom- mendation to the Johnson County Board of Supervisors a review of the sidewalk extending west of the north -south sidewalk on the corner of Clinton and Benton that goes to nowhere. Jordan sec- onded the motion. /07� 'r Planning 8 Zoning Commission July 10, 1986 Page 11 Horowitz suggested that a pedestrian activated stop signal at the intersection would resolve the problem. The motion carried, 6-1, with Horowitz voting in the negative. d) Dierks moved that the Commission forward to the City Council for recommendation to the Johnson County Board of Supervisors a review of the entrance to the parking lot of the County Administration Building onto Clinton be made one-way east. Cooper seconded the motion. The motion carried, 6-1, wills Horowitz voting in the negative. e) Horowitz reminded the Commission of the tour of environmentally sensitive areas, July 19th at 9:45. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:47 p.m. Minutes submitted by Linda Manning. Approved by: Sally Dierks, Secretary I 'r I ow Regulaa ' Y=30 'P, M. 'PACOLSe Sism IN: ro. 13. /0? V-9 !i ro. 13. /0? V-9 T � (0 MINUTES PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION JULY 12, 1986 MEMBERS PRESENT: Willis, Steinbrech, Hradek, Watson, Hesse and Weideman MEMBERS ABSENT: Alvarez, Henry and Jordison STAFF PRESENT: Trueblood, Moran, Howell, Harvey, Ertz, Wonick and Thomas GUESTS PRESENT: Darrell Courtney, Iowa City City Council SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION AND FORMAL ACTION TAKEN Moved by Hradek, seconded by Watson, that the minutes of the June II meeting be approved as written. Unanimous. Hradek reminded Commission members of the Urban Environment Ad Hoc Committee's tour on July 19th. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Trueblood stated that John Roesler, Sheller -Globe, was at a funeral in Indiana and could not be In attendance to address the Commission. A check in the amount of $135.00 was received on July lith for payment of softball non-resident fees, but no further contact or correspondence has been received from Roesler. No formal action was taken. Janet Ellerbrock, Aquatics Program Supervisor, will be assuming her duties on Monday, July 14th. Calls of concern have been received concerning the proposed Crandlc Park boat- house (one opposed, three Informational). The application for a variance is still before the Board of Adjustment, Moved by Ste inbrech, seconded by Willis, to adjourn at 9:00 a.m. for the park tour. Dee Harvey, See tary Parks and Recreation Cowlssion �� our I F MNIUTES NO QUORUM IOWA CITY RIVERFRONT COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, JULY 2, 1986 - 7:30 P.M. SENIOR CENTER CLASSROOM j MEMBERS PRESENT: Daly, Helmer, Wachal, Watson MEMBERS ABSENT: Gerleman, Leo, Lovell, McGuire, Stroh, Wallace, Wielert STAFF PRESENT: Rockwell, Tworek OTHERS PRESENT: Merle Neubauer, Mike Singer, George Mather, Kay Gillies and Leanne Weigh CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Helmer called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. INTRODUCTIONS• Rockwell introduced George Mather and Kay Gillies of Project Green; Merle Neubauer, citizen; Mike Singer, volunteer PPD intern, and Leanne Weigh, Environmental Coordinator, Mayor's Youth Employment Program. APPROVAL OF JUNE 4 1986 MINUTES: Due to lack of a quorum, approval of the June 4, 1986 minutes will be consid- ered at the next Riverfront Commission meeting. UPDATE ON THE CORALVILLE CONNECTION: George Mather gave a project update on the Coralville Connection, which when completed will be an 8' wide asphalt pathway between Crandic Park and Coral- ville. The trail will be open for public use and will be made handicapped accessible. Mather stated that funding was not a problem, because the pro- ject was already in the Coralville budget. However, legal agreement needs to be reached with CRANDIC Railway. Helmer asked if any help was needed with heavy construction work on the trail. Mather replied that it would be a possibility once the liability questions were resolved, and added that some clearing had already been done by the Coralville Boy Scouts. Mather said that Project Green's eventual plans are to landscape and possibly extend the path northward. CONCERN OVER PUBLIC ACCESS ON RIVER: Mr. Merle Neubauer, a citizen of Iowa City, attended the meeting to express his concern about fencing constructed along the east side of the river south of the Burlington Street Bridge which obstructs public fishing access. Neubauer had also expressed these concerns in a letter to the editor pub- lished on June 24, 1986, in the Iowa City Press -Citizen. He also emphasized that the fence prohibited any sort of rescue operation needed in that portion of the river. '07 4 W, T Riverfront Commission July 2, 1986 Page 2 Daly asked if the University had purposefully put fencing in because of concerns about liability. Neubauer responded that there might be some lia- bility worries if a public safety access lane was not provided for rescue operations. Neubauer also mentioned that he'd like to see University parking restrictions lifted during the summer in the lot west of the river and south of the Burlington Street Dam so that people interested in fishing have a place to park near the dam. Chairperson Helmer assured Neubauer that one of the Riverfront Commission's purposes is to ensure access to the river to promote enjoyment of the river for everyone. Neubauer pointed out that the Johnson County Conservation Board owns the Coralville Dam, and the dam is in such a state of disrepair that it's not possible to walk across the dam to fish on the other side. Further, there is no parking near the dam or place to fish below the dam on the west side. Helmer clarified that Neubauer was talking about walking access to good fishing spots, such as the areas below the dams where the water is oxygenated. Neubauer said yes, that not everyone can afford a boat to be able to fish in those areas. Helmer said that he would talk to the Commis- sion's University representative, Al Stroh, to see what can be done to get some kind of access near the University's power plant. PROGRESS REPORT ON MAYOR'S YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM RIVERFRONT ACTIVITIES: Environmental Coordinator, Leanne Weigh, reported on the accomplishments of the MYEP teenagers along Ralston Creek. She said that it was taking longer than first anticipated due to the amount of accumulated trash. Weigh said they had been taking pictures, including a shot of their first 1,440 pounds of garbage (mufflers, bicycles, shopping carts) retrieved from Ralston Creek on the first day of the project. The City Forester gave approval to take out excess saplings. She said there was a major erosion problem on the first block adjacent to the Chauncey Swan parking lot, but the second block by the Rec Center was much better. As far as the other MYEP projects, Weigh said the Napoleon Park restroom would be ready for roofing in a week and the work on the fitness trail at the University softball complex was progressing on schedule. In conclusion, Weigh said that work on the Coralville Connection trail couldn't be done until next year. The MYEP environmental crew anticipated working at Terrell Mill Park the following week. FORMULATION OF FY86 ANNUAL REPORT: Rockwell stated that the Riverfront Commission's Annual Report should be submitted by August 8. She requested that the Commissioners contribute their ideas on the completed projects and future activities they would like to see listed in the report. The Commissioners' suggestions included accomplish- ments, such as the Terrell Mill Park benches, the canoe trip, MYEP involve- ment in riverfront activities and the continuation of Iowa River Month Activities. The Commissioners contemplated future projects, such as ensuring better river access, continuing June River Month festivities, promoting riverbank beautification, advocating public erosion control, setting up a /03 Riverfront Commission July 2, 1986 Page 3 riprap exchange program, and updating the brochure featuring details on the Riverfront Commission with a map highlighting the Iowa River and its public access points, scenic vistas, good fishing spots, etc. in Johnson County. Rockwell will forward a draft annual report to the Commission for review and approval at the August 6, 1986, meeting. DISCUSSION OF RIPRAP EXCHANGE: Rockwell requested that a recommendation to the Council concerning the riprap exchange be formulated and voted on at the next Commission meeting so that Council is advised of the Commission's intentions. She explained that she had received an offer of 150 linear feet of sidewalk shortly after the last Commission meeting, which precipitated immediate research into what was possible and preferable in terms of City involvement. Rockwell suggested that Watson's idea of giving a listing of people wanting riprap to those who are applying for sidewalk/driveway permits would be the most workable at this time. Rockwell related that Mike Singer, PPD intern, had completed a listing of property owners along Ralston Creek. Singer is formulating a short—form survey in order to identify property owners who want concrete, and then provide the listing to persons replacing sidewalks and driveways. Helmer stated that he would talk to the Engineering Department about what might be possible to accomplish this summer on City riverfront property. In addition, the Commissioners present agreed that the exchange should be kept informal with lists being made available, and private property owners negotiating their own terms for riprap exchange. 1987 PHOTO CONTEST RULES AND FUNDING: Rockwell suggested that publicity for the 1987 photo contest should be started so participants have an opportunity to take summer photos. Rockwell presented the poster designed to publicize the 1987 Photo Contest. Concern was expressed because part of the print blends in with the picture background and is difficult to read. Rockwell asked if the Commission would be willing to solicit funding to cover the cost of redoing the promotional poster. Helmer and Daly agreed to ask local photo shops for contributions and in return list them as sponsors. Concerning changes in the photo contest rules, it was suggested that prizes be limited to one per person and that the contest be limited to amateurs. UPDATE ON JOINT REVIEW OF ICC SPECIAL RIVER EVENT PERMITS IN IOWA CITY: Rockwell reported that the Iowa Conservation Commission had agreed to allow City review and comment on applications to ICC for special river events in Iowa City. So far, only approved permits have been received by the City, which allows no time for comment. A letter will be forwarded from the City Manager to ICC requesting a remedy to the current situation. ADJOURNMENT: Chairperson Helmer declared the meeting adjourned at 9:12 p.m. /.? elo6