Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-01-29 Bd Comm. minutesCITY COUNCIL RULES CONITTEE January 15, 1985 RULES C01MITTEE: Meeting of January 15, 1985, 7:20 P.M. CCMNIT1M MEMBERS PRESENT: Baker, Erdahl C31MI1TEE MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFFMEMBERS PRESENT: Karr BROADBAND TELEOOiMMICATIONS CCDMISSION BY-LAWS The Rules Camnittee recommends approval of the changes as -outlined. PLANNING AND ZONING BY-LAWS The Rules Conmtittee.recoimnends approval of the changes as outlined. Meeting adjourned 7:30 P.M. MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 9, 1985 - 7:00 P.M. IOWA CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY - MEETING ROOM A MEMBERS PRESENT: Duffey, Skaugstad, Jones, VanderWoude MEMBERS ABSENT: Hayes, Blank, Nowysz COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker GUESTS PRESENT: See attached list STAFF PRESENT: Moen, Chandler CALL TO ORDER: Jones called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. and acknowledged the presence of Councilman Larry Baker. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER l0, 1984: VanderWoude moved the adoption of the minutes of December 10, 1984. Duffey seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC DISCUSSION: Larry Baker offered encouragement in the Commission's work. He said that he hopes the Commission will explore what other cities are doing in terms of historic preservation. He said that such an exploration would be helpful if a comparison of other cities are doing could be made. The ordinance in Iowa City is weak because it does not force conditions on the historic districts. Baker indicated that Iowa City has a review procedure but no real regulation now. The Commission directed Moen to explore the ordinances of other cities and to include this information on the next agenda. Jones noted the receipt of a letter from Superintendent of Iowa City Schools David Conin unthe Dubuque rStreet coentrance entrance to bSchool. He thanked l Dr. Cron iscreen o n for his response. DISCUSSION OF THE NORTH SIDE RESIDENTIAL HISTORIC DISTRICT: Jones asked how the Commission stood on the North Side residential meetings. Moen responded that the residents had been meeting regularly prior to Christmas. She added that the interest in the meetings diminished during the holidays. She asked what direction the Commission wanted to take. Skaugstad said this was an appropriate time for a survey and a questionnaire. Moen hich the Commission could review said she would put together a questionnaire w and then follow that up with a meeting with the residents. Historic Preservation Commission January 9, 1985 Page 2 DISCUSSION OF THE STATUS OF THE "RUN FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION": Jones asked Moen for an explanation of the current status of the "Run for Historic Preservation." Moen responded that National Preservation Week is scheduled for the week of May 12-18 of this year. She noted that that date coincides with finals week at the University of Iowa. Therefore, she added, it might not be a good time to have a run during that week. She suggested that the run be held prior to May 12 or sometime next fall. Moen asked if it was reasonable to try and schedule a run before May 12. Skaugstad said that he thought so. Jones directed Skaugstad and Hayes to report on the run at the next meeting. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSAL FOR KIRKWOOD CLASS ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION: Moen explained the interest in a class on preservation techniques. She said a person from Kirkwood Community College has expressed enthusiasm over a series of workshops, maybe five in number, one evening per week, two hours each in length on preservation skills. Moen said she needed to know if the Commission is interested in this idea. She indicated that workshop topics, course schedules and lecturers need to be selected by February 15. Classes are scheduled to begin April 8. Duffey volunteered to assist Moen in organizing the workshops. Jones added that this is in line with the Commis- sion's goal of getting educational activities underway. 1984 HISTORIC PRESERVATION_ AWARDS PROGRAM: Jones explained the purpose pf the Historic Preservation Commission and the reason for the awards program to the audience. He said this is the second year for the historic preservation awards program and that the Commission feels that achievement in this area of preservation should be recognized. In order to judge the worth of the eight nominations that have been received, a jury of three individuals with preservation skills has been empanelled. Jones introduced jury members, Judy McClure of the State Historical Preserva- tion Office, Deba Leach, an architectural historian from Davenport, and Marlys Svendsen, a preservation planner with the City of Davenport. The members of the jury explained their backgrounds and professional interests in historic preservation. Jones introduced John Rice, guest in the audience, who is an architect from Des Moines. SWEETS AND TREATS - 226 SOUTH CLINTON STREET: i Svendsen said that this is a positive three-part storefront entrance that has used fixtures from other structures for a handsome treatment. She added that the use of other store fixtures makes it a little less than honest in terms I of preservation. Leach said that there was a lot of sensitivity toward the building, that it was a handsome treatment and agreed that there is a lack of historical accuracy when applying architectural features to the building which were not present originally. McClure said it's a very attractive building and that she had some trouble with some of the details -as an example, the double -hung windows appear to actually be a fixed window placed 144T Historic Preservation .amission January 9, 1985 Page 3 over an awning window. She said there was good use of scale here, particu- larly in the use of the three-part division storefront. She questioned the introduction of the two brick piers capped with capitals from other buildings and said that this may have been more than was necessary. She suggested that a cast iron motiff may have been more appropriate. She agreed that this was a successful saving of a building that may have been torn down otherwise. Svendsen said that historic preservation often gets burdened with urban beauty rather than pure historical preservation. We may not want to endorse or criticize what's done other than to say that in this case it was a handsome gift back to the street. She added that historic preservation and rehabilitation, reconstruction and stabilization are different areas that one needs to look at. Leach added that more precise rehabilitation could have been done, but may well not have been possible in this instance. BURGER KING RESTAURANT - 124 SOUTH DUBUQUE STREET: Svendsen said that this former 1936 movie house has been turned into a fast-food establishment.. McClure said that they had many concerns and many dilemmas considering this building. The front is made of completely new brick. She said this may be the most attractive fast-food restaurant example we will ever see. She added that as a design it is very pleasing, but it is not historic preservation. She said it is a sympathetic architectural design which turned out to be a very handsome art deco type of structure. Leach said that she had problems with new construction in this area and that she agreed it was not historic preservation and pointed out perhaps a need for the Historic Preservation Commission to create a new category called "sympathetic construction." .Svendsen said that this is an example of the revival of the original architectural design. As such it is an extraordinary testament to the strength of the original design. ROCKY ROCOCO PIZZA - 118 SOUTH DUBUQUE STREET: Leach said that this was a good example of restraint in dealing with the original texture of the structure. She said that this structure represents honest preservation for there had been no assemblage of elements from other buildings not original to the structure. She added that this was a very sympathetic and appropriate storefront presentation. Leach referred to the temptation to assemble other buildings to create a new look, but in this case there was an honest treatment of elements present. McClure said that this project demonstrated a relatively sympathetic rendering of the kind of panelling beneath the windows that would have been used at the time the building was constructed. She pointed out that piers that were discovered missing were recreated but not duplicated exactly as the remaining original pier. Exact duplication is not essential. However, recreations should resemble the originals in size and scale. Svendsen briefly commented on the air conditioning units protruding from the windows. She called them "noses" that can be viewed as internal furnishings that just happen to extrude to the exterior. She said that she had gotten into the habit of viewing these kinds of "noses," sort of like TV ads. After a while, you don't even notice them. Historic Preservation Commission January 9, 1985 Page 4 CHICAGO. ROCK ISLAND 8 PACIFIC RAILROAD PASSENGER DEPOT - 119 WRIGHT STREET: Svendsen noted that this was a conversion of a depot to a law office on one side and a railroad company on the other side. She said that this was an example of painstaking restoration of detail. The roof tile, copper gut- tering, and millwork were all restored to their original grandeur. All of this work maintained the flavor and scale of the original. McClure said that this building has a sense of nothing having been done. The fact that we view it as such is testament to how well the job has been done. She added a great deal of restraint rather than overkill has been used in renovation of this building. She added that although it was not a factor in the jury's view of the building, the interior renovation was also successful. There was a duplication of existing millwork and a good use of glass. Leach said that in this building's interior, paint is a major design element. On the exterior, the white paint emphasizes the preservation of the millwork and is a very traditional treatment. Most likely, however, the brackets and eaves were originally painted a dark color. MID -EASTERN IOWA COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH CENTER - 505 EAST COLLEGE STREET: McClure said that this was an example of how a few things can be done to correct problems of the past. The owners have returned a piece at a time to what the building once was. Leach said that this building was a further example of how a building could have some responsiveness to its surroundings. Svendsen said that this is a good example of stewardship. She said it shows what can happen when the owners let the building be what it can be. McClure added that the owners did go -further than toward the original. PORCH OF ELLIS HOME - 1003 THIRD AVENUE: Svendsen said that this is a residential building that is still in good shape. She said that the jurors recognize that it's difficult to reconstruct a porch. Leach said that she had a problem with what the original design intent was. McClure said that there were a number of concepts of enclosure used here. She added that screening breaks up the space without totally distracting from the columns used in the porch. She added that this was a good attempt at restoration. PORCH OF GOODNER HOME - 230 SOUTH DODGE: Svendsen has that this is another front porch renovation and rehabilitation. Leach said that she admired the attention to detail used in this case. McClure said that she would generally discourage dismantling, but, in this case, care was taken and the results were good. WEST TERRACE OF THE OLD CAPITOL - UNIVERSITY OF IOWA PENTACREST: Svendsen said that the Old Capitol played a leadership role in preservation in all of Iowa City. The West Terrace dates from 1925. The cost of the renovation was $387,000. She asked what is appropriate when materials are replaced? She noted that here the surface was totally replaced with a different material with the rationale that the surface is presently under continual use subject to heavy equipment when snow removal was necessary. /TT Historic Preservation Commission January 9, 1985 Page 5 Consequently, more durable pavers than were originally present were selected. She did note that a greater sense of space has been achieved by removing overgrown landscaping. Without the benefit of original landscaping plants, however, it is difficult to determine the authenticity of the new design. Leach said that a new design replaced the old tones preservation, were but ioriginally laid in intricate patterns. As such it is not Svendsen said that there was a conscious decision to abandon the original design. McClure added that in this instance landscaping should also be considered a design change. I RECOMMENDATIONS: I McClure said that she would defer to Svendsen for some comments prior to making the recommendations. Svendsen said that she would like to suggest some areas to be looked at in the future by the Historic Preservation Commission. She said that through the use of public education, news, TV, and slide shows, the Commission could create a preservation ethic in Iowa City. She said there are several areas where additional awards could be given. Those additional areas include: individual leadership byweithersthe property owner or an organization, planning, nte nance and continued use, and stewardship. The workmanship award would recog- nize the work of a skilled craftsman. She added that the maintenance category could be used to recognize those people who maintain existing historic structures. McClure said that before making the recommendation she would like to express appreciation to all of the applicants and their interest in this program. McClure said that there would be three awards. The first award was for overall significant preservation. This award went to the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad depot. The second award was for sympathetic design of a storefront in a commercial building. This went to the Rocky Rococo Pizza establishment. The third award was for rehabilitation of significant architectural elements. This was given to two locations, the West Terrace of the Old Capitol at the Pentacrest and the porch of the Goodner home at 230 South Dodge Street. Jones expressed his appreciation for the recommendations made by Svendsen. He said he was sure that the Commission would look at those recommendations for future use. He added that he and the Commission commend the jurors for their help and personally thank them. Vanderwoude moved that the recommendations of the jurors be forwarded to the Iowa City Council. Duffey seconded the motion. The motion carried unani- mousl. Duffmovfor motion carried unane ously. aJoThem Historic nPreservationonCommissionthe tadjourned I at 9:07 p.m. Minutes taken by Sam Chandler. MINUTES IOWA CITY HOUSING COMMISSION JANUARY 8, 1985 MEMBERS PRESENT: Krause, Dawson, Trevor, Moore, Logan and Watt. STAFF PRESENT: Seydel, Henderson, Barnes, Boothroy and Hencin RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: Housing Commission recommends that low-interest weatherization loan eligi- bility be extended to owner -occupants who are buying on contract. 1. Meeting to Order - Meeting called to order at 10:25 a.m. by Chairperson Krause. 2. Minutes - Minutes of December 11, 1984, meeting approved as mailed on motion by Logan, seconded by Moore, approved 6-0. 3. Housing Rehabilitation - Barnes: Barnes presented the first request for a rental rehabilitation loan for a 3 multiple dwelling unit located at 222 E. Fairchild Street. A handout was provided with a detailed breakdown of projected expenses for proposed repairs. The amount requested was $3,300 which represents the program's portion or 50% of the total cost. Seydel indicated that these units would be eligible for Section 8 rental subsidy and that current tenants could apply for assistance if they are eligible. Barnes indicated that because this property is being purchased on contract it is necessary that the City receive appropriate releases before the loan could be granted. It was moved by Krause, seconded by Moore and approved 6-0 that request for this loan be granted contingent upon the requirement that appropriate releases be provided. Hencin: Hencin requested that the Board consider amending the Low- interest Weatherization Loan Program by allowing contract purchasers who are owner -occupants to participate in this program. They would have to comply with guidelines by having sufficient equity in the property - usually 20% - and must have owned the property for a minimum of one year. Moved by Logan, seconded by Moore and approved 6-0 that Council approve request that eligibility for Low-interest Weatherization Loan Program be extended to owner -occupants who are buying on contract. 4. Congregate Housing Update - Boothroy indicated that the search for a consultant has been narrowed to two firms. Interviews have been scheduled for this month and he is hopeful of having a selection ready to recommend to Cquncil by the January 29th meeting. Pending approval by Council the consulting firm should be at work by February 1. Con- sultant work is scheduled to be complete by late May - early June. Boothroy explained that this study would address financial feasibility and do a market analysis. Discussion ensued regarding consultant qualifications and citizen input. Dawson stated that she felt there is a need for education regarding the broader realm of what congregate housing is. MINUTES IOWA CITY HOUSING COMMISSION JANUARY 8, 1985 PAGE 2 5. Coordinator's Report - Section 8 Update: Seydel stated that $81,459.75 was paid for rent in January on 429 units for an average of approximately $190 per unit. There will be five late starts for January and nine applications were submitted for approval. Seydel indicated that he expects the Annual Contributions Contract for the 14 units to be used in conjunction with rental rehabilitation will probably be presented to 1 Council at the January 15th meeting. He stated that applications for 14 vouchers and 25 certificates of Section 8 Existing have been submitted. Public Housing Update: There has been a turnover of one 4 -bedroom unit. Seydel indicated that the Annual Contributions Contract for ten additional units of Public Housing will be presented to Council at the January 15th meeting. Discussion ensued regarding the purchase of these units and requirements regarding size of the units. Statement of Policies: Seydel reviewed the Statement of Policies, discussed recommendations from the Department of Housing and Urban Development and requested that. commissioners amend their copies accordingly. Discussion ensued regarding the definition of informal review and hearing. The need for each of these processes was discussed as well as who would be responsible for conducting them. It was the consensus of opinion that the appeal process needs to be maintained and that the Housing Commission shall continue to meet that need by the method of informal hearings. Krause requested that Page 10, number 6 of the Statement of Policies be amended to reflect the following addition at the end of the first sentence: "except for cause as verified by investigation and appeal to the Housing Commission." Krause requested that assisted housing applications be time and date stamped in the future. Seydel continued to list recommended changes and indicated that he will amend this document as directed. Meeting was adjourned at 12:20 p.m. by Krause. Approved by: Fred C. Krause i i MINUTES RESOURCES CONSERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 1984 - 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC LIBRARY ROOM B MEMBERS PRESENT: Nychay, Levy, Vogel, Singerman MEMBERS ABSENT: Parsons STAFF PRESENT: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of the September 10, 1984 meeting were approved as submitted. METHANE GAS RECOVERY: Methane gas recovery was discussed, especially those aspects pertaining to possible present and future leaking of gas into the "bus barn." A potential result of mining methane gas from the landfill adjacent to the "bus barn" would be investigated. NEW ENERGY COORDINATOR: Began prioritizing tasks for the new Energy Coordinator. 1. Reactivate the methane gas recovery study, especially the questionnaires obtained by Ron Vogel earlier. 2. Study cost effective projects for the utility rebate. Also, are there ways that the savings from these projects can be earmarked for future conservation projects? Meeting adjourned 9:00 p.m. i46 MINUTES RESOURCES CONSERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 10, 1984 - 7:30 P.M. SENIOR CENTER GAME ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Nychay, Levy, Vogel, Singerman, Parsons STAFF PRESENT: Helling, Schoenfelder APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of the December 3, 1984 meeting were approved as submitted. Motion to approve Levy; second Singerman. INTRODUCTION OF NEW ENERGY COORDINATOR: Dale Helling introduced the new energy coordinator, Mr. James Schoenfelder, to the Commission members. ENERGY CONSERVATION FUNDING PROGRAM: a. The allocation of the $66,000 of utility refund was discussed. It was agreed that the funds should be spent for ECM's (Energy Conservation Measures) for city owned buildings. The savings generated by the ECM's would be returned to the RCC fund until the original $66,000 was repaid. In this manner the RCC would always have funds to implement future ECM's. b. Dale Helling presented for the RCC's information the fact that the City of Iowa City has made application for the water power rights of the Coralville Milldam for the possible generation of electricity for selected Iowa City Properties. RCC PROGRAM DIVISION STATEMENT: The current FY85 PDS document was revised to include the following: a. Under "DIVISION GOALS:", sentence 2 should read "Continue making recommendations on resource conservation issues to the City Council as needs arise or requests are made." b. Under "DIVISION OBJECTIVES:" 1. Omit sentence Al in its entirety. 2. Change sentence A3 to read as follows: "Assist the Energy Coordinator in developing criteria for evaluating energy conservation measures and developing funding programs." 3. Add the following objective statements: A. Research and implement the usage of methane gas from new and old landfill sites where proven feasible. m i Resources Conservation Commission December 10, 1984 Page 2 B. Develop and implement a city employee energy conservation questionnaire. C. Research and secure funding sources for a community based energy conservation program. ANNUAL COMMISSION CHAIRPERSONS/CITY COUNCIL MEETING: Nychay shall present the new PDS along with a chart showing the intended RCC use of the $66,000 utility refund. METHANE GAS RECOVERY CONCEPTS: Mr. Schoenfelder was directed to follow up on the methane gas questionnaire previously started by Rich Webb. MISCELLANEOUS: Mr. Schoenfelder was asked by the members of the RCC to prepare a list of local agencies which provided energy assistance or energy related programs to the general public. ROLE OF OFFICERS: Discussion was postponed to the next meeting. Adjournment 9:35 p.m. Motion to adjourn by Singerman; second by Levy. /446 MINUTES URBAN ENVIRONMENT AD HOC, COMMITTEE JANUARY 7, 1985 - 4:00 P.M. IOWA CITY RECREATION CENTER - ROOM A MEMBERS PRESENT: Amert, Baker, Brinton, Jakobsen, Lorenzen, Koch, BoutP.11e, McGuire, Strait, Vanderlloude MEMBERS ABSENT: Jordan STAFF PRESENT: Milkman, Franklin, Stewart I OTHERS PRESENT: Del Holland, Nancy Seiberling CALL TO ORDER: Baker called the meeting to order at 4:02 p.m. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF DECEMBER 4 1984: Jakobsen moved the minutes be accepted, McGuire seconded the motion. The i motion passed unanimously. DISCUSSION OF METHODS FOR PROTECTING ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LANDS: Milkman opened discussion noting that today's meeting would focus on both the general approaches and the specific methods of identifying and protecting environmentally sensitive areas. Members' packets included two reports, one regarding protecting environmentally sensitive lands and the other, a synopsis of existing Iowa City regulations applicable to environmentally sensitive lands. Milkman said review of these documents should show why something is needed to help protect environmentally sensitive lands, which regulations may be helpful in that regard, which regulations may need to be revised, and whether new regulatory devices may be needed. SubdivisionRegulations - Milkman said these regulations may be particularly useful because of their stated purpose: "To provide for the harmonious development of the City through the coordination of streets, open spaces, traffic patterns, light and air, and the distribution of population in such a way as to create conditions favorable to health, safety and general welfare." The current subdivision provisions deal only with sidewalks, roads, sewers, water and other systems, but do not address the potential implications of subdivision development in environmentally sensitive areas. These regula- tions are coming up soon for revision and this may allow for addition of provisions for environmental protection. Storm Water Runoff - Presently these regulations do provide for erosion and sedimentation control, but their current form is not terribly effective, Milkman said. Although an erosion and sedimentation control plan is supposed to be provided to Public Works, basically this is a statement that there will be erosion control, rather than a plan as to how this will be effected. Stormwater detention, Milkman said, should be required everywhere, or else it should be treated similarly to proposed open space regulations by requiring fees in lieu of providing detention. There could be several large detention basins throughout the city, toward the maintenance of which developers could provide fees, in lieu of building detention basins on their own developments. MINUTES URBAN ENVIRONMENT An HOC COMMITTEE JANUARY 7, 1985 PAGE 2 Brinton said Iowa City lacks, but could benefit from a grading plan for all properties, which has to do with diverting water away from a house, but not so as to divert it onto someone else's house. Such a provision could appropriately be made a part of the subdivision regulations. Vegetation - The relevant provisions of this regulation provide for protec- tion of trees on public property against willful abuse, and for the weed official to designate a lot as a conservation area if the owner so desires. In its present state, this regulation would not be a great deal of help to the Committee in its work. Flood Hazard Overlay Zones - These apply to rivers and creeks. The Floodway Overlay Zone prohibits development that results in an increase in the 100 -year flood level,, while the Floodplain Overlay Zone permits development, and meets only the minimum federal requirements for floodplain overlay zones. In response to a question on the effectiveness of the Floodplain Overlay Zone, Milkman said this provision does not work, in the sense that every time one builds in a floodplain zone, space for flood storage is removed. In the sense that the zone provides requirements for floodproofing and minimum elevations so that people don't get flooded out, Milkman said she presumes it works. Baker asked if anything covered by this regulation had been brought up before the Board of Adjustment for a special exception. Franklin said to her knowledge, only parking near the streambank had been dealt with in this manner. Milkman said a case would come before the Board of Adjustment if someone wanted to have a use in the floodway requiring a special exception, such as storage or parking. Boyle said State Code requires that the Board of Adjustment approve anything in a floodway. Discussion indicated some confusion over what constitutes a floodplain as opposed to a floodway. Franklin read the definition of floodway, to -wit: "The floodway is the area located within the Floodway Overlay Zone and described as the channel of the river or other land forms and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the 100 -year flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than one foot at any point." In other words, it is calculated on the 100 -year flood and would depend in any particular instance, Franklin said, on the topography of the land. This is why it is delineated on the map. Basically, Milkman said, the floodplain is larger than the floodway and can be filled. Milkman pointed out on the City map where floodplains and ways are delineated. Strait asked if there were any differentiation in floodways and plains of rivers as opposed to creeks. Milkman said there is not and that in all cases, it depends on the 100 -year flood. Strait asked if anyone had knowl- edge of any new creeks developing within the city other than something which might be considered just a trickle. Baker said that while there apparently have been no new creeks, there have been new pockets of standing water or pools which have developed, for instance, as a result of building and development. River Corridor Overlay Zone - Milkman said this is not a strong ordinance. Its primary purpose is to encourage a 100 -foot vegetative buffer between the riverbank and new development. The overlay requires a 30 -foot horizontal setback from the riverbank for new development. It also encourages planned development housing (PDH) to preserve the corridor. Y'/ MINUTES URBAN ENVIRONMENT AO HOC COMMITTEE JANUARY 7, 1985 PAGE 3 Planned Development Housing Overlay Zone - Development in accordance with the provisions of this overlay is voluntary on the part of the developer, but Milkman said this regulation has great potential in terms of protecting environmentally sensitive areas. Milkman referred to Attachment A of the report, which shows how a development can be planned to allow for open space without giving up a great deal in terms of number of lots in the development although the average lot size is somewhat reduced. In the preferred plan, the road length was significantly reduced, and Milkman said the cost of utility lines is also less. Village Green in east Iowa City is an example of a similar type of planned development housing allowing for large open spaces. There are also some planned development housing areas on the west side of the city which could serve as examples of this type of plan. Baker asked if any cities had been identified which require this type of plan. Pacifica, CA., has a requirement for planned development of hillsides, and Largo, Florida, development requires this type of plan. McGuire asked if anyone knew the legislative history of why this regulation was adopted in Iowa City as a voluntary option instead of being required. Franklin said the tone of regulations in Iowa City has been to not be too demanding. On parcels of land where it seems that a planned development would be appropri- ate, the provisions of this overlay zone have been used as an incentive. A two -acre tract is a requirement to trigger this. Jakobsen noted that Bruce Glasgow has built such a development on the east side with stormwater detention. Koch said that originally, it was thought that Village Green would "never go," but that now one rarely sees a for sale sign on those properties. It just takes time, he said, for people to catch on to the idea of planned development housing. Jakobsen said that often developers have certain concepts of what they want to do with their land, and that when you start taking density away, they're not going to be happy. But, if it is understood that it is zoned as planned area development and density will not be reduced, then it is negotiable. Koch said it usually turns out to be cheaper in the long run to develop in this way. Baker asked if, as part of a planned area development, the City can require more trees. Franklin said that there can be variations such as setbacks and lot size, but no other requirements have been added. Strait noted that the City has just put in a storm drainage link -up in the Whiting Avenue area, and asked if that is the first indication that a development of the area is imminent. Jakobsen said this may have been done to correct a problem. Strait said. it is his hope to avoid for Iowa City in the future the kind of thing that happened with the Cliffs. Milkman reiterated that Planned Development Housing is a good regulation to protect environmentally sensitive areas. Performance Standards - Milkman said these are applicable at this time only to commercial/industrial properties and deal with controlling pollution from man-made sources. There are no existing performance standards to protect environmentally sensitive areas. Strait asked, assuming that the Council passes the tax abatement, and assuming that industrial or commercial inter- ests want to build on land that is environmentally sensitive, what controls does the City have now to deal with this and what controls should this Committee be thinking about. Jakobsen said that if it is along the river, 1r7 MINUTES URBAN ENVIRONMENT AO HOC COMMITTEE JANUARY 7, 1985 PAGE 4 the River Corridor Overlay Zone regulations would apply. Franklin said it would be possible to negotiate. The amount of land that is zoned industrial is limited to basically three areas. The point of the Committee's work is to set up something so that if there is a piece of land zoned industrial that is located on a sensitive area, then some protective regulation would kick in. Discussion proceeded with examination of Table 11 of the report "Protecting Environmentally Sensitive Lands." Milkman said that discussion at the last meeting had covered various forms of acquiring land such as condemnation, dedication and easement. This is something, Milkman said, that the City can encourage, but does not have any control over, because it is up to the property owner. Milkman also noted the previous meeting had covered such options as designating a tract as a reservation and transferable development rights and density bonuses. Boyle said that transferable development rights are transferable in themselves and have a value of their own, aside from the value of the land, in a manner similar to a mineral right. It is a terminable interest and is good for a very long time, Boyle said. The land on which these rights can be transferred is designated in advance, and a cap on density can be required. Milkman said the other type of protective activity discussed at the previous meeting was protection through downzoning. There are probably only a few areas throughout the city, Milkman said, that would constitute areas where downzoning would be effective. Most of the areas that have been identified as environmentally sensitive are already zoned RS5 or RS8. Baker asked that staff obtain a list of areas to consider for downzoning. McGuire asked what political and legal problems are associated with downzoning. Jakobsen said that the area has to be large enough to that you're not doingnything that a would be considered "spot zoning.' Then, Jakobsen said, if the property owner objects, it goes to an extraordinary majority on the Council. Boyle said there are both clinical and legal problems. Franklin said that it should be noted that sometimes, multi -family dwellings cause less damage environmen- tally than single-family development. Jakobsen agreed, saying that in fact, single-family dwellings are the worst for damage to the surrounding area. One solution to that problem would be a PDH -12 for instance, which the City could request. Milkman said there are basically now two approaches for the Committee to consider. The need to protect environmentally sensitive areas has been identified, now the question is how to do this. One way is to mix ap- proaches; to combine overlay zones which delineate geographical areas with performance standards. Milkman said the Committee needs to consider the most effective methods as well as methods which would be more advantageous politically, financially and legally. Performance Standards, Milkman said, are easier to administer. Strait said he believes that a mixed approach would be most effective, as opposed to one method strictly or the other. Jakobsen said staff should be ready to start drafting model regulations. Boyle agreed that it would probably require a mixed approach. Franklin said one of the zoning mechanisms that could be used for instance in residential areas is that the area be rezoned to PDH with whatever density is thought to be appropriate. When the area is developed, it comes in for site review by the Planning and Zoning Commission, which can then use Performance Standards that are created to control for the particular elements that MINUTES URBAN ENVIRONMENT AD HOC COMMITTEE JANUARY 7, 1985 PAGE 5 brought about the sensitive area designation in the first place. McGuire asked what might be done to allow for the individual who owns a lot with a slope who wants to build his own home on his lot. Franklin said this would be taken care of at the building permit level. Jakobsen said there can be Environmental Review for single lots. Franklin said building permits are the lowest conmon denominator and the correct approach is for the Committee to decide what it wantsto do and how to get there, but after that, it ought to consider how much it thinks is feasible. McGuire said she can't anticipate what the Council is going to approve, and she prefers to give them a variety of choices in an orderly way. McGuire proposed the Committee go back and take a look at a sampling of the areas that the Committee had picked out as ones they would like to save, and brainstorm as to what the approaches would be to get an idea of what mechanisms might work. Baker suggested the Committee members think about their individual suggestions for regulations. Boyle suggested staff put together some examples of proposed regulations regarding for instance slope protection, and proposed Performance Standards to bring back to the Committee for examination. Strait suggested staff also put together ideas that this Committee hasn't thought about, that other cities have used effectively. Milkman said that most of the places staff has studied, have dealt with a single issue, such as water or open space; none seem to have taken the approach of Iowa City in trying to deal with the range of issues being considered here. Amert said for the record, she wished to complement staff on the development of the materials given to the Committee to help with their work; that the material was invaluable to her in summarizing the issues to be considered. OTHER BUSINESS: The next meeting will take place two weeks from today at 4:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned by consensus at 5:10 p.m. /�7 MINUTES SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 1984 SENIOR CENTER ASSEMBLY R0014 MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Coe, Kattchee, RuthnWagnerx,' Dorrothy Wh ppleBob Jackson,l,aGladysrty fMichael Scott MEMBERS ABSENT: Margaret Clover STAFF PRESENT: Bette Meisel, Lori Benz, Donita Devance OTHERS PRESENT: Orson Brown, Kathleen Norris, COE PHONIC EAR DEMONSTRATION: Ken Lowder, an audiologist, demonstrated the Phonic Ear hearing device, recently installed in the Center. One of the unique features of the system is that it enables a hearing impaired person to hear from a distance of about 200 feet with relatively little outside noise or distortion. The City has purchased four receiver units that will be kept in the Center. Anyone who would like to use the device for meetings must notify the staff by at least the day before in order to allow adequate time to charge the receivers. CALL TO OROER/MINUTES: The meeting was called to order by the Chair at 3:55 p.m. Coen read and presented a certificate of appreciation to outgoing Commissioner Gladys Scott. A similar certificate is to be presented to Margaret Clover, who is also finishing her term. Kattchee reminded of the importance of havingthe meeting minutes sent to the Commission Secretary for review before submission to the Commission. Wagner made a correction to the Council of Elders report from the October minutes, deleting the section regarding the Publicity and Outreach Committee following the sentence which reads, "The Publicity and Outreach Committee met with the Farm Bureau Women". The corrected minutes were approved. A joint meeting of the Boards and Commissions and the City Council for the City of Iowa City, is scheduled for Thursday, December 13, 1984, in the Senior Center Cl.assroom. Kattchee will represent the Commis- sion. Reports of these bodies usually include problems, accomplishpresentation ments,and gols point for the coming year. Scott suggested that a part of the Up the importance of the Senior Center atmosphere to its clients. In a poll of one of her classes she found that her students valued the structure, fullness and personal growth that the Center added to their lives. The Center has become a place to make new friends and meet with old. Kattchee suggested election of officers be held at the upcoming meeting as some of the outgoing Commissioners presently hold office. SENIOR CENTER UPDATE: The Department of'Social Work at the University of Iowa is dropping the Adult Day Program from its Gerontology Project. If all goes well ll the prommi Will be picked up by CAHHSA and will require no new app Y This does, however, bring up a problem. Tom Walz has Vista Volunteers who iµ8. Senior Center Comm December 12, 1984 Page 2 come into the Center through the School of Social Work via the Gerontology Project. As long as the Department of Social Work was handling the program, there was no need for concern about the programs that were administered as we do not interfere with other agencies' staff. Currently there is a Vista Volunteer who has led the bible class, memory clinic, counseling service, Widowed Persons Service, and has suggested that she would like to do a program in Peer Counseling (her request was rejected because it would be difficult to obtain appropriate professional support and supervision for the project) and more recently a First Aid class. The policy has been to insist that everything that is done in the building be responsibly supervised by a department or agency. Because the volunteer has an affiliation with CAHHSA and WPS it is often unclear, even to these agencies, just who is sponsoring her projects. Jackson recommended that if, for example, a volunteer is to teach a health related course, then he/she must be directly connected to and responsible to our major health provider, CAHHSA. All instructors must be certified by an organization knowledgeable and responsible in that particular area. Even in cases that are not so clearly drawn it was agreed that all volunteers should be connected to an organization which has been approved of by the SC Commission as meeting the goals of the Senior Center. COUNCIL OF ELDERS REPORT: The Christmas tree trimming party plans are made. Entertainment has been secured. Refreshments and a present of an exercycle will be donated by United Federal Savings. This is the second year they have been involved with the holiday party. Kathleen Norris has been elected the new Council of Elders representative to the Commission. Ora Crites has been appointed to fill the position vacated by Ruth Wagner. The Volunteer Committee is planning another Volunteer Training Session to be' held in January. Representatives from agencies outside the Center will make presentations. The Publicity and Outreach Committee is trying to involve people in outlying areas in activi- ties here at the Center. PUBLIC DISCUSSION: It has been suggested that coat racks be put on the ground floor. The idea has been rejected due to lack of security. The second floor would be a better place. Coat racks could be placed in the southwest corner of the second floor. The package situation appears to be essentially unsolvable. The packages are not on the coat racks anymore, instead they have been left at other places in the building, pushed off on Host/Guides, etc. An article will be run in the SC Post in hopes of helping to spread the word that the lockers are available. Coen read a letter for the Congregate Housing Committee seeking suggestions for questions and issues to be included in an in-depth marketing survey to meet the elderly housing need in Iowa City. Suggestlons are to be mailed to: Mary Nugent Department of Planning 3 Program Development 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Senior Center Comm. i.. December 12, 1984 Page 3 no later than January 18, 1985. Suggestions may also be left with the SC Secretary and will be taken to the Civic Center. Kattchee brought up a problem concerning the ticketing of SEATS buses in the loading zone at the Center. Bette explained that no one is allowed to park in the those loading zones more than 30 minutes. If they have been there more than that amount of time, a City meter person will ticket them. This has been explained to SEATS drivers and they know that they will not be allowed to park the buses there but rather in the lot that has been provided at the Civic Center. The meeting adjourned at 5:11. Submitted by Michael Kattchee Secretary, Senior Center Commission o, ik MINUTES LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES SPECIAL MEETING THURSDAY, JANUARY 10, 1985 - 4:00 PM ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Bovbjerg, Pegnetter, Cavitt, Gritsch, Lyman, Willis, Zastrow, Drum (arrived at 4:20), Grimes (arrived at 4:40) STAFF PRESENT: Eggers, Jehle, Craig OTHERS PRESENT: None. President Cavitt called the meeting to order at 4:06 PM. Cavitt and Library Director Eggers reviewed their meeting with the City Manager about the library's FY86 budget. Cavitt explained why she asked Eggers to prepare the memo on library generated revenues to the City Council. The City Manager will not recommend any ESL's in his proposed FY86 budget because of projections that indicate FY87 revenues may not be sufficient to sustain FY86 expansions. To help fill this possible shortfall the Council is having the Finance Department study the amount of additional income that could be generated from installing fees and charges for a variety of city services, including library services. Because only the Library Board can set fees at the Library, because their current operating principals prohibit fees for services, and because the local ordinance calls for a free public library, Cavitt felt it was very important to let the Council know the variety of other ways the library is currently using to supplement tax monies for supporting library service in Iowa City. She also wanted them to know the extent to which these revenues have increased in the past five years. Board members discussed their commitment to free public library service and reconfirmed their policy of no user fees. They felt their efforts to increase revenue should be recognized and compared to those of many other city depart- ments. Assuming there are many ways to raise revenue besides user fees (fines, gifts, sales, grants, fund raising), it was decided that they would prefer that the Council decide on the level of support the City can provide and what annual increases the library can expect. Then the Library Board can seek other resources to provide services beyond that base. Eggers reviewed in more detail the recent offer from the Library's computer vendor to provide the new equipment and software that the library needs to upgrade the computer system. The offer is a generous one in return for ICPL becoming the Alpha site for testing the software. If a five year lease/purchase agreement can be arranged, it appears that the cost can be borne by an increase in fines as discussed at the December Board meeting. The Board gave informal agreement to the plan and decided to ask the Council to let the library keep all fine income in FY86 and beyond which exceeds the $40,000 already estimated as part of the City's FY86 revenues. Cavitt then reviewed the three points she felt she should make at the presentation to City Council on Saturday, January 12. 1. The Library badly needs their first priority ESL, 1.75 additional staff positions. With no increase since 1979, the library needs the new staff to maintain the current level of service. V-/ 2 2. The Library Board has reviewed its commitment to free library service. They hope the Council will respect their position and recognize their success at generating revenues for the library during the past five years and their continuing efforts to increase these revenues. 3. The upgrade to the computer system is very important to make the system increasingly easier and more useful for the public to use, to sustain productivity of the library staff and to ensure that both staff and public can continue to benefit from capabilities available from newer computer technologies. Increased fine income can pay for the system if they can be earmarked for this purpose. It was moved by Zastrow and seconded by Grimes that prize money of up to $630 be provided from the Gifts and Bequests Fund to support the local section of the National Photography Contest being held this spring in conjunction with the National Library Week theme, a Nation of Readers. Motion approved. FRIENDS of ICPL have pledged $360. Businesses and other organizations will also be asked to help supply prizes. Meeting adjourned at 5:05 PM. Am an Jen lelo I ly rgers, r e j i / �9 MINUTES COMMITTEE ON COMMUNITY NEEDS DECEMBER 18, 1984 IOWA CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY - ROOM A MEMBERS PRESENT: Becker, Cooper, Kubby, Lauria, Leshtz, Parden, Patrick, Smith, Stimmel, Williams, Watts MEMBERS ABSENT: None COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Baker STAFF PRESENT: Hencin, Moen, Nugent, Stewart OTHERS PRESENT: M. Milkman CALL TO ORDER: Lauria called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. Lauria asked the new Housing Commission representative, Gary Watts, to introduce himself. Commit- tee members then introduced themselves. Watts replaces Al Logan. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES Parden moved and Patrick seconded that the minutes of November 20, 1984, be accepted. Williams called for a correction on page five, under City Park Accessibility project, to show that he, and not Logan, had abstained from voting. There were no further corrections and the motion passed. PUBLIC/MEMBERS DISCUSSION: Marianne Milkman thanked the Committee for their resolution of commendation for her. Nugent reminded the members that the Committee will elect officers in January to assume responsibility after the January 15th meeting. Lauria noted the minutes of the previous meeting called for a request for informa- tion from Council concerning the use of the 5% liquor tax on a one -time -only basis for substance abuse. Lauria asked for a member to follow-up on this to determine the amount involved, see what Council's feeling has been in the past on uses for that money, and report back to the Committee. Kubby volunteered. Lauria also noted that the previous minutes contained a motion to request staff to look into the cost for the clean up of the Ralston Creek bed. Lauria asked for a member to follow through on this with staff. Parden volunteered. UPDATE ON PROPOSALS FOR 1985 CDBG FUNDING: Lauria stated that he had requested from Council a rationale regarding its decision in declining to grant funding to MECCA in the full amount recom- mended by CCN. Lauria referred to the Mayor's response which was included in members' packets. Lauria said he wasn't sure the matter should be pushed further. Following discussion, the consensus was that CCN should be aware of any unwritten Council policy regarding funding certain proposals in order to properly carry out its duties. Lauria will call Mayor McDonald to ask for further clarification to the letter and will then report back to CCN. /SO Committee on Communi Needs December 18, 1984 Page 2 Lauria noted that members' packets included information regarding expendi- tures to date in the Ralston Creek improvement projects. In response to a question from Lauria, Hencin explained that "local funds" refers to the general fund. Lauria reiterated his comments to Council during the meeting on December 13, 1984. Lauria said he had indicated that CCN plans for the fiscal year included better communications with the Parks and Recreation Department. Lauria suggested that CCN might better carry out its purpose if some sort of "needs assessment" was conducted prior to the CDBG funding period. Requests for Proposals (RFPs) could be solicited, stating that funds are available and that the CCN is particularly interested in projects relating to targeted community needs. Lauria said the specifics of this are not yet clear. Becker said Johnson County Regional Planning had done a Human Needs Assessment survey some years ago. Leshtz described the "Neighborhood Strategy" study and Hencin outlined the Community Development Plan. Patrick will call Cheryl Mintle to find out whether the Johnson County Regional Planning study can be obtained. Hencin said he is not sure that any continuing studies of this type are currently being done. REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF PROJECTS NOT RECOMMENDED BY CCN FOR 1985: Lauria explained that, in the past, staff developed letters to groups whose projects had been turned down outlining the Committee's reasoning. Lauria said the letters could include recommendations regarding alternative sources of funding for specific projects. An example would be that the Creative Arts �— Troupe might approach the Iowa Arts Council. Lauria said that, according to the Parks & Recreation Commission Chair's report to Council, there are three pieces of property the Parks and Recrea- tion Commission is looking into acquiring: Ryerson Woods, located near the airport and fairgrounds area which is to be left primarily in its present semi -wilderness state; County Home land, to be used for adult softball, due to heavy demand for Mercer Park field for soccer and children's activities; and Miller Park. Lauria said the report also mentioned building a bandshell at City Park. Lauria said he felt Parks and Recreation's specific mention of Miller Park indicated their willingness to reach agreement with CCN on this matter. Lauria suggested an exchange of representatives between Parks and Recreation and CCN. Staff will draft a letter requesting that the Chair of Parks and Recreation or a representative attend a CCN meeting to outline Parks and Recreation Commission's priorities and programs for the next couple of years. QUARTERLY REPORTS: Nelson Adult Center Renovation - Becker reported that the Center is complet- ing Phase 3 of its renovation plan. Upstair bathrooms are almost complete; kitchen cabinets are in, and floors are in. Downstair floors are in and work will begin soon on kitchen cabinets. The Center is on schedule in paying contractors as the money comes in from the City. The completion of the project is expected by February 1, 1985, with an Open House to be held in the spring. Currently the Center serves 59 clients. /SD Committee on Community Needs December 18, 1984 Page 3 Accessibilprit Guide - Smith reported that National Computer Systems will nt a ut the cover at no cost. The survey is 95% complete, but three to four months more time is needed. The project was delayed due to a changeover in personnel from the handicapped volunteers who began the project to students. Lauria noted that the Human Rights Commission has done a survey of downtown accessibility and this information may be helpful in this project. Smith moved and Patrick seconded that an extension of three months be given for the completion of this project. Motion passed unanimously. Miller/Orchard Parkland Ac uisition - Cooper's report stated that proposed Mi I ler/Orchardpar si a 1s an open space in District 5. The 1980 census showed an open space deficit of 11.26 acres. The area includes 320 house- holds and 670 residents. If the five' acres are acquired as proposed, 3,273 or more people could be accommodated, thus eliminating the greenspace deficit. The original five acres sought from the Ruppert estate was reduced to 4.4 acres to allow for an entrance to the remainder of the property. The original five acre site was first appraised at more than $38,000 per acre. A new appraisal is being sought which is hoped will result in a lower price per acre due to the loss of the 50 feet. In 1983, the city approved an expendi- ture of $42,500 and in November, 1984, a $60,000 figure was approved. The land was recommended to be zoned RS -8 on December 12. Parks and Recreation has voted to recommend to Council to purchase the 4.4 acre site. Members of the Commission will attend tonight's Council meeting along with a contingent of residents of the neighborhood and other interested parties to make that recommendation. Kubby will represent CCN at the Council meeting in regards to this item. Shared Housing Program - Patrick reported the Shared Housing project has been assigned to the Elderly Services Agency for administration. Initially, the director, Donna Nielson, will spend a few months publicizing the program, getting the office arranged, and interviewing people whose names are already on a list of those wanting shared housing. Match -ups will be made carefully based on the results of interviews and lengthy and precise questionnaires. Preliminary training will be done before any placements are made. The first clients will be chosen in June or July. Patrick said Elderly Services has done this kind of thing before, although not on an organized basis. Parden pointed out that arrangements involving students should be made at the earliest opportunity because they cannot afford to wait until fall to decide where they are going to live. The project is due to begin in January. Donna Nielson can be reached at Elderly Services. Williams noted that the Quarterly Reports show that the Committee is making headway on worthwhile projects. Lauria acknowledged the presence of Councilmember Baker and asked whether Baker was the new Council representative to CCN. Baker said he was present for his own enlightenment. Patrick noted she has been sharing attendance with Leshtz at the United Way budget hearings, and said the process is a very interesting one and one, that provides some insight into how the group reacts to the proposals it receives. Meeting adjourned by consensus at 4:35 p.m. 570 Charter Review Commission December 10, 1984 Charter Review Commission: December 10, 1984, 7:00 p.m in the Council Chambers at the Civic Center. Chairperson Balmer presiding. Commntission Present: Balmer, Goodwin, Baldus, Welt, Roberts, Matsumoto, Mizer (/:en p.m.), Davidsen (7:30 p.m.), Ringgenberg (7:40 p.m.). Staff Present: Karr, Boyle, Smith. Tape Recorded: Reel 15-84, Side 2, 115 -End; 16-84, Sides 1 and 2, All; 17-84, Side 1, 1-372. Chairperson Balmer called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. The minutes of the November 9 and December 1, 1984 Charter Review Commission meetings were approved as read. Commission members reviewed the December 7 memo regarding initiative and referendums from the City Clerk, City Manager and Assistant City Attorney. Balmer stated that the proposed change would be handled as a technical change through the City Clerk to the City Council. Baldus noted that words in parenthesis were meant as deletions, so the words "solely" should be deleted from the December 10, 1984 draft of amendment to 7.04.D and "and either" from the draft of amendment to 7.03.8. In reference to initiative and referendum, Karr stated that if more informa- tion is wanted to validate signatures, it should be required. Karr explained that names and birth dates don't fluctuate or change, as addresses do. In Boyle said it is his opinion under Iowa law that once response to Matsumoto, a person is registered, a person is still a qualified elector even if that person moves. Also, a qualified elector is a voter who is registered to vote in Iowa City. Balmer said the goal should be to ensure that people who are actually qualified are assured that their name is counted when they sign a petition. Boyle suggested the Commission could draft a memorandum to the Council explaining the Commission's position. Baldus said that the Commission should get an agreement from the City Council about the initiative and referendum recommendation. Baldus said the recommendation should go on the ballot if Council doesn't consider the changes. Baldus suggested that name and birthdate be required and the Council could require the address. In reference to the December 10 draft of amendment to 7.03.8, Baldus suggested deleting the address of the person signing" and "the person's social security number". In response to Baldus, Karr said that she did not know what proportion of voter registrations have the social security since it is optional. Boyle stated that the address should be required if initiative and referendum is meant to be limited to just qualified electors in Iowa City. Commission members agreed to eliminate the social security requirement from amendment to 7.03.B, and to delete social security number from the last sentence in amendment to 7.04.D. and to have the address on petitions. Balmer said he will attend the Council discussion of this issue. The Charter Review Commission next reviewed the December 10, 1984 memo from Boyle regarding charter Section 8.02. Boyle explained that he, the City Attorney and City Manager concluded that there is a serious question about /S_/ the validity of a multiple choice proposal and whether that is a "recommenda- tion deemed fit by the Commission. Boyle raised concerns about defending the issue if it is passed in the proposed format. Baldus said there is ambiguity in the Section 8.02 language as to whether it means deems fit to put it on the ballot or it deems fit for the voters to adopt. Baldus said the original Charter Review Commission never considered the question of in- terpretation as to if "fit" means to put it on the ballot or if "fit" meant to be the law of jurisdiction. In response to Baldus, Boyle said there is no case law on this issue. In response to Matsumoto, Boyle said the Commission is required by the language in Section 8.02 to take a position favoring any amendment it proposes and it is inappropriate to remain neutral on an issue. Davidsen explained the original charter provided for the Commission to recommend if it saw fit because there are other ways the charter can be amended. Welt said the role of the Charter Review Commission should have been more definitely outlined. Mintzer inquired about the proposed wording on page two of Boyle's December 10 memo. Baldus asked if the City would suffer a default judgement or would the City defend the legality of the provision if someone files an action against the City to strike the proposed change from the ballot. Boyle said he would recommend to the Council that they hire special counsel to defend it. I Davidsen inquired about what happens if someone does something contrary to the charter. In response to Balmer, Matsumoto explained that three Charter Review Commission members feel the ballot proposal is deemed fit by Boyle's rationale and two Charter Review Commission members feel it is appropriate I for voters of Iowa City to determine the issue. Baldus stated that the two i issues are 1) can the Charter Review Commission put something on the ballot without the majority supporting it and 2) the format that should be used on the ballot. Baldus moved to put districting on the ballot even though the Commission does not have a majority vote to recommend it to the voters. Motion seconded by Roberts. Motion carried five yes (Roberts, Mintzer, Matsumoto, Baldus, Goodwin), three opposed (Balmer, Davidsen, Welt) and one abstension (Ringgenberg). Public input was received from Robert Welsh. Welsh stated that Charter Review Commission's function is to make recommendations. The Charter Review Commission discussed the proposed ballot question wording. Boyle said the proposed language as stated on page two of Boyle's December 10 memo would be easier to defend as an amendment than an a or b choice. In reference to the Commission's December 10 ballot question proposal draft, Baldus suggested changing the wording in option A to read "seats on the City Council be nominated by the voters of their Districts but be elected in the City..." Baldus said the proposed ballot question is a presentation of an amendment to vote on and gives voters information to make an informed choice. Baldus also suggested changing option B to read "...three district City Council members be nominated..." Mintzer recommended changing "strictly" to "solely" in line three of option B. Commission members discussed in what order the options should be placed on the ballot and agreed to alternate the order of the options and to have the option labels of "A" or "B" remain as part of the question. Mintzer moved to change the currently labeled option B to option A, seconded by Roberts. Motion not carried. Mintzer moved to decide on ballot option labels by lottery or flip of the coin. Balmer ruled the motion out of order. 151 Commission members reviewed Mintzer's proposal for enforcement that would replace Section 6.04. Mintzer inquired about how the Charter Review Commis- sion decides if the proposed change is a technical or ballot amendment and if Mintzer's dissent on a vote would make the proposal a ballot amendment. Mintzer stated that an amendment becomes a ballot amendment if the Charter Review Commission takes a vote on the issue. Mintzer read his enforcement proposal to the Charter Review Commission. Mintzer said Section C of his proposal was taken directly from the charter Section 6.04. In response to Baldus, Mintzer said forfeiture means a person would have to give up the money. Roberts asked who the money would be given to. Boyle noted Section B of Mintzer's proposal should read nothing in Section A shall be construed..." Balmer said the Commission needs to address Section 6.02 since it had been indicated that all contributions had to be disclosed. In response to Matsumoto, Balmer said there is a disclosure requirement under the State Code. Baldus recommended changing Section 2 of the Mintzer proposal to read "in violation of Section 6.02 or state law." Baldus asked if the City Clerk would administer the proposed provision, and suggested that if a Councilmember does not pay the money, that person would not be author- ized to sit until the money is paid to the Clerk and the Clerk certifies the money has been paid. Ringgenberg said penalties should not be written into the Charter. Balmer said there are no major disclosure problems in the community and the present charter provisions have worked well. Goodwin stated the repealed violation sanction of the Iowa City Code should have been retained. Boyle said the City code provides that any violation of the City Code is a misdemeanor subject to a $100 fine or 30 days in jail and that state law stipulates that contributions should not include services in-kind on a candidate's behalf unless by organized groups such as unions. Karr read an applicable section of City Attorney Jansen's May 3, 1983 memo: "...I would, however, call your attention to the fact that one of the provisions being repealed does place a limit of $50 in total contributions from the in- dividuals contributing. A similar provision does not exist in the State Code and the Council may wish to retain that limitation..." Balmer said the Council did not consider penalties when the changes were made to the City Code. Mintzer explained Section VI should not be retained as is because it allows the Council too much leeway in prescribing penalties for violations. Balmer stated that there are sufficient penalties under state law that can be exacted against someone who wilfully violates campaign contributions and disclosure requirements. Baldus proposed that "1) each violation of the state law or city ordinance limitation on campaign contributions as deter- mined by the City Clerk shall result in a civil obligation to the City of those funds received in excess of the limitation or the maximum allowed by state law, whichever is less, and a Council candidate found by the City Clerk to be in violation of this section shall not be seated in the Council until the City Clerk certifies that the candidate's obligation to the City has been paid, and 2) each day that a disclosure statement is late under state law or city charter ordinance shall be considered as a violation of the charter. Each violation that is determined by the City Clerk shall result in a civil obligation to the City... With those recommendations, Baldus said it becomes self-executing within the confines of the city. Karr stated that the City Clerk, City Attorney and City Manager are appointed by the City Council and therefore it would be awkward to direct the City Clerk to administer the enforcement provisions. Baldus inquired if there had been violations in past years. Balmer- responded he was not aware of any such violations. /S7 Moved by Boldus, seconded by Ringgenberg, to delete "all" from line 4 in Section 6.02. Motion carried, 7-2 (Mintzer and Goodwin opposed). Moved by Matsumoto, seconded by Baldus, to change "shall" to "may" in line one of Section 6.02. Matsumoto said Section 6.02 is an empty provision if shall is retained and all is deleted. Motion carried 5-4 (in favor: Balmer, Matsumoto, Davidsen, Roberts, Welt; opposed: Baldus, Goodwin, Mintzer, Ringgenberg). Commission members discussed the need for additional sanctions section. Davidsen asked what happens if there are violations under the State Code. Boyle said there are administrative penalties under State Code. Mintzer stated that in accordance with Article VIII, campaign contribu- tions/disclosure should be considered a ballot issue and not a technical change because the Charter Review Commission took several votes on that issue. Boyle stated that the Charter Review Commission has to vote on the issue to determine if changes go onto the ballot. Matsumoto said that deleting "all" and changing "shall" to "may" are big issues. Ringgenberg stated the Charter Review Commission decides if an issue goes on the ballot. Matsumoto suggested retaining the present Section 6.02 and outlining the problem to Council for their response (to either pass an ordinance or amend the Charter) . Moved by Matsumoto, seconded by Baldus, to convey the Charter Review Commission discussion about Section 6.02 to the Council. Boyle said the legal department will have to advise the Council that Section 6.02 mandates that they enact legislation and that the majority of the Charter Review Commission wants to change "shall" to "may" and eliminate "all". The Council has the option to change the charter. Balmer stated an ordinance should be prepared that includes the technical changes. Boyle said he would write a draft in standard ordinance form deleting Section 6.02 and amending it in its entirety to read "the Council by ordinance may...", delete "all", and then put back in all remaining words. Balmer said all the information should be provided in a cover memo. Davidsen said the Council should be encouraged to use " may", delete "all", and enact an ordinance. Motion carried 7-2 (opposed: Mintzer and Goodwin). Mintzer, Davidsen and Goodwin said another meeting is needed. Baldus said that any proposals should be written out to enable Commission members to vote on them. Davidsen said districting needs to be discussed and that a non-partisan group is needed to draw up the district lines. Moved by Welt, seconded by Baldus, to not schedule another meeting until after the Council discussion with the Charter Review Commission scheduled for January 22. Motion carried. Mintzer recommended deleting Section 7.03.E, changing Article VIII to allow the Charter Review Commission to make recommendations to the Council, and establish a two year Council term. Commission members did not feel Section 7.03.E should be deleted. Baldus suggested Article VIII language read: "The Commission may also submit recommendations to the Council that it exercise its power of amendment pursuant to 8.01.B in the manner recomnended by the Commission." The Charter Review Commission gave approval to the suggestion as a technical change. Commission members did not wish to explore the two year Council term. /y/ 5 Balmer stated a Charter Review Commission meeting will be scheduled after the t 5 Balmer stated a Charter Review Commission meeting will be scheduled after the MINUTES PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION JANUARY 9, 1985 MEMBERS PRESENT: Riddle, Steinbrech, Jennings, Mitchell, Willis, Hradek, Martin MEMBERS ABSENT: Alvarez, Jordison STAFF PRESENT: Cassady, Howell, Harvey, Moran GUESTS PRESENT: Peter Wallace, 701 Templin Road; Flo Beth Ehninger, 10 Oak Ridge; Ron Clark, Riverside Theatre; Larry Fountain, 752 Juniper Drive; Steve West, Iowa City Community Band; and Charles Ruppert, 1406 N. Dubuque Road. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION AND FORMAL ACTION TAKEN Moved by Steinbrech, seconded by Jennings, that the minutes of the December 12 meeting be approved as written. Unanimous. Letters to the City Council from the Miller/Orchard Neighborhood Committee request- ing a new appraisal and funding for the proposed park, and the Principal of Roose- velt Elementary School expressing support of the proposed park, were received and filed. Moved by Mitchell, seconded by Willis, that Riddle be re-elected as Chairman and Martin as Chairman Pro Tem. Unanimous. COMMUNITY BAND SHELL DISCUSSION j Steve West, President, Iowa City Community Band, said there were five basic areas to consider for the proposed band shell: (1) site selection; (2) determining whether groups other than the community band would use the facility; (3) what the utilization would be; (4) design; and (5) cost and methods of financing. (1) Upper City Park is a very suitable site for the facility. There is a somewhat natural amphitheatre there that will blend very well into the aesthetic qualities of the area. There wouldn't be a need to remove any trees and there would be ample parking with utilization of the Hancher parking lot. There would be adequate seating capacity, accessibility to electricity and restrooms, fulfilling all criteria. (2) A questionnaire was sent to twenty-two organizations in Iowa City. Fourteen were returned with eleven answering that they would have use of the facility, the three no's did not meet during the summer. There would not be a duplication of the facility from the standpoint of the University or the City. (3) Utilization would consist of eleven groups using it in the summer months, participation of -nine hundred, and an anticipated audience of two to three hundred each event. The facility would be used for concerts, orchestra, theatre, dance, music camps, shows, recreational uses including summer camp, arts in the park, children's theatre. All age groups, including the handicapped, could utilize the facility. (4) The design concept has changed. A design similar to Geneseo, Illinois', band shell would be ideal because the facility is erected onto an existing restroom facility. An additional restroom facility will be erected in Upper City Park (handicapped accessibility project funded by CDBG funds - May 1) and the band shell could be added on at that time. He added that a symphony. member who had performed in Geneseo had said the accoustics were exceptional in the band shell. •PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSI, MINUTES JANUARY 9, 1985 PAGE 2 (5) Cost would be $40,000-$45,000, and building the band shell at the same time as the restrooms would save ten to twenty per cent. Research shows that the majority of band shells were paid for by cities and the remainder by private donations. The questionnaire response concerning contributions was that four would be willing, however, it would be very limited --$100-$150. These are volunteer groups that depend on fund-raising, and it would be very difficult to solicit funding from the volunteer organizations if the City is to be the primary user. If the City cannot fund the facility, foundations will have to be approached. j Jennings asked anticipated cost for seating and West answered that audiences brought their own chairs or blankets to sit on the grass. Cassady added that the site has a natural incline to accomodate sitting on the grass and that seating is not a high priority. Riddle added that Shelter p3 could be used for seating for the elderly and handicapped. Steinbrech voiced his concerns that without restricted usage, rock bands would be using the facility and disturbing the neighboring homeowners. Peter Wallace expressed his concern with the.inability to control uses of the facility, as well as increased crime. He said he could not visualize the construction of the facil- ity and the area for the audience without removing trees and asked why the old zoo area in Lower City Park couldn't be utilized. Flo Beth Ehninger expressed her concerns with traffic and parking problems. She said that she couldn't get across Park Road on a Sunday carrying a chair and couldn't G visualize the elderly and handicapped being able to do so. She also questioned whether Hancher would be available for parking and West answered that it would be if nothing was going on there. She asked if there was a possible site on the other side of Park Road near Hancher and West said there is no site with sufficient shade. Riddle said that City Park is the safest location because of lighting and patrol, and that Lower City Park is impossible because the flood plain is too high. He said that parking would only be a problem if there is a very large concert and this is the only site in the city with adequate parking. Mrs. Ehninger questioned why College Green Park wasn't being considered and West. answered that major neighborhood concern of the park becoming a crime area prevented a permanent structure being erected there. Steinbrech said he didn't feel the noise ordinance is being presently enforced and would not be in the future, and Riddle and Cassady said that applications for use could limit the noise level. Ron Clark, Riverside Theatre, stated that they per- form at Old Brick and the noise ordinance (by complaint to the Police Department) is consistently enforced with the neighboring fraternity houses. West suggested a house p.a. system in the facility, limiting the noise'level. Willis stated he has strong support for the concept, however, he has serious reser- vations about the site at City Park and feels the Commission should take a careful look at the site issue. It was decided to place this issue on the February agenda to receive further input from neighbors. -7- PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSl. MINUTES JANUARY 9, 1985 PAGE 3 Mike Moran, Sports and Wellness Program Supervisor, announced that the Recreation Division has been named as one of the five finalists for the Governor's Award for physical fitness and sports in the state of Iowa for 1984. The Division will be compiling a scrapbook in January for submission and the decision will be made in March. Moran distributed copies of the fitness assessment and said that the Recreation Division has been awarded the fitness assessment contract for the City. The assess- ment will be $10 per person and can be deducted from the $25 per year fitness allowance that the City provides. The Division plans to approach the business sector to conduct fitness and wellness programs. Martin asked what qualified staff the Recreation Division has to take these assessments and Cassady answered that staff would be hired. Martin said that licensed physical therapists should be administering these assessments and a complete medical history obtained. Cassady assured her that qualified staff would be administering the tests and Moran invited her to the training session and assessments. Moran updated the Commission on the basketball and volleyball seasons and the increases in the number of teams. Willis said that he feels that feedback from individual players should be solicited to maintain the increased participation. The Recreation Division has met with Babe Ruth and have a tentative agreement that the Division will run the concession stand through a concessionaire and will pro- vide umpires. Martin asked about the possibility of a summer basketball league for junior high students and Moran said there are sports camp options during summer camp that could provide this. He said the Recreation Division could provide the program, however, there is no available gymnasium space without using the schools. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Cassady reported that he had met with the Arts Council and Community Theatre and both had submitted requests for funding to the Division (Community Theatre $15,BOO; Arts Council $2,897). This has not been officially submitted to the City Council at this time. He has met with the Johnson County Fairgrounds concerning an additional one point four acres the City is considering buying as part of Ryerson's Woods. This acreage would provide us entrance from the access to the Woods. The City has tentatively agreed to buy the tract and will be in control of the area in terms of development in the future. The contract for purchase of the fourteen acre right-of-way will be sent to the Department in the next two weeks. Cassady reminded the Commission that Iowa City will be hosting the Iowa Parks and Recreation Association's 1985 Conference from April 1-3. Board and Commission Day will be on April 1 and he asked Commission members to attend. Moved by Jennings, seconded by Mitchell, to adjourn at 9:20 p.m. Dee Harvey ' MINUTES CITY ATTORNEY REVIEW 6 SELECTION ADVISORY COMMITTEE JANUARY 21, 1985 - 4:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Green, Neuhauser, Neely, Bartley, Hayek, Hauserman, Seward, McDonald MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Carroll, Berlin, Boyle, Brown SUMMARY OF RELEVANT DISCUSSION: 1. Minutes The minutes of the previous meeting were approved as written. 2. Discussion with Assistant City Attorneys Assistant City Attorneys Brown and Boyle were asked to describe the duties of their job, comment on the issue of full-time/part-time status for the City Attorney and other related organizational issues. Brown stated that the Assistants do the nuts and bolts and daily routine of the office. Both work on administrative duties: advising City staff, directing and reviewing ordinances, assisting boards and commissions, and litigation. The litigation caseload is increasing even though insurance covers many of the claims. Brown handles magistrates court though interns are involved. Boyle discussed his duties in the areas of Commission assignments, legal research and his responsibility for some administrative oversight of Legal Department activities on a daily basis - ordering books, paying bills, staff attendance, etc. Brown stated that he has worked under two part-time City attorneys - this format seems to work quite well. It is hard to say whether a change to full-time would work as well or would be an improvement. Brown commented on some staffing issues - there is a need for another full-time position. Boyle stated that he agreed with Brown in terms of a preference for part-time status. Although the part-time position does not allow as in-depth involvement in some of the issues. However, if the City Attorney was full-time there might exist a potential problem of isolation from other members of the Bar - which could narrow the perspective of the Legal Department staff. On the whole, Boyle did not know if there would be much practical difference in full-time/part-time. Neither Boyle nor Brown perceived any difficulty with their own accessibility to the City Attorney. 3. Discussion with City Manager Berlin Berlin was asked to comment on the working relationship between the City Manager and staff and City Attorney/Assistant City Attorneys, and whether there were any changes organizationally he would like to see. Berlin commented that he generally had daily contact with the City Attorney and a formal meeting once a week. The City Manager and City Attorney jointly coordinate between the Legal staff and the rest of the City staff. The City Manager has no regular meetings with Assistant City Attorneys. The City Manager may occasionally sit in on Legal staff meetings of interest or meet with one of the Assistants on a specific piece of litigation. He has had no problem with access to the City Attorney now or previously /5.3 CITY ATTORNEY Prvlr A�PISORY SELECTION C019!1T v JANUARY 21, 1985 PAGE 2 under John Hayek. The current practice is that departments heads and staff do not need to go through the City Attorney prior to consulting with Assistant City Attorneys. Berlin stated that in his career as City Manager, he has worked with both full-time and part-time city attorneys, with city attorneys who have been council appointments or manager appointments - and doesn't feel any of these forms is necessarily better than the others. In Iowa City he believes the Council is best served by a part-time City Attorney if a qualified person can be found to undertake the job. Part-time status may create greater independence and enable the City Attorney to separate him or her self from the rest of the City government,giving an independent view. Although part-time may be slightly less costly, it would probably not be significantly so. Hauserman asked whether part-time pay was enough to induce the City Attorney to want to hang on to this position, as that impacts on independence. Berlin stated that money does not seem to be significant in people taking or leaving the job of City Attorney, but rather burn -out has been a factor - though economics may have changed. From his perspective if a Manager or Council are intent on coercing the City Attorney, it can be done either with a full-time or part-time position. Hayek stated that he agreed that income from the City can be substantial even on a part-time basis and may constitute one-fourth to one-third of the Attorney's income. However, he felt there was a significant differ- ence between a loss of total income versus a loss of one-fourth to one-third income. A part-time attorney has built up a client base, has an office, etc., to fall back on which a full-time attorney would have to set up if leaving City employment. Hayek felt this is a difference of degree but a significant difference. Berlin stated that he appreciated independence - it is an asset to have independent judgment on the part of the City Attorney brought to a problem. Berlin stated that if the committee decided to recommend a full-time City Attorney, he would not be opposed to it but felt the characteristics of that person would be the most important issue. Neuhauser asked Berlin to comment on the burn -out factor and whether the current way legal services are provided impact on burn -out rate. Berlin stated that many attorneys are not used to working for multiple employers (Council, Manager, citizens, boards and commissions) and some people find this difficult. Berlin felt that a City Attorney should possess a high energy level, ingenuity, an interest in detailed research, and an ability to handle multiple issues at once. Ability to organize work and staff, to schedule work, and establish a level of performance for staff were also very important. Berlin was asked whether supervisory/managerial role of City Attorney was best served by full-time. He responded that sometimes part-time status helps one to sort out priorities and to not deal with people and issues directly which should be delegated to one of the Assistants. Under previous city attorneys, work coordination has been assigned to one of the Assistants. Berlin stated that he did not have problems with the present organizational structure and did not want to comment on perfomans of the Le a1 De rtment rrin hat it may constitute an evaluation o>� personnel) �n a pu��ic envirOnmenit. 153 CITY A110GN:Y PIV;i'—' ADVISORY SCLrrTlo,! rOMMITIFF JANUARY 21, 1985 PAGE 3 The question of a third Assistant was discussed. Berlin stated that presently he would not advocate a third assistant until the City Attorney situation was resolved. Berlin was asked whether it was better to have experienced attorneys as assistants rather than those right out of law school. He responded that he did not perceive a difference between those with previous experience and those right out of school because many of the experienced attorneys hired as assistants has no background in municipal law. 4. Discussion with Mayor McDonald Mayor McDonald was asked whether the current Legal Department structure was adequate to the needs of the City Council. McDonald responded that the Council wanted to look at the issue of full-time/part-time because it has been 12 years since the last evaluation of this issue by a separate body, and some Councilmembers (himself not included) perceive that there may be some economic benefits to a change from part-time to full-time. McDonald stated that he had mixed feelings about the issues. He felt, however, that independence was an individual characteristic - and that an individual could be coerced if susceptible, either as part-time or full-time. McDonald stated in terms of perception of the role of City Attorney that it was very important for the City Attorney to be a good supervisor so things don't get bogged down or held up. In response to questions, McDonald stated that he thinks that there may be a problem with the timeliness of response from the Legal Department. It is difficult to say whether this is a structural problem. McDonald was asked whether there was a perceived need to add Assistants and stated that in a recent budget session the current City Attorney said that if he stayed on he would have added a third assistant - that the workload had increased enough to justify that position. However, Jansen felt that a new City Attorney should make this decision. McDonald emphasized that whether the position was full-time or part-time he felt that a good legal background and good management and supervisory skills were essential. Neuhauser stated that in her final years on the City Council, things had not always been completed in a timely manner and she did not feel that the Council was always as well informed as it had been previously under City Attorney Hayek. McDonald stated that he did not perceive it as a problem that the City has occasionally sought specially legalized assistance in areas such as labor law, the cable franchise, etc., and felt that it was impossible for one individual to handle all these areas of expertise. Hauserman stated that she had a strong sense that things were not going i as well in the Legal Department as people would like and that it was unclear whether this was a structural problem. I i Committee members emphasized that their role was to determine how to get the best quality of legal services and top quality applicants for the position of City Attorney. Even the best of systems can fail if the wrong people are in them, or vice -versa. McDonald stated that he had 153 C11Y All():':) REVIEV - ADVISOPY SEIrrTIOH rnMMITTEE JANUARY 21, 1985 PAGE 4 seen a continual increase in the workload of the Legal Department, but the question was do we keep hiring Assistants to handle the workload or look at the City Attorney position. Hayek stated that he felt that the number of Assistants should not necessarily influence a full-time/part- time City Attorney decision. Workload may have plateaued in the depart- ment. McDonald stated that Legal should see a leveling off due to conclusion of the franchise, lack of involvement with zoning litigation, etc. -some major projects were coming to conclusion. Hayek stated that whether full-time or part-time the City needs a good lawyer - a person that has legal skills, judgment and ability to advise a client. Neuhauser added that the City needed a good lawyer and a good manager/administrator even if that manager is a separate person. Carroll stated that the current First Assistant City Attorney position does include some coordinatidn duties. Neuhauser stated that it is best to have the City Attorney act as coordinator - because he/she is the person who is most aware of Council priorities. Neely commented on the importance of having a City Attorney who is knowledgeable and/or willing to learn municipal law - a very difficult field and with little involvement by most attorneys in practice. Neely did make some contacts to ascertain other cities positions on full- time/part-time. The League of Municipalities does not have a position paper on this issue. Neely was advised to contact the City Administrator in Davenport who has had to fill the City Attorney position twice in recent years. Neely will follow-up on this and report back to the committee. Green asked had Council given any thought to salary if a full-time position was recommended; is the Council willing to pay what the position requires? McDonald responded that there had been some informal discussion - figures that he had heard proposed were in the $35,000-540,000 range. Committee members felt strongly that these figures were unrealistic and would not attract the talent necessary in this position. The committee discussed salaries of other department head positions which are in the high $30's -mid $40's, City Attorney salaries in other cities in the range of $43,000-$56,000, and the salary of the First Assistant City Attorney which is close to $37,000. Committee members were asked to express their feelings on the issue of full-time/part-time. Green: Green stated that he agrees the City needs a very good attorney - and the most important consideration in determining, full-time/part-time status is which way is most likely to get a quality attorney. Green would be opposed to attempting to hire a full-time attorney at a salary of $35,000-$40,000. Green stated thatthe City 'may not need to pay at the highest level in private practice, but the salary should be attractive. Hayek: Hayek stated that he favors continuance of the part-time position as he had stated previously. The present City Attorney recom- mends continuance. Hayek believed that the City Manager recom- mended part-time status, both of which should be significant recommendations. Hayek stated that it might be possible to advertise a part-time position and if acceptable candidates are /S3 MY I77ORNEY REVIE APYIcnrY Srt mioN COMMITTEE JANUARY 21, 1985 PAGE 5 not found, the committee could then attempt to find a full-time City Attorney. Hayek stated that he has been listening to committee discussion for strong reasons to change his preference for part-time - economic reasons or other types of reasons - and has not heard any. Bartley: Bartley stated that she has had some vascilation on the issue - the more she has heard the less clear a decision has been. She recommends full-time status because she has heard of problems with the administration and carrying out of assignments in the Legal Department and this may be corrected by a full-time City Attorney. She is not entirely persuaded that full-time would not be independent - that is a matter of professional integrity and loyalty to the client. Seward: Seward recommends full-time status for the City Attorney without the addition of a third assistant. He feels that a good part of the job should be administrative - and that it would be benefi- cial to have someone with a background in municipal law. He felt that full-time status would better address these needs. His experience on PR indicated that there are sometimes barriers to commission progress in lack of timely response to requests. Hauserman: Hauserman stated that she leans towards full-time status, however, with a strong caveat that an appropriate salary range be established. She had not heard major reasons the current system could not work - however, when other members have discussed the kind of person needed for the City Attorney position, she felt that description best fit a full-time position. A full-time City Attorney could respond to issues of assignment, coordination of work, etc. Hauserman emphasized that her response was conditioned on acceptable salary and if the City Council did not wish to pay that salary she would recommend continuance of the current system. Neely: Neely recommended full-time status for the City Attorney as the only way to get an attorney experienced in municipal law. It may be possible to hire an Assistant or City Attorney from another community. Neely stated that he would only recommend full-time status if the Council was prepared to pay for that experience. Neuhauser: Neuhauser stated that she was very ambivalent about the issue, however, she was convinced that it was necessary to get a good lawyer with management experience and that full-time status may be necessary to accomplish these things. She would not support full-time status without adequate salary provisions. She felt that independence was more closely tied to the integrity of the person involved, than the position status. 5. Recommendation to City Council It was moved by Bartley and seconded by Seward that: /S3 CITY ATTORNEY REVii ^ VVitOVY SELECTION COMMI11(f JANUARY 21, 1985 PAGE 6 - The City Attorney Review and Advisory Selection Committee believes that the City Attorney should be a person who has excellent legal skills and has administrative ability. The Committee believes that the City of Iowa City is most likely to find such an individual by offering a full-time position. The Committee recommends to the City Council that the City Attorney be full-time at a minimum salary of $45,000450,000. The motion was passed with Hayek voting no. City Council Discussion of Recommendation The City Council will discuss the Committee's recommendation at their informal session Monday, January 28 in the Council Chambers. Committee members are invited to attend this meeting and will be called on the 28th to be advised of the exact time this matter is scheduled for Council discussion. 6. Next Meeting The Committee will meet on Wednesday, February 6, at 4:30 p.m, in Rec Center Room A, if the City Council has been able to make a decision on the Committee recommendation. Carroll will send out an agenda to confirm the meeting. /53 P 8 Z RECOMMEND. .ON APPROVED 12/20/84 Sec. 36-60. Sign regulations. (a) Intent. It is the purpose of the sign regulations to enhance and protect the physical appearance and safety of the community, to protect property values and to promote the preservation of Iowa City's areas of natural, historic and scenic beauty. It is further intended to reduce distrac- tions and obstructions that may contribute to traffic accidents, reduce hazards that may be caused by signs projecting over public rights-of-way, provide for a reasonable opportunity for all sign users to display signs for identification without interference from other signage, to provide for fair and equitable treatment of all sign users, and to establish a reasonable period of time for the elimination of nonconforming signs. (b) General rules and applicability. (1) No sign on private property shall be erected or changed in any manner i without compliance with the regulations stated herein. Routine maintenance shall not be subject to this Chapter. (2) These regulations are intended to be exclusionary and any sign not specifically listed shall be prohibited. (3) These regulations are structured within the two general categories of temporary and permanent signs. Temporary signs are governed by the provisions of Section 36-62(a)(1)f. Permanent signs may be either /9-5 R roo 2 off -premises or on -premises signs. Off -premises signs are governed by the provisions of Section 36-62(a)(2)j. All on -premises signs are governed by the regulations of the zone in which they are located. (4) In all zones a maximum sign allowance is permitted for all permanent signs placed on a building. Any quantity or type of building sign may be erected within this maximum allowance and according to the specific requirements of the zone in which the building is located. The building sign allowance shall relate to the wall on which a sign is to be placed and shall be determined by calculating a percentage of the total square footage of the sign wall, as specified in the zone. In the case of two or more uses or occupants in a single building, the total building signage an a wall for all the uses shall not exceed the maximum building sign allowance for that wall. Free-standing signs, monument signs, or any other signs not mounted on a building are not included in this maximum building sign allow- ance and are governed by the specific requirements of the zone. (5) In any case in which the Code of Iowa is more restrictive than the regulations contained herein, the Code of Iowa shall be applied. Sec. 36-61. Definitions. 1d -r I 3 The following definitions shall be applicable to the provisions of the sign regulations. The definitions contained in Section 36-4 of this Chapter shall apply to all terms not herein defined: (a)(1) Advertising sign. A sign that displays the type or name of a product, good or service sold either on or off the premises on which the sign is located. (2) Animated sign. Any sign or part of a sign that moves or has intermit- tent lighting. (3) Awning sign. A building sign placed on the surface of an awning. (b)(1) Balloon. An inflatable bag filled with gas and displayed in such a way as to attract attention to the premises on which it is located. (2) Banner. A strip of flexible material such as cloth, paper or plastic securely fastened on all corners to a building or a structure and used to advertise a special event. (3) Billboard. An off -premises sign on which poster panels or bulletins are mounted. Billboard signs are not free-standing signs or monument signs. (4) Building sign. Any sign which is in any way attached to a building or to an appurtenance of a building. N I (c)(1) Canopy sign. A building sign attached to or in any way incorporated with the face or underside of a canopy, marquee, or any other similar building projection, and which does not extend beyond the projection by more than six (6) inches. (2) Changeable copy sign. A sign, such as a reader board, which has components which are easily changeable by physical and not electronic methods. (3) Common sign. A sign which serves two (2) or more uses. (4) Construction sign. A temporary sign identifying the architects, engineers, contractors and other individuals involved in the construc- tion of a building and/or announcing the future use of the building. (d)(1) Development sign. A monument sign designating the name of a subdivi- sion or large scale development. (2) Directional sign. A sign designed to guide or direct pedestrian or vehicular traffic and containing no advertising message. (3) Directory sign. A sign displaying the name of a building, building complex and/or the occupants. (4) Drive-thru restaurant menu sign. A sign displaying a menu or similar advertising for the purpose of allowing patrons of a restaurant to order food at a drive-thru facility. AX 5 (e)(1) Electronic sign. A sign on which a changing message is displayed through the use of an electronically controlled and illuminated medium. An electronic sign is considered to be an animated sign. I (f)(1) Facia sign. A single -faced building sign which is parallel to or at an angle of not more than 45 degrees from the wall of the building on which it is mounted. Such signs do not extend more than one (1) foot ' out from vertical walls nor more than one (1) foot out at the signs f � iclosest point from nonvertical walls. f, (2) Filling station signs. Signage which generally appears as an integral part of the equipment accessory to automotive service stations and other establishments engaged in the dispensing of motor vehicle fuel or oil, including but not limited to gasoline pumps, oil display racks, and portable tire racks. (3) Flag, private. A private flag is any flag displaying the name, insignia, logo or emblem of an individual or a profit-making entity. (4) Flag, public. A public flag is any flag displaying the name, insignia, emblem or logo of the United States, the State of Iowa, the City, or a non-profit organization or institution. I (5) Free standing sign. A sign which is supported by one or more up -rights I or braces which are firmly and permanently anchored in or on the ground, and which is not attached to any building or wall. kgs i I E (g)(1) Grand opening sign. See "Special event sign." (2) Going -out -of -business sign. A sign announcing a sale resulting from the termination of a business on the premises. (h)(1) Hazardous sign. A sign which, because of its construction or state of disrepair may fall or cause possible injury to passers-by, as deter- mined by the City; a sign which because of its location, color, illumination, or animation, interferes with, obstructs the view of, or is confused with any authorized traffic sign, signal, or device; or a sign which makes use of the words "stop," "go slow," "caution," "drive in," "danger," or any other word, phrase, symbol, or character in such a way as to interfere with, mislead, or confuse traffic. (i)(1) Identification sign. A sign displaying the name, address, crest, insignia or trademark, occupation or profession of an occupant of a building or the name of any building on the premises. (2) Illuminated sign. Any sign in which a source of light is used to make the message readable. An illuminated sign need not be an electronic sign. (3) Institutional sign. A sign which displays the name of a religious institution, school, library, community center, civic, cultural or historic institution, nursing home, hospital or similar institution and the announcement of its services or activities. 1 (4) Integral sign. A sign carved into stone, concrete or other building material, or made of bronze, aluminum or other permanent type of construction and made a part of the building to which it is attached. (j) Reserved. (k) Reserved. (1) Reserved. (m)(1) Marquee sign. See "Canopy Sign." e (2) Monument sign. A sign which is integral to its base and is firmly anchored to the ground. (n)(1) Non -conforming sign. A sign other than a prohibited sign, that does not comply with the regulations of the zone in which it is located by reason of these or any other regulations adopted after the erection of the sign. (o)(1) Obsolete sign. A sign that advertises an activity, business, product, or service no longer conducted. (2) Off -premises sign. A sign which directs attention to a use conducted off the lot on which the sign is located. 18s i f i i. i i i i j i i f 1 (4) Integral sign. A sign carved into stone, concrete or other building material, or made of bronze, aluminum or other permanent type of construction and made a part of the building to which it is attached. (j) Reserved. (k) Reserved. (1) Reserved. (m)(1) Marquee sign. See "Canopy Sign." e (2) Monument sign. A sign which is integral to its base and is firmly anchored to the ground. (n)(1) Non -conforming sign. A sign other than a prohibited sign, that does not comply with the regulations of the zone in which it is located by reason of these or any other regulations adopted after the erection of the sign. (o)(1) Obsolete sign. A sign that advertises an activity, business, product, or service no longer conducted. (2) Off -premises sign. A sign which directs attention to a use conducted off the lot on which the sign is located. 18s s (3) On -premises sign. A sign which has the primary purpose of identifying or directing attention to the lot on which the sign is located. (p)(1) Painted sign. A sign painted directly on an exterior surface of a building other than the windows. (2) Parapet sign. A facia sign erected on a parapet or a parapet wall. (3) Permitted sign. A sign which is allowed in the zone in which it is listed, subject to compliance with the requirements of the sign regulations. (4) Portable sign. A sign that is not firmly and permanently anchored or secured to either a building or the ground and is not expressly permitted under these regulations as a temporary sign. (5) Political sign. A temporary sign announcing candidates seeking public office, a political issue, or a sign containing other election informa- tion, such as "vote today." Political signs shall not be construed to be off -premises signs. (6) Poster. A temporary sign on a card or sheet of paper, plastic or other similar material intended to advertise or publicize a product or event. (7) Prohibited sign. A sign, other than a non -conforming sign, not permitted by this Chapter. j8S N 9 (8) Projecting sign. A building sign which extends more than one (1) foot out from the wall of the building on which it is mounted. (9) Provisional sign. A sign which is permitted in a zone under certain circumstances. (10) Public art. Any work of art exposed to public view from any street right-of-way which does not contain any advertising, commercial symbolism such as logos and trade marks, or any representation of a product. (11) Public sign. A sign of a non-commercial nature and in the public interest erected by or upon the order or authorization of the City or other public agency. Such signs include but are not limited to safety signs, zoning signs, memorial plaques, signs for structures or sites of historical interest and all similar signs. (q) Reserved. (r)(1) Real estate sign. A temporary sign which advertises the sale, rental, or lease of the premises or part of the premises on which the sign is located, including open house directional signs. (2) Roof sign. A sign erected upon or above a roof of a building and affixed to the roof. /8S -. 10 (s)(1) Seasonal decoration. A display, which does not constitute a sign, pertaining to recognized national, state, or local holidays and observances. (2) Sign. Any structure or medium, including its component parts, which is visible to the public from a street or public right-of-way, and which is used or intended to be used to direct attention to a business, product, service, subject, idea, premises, or thing. Signs shall not include buildings or landscaping. The term sign includes, but is not limited' to, all reading matter, letters, numerals, pictorial represen- tations, emblems, trademarks, inscriptions, and patterns, whether affixed to a building or separate from a building. Public art, seasonal decorations, and directional symbols on paved surfaces are not included in this definition. (3) Sign face. The surface of the sign upon which is affixed reading material, letters, numerals, pictorial representations, emblems, trademarks, inscriptions and/or patterns. (4) Sign wall. The wall of a building upon which a sign is mounted including elements of the wall or any member or group of members which define the exterior boundaries of the side of the building on which the sign is mounted, and which has a slope of 45 degrees or greater with the horizontal plane. I i a i i -. 10 (s)(1) Seasonal decoration. A display, which does not constitute a sign, pertaining to recognized national, state, or local holidays and observances. (2) Sign. Any structure or medium, including its component parts, which is visible to the public from a street or public right-of-way, and which is used or intended to be used to direct attention to a business, product, service, subject, idea, premises, or thing. Signs shall not include buildings or landscaping. The term sign includes, but is not limited' to, all reading matter, letters, numerals, pictorial represen- tations, emblems, trademarks, inscriptions, and patterns, whether affixed to a building or separate from a building. Public art, seasonal decorations, and directional symbols on paved surfaces are not included in this definition. (3) Sign face. The surface of the sign upon which is affixed reading material, letters, numerals, pictorial representations, emblems, trademarks, inscriptions and/or patterns. (4) Sign wall. The wall of a building upon which a sign is mounted including elements of the wall or any member or group of members which define the exterior boundaries of the side of the building on which the sign is mounted, and which has a slope of 45 degrees or greater with the horizontal plane. a III (5) Special events sign. A sign announcing grand openings, the Parade of Homes, philanthropic events, events of non-profit organizations, or events of civic interest. (6) Spinner. A device shaped in a form similar to a propeller and designed to rotate in the wind to attract attention to the premises on which it is located. (7) Swinging sign. A sign which, because of its design, construction, suspension or attachment is free to swing or move noticeably because of i ! pressure from the wind. i (t)(1) Temporary sign. A sign intended for a period of display of not more than 30 days, which shall be removed upon completion of the activity or project denoted by the sign. Such signs may be erected in addition to signs otherwise permitted. (2) Time and temperature sign. An identification sign which shows the time and/or temperature. (u)(1) Use. For the purpose of the sign regulations, use shall mean a principal use as defined in this chapter. (v) Reserved. kgs R 12 (w)(1) Window sign. A building sign permanently affixed to a window, embedded in a window or hanging adjacent to a window and obviously intended to be viewed through the window by the public. Merchandise or product displays, posters, signs painted on windows and temporary signs are not included in this definition. (x) Reserved. (y)(1) Yard sale sign. A temporary sign advertising a yard sale or a garage sale. (z) Reserved. Sec. 36-62. Permitted signs. (a) Signs permitted in all zones. The signs listed below shall be regulated as described below. (1) Signs not requiring a permit. The following signs may be erected in addition to the signage permitted in each zone without obtaining a permit. These signs shall not be applied toward the maximum sign allowance specified in the zones, except as otherwise indicated in this subsection. a. Construction signs. Non -illuminated construction signs not to exceed a total of 64 square feet or 32 square feet per sign face shall be permitted for each lot. Such signs shall not exceed a J I 13 height of five (5) feet in residential zones or 10 feet in other zones nor be closer than five (5) feet to any property line unless located on the wall of a building, fence, or protective barricade surrounding the construction. Construction signs shall be removed prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. b. filling station signs. c. Identification signs not exceeding two (2) square feet in area. d. Informational window signs. Window signs displaying information about the operation of the business, including but not limited to days and hours of operation, telephone number and credit cards or bank cards accepted. Such signs shall not exceed a maximum area of two (2) square feet. e. Public flags and one (1) private flag displayed in conjunction with public flags. f. Public signs. g. Temporary signs. The signs listed are temporary signs, the use of which is limited to a maximum of 30 days, and are subject only to the regulations listed below: 14 1. Political signs. Political signs shall be subject to the following requirements: i. In residential zones, non -illuminated political signs f none of which may exceed twelve (12) square feet in area, may be displayed on each premises. Such signs shall not be erected earlier than 30 days prior to the date of the I` election for the candidate or issue indicated on the sign and all such signs shall be removed no later, than seven (7) days after the election date. ii. In other zones, political signs shall conform to the applicable regulations for permitted signs in the zone. s t 2. Posters and other non -permanent signs in windows. Such signs, when placed in a window, may cover no more than 25% of a window and shall be deducted from the total allowable window signage in any zone. 3. Real estate signs. One (1) non -illuminated real estate sign not to exceed eight (8) square feet or four (4) square feet per sign face in residential zones, or 64 square feet (32 square feet per sign face) in other zones, shall be permitted on each lot. Such signs shall not exceed a height of five (5) feet in residential zones or 10 feet in other zones nor )8S R 15 be closer than five (5) feet to any property line unless located on the wall of a building or fence. Such signs shall be removed within 48 hours after the sale of the property. 4. Yard sale signs. (2) Signs requiring a permit. The following signs may be erected and shall comply with the requirements of Sec. 36-64(b). These signs shall be applied toward the maximum signage allowance specified in each zone, except as otherwise indicated in this subsection. a. Changeable copy signs. Such signs shall be erected in accordance with the dimensional requirements of the zone in which the sign is located. b. Development signs. One (1) development sign not to exceed a total of 64 square feet or 32 square feet per sign face shall be permitted at each street entrance to a subdivision or large scale development. c. Directional signs. Such signs shall not exceed a total of four (4) square feet or two (2) square feet per face in R zones, or a total of six (6) square feet or three (3) square feet per face in all other zones. d. Directory signs. /f5 16 e. Drive-thru restaurant menu signs. The total square footage of these signs may not exceed ten square feet and shall be in addition to the signs permitted in the zone and shall not be applied toward the maximum signage allowance. f. Going -out -of -business signs. These signs shall be non -illumi- nated and not exceed 100 square feet. A going -out -of -business sign may be displayed for up to 60 days. The sign permit shall be automatically renewed with the renewal of a going -out -of -business license so long as the total time period in which the sign is displayed does not exceed 90 days. The use of going -out -of -business signs is restricted to one (1) time in a 12 month period for a single business. Going -out -of -business signs shall not be applied towards the maximum signage allowance specified in each zone. 9. Institutional signs. One (1) institutional sign, not to exceed a total of 48 square feet or 24 square feet per sign face shall be permitted for each institution. No such sign shall exceed a height of five (5) feet above grade. h. Integral signs. Such signs existing prior to the adoption of these regulations shall not be applied toward the maximum sign allowance of the building to which they are attached. X.S 17 i. Large stale real estate signs. One (1) non -illuminated monument i real estate sign not to exceed a total of 64 square feet or 32 jsquare feet per sign face shall be permitted per subdivision or development of greater than two (2) acres in size. Such signs � shall not exceed a height of 10 feet and shall be removed upon the sale or lease of 50 percent of the lots or units in the sub- division or development. These signs shall not be applied toward 1 ! the maximum signage allowance specified in each zone. Large scale real estate signs shall not be considered off -premises signs. j. Off -premises signs. 1. Off -premises signs shall not be permitted in residential, CO -1, CN -1, CB -10 and ORP zones. In the CB -2 zone, only off -premises facia signs shall be allowed. Off -premises signs may be billboard signs or any other type of sign allowed in the zone in which the sign is located. 2. Not more than one (1) off -premises sign may be erected or maintained per lot. Two or more uses may erect a common off -premises directional sign. No off -premises sign shall be located closer than 300 feet to another off -premises sign. /gS 18 3. No off -premises sign shall be located within 120 feet of a residential zone, a public park, public or parochial school, religious institution, cemetery, public museum, or the administrative or judicial offices of city, county, state or federal governments. 4. An off -premises sign shall be permitted in addition to the on -premises signage permitted on a lot. The area of the off -premises sign shall be deducted from the total sign area allowed for the same type of on -premises signage. c r 5. off -premises billboard signs shall not exceed a height of 25 I feet. 6. Off -premises billboard signs shall be permitted an area of 144 square feet or 72 square feet per sign face. Billboard signs shall not be applied toward the maximum signage allowance permitted on a lot. 1 7. Off -premises signs shall comply with all other sign require- ments of the zone in which they are located. k. Special events signs. One (1) non -illuminated sign not to exceed 100 square feet is permitted on a lot. The use of a special events sign is restricted to no more than four (4) times in a 12 month period and for a single duration of no more than 30 days. Special events signs may include banners, but shall not include lo- 1 t. i 1 i 19 any sign prohibited by these regulations, Section 36-62(b). Special events signs shall not be applied toward the maximum signage allowance specified in each zone. (b) Prohibited signs. The following signs are specifically prohibited in all zones: (1) Animated signs, excluding barber pole signs that do not exceed three (3) feet in height and nine (9) inches in diameter and excluding time and temperature signs. (2) Balloons. (3) Hazardous signs. (4) Obsolete signs. (5) Portable signs including signs on wheels, trailers and truck beds and excluding those temporary signs expressly permitted herein. (6) Roof signs. (7) Search lights. (8) Spinners or other similar devices. (9) Swinging signs. /i.5 1 i 1 i 19 any sign prohibited by these regulations, Section 36-62(b). Special events signs shall not be applied toward the maximum signage allowance specified in each zone. (b) Prohibited signs. The following signs are specifically prohibited in all zones: (1) Animated signs, excluding barber pole signs that do not exceed three (3) feet in height and nine (9) inches in diameter and excluding time and temperature signs. (2) Balloons. (3) Hazardous signs. (4) Obsolete signs. (5) Portable signs including signs on wheels, trailers and truck beds and excluding those temporary signs expressly permitted herein. (6) Roof signs. (7) Search lights. (8) Spinners or other similar devices. (9) Swinging signs. /i.5 20 (c) Signs permitted by zone. (1) ID, R and OPOH zone regulations. i I Ij a. Permitted signs. 1. Principal uses other than single family dwellings and duplexes shall be permitted one identification facia or monument sign. 2. Nonresidential uses in the ID -ORP zone, other than ORP uses, shall be required to comply with the sign regulations of the CO -1 and CN -1 zones. 3. Residential uses in the OPDH zone shall be permitted signage in accordance with the requirements of the underlying zone. Commercial uses approved as part of a planned development shall comply with the signage requirements of the CO -1 and CN -1 zones. 4. ORP uses in an ID -ORP zone shall be permitted signage in accordance with the requirements of the ORP zone. i b. Provisional signs. AP 21 1. Home occupations allowed in accordance with Section 36-56(b)(4) shall be permitted one (1) nonilluminated facia sign not to exceed one (1) square foot. c. Dimensional requirements. 10 Maximum Maximum Sjl Area Heioht 1. Facia (in ID -RS, RR -1, 4 sq. ft. Top of first story. RS -5, RS -8, RMH and RS -12). 2. Facia (in ID -RM, RM -12, 12 sq. ft. Top of first story. RM -20, RNC -20, RM -44 and RM -145 zones). 3. Monument (in ID -RS, 24 sq. ft., Five (5) feet. RR -1, RS75, RS -8, RMH or 12 sq. and RS -12). ft. per sign face. 4. Monument (in ID -RM, 48 sq. ft., Five (5) feet. RM -12, RM -20, RNC -20, or 24 sq. RM -44 and RM -145 zones). ft. per sign face. 10 R e (2) CO -1 and CN -1 zone regulations a. Permitted signs. 1. Signage for residential uses shall comply with the require- ments for residential uses in the RM zones (Sec. 36-62(c)(1)c. 2. Facia signs. 3. Canopy signs. 4. Monument signs. 5. Awning signs. 6. Window signs. b. Provisional signs. 1. When two (2) or more uses are located on a lot, a common monument sign shall be permitted. Said sign shall not exceed the lessor of two (2) square feet per lineal foot of lot frontage or 100 square feet (50 square feet per sign face). 2. Barber pole signs provided they do not exceed three (3) feet in length and nine (9) inches in diameter. 1005 23 /fS 3. Time and temperature signs which do not exceed 50 square feet in area or 25 square feet per face, do not project more than (6) feet into the public right-of-way, and are not less six than 10 feet above grade. I j C. Dimensional requirements. ' p 1. Uses in this zone shall be allowed a maximum building sign ( { wall equal to 15% of the sign wall on which the 5 area per sign I sign is to be mounted. 2. Individual signage allowances. Maximum Maximum He�Ci ht Sion a. Facia. 10% of the sign wall area. None. i b. Canopy. Eight (8) square feet. Top of first story. Awning. 25% of the surface of the Top of first story. c. I awning. i j d. Window. 25% of the area of the None. window. /fS R 24 e. Monument. Two (2) square feet per Five (5) feet. foot of lot frontage, not to exceed a total of 100 square feet or 50 square feet per sign face. I i (3) CH -1, CC -2 and CI -1 zone regulations. a. Permitted signs. 1. Signage for residential uses shall comply with the sign re- quirements for residential uses in the RM zones (Sec. 36-62(c)(1)c). 2. Facia signs. 3. Only one (1) of the following types of signs: i. Monument sign. ii. Free-standing sign. 4. Canopy signs. 5. Awning signs. 6. Window signs. A8s R 25 b. Provisional signs. 1. When two (2) or more uses are located on a lot, a common monument or free-standing sign may be erected. The maximum area of the common sign may be 50% larger than the area of the maximum individual sign allowed. 2. On a lot with a total frontage equal to or greater than 200 feet, two free-standing or monument signs are permitted provided that the distance between the two signs is no less than 150 feet as measured along the frontage. 3. In the CC -2 zone, barber pole signs are permitted provided they do not exceed three (3) feet in length and nine (9) inches in diameter. 4. Time and temperature signs which do not exceed 50 square feet in area or 25 square feet per sign face, do not project more than six (6) feet into the public right-of-way, and are not less than 10 feet above grade. c. Dimensional requirements. 1. Uses in this zone shall be allowed a maximum building sign area per sign wall equal to 15% of the sign wall on which the sign is located. /85 I. 2. Individual signage allowances. Maximum Maximum Sign Area Height a. Facia. 10% of the sign wall area None. b. Monument. Two (2) square feet per Five (5) feet. lineal foot of lot frontage, not to exceed 100 square feet or 50 sq. ft. per sign face. c. Free- Two (2) square feet per 25 feet. standing. lineal foot of lot frontage, not to exceed 250 square feet or 125 square feet per sign face. d. Canopy. 12 square feet. Top of first story. e. Awning. 25% of the surface of the Top of first awning. story. f. Window. 25% of the area of the None. window. J �S - a. 27 i - a. 27 r t i i i i 28 1. Time and temperature signs which do not exceed 50 square feet in area or 25 square feet per sign face, do not project more than six (6) feet into the public right-of-way, and are not less than 10 feet above grade. 2. Barber pole signs, provided they do not exceed three (3) feet in length and nine (9) inches in diameter. 3. When two (2) or more uses are located on a lot, a common monument sign shall be permitted. The maximum area of the common sign may be 50 percent larger than the area of the maximum individual sign allowed. c. Dimensional requirements. 1. Uses in this zone shall be allowed a maximum building sign area per sign wall equal to 15% of the sign wall on which the sign is to be located. 2. Individual signage allowances. Maximum Maximum sign Height I a. Facia. 10% of the sign wall area. None. i b. Monument. Two (2) square feet per Five (5) feet. /8S I W lineal foot of lot frontage, not to exceed 100 square feet or 50 sq. ft. per sign face. c. Free- Two (2) square foot per 25 feet. standing. lineal foot of lot frontage, not to exceed 100 square feet or 50 sq. ft. per sign face. d. Canopy. 12 square feet. Top of first story. e. Awning. 25% of the surface of the Top of first awning. story. f. Window. 25% of the area of the None. window. (5) CB -10 zone regulations. a. Permitted signs. 1. Signage for residential uses shall comply with the sign requirements for residential uses in the RM zones (Sec. 36-62(c)(1)c). 2. Facia signs. Afs- I I I j i i W lineal foot of lot frontage, not to exceed 100 square feet or 50 sq. ft. per sign face. c. Free- Two (2) square foot per 25 feet. standing. lineal foot of lot frontage, not to exceed 100 square feet or 50 sq. ft. per sign face. d. Canopy. 12 square feet. Top of first story. e. Awning. 25% of the surface of the Top of first awning. story. f. Window. 25% of the area of the None. window. (5) CB -10 zone regulations. a. Permitted signs. 1. Signage for residential uses shall comply with the sign requirements for residential uses in the RM zones (Sec. 36-62(c)(1)c). 2. Facia signs. Afs- 30 3. Canopy signs. 4. Awning signs. 5. Window signs. b. Provisional signs. 1. When two (2) or more uses are located on a lot, a common monument sign shall be permitted. The area of such sign shall not exceed a total of 24 square feet or 12 square feet per sign face. 2. Barber pole signs, provided they do not exceed three (3) feet in length and nine (9) inches in diameter. 3. Time and temperature signs which do not exceed 50 square feet in area or 25 square feet per sign face, do not project more than six (6) feet into the public right-of-way, and are not less than ten (10) feet above grade. c. Dimensional requirements. 1. Uses in this zone shall be allowed a maximum building sign area per sign wall equal to 15% of the sign wall on which the sign is located. �gs 31 2. Individual signage allowances. Maximum Maximum Sign Area Neight a. Facia. 10% of the sign wall area. None. b. Canopy. 12 square feet. Top of first story. c. Awning. 25% of the surface of the Top of first awning, story. d. Window. 25% of the area of the None. window. (6) I-1, I-2 and ORP zone regulations. a. Permitted signs. 1. Facia signs. 2. Only one (1) of the following signs: a. Identification monument sign. �gs 1 32 b. Identification free-standing sign. i 3. Window signs. b. Provisional signs. 1. When two (2) or more uses are located on a lot, a common monument or free-standing sign may be erected. The maximum area of the common sign may be 50% larger than the area of the maximum individual sign allowed. 2. In the I-1 and I-2 zones, on a lot with a total frontage equal to or greater than 200 feet, two free-standing or monument signs are permitted provided that the distance between the two signs is no less than 150 feet as measured along the frontage. c. Dimensional requirements. 1. Uses in this zone shall be allowed a maximum building sign area per sign wall equal to 15% of the sign wall on which the sign is to be located. 2. Individual signage allowances. Maximum Maximum Sion Area Hetaht i I i i i 32 b. Identification free-standing sign. i 3. Window signs. b. Provisional signs. 1. When two (2) or more uses are located on a lot, a common monument or free-standing sign may be erected. The maximum area of the common sign may be 50% larger than the area of the maximum individual sign allowed. 2. In the I-1 and I-2 zones, on a lot with a total frontage equal to or greater than 200 feet, two free-standing or monument signs are permitted provided that the distance between the two signs is no less than 150 feet as measured along the frontage. c. Dimensional requirements. 1. Uses in this zone shall be allowed a maximum building sign area per sign wall equal to 15% of the sign wall on which the sign is to be located. 2. Individual signage allowances. Maximum Maximum Sion Area Hetaht i H 33 a. Facia. 10% of the sign wall area. None. b. Monument. Two (2) square feet per Five (5) feet. lineal foot of lot frontage, not to exceed 150 square feet or 125 sq. ft. per sign face. c. Free- One (1) square foot per 25 feet. standing. lineal foot of lot frontage not to exceed 100 square feet or 50 sq. ft. per sign face. d. Window. 25% of the area of the None. window where it is mounted. Sec. 36-63. Additional Regulations (a) Dimensional requirements. (1) Maximum sign area. For free-standing and monument signs, the individual signage allowance includes the total area of all sign faces associated with that sign and no sign face shall exceed one-half of the allowed sign area. For building signs, the maximum I°✓5" H 34 building sign area shall represent the total area of all building signs added together. The building sign area may be divided up among any of the building signs permitted in the zone in which the use is located, provided that each individual sign does not exceed the maximum size limits established for that zone. The maximum number of signs and the maximum sign areas, as provided herein, shall be applied on a per lot basis. (2) Sign wall area. Where size of a sign is regulated by the sign wall area, the sign wall area shall be the total area of the wall on which the sign is to be mounted. (3) Sign area determination. The area of each sign, regardless of shape, shall be computed by determining the area of a triangle, rectangle or circle which completely encloses the outer perimeter of the sign face, or which completely encloses the whole group of characters or words in the case of a sign composed of characters or words attached directly to a building or an appurtenance to a building. When multiple sign faces are attached to a single sign support and face the same direction, the faces and any area between them shall be viewed as one sign face and shall be measured from the extremities of the sign face. (4) Sign height determination. The maximum height of a sign shall be the measurement from grade to the highest point on the sign. In the case where a minimum height is established, the minimum height shall be measured from grade to the lowest point on the sign. MY H 35 (5) Minimum sign height. A canopy sign or free-standing sign shall not be less than ten (10) feet above grade. (b) Locational requirements. (1) No billboard, canopy, free-standing or monument sign or sign support shall be located within a triangular area at street intersections, where the triangle is measured from the intersection of curb lines and its sides are 70 feet in length along arterial streets, 50 feet in length along collector streets, and 30 feet in length along local streets, except that signs may project into this area at 10 or more feet above grade. (2) No part of a billboard, canopy, free-standing or monument sign or sign support shall be located within five (5) feet of any lot line except that signs may be closer than five (5) feet at ten feet or more above grade, provided that no part of the sign or sign support overhangs any property lines. (3) No sign shall obstruct ingress to or egress from any door, window or fire escape. No sign shall be attached to a stand pipe or fire escape. (4) Building signs may be located on any building wall. However, no single sign wall may be covered by more than 15%. f/9.5' i i N 01 (c) Requirements for signs adjacent to residential zones. (1) Signage and area requirements of the CO -1 and CN -1 zones shall apply to signs which are within 100 feet of a residential zone. (2) Except for facia signs, no sign shall be located in a required front yard within 50 feet of a residential zone. I (3) Facia signs located within 50 feet of a residential zone on the same side of the street shall ,not be placed on the wall of the building facing the residential zone. (d) Requirements for illuminated signs. Illuminated signs shall conform to the following requirements: (1) Except for signs in the ID and residential zones and special event signs, all permitted signs may be internally or externally illumi- nated. Those signs permitted in the ID and residential zones and ! special event signs may only be externally illuminated with white light. (2) Illumination through the use of exposed lamps and/or inert gas tubes shall be allowed provided the exposed lamp does not exceed 11 watts or that an inert gas tube does not draw more than 60 milliamps. When inside frosted lamps or exposed lamps with a diffusing screen are used, no lamp shall exceed 25 watts. �8s 37 (3) Artificial light sources used to illuminate a sign face shall not be visible from any street right-of-way. i(4) Illuminated signs shall comply with the provisions of Section 36-64(d). (e) Construction. All signs except those temporary signs enumerated in Sec. 36-62(a)(1)(f) shall be designed and constructed to withstand a wind pressure of not less than 30 pounds per square foot of area.and loads as required by the Building Code. (f) Maintenance. All signs shall be maintained in such a manner as to avoid becoming a hazardous sign. (g) Removal. In accordance with the following procedure, the Building Official or his/her designee shall be authorized to require the removal of any illegal or prohibited sign. (1) Before taking action to require the removal of any illegal or prohibited sign, the Building Official or his/her designee shall provide written notice to the owner or operator of the business to j which the sign relates. (2) The notice shall specify that the illegal or prohibited sign shall be removed or brought into compliance with this section within a reasonable time of such notice. 8-S 38 (3) If the sign is not removed or repaired, as the case may be, within the time allowed, the Building Official or his/her designee is hereby authorized to have the sign removed to be used as evidence and assess the costs of removal against the property for collection in the same i manner as a property tax. (h) Nonconforming Signs. It is the intent of these regulations that all nonconforming signs be eliminated as set forth below. (1) All signs which were non -conforming prior to the effective date of these regulations shall be removed by January 1, 1992. (2) All signs which are made non -conforming by the adoption of these regulations or any subsequent amendments shall be permitted to remain as non -conforming signs. (3) Owners of nonconforming signs shall be required to comply with the maintenance provisions of Sec. 36-63(f). Any change or alteration to a non -conforming sign shall require compliance with the provisions of this Chapter. (i) special sign provisions. The following signs shall be regulated in accordance with the following criteria: (1) Signs for nonconforming uses. A nonconforming use shall be permitted to have the same amount and type of signage as would be allowed for such use in the most restrictive zone in which such use is allowed. le -5, i 9 o. 39 (2) Historic signs, signs for historic structures and signs on structures in historic zones. The Board of Adjustment may, by special excep- tion, allow signs which do not conform to the provisions of this Chapter under the circumstances described below. All applications for special exceptions hereunder shall be referred to the Historic Preservation Commission for review and comment and shall be subject to the specific standards listed below and to the general standards of Section 36-91(g)(2). a. For buildings registered on the National Register of Historic Places or in an OHP zone, signage which does not conform with the provisions of this Chapter may be allowed if it is in keeping with the architectural character of the structure, and is appropriate to a particular period in the building's history or an integral part of its identity. b. The Board may exempt an existing sign from the provisions of Sec. 36-63(h)(1) if it can be demonstrated that said sign makes a significant artistic or historic contribution to the community or neighborhood in which the sign is located, subject to compliance with the maintenance requirements of Sec. 36-63(f). (3) Existing non-public signs located on or over public property. Such signs shall be regulated in accordance with Chapter 31 of the Iowa City Code of Ordinances. Any signs on or over the City Plaza shall be regulated by Chapter 9.1 of the Iowa City Code of Ordinances. /X� I I I i I A 40 Sec. 36-64. License and permit requirements. (a) License required. (1) Except for those signs not requiring a permit, as listed in Section 36-62(a)(1), it shall be unlawful for any person to erect, alter, move, improve, remove or convert any sign without having a sign erector's license in good standing issued by the City. A one-time sign erector's license shall be available to a tenant or owner of a building to permit such person to install his/her own sign. (2) The license to erect, alter; move, improve, remove or convert any sign as required herein shall be known as a sign erector's license and shall be issued by the City to the person desiring to perform the work indicated above. No such license shall be issued to any person until such person shall have paid to the City a license fee as established by resolution of City Council; and shall have filed with the Department of Housing and Inspection Services a copy or a certificate of a contractor's public liability insurance policy with coverage limits of $100,000.00 per person and $300,000.00 per occurrence for bodily injury and $25,000.00 for property damage liability. The City of Iowa City shall be designated as an additional insured and the policy shall provide that the City is to be notified 30 days in advance of the termination of the policy. The licensee /o'S a 41 shall indemnify and save harmless the City from any and all damage, judgment, cost or expense which the City may incur or suffer by reason of said license issuance. (3) A sign erector's license shall be valid for one (1) year from the date of issuance. A one-time sign erector's license shall be valid for 30 days from the date of issuance. The license fees are set by resolution of the City Council. (4) The Building Official or his/her designee shall be responsible for enforcement of these provisions and shall be empowered to suspend or revoke a sign erector's license for a violation of the sign regula- tions or if the license was obtained by fraud, or if the licensee allows any person not in his/her employ without a valid erector's license to do or cause to be done any work requiring a license. A person aggrieved by the revocation, suspension or denial of a license may appeal said action to the Board of Adjustment. (5) If a license is revoked for any reason, another erector's license shall not be issued to such person for twelve (12) months after revocation. (b) _Permit required. a 42 (1) No sign requiring a permit shall be erected, altered, moved, improved, or converted without first obtaining a sign permit from the Building Official or his/her designee and making payment of the required permit fee. In addition, all illuminated signs shall be subject to the provisions of the Electrical Code and the permit fees required thereunder. (2) A separate permit shall be obtained for each sign. (3) Only a person holding a valid sign erector's license issued by the City may obtain a permit to perform work regulated by this section. (c) Permit fees. Every applicant, before being issued a sign permit shall pay to the City such fee as shall be established by resolution of the City Council. However, any person found to be erecting, altering, moving, improving, or converting any sign prior to the issuance of a permit, or who has erected, altered, moved, improved, or converted a sign prior to the issuance of a permit, shall be charged double the normal fee. The payment of such double fee shall not relieve any person from fully complying with the requirements of these regulations in the execution of the work, nor from any other penalties prescribed herein. (d) Permits for illuminated signs. The application for a sign permit in which electrical wiring and connections are to be used shall be submitted prior to issuance of the sign permit. The Building Official or his/her designee shall examine the plans and specifications for all wiring and connections to determine if they comply with the Electrical Code. /p.57 N 43 (e) Applications. Application for a sign permit shall be made upon a form provided by the Building Official or his/her designee and shall contain and have attached thereto a plot plan with the following information: (1) Name, address, telephone number, and sign erector's license number of the applicant. (2) Location of the sign and of the building, structure, or lot on which the sign is to be attached or erected. (3) Two (2) blueprints or drawings of the plans and specifications of the sign with dimensions, notation of materials, the type of construc- tion, and method of attachment to the ground or building. (4) Copy of stress sheets and calculations showing the structure is designed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code. (5) An application for an electrical permit required for an illuminated sign. (6) Such other information as may be required. /8s 44 (f) Permit issued. It shall be the duty of the Building Official or his/her designee, upon the filing of an application for a sign permit, to examine such application; and if the proposed sign is in compliance with the requirements of these regulations and all other laws and ordinances of the � City, the sign permit shall then be issueed. (g) Permit expiration. If the work authorized under a sign permit has not been completed within six (6) months after date of issuance, said permit shall become null and void. /9� i I I i i j i 44 (f) Permit issued. It shall be the duty of the Building Official or his/her designee, upon the filing of an application for a sign permit, to examine such application; and if the proposed sign is in compliance with the requirements of these regulations and all other laws and ordinances of the � City, the sign permit shall then be issueed. (g) Permit expiration. If the work authorized under a sign permit has not been completed within six (6) months after date of issuance, said permit shall become null and void. /9�