Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-02-26 Bd Comm. minutesMINUTES IOWA CITY HOUSING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 1985 MEMBERS PRESENT: Krause, Dawson, Trevor and Moore STAFF PRESENT: Seydel, Henderson, Hencin and Barnes RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: 1. Housing Commission recommends that funds which had been set aside specifically for Congregate Housing should not be reallocated at this time (extracted for 2-12-85 Council meeting). 2. Statement of Policies referred to Council for adoption. Meeting to Order - Meeting called to order at 9:06 a.m. by Chairperson Krause. Minutes - Minutes of January 8, 1985, meeting approved as mailed on motion by Moore, seconded Dawson, approved 4-0. Housing Rehabilitation - Barnes presented a request for a rental rehabilitation loan fora 3 multiple unit at 918 Iowa Avenue. A detailed breakdown of proposed repairs and projected expenses was provided with a request for $4,330.00 to rep- resent the program share of costs. Barnes responded to questions regarding 114 equity, income qualifications, rent, time frame of work to be done and explained the deferred payment loan aspect of the program. It was moved by Moore, seconded by Trevor and approved 4-0 that the request for a rental rehabilitation loan for 918 Iowa Avenue be approved for the amount requested. Barnes presented another request for a rental rehabilitation loan, this one for a single family dwelling located at 1920 H Street. She stated that the owner of this property had ex- pressed an interest in making this property available as a rental unit in the Section 8 program after rehabilitation is completed. Hencin explained how funds are released for payment of the City's half of loans. It was moved by Moore, seconded by Trevor and approved 4-0 to grant the request for a rental rehabili- tation loan in the amount of $5,000.00 for the unit at 1920 H Street. Coordinator's —Report - Seydel stated that the Annual Contributions Contract for Sect on 8 ex st ng had been received and the related 14 certificates had been issued. He discussed the 14 Section 8 Existing Housing vouchers which have been applied for and explained the difference between the certificate and voucher programs. Seydel discussed a Section 8 situation involving possible fraud and read a response to his letter to the Inspector General. He stated that Section 8 rents were paid on 437 units totaling $80,816.50 for an average rent of $189.02. Public Housing Update: Seydel stated that there had been a turnover of one Public Housing unit. He then indicated that the Annual Contributions Contract for 10 units of Public Housing had been received and proceeded to discuss the developmental proposal for purchase of these 10 units. He pointed out that it will be necessary to consider replacement of major components in these units and said that funds will be held in escrow from the purchase price to cover these costs. 3a/ MINUTES IOWA CITY HOUSING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 1985 PAGE 2 Statement of Policies: Areas in question in the Statement of Policies including Page 22 Paragraph 6 and Page 25 Paragraph 4, regarding eligibility and informal hearing/review, were discussed. It was moved by Krause, seconded by Trevor and approved 4-0 to refer Statement of Policies to City Council as amended by Seydel. General Discussion - Hencin reported that the Congregate Housing Ad Hoc Committee a se ected i consultant to carry out the feasibility and marketability study. Council has given their approval of the Atlanta-based firm and final results of the study are expected to be available in June. Hencin then discussed CCN's rec- ommendation that $60,000.00 in funds which were allocated for Congregate Housing revert to them to be reallocated - $50,000.00 to Mecca and $10,000.00 to CDBG Contingency. Discussion ensued regarding the implications of withdrawal to Council for their meeting this evening. It was the consensus of the commission that it would be premature to divert these funds at this time. It is their feeling that Congregate Housing is one of the top priorities and without these funds the project would be put on hold. They feel it would be unwise to jeopardize the original priority. It was therefore decided to do an extract of minutes for Council and it was moved by Dawson, seconded by Trevor and approved 4-0 that until such time as the Congregate Housing study has been completed, funds which had been set aside specifically for Congregate Housing should not be reallocated. Rachel Dennis was present and joined the meeting at 10:35 a.m. with her input regarding the Krausepthatnthe oftertms ofncommissionersnHaa delcand IoganswilltexpireOoniMayrs, 1985. Seydel discussed a letter which will be sent to Assisted Housing applicants. The meeting was adjourned by Krause at 10:45 a.m. Approved by: Fred C. Krause Sof MINUTES HOUSING APPEALS BOARD JANUARY 8, 1985 MEMBERS PRESENT: Fred Krause, Ruth Dawson, Danel Trevor, John Moore, Al Logan, Gary Watts MEMBERS ABSENT: Goldene Haendel STAFF PRESENT: David Malone, Judy Hoard, David Brown, Nolan Bogaard SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION AND ACTION TAKEN: Krause called the meeting to order. Logan made a motion to approve the minutes of the December 11, 1984 meeting. Moore seconded the motion. The motion carried. APPEAL OF KEN KLEIN, 1012 JEFFERSON Present: Ken Klein J Inspector Hoard stated that she would be presenting the first violations appealed because Inspector Vezina, who had done the actual licensing inspection, was out of the state at military reserve duty. She stated I that the property had been inspected by Inspector Vezina on November 15, 1984. The violations being appealed all are under Chapter 17-7.B. accessory structure not maintained in good state of repair. They are as follows: north accessory building, southwest side, hole in roof; north accessory building, northeast corner, siding is missing and roof rotted; north accessory building, northwest side is in disrepair with siding missing and siding coming loose; north accessory building, east side window is missing and north accessory building, south side, siding is missing. Inspector Hoard stated that the violation involving a missing window on the east side had been corrected when she visited the property the day previous. Through the use of photographs she presented the Board the violations being appealed. Mr. Klein stated to the Board that he did not feel the accessory building should be inspected as the tenants did not have use of the building. It was used for his own storage purposes and citing from Chapter 17-4, he stated that the inspection of rental properties for a rental permit is only applicable to the part of the structure that is used for rental purposes only. It was his contention that because the accessory building was not being rented to the tenants, that the rental permit should not be contingent on repair of these violations and, in fact, he did not feel the violations should be cited on structures not used for rental purposes. Asst. City Attorney Brown stated to the Board that the Housing Code as written did not exempt accessory structures from being inspected at the time of the licensing inspectionfor a rental permit. Mr. Klein stated that he felt that the accessory structure'should only have been inspected if a complaint had been received on it. Inspector Hoard, in concurring with Asst. City Attorney Brown's opinion, stated that all buildings on the property that a rental residential structure was located were inspected during the licensing inspection. Krause felt that Mr. Klein had prepared a form of a legal brief and wished to have Asst. City Attorney Brown examine it and continue the discussion at the following Appeals Board 30S Housing Appeals Board January 8, 1985 Page 2 meeting. Inspector Hoard informed Chairperson Krause that there were additional violations involving another accessory structure and that she felt they should be presented to the Board at this time rather than waiting for the following meeting. Krause agreed to have the additional violations presented. Inspector Hoard stated that Building Inspector Nolan Bogaard was asked by Inspector Vezina to accompany him on the inspection to examine the east accessory structure and the other violations being appealed involved it. These violations were also cited under Chapter 17-7.B. accessory structure not maintained in good state of repair. They are as follows: east accessory building, east side, block wall is bulging out in disrepair; east accessory building, roof is rotted; east accessory building, north- west corner, block is loose and bulging out and east accessory building, north side, hole in roof. Inspector Bogaard stated that in his opinion there were conditions that existed on the east accessory building that would warrant their correction. He shared with the Board members photo- graphs of the building. Trevor stated that she felt the Housing Code was written for the safety of the tenants and that in her opinion the build- ings were not safe. Mr. Klein told the Board that the east accessory building was not for the tenants' use. Inspector Bogaard inquired as to the statement by Mr. Klein as it had been his understanding that the tenants were, in fact, storing their own car in the accessory structure. Mr. Klein stated that there was a car being stored there but it was not with his permission. Discussion followed regarding the problem of liability' that existed if the accessory structures were not repaired. Krause stated to Mr. Klein that once the owner had been put on notice that a violation existed and the owner did not correct that violation, if an injury were to result through the owner's inaction then the owner would indeed be liable. Mr. Klein stated that he felt his insurance coverage was sufficient to meet this situation if it were to arise. Logan made a motion to uphold the viola- tions of Chapter 17-7.8. accessory structure not maintained in good state of repair. Trevor seconded the motion. The motion carried. Mr. Klein requested from the Board that he be given 18 months to correct the violations. He stated that he felt that he would need this amount of time as was allowed in the Housing Code to correct the violations as his schedule was such that he had but a short time during the summer to make the repairs and he intended to make them himself. There was discussion as to the lengthy amount of time being requested. Logan made a motion to grant a 12 month extension to correct the violations. Dawson seconded the motion. The motion carried. APPEAL OF RON JOHNSON, 1025 KEOKUK Present: Ron Johnson Inspector Malone stated that the appeal request had not been filed within the 10 day filing period. Moore made a motion to grant appeal rights. Logan seconded the motion. The motion carried. Inspector Malone stated that he had conducted a licensing inspection at 1025 - 25-1/2 Keokuk St. on December 1, 1983. The violation being appealed is Chapter 17-7.8. Jos Housing Appeals Board January 8, 1985 Page 3 accessory structure not maintained in good state of repair; the roof on the old garage is rotten, has holes in it, and the garage lacks paint. Inspector Malone presented the Board members with a photograph of the garage. Mr. Johnson stated to the Board that he agreed that the garage was in violation and needed to be removed. He told them that a problem existed that made it impossible for him to correct the violation at this time. He stated that he was in the process of remodeling an 1864 Victo- rian house that was the first plot off of the Plum Grove area. He stated that he had discovered a foundation that he felt was from an original building from Plum .Grove. He had contacted the State informing them that he felt he had a building that might have been part of the original Plum Grove area (the accessory structure in violation) and had been waiting for some time now for State officials to decide what, if anything, they wished to do with the building. Mr. Johnson requested additional time until August to either let the State remove it or he would tear it down and use the lumber for his own purposes. Trevor made a motion to uphold the violation of Chapter 17-7.B. accessory structure not maintained in good state of repair, with an extension of time given to August 31, 1985 to correct the violation. Moore seconded the motion. The motion carried. Mr. Johnson was told that the rental permit could not be issued until this violation had been corrected. APPEAL OF JOHN NOLAN, 204 MCLEAN Present: Marcia Fisher j Inspector Malone stated that he had conducted a complaint inspection at 204 McLean on November 29, 1984. He stated to the Board members that although the entire letter had been appealed, that after speaking with Ms. Fischer, only six violations would be presented to the Board. They are as follows: Chapter 17-7.A.(1) foundation, roof, stair, porch, not main- tained in safe and sound condition; the concrete repairs on the two steps closest to the street appear to have failed and chunks of concrete have broken loose from the steps and at the south front porch, bottom step, wood is missing on the leading edge. Chapter 17-7.A.(2) foundation, exterior wall, roof not maintained in weathertight, watertight, rodent - proof and/or insectproof condition. Squirrels have eaten holes in the north porch, underside of the roof. Chapter 17-7.8. accessory structure not maintained in good state of repair. The garage roof has collapsed and window panes are missing. Chapter 17-7.C. rainwater drainage equipment not maintained in good state of repair; the gutters at the southeast side of the second floor are rusted through and the northeast downspout elbow is disconnected. Chapter 17-7.F. exterior wood surface unprotected from the elements; portions of the soffits are peeling and missing paint and the north porch has peeling and missing paint. Chapter 17-73. Public areas not maintained in safe and sanitary condition. The cistern lid in the north yard which is accessible to children is broken. Ms. Fisher stated that these violations were not being contested but rather an extension of ninety days from the original time of March 5, 1985, was being requested. Trevor wished to know if temporary repairs could be made on the cistern cover. She felt that this needed more immediate attention. Fischer stated that she felt this violation could be 305 Housing Appeals Board January 8, 1985 Page 4 corrected sooner. Logan made a motion to uphold the following violations and to grant an extension of time to June 30, 1985: Chapter 17-7.A;(1) foundation, floor, steps, porch, not maintained in safe and sound condi- tion; Chapter 17-7.A.(2) foundation, exterior wall, roof, not maintained in weathertight, watertight, rodentproof and insectproof condition; Chapter 17-7.0. accessory structure not maintained in good state of repair; Chapter 17-7.C. rainwater drainage equipment not maintained in good state of repair and Chapter 17-7.F. exterior wood surface unprotected from the elements. Moore seconded the motion. The motion carried. Krause made a motion to uphold Chapter 17-73. public areas not maintained in safe and sanitary condition. Logan seconded the motion. The motion carried. HARTLAND DONLEY, 1112 MUSCATINE AVENUE Present: Hartland Donley Inspector Malone stated that this appeal had not been filed within the proper filing period. Moore made a motion to grant appeal rights. Dawson seconded the motion. The motion carried. Inspector Malone stated that he had conducted a licensing inspection on September 13, 1983. The violation being appealed was Chapter 17-S.N.(3). lack of required minimum room size. The first floor pantry area being used as a bedroom lacks 70 square feet. Inspector Malone stated that according to the floor plan the room had 39.28 square feet. Mr. Donley stated to the Board that he had measured the room and had found it to have 63 square feet. Inspector Malone stated that prior to conducting the inspection, his examination of the floor plans had shown this area to be non -habitable and he had not recorded what the roan size was only that it was less than 70 square feet and a non -habitable area. Mr. Donley stated that when he had purchased the property in 1967 the tax records had shown it to have two bedrooms. He had rented it as a two bedroom unit. The tenants may or may not have used the roan in question as a bedroom. Logan said there was a definite discrepancy in the size of the room being appealed. Mr. Donley stated that at the time of the inspection he had measured the roan and had come up with the 63 square feet figure. Inspector Malone acknowledged this was his recollection of the roan size. Moore made a motion to grant a variance to Chapter 17-5.N.(3), lack of required minimum room size. Moore seconded the motion. The motion carried. 445-445 1/2 CLARK Present: E. Marlo Nelsen Inspector Hoard stated that she had conducted a licensing inspection at 445 - 445 1/2 Clark Street an September 25, 1984. Inspector Hoard stated that she had re -visited the property an8 had found that the violation involving Chapter 17-7.Q. fire extinguisher not maintained in good working condition was corrected. Mr. Nelsen stated that the fire extinguisher was present at the time of the inspection. Inspector Hoard stated that she had conducted the inspection with the tenant, and that the tenant was not aware of the location of the fire extinguisher. 3os Housing Appeals Board January 8, 1985 Page 5 The first violation appealed was Chapter 17-7.A(4) window, storm window, window latch, window lock and/or other aperture covering not maintained in good and functional condition. 445, south side, bathroom, window screen frame, wood in deteriorated condition. Inspector Hoard stated that during her revisit to the property the window screen had been removed and the storm window hung, thus she did not know whether this violation had been corrected. Mr. Nelson stated that he was in the process of repairing the window screen and would have it back to the property before it was needed this spring. Inspector Hoard stated that it would be necessary for the window screen to be present at the property in order for. her to verify that it had been repaired. The second violation being appealed was Chapter 17-7.1. electrical system not maintained in good and safe working condition; east fuse box, bottom four sockets empty. Inspector Hoard stated that she had cited this as a violation because she did not know whether the circuits to the sockets were live or not. Mr. Nelson told the Board that there was no electricity running to them and they had simply been added for future use. Inspector Hoard stated that had she known this she would not have cited it as a violation. One of the Board members wanted to know if the sockets could be filled so that there was no question about the safety. Mr. Nelson stated that he could, in fact, put burned out fuses in the sockets. Krause made a motion to uphold both violations, Chapter 17-7.A.(4) window, storm window, window latch, window lock and/or other aperture covering not maintained in good and functional condition and Chapter 17-7.I. electrical system not maintained in good and safe working condition. Logan seconded the motion. The motion carried. APPEAL OF LEONARD VIDAL 942 IOWA AVENUE Present: Steve Hoeger Inspector Hoard stated that the violation being appealed had been pre- sented to the Board previously by the person who was buying the property on contract from Mr. Vidal. At the October 11, 1983 Appeals Board hearing the violation had been upheld. Since that time, Mr. Vidal had received possession of the property and had been unaware of the violation and the impact on the classification of the property and wished to have an was not ablopportunity eto employmentoutof to �tt etoatend due State, Mr. Hoeger,Ahiseresident manager, was 17-2. definition of violation of Type III dwelling unit. 11 andap11a 0 each contaealed was inea stove and refrigerator but lack a sink for the exclusive use of that unit. Inspector Hoard stated that in order for a dwelling unit to exist and, in this case, a Type III dwelling unit, a complete kitchen must be present within the confines of the dwelling unit. In both 11 and /10, the occupants had to leave their dwelling unit in order to have access to the kit bathroomcould be s e hared explained occupants of more than dwelling one dwellingunit situation, but that a complete kitchen consisting of a stove, refrigerator and sink must be provided to each dwelling unit. Mr. Hoeger told the Board that Mr. Vidal had been given permission years earlier to have the stove and refrigerator only, with a sink being shared by occupants of the two units. Inspector Hoard stated that this was most likely the case as she had discovered the violation through a reinspection two years ago. Alterna- '3OS Housing Appeals Board January 8, 1985 Page 6 tives were discussed regarding the correction of this violation. Inspec- tor Hoard explained that the stove and refrigerator could be removed at the end of the present tenant's occupancy and thus two rooming units would exist, or the sink could be installed in each unit in order to maintain the present Type III dwelling unit classification. Mr. Hoeger stated that the units were both occupied and that a lease had been signed for each of them through the summer. He wanted to know if the tenant in /10 could have the kitchen sink included in his unit and Unit it not provided with the kitchen facilities. Inspector Hoard explained that this would not be possible as in order for the tenant in tl to have access to the bathroom, he would have to go through Unit 010 which is a violation of the Housing Code. Mr. Hoeger stated that he would have to discuss the situation further with Mr. Vidal to determine which direction he would like to go in, but he did request additional time be given in order to remedy the situation and allow the present tenants to remain through their lease period. Moore made a motion to uphold the violation Chapter 17-2 defini- tion of Type III dwelling unit, with an extension given to October 1, 1985. Dawson seconded the motion. The motion carried. N C LOUIS. 319 S. LINN ST. Present: N. C. Louis Inspector Hoard stated that this appeal had not been filed within the proper filing period. Krause made a motion to grant appeal rights. Dawson seconded the motion. The motion carried. The first violation that was appealed was Chapter 17-S.M.M. lack of required electrical outlet. First floor library lacks two double conven- ience outlets. Inspector Hoard stated that at the time of her inspection on October 4, 1984, she was unable to find any convenience outlets in the roan but from reading Mr. Louis' appeal, it appeared that one was present. Mr. Louis stated to the Board that this room was not under the basement of the rest addition oofthe anotherhouse outletthat difficult. brick He statedstructure, thatthus making the room was compfloor to that t the time tihadly ibeenedented, itin hwasewith othe agreement thatgthedatenantswould not have usage of this room as it was formerly the Louis family residence and the books contained in the library belonged to Mr. Louis' family. . lack of riequir dmade electrical outletgrant aLoganvariance secondedhtheermotion. (1TThe carried. The next violation retpeltwas Chapter lexterior wood surfaceunprotected from the elements. s. Esside, second floor, peeling paint on soffit. Inspector Hoard stated that there would be an extension of iwould be given May sufficientotime to correctviolation. violationLouis thatthe that this was not appealing the requirement to correct the exterior surface, only that it was not possible for him to paint it before warm weather. Krause then made omotion nprotected f m the elements. Chapter nts. Morea wood themotion.Thsurface e uomotion carried. '9o.S Housing Appeals Board January 8, 1985 Page 7 APPEAL OF EDGAR COLONY, 327 N. JOHNSON Present: Ray Colony Inspector Hoard stated that she had conducted a licensing inspection at 327 N. Johnson on November 14, 1984. The violation being appealed was Chapter 17-5.N.(2). overcrowding; west dwelling unit has six non -related roomers - maximum occupancy allowed is 5 non -related roomers. Inspector Hoard stated that there were two dwelling units present at this property. The front structure was the original building with the rear structure just recently constructed. It is in the rear or west dwelling unit where there are six non -related roomers, one more than allowed by the zoning in that area. Mr. Colony told the Board that he was not questioning the total number of people that could occupy the dwelling unit but wished to know why at the time the west unit was constructed there was allowed to be six bedrooms present. Inspector Hoard stated that there were indeed six bedrooms but that there was no limit as to the number of bedrooms a unit could have. Mr. Colony stated that there was space available in the east dwelling unit that could be used for living area for the tenants of the west dwelling unit. Krause suggested that Mr. Colony take his violation before the Zoning Board of Appeals as it was necessary for the Housing Appeals Board to uphold the violation. Asst. City Attorney Brown stated that the violation had Housing Board of beenproperly lbutcited t thatand becauseitbeen maeappealedof zoning Zoning Board it would be necessary r itmotiontotoold also e upholto thed oningBoardof Logan de a Chapter 17-5.N.(2). Overcrowding. Trevor seconded the motion. The motion carried. WILLIAM WERGER, 426 S. DODGE Present: Joe Holland Inspector Hoard stated that this property had had a licensing inspection conducted by Inspector Vezina on August 27, 1984. As Inspector Vezina was not able to be present, she was representing Che City 1 n his ( behalf. The first two violations being appealed were required natural light; house east bedroom, second floor, has 5.67 square feet of natural light, lacking the minimum requirement of 7.31 square feet; and Chapter 17-5.K.(2)(b), lack of required natural ventilation; house east bedroom, second floor, window has 2.55 square feet of natural ventilation lacking the required minimum of 3.28 square feet. Mr. Holland, a business associate of Mr. Werger, explained to the Board that the owner felt the not icient sufficient enough oarequit re the ad itionalount of window'a expensethats inf enlargings the window. He did not feel there would be much benefit to the structure to be gained by complying with the Housing Code requirement. Logan made a motion to grant a variance to 17-5.J.(1) lack of required natural light and Chapter 17-5.K.(2)(b), lack of required natural ventilation. Moore seconded the motion. The motion carried. 3os Housing Appeals Board January 8, 1985 Page 8 The third violation being appealed was Chapter 17-6.A. lack of required access, house - east bedroom, access to be gained only by transgressing through the north bedroom. Inspector Hoard explained the location of the two bedrooms through the floor plan provided to the Board Members. She stated that according to the Housing Code, it is a violation if in order to get to one bedroom it is necessary to pass through another. Mr. Holland explained to the Board that in order to correct this violation it would be necessary to make structural changes the owner felt would create problems structurally and would serve only to reduce the size of the bedroom or eliminate storage space to the east room occupants. Moore made a motion to grant a variance to Chapter 17-6.A, lack of required access so long as the property was occupied as a single family dwelling unit. Logan seconded the motion. The motion carried. APPEAL OF BOB CRANE, 308 MELROSE COURT Present: None Inspector Hoard stated that the appeal had not been filed within the proper filing period. Logan made a motion to grant appeal rights. Dawson seconded the motion. The motion carried. Inspector Hoard stated that she had conducted a licensing inspection on June 28, 1984. The two violations being appealed were Chapter 17-5.J.(I). lack of required natural light; basement bedroom has 1.78 square feet of natural light, lacking the required minimum of 37.11 square feet and Chapter 17-5.K.2(b) lack of required natural ventilation; basement bedroom has 1.78 square feet of natural light lacking the required minimum of 16.69 square feet. Inspec- tor Hoard read to the Appeals Board a note that had been left by Mr. Crane who had been unable to stay for the entire Appeals Board meeting as he had another appointment and was unable to wait any longer. The letter to Inspector Hoard and to the Appeals Board members stated that the property was now being occupied by a family and that the basement was no longer being used as a bedroom. Krause then made a motion to uphold Chapter 17-5.J.(1) lack of required natural light and 17-5.K.(2)(b) lack of required natural ventilation. Logan seconded the motion. The motion carried. Krause then motioned the meeting adjourned. n �A�H�oard,�-__� for Chairperson Fred Krause 305 MINUTES IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION JANUARY 10, 1985 IOWA CITY CIVIC CENTER MEMBERS PRESENT: Schmeiser, Saeugling, Tiffany , Lewis MEMBERS ABSENT: George STAFF PRESENT: Zehr, Brown GUESTS PRESENT: C. Ruppert, E.K. Jones, D. Houston, W. Paris, Members of the Balloonists Association Meeting called to order at 7:30 p.m. The minutes of the December 13, 1984 meeting were approved as read. Zehr presented the January 1985 bills and explained that Roto -Rooter bill was for a plugged sewer and the Aerial Services Inc. were for two aerial photos of the Iowa City airport. The bills were approved for payment as presented. River City Balloonists Association commission members reviewed the proposed changes of the Iowa City Code Section 4.1, Operations Over City. Brown noted the specific changes to Section 4.1 and said that the Parks and Recreation Commission should review the amendment before it is submitted to the City Council. Brown stated that Parks and Recreation do not want to preclude ballooning activities but have i concerns about hazards to the public. Zehr explained that changes would enable ballooning operations to comply with FAA procedures. Tiffany inquired about a balloonist's ability to control landings. Members of the Balloonists Association said landings can be controlled and they would seek prior approval from land owners for take offs and landings. The general approval for take offs and landings will be sought from Parks and Recreation. In response to Schmeiser, Brown said the insurance provision is justified because the City is waiving the restrictions for balloonists to operate at less restricted than other types of aircraft. Moved by Tiffany, seconded by Saeugling to submit the proposed changes to the Parks and Recreation Commis- sion for their review and forward and recommend the revised language of City Code Section 4.1 to City Council for approval. Commission members discussed the use of the Iowa City airport by balloonists. Zehr explained that there is a general policy prohibiting balloonists from the Iowa City airport because balloon operations are incompatible with airport operations due to the three overlapping traffic patterns and that the Iowa City airport is an uncontrolled airport. Commission received input from members of the Balloonists Association. Balloonist Winegarden said balloon- ists would like to be able to use the front yard area of the Iowa City airport and balloons would not restrict activity of the airport. Members of the Balloonists Association said they are aware of traffic patterns and safety as a major concern when operating balloons in the airport area. Zehr said the revised City Code Section 4.1 would allow balloonists to seek the consent of the Airport Manager to use the airport. Schmeiser noted that the Airport Manager can always be contacted. Saeugling said that balloonists should have access to the airport facility and balloons should not be unnecessarily restricted. Schmeiser explained that procedures and traffic 306 Iowa City Airport Commission January 10, 1984 Page 2 designed for airplanes and there are other options available to balloonists. E.K. Jones said the airport should not allow users that will create unsafe conditions and allows balloons at the airport on a regular basis would hurt his gas business. Zehr suggested that it would be a good general policy for balloonists to always contact the flight service station to announce loca- tions of their ballooning operations. Commission agreed to the general rule to not allow balloonists to use the Iowa City airport except as authorized by the Aiport Manager. Corporate Hangar Zehr explained that the HLM corporate hangar lease has not been signed and discussions with HLM are continuing. Zehr said the low bidder has agreed to extend the bid offer for an additional 30 days. Commission members discussed the HLM corporate hangar lease negotiation. Schmeiser indicated that HLM is concerned about the monthly rental figures and the justification of those figures. Schmeiser noted that cost could be lowered by scaling down the project or having the City share a larger percentage of the cost. In response to Saeugling, Zehr said the HLM corporate hangar lease agreement is not related to the FBO lease. E.K. Jones said the FBO should be reconsidered if concessions are made on the HLM corporate hangar lease. Moved by Tiffany, seconded by Schmeiser, to approve the resolution accepting plans and specs for the construction of the proposed corporate hangar and equipment storage building. In response to Lewis, Brown explained that any time a governmental body proposes to enter into a public improvement costing over $25,000, state code requires a public hearing and a resolution to approve plans and specs. Motion passed. Fueling Standards Zehr said the standards for self -fueling operations include changes as recommended by the FAA and suggestions from E.K. Jones. Brown reviewed changes in the fueling standards. E.K. Jones said the fueling standards violate his lease and requested review by the City's legal staff. Brown stated the self-service operating standards do not impact on the existing FBO lease. Moved by Tiffany, seconded by Saeugling, to recommend the fueling standards to the City Council to be adopted as an ordinance. Schmeiser directed Brown to review the fueling standards and suggested the fueling standards exclude the FBO. In response to Saeugling, Schmeiser said the fueling standards do not affect the HLM corporate hangar lease agreement. Motion passed. Airport Compliance Project Zehr reported that the contract has been sent to the FAA for approval of the appraiser and staff will proceed to negotiate with land owners. 306 Iowa City Airport Commission January 10, 1984 Page 3 Iowa City Flying Service Concerns E.K. Jones reviewed concerns as stated in his January 7, 1985 letter to Zehr. Jones also inquired about the feasibility of building onto the existing shop. False wire ceiling. Jones said the installation of a false wire ceiling was a priori y. ewis will review cost and plans for a false wire ceiling and report to the Airport Commission next month. Security lights and T -hangar wiring. Zehr will either resolve the installa- tion of security lights and T -hangar wiring problems or report back to the Airport Commission with possible solutions. Airport Property Improvements. Tiffany and Lewis will work with E.K. Jones to deve op pans for making improvements to Airport Property and report back to the Airport Commission. Weather observer. Zehr will prepare an update for the Commission about the proposed FAA funded automatic weather reporting station. Brown will research the City's and FBO's responsibility to provide weather reporting. E Shop ramp slope. Tiffany and Lewis will prepare recommendations for the 4 Airport Commission regarding E.K. Jones' request to decrease the slope in front of the shop ramp and install a culvert between the shop ramp and T -hangar ramp. Snow Removal E.K. Jones recommended a snow removal procedure that should be established by the Airport Commission. Jones distributed a January 10, 1985 letter that rthe etailed drecommendations but removal. noted that he considershrurred wind cdir ctionh when removing snow from the runways. Schmeiser said snow removal from runways should depend upon weather conditions and that safety should continue to be a primary concern at the airport. Meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. u. cob MINUTES RESOURCES CONSERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 14, 1985 - 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC LIBRARY, MEETING ROOM C MEMBERS PRESENT: Nychay, Levy, Vogel, Singerman STAFF PRESENT: Schoenfelder APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of the December 3 and December 10, 1984 meetings were approved as submitted. UTILITY FRANCHISE FEE: A general discussion of the City Attorney's legal opinion. The following motion was entered by Singerman: The RCC recommends that the Iowa City City Council request a legal opinion from the Iowa Attorney General as to the legality of the utility franchise fee and a further opinion as to what the fee collected by Iowa City can be spent on. This recommendation was seconded by Vogel and carried; Levy abstaining. Singerman introduced a second nation that the RCC Chair, Mr. Nychay, immediately send a memo to the City Council reflecting the above recommendation. This motion was seconded by Vogel and carried; Levy abstaining. ROLE OF OFFICERS: Nychay entered the motion to elect Vogel as Vice -Chair; seconded by Singerman and carried. ENERGY RELATED AGENCIES LIST: The list of energy related agencies in Iowa City/Johnson County shall be filed for future reference. METHANE RECOVERY PROGRAM: The Getty Resources Co. form shall be returned to the Getty Co. for evaluation. , The University of Iowa power plant shall be listed as a potential customer of the recovered methane. ANNUAL CHAIRPERSONS MEETING: j Mr. Nychay gave a summary of his presentation. I I.E.P.C. LOCAL GOVERNMENTS PROGRAM: Mr. Schoenfelder gave a brief summary of program requirements and potential. OTHER BUSINESS: Brief discussion of City bus fare increases. No motions entered. ADJOURNMENT: 9:00 P.M. 307 MINUTES URBAN ENVIRONMENT AD HOC COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 5, 1985 - 4:00 P.M. IOWA CITY RECREATION CENTER, ROOM A MEMBERS PRESENT: Baker, Boutelle, Brinton, Jakobsen, Jordan, Koch, McGuire MEMBERS ABSENT: Amert, Lorenzen, Strait, VaunderWoude STAFF PRESENT: Boyle, Franklin, Milkman, Manning CALL TO ORDER: Ca -chairperson Baker called the meeting to order at 4:10 p.m. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 22, 1985: Jakobsen asked for a correction on page 3, first paragraph, changing careful to "carefully considered". Milkman added a correction on page one, third paragraph under Area 1, the fourth sentence to read "Jakobsen pointed out that without the owner's consent, the City cannot zone for PDH -8 as of now." Jordan moved to accept the minutes of January 22, 1985, as amended. Jakobsen seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. REPORT ON RM -20 AREA ON NORTH OUBUOUE STREET: To followup a question concerning the area zoned RM -20 on North Dubuque Street, Ladd Braden-Golay (Planning Intern) reported that the area cannot be further developed. He stated that all the surrounding land is zoned RS -5. EXPLANATION OF EXISTING SUBDIVISION REVIEW PROCESS: Franklin, in explaining the subdivision review process, stated that a subdivision involves three or more lots. She explained that plats are drawn, and location maps denote such elements as flood plains, sewers, storm water detention, and current (or proposed) grading. Currently, trees are not noted on these site plans. Franklin also stated that the maximum street grade was 12%. There was some discussion on the cost of requiring existing and proposed topography on such plats as well as the location of existing mature trees. Milkman spoke about density in the subdivisions, referring to her report on "Application of Performance Standards to Environmentally Sensitive Areas". She explained that with POH zoning, housing units can be better fitted into the landscape through clustering and different types of housing units. McGuire inquired about the status of the POH zone. Milkman stated that it is at the request of the developer. With the PDH zoning higher engineering costs are involved, yet it can save costs in terms of grading, fill, streets and utilities. ,3 aP Minutes Urban Environment Ad Hoc Committee February 5, 1985 Page 2 Jakobsen felt that the first thing to be considered is environmental protection through PDH requirements for the preliminary plat. McGuire asked if the POH was specific by lot. Franklin stated that it can encompass the entire subdivision. Koch added that the developer is not responsible for where the lot owners place the units, therefore some control is needed at the building permit level also. Baker felt that infill development could be a problem to control. Baker asked Boyle to present at the next meeting information on the limits a city can go to to prohibit development. OTHER BUSINESS: There was no other business. The meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m. The minutes were taken by Linda Manning. MINUTES MM PLANNING 8 ZONING COtiMISSIONFEBRUARY 7, 1985 - 7:30 PM CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS I MEMBERS PRESENT: Courtney, Horowitz, Jordan, Scott, Jakobsen I MEMBERS ABSENT: Perry, Blank I STAFF PRESENT: Franklin, Milkman, Boyle, Manning RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: 1. Recommend adoption of the Policy Recommendations of the Urban Environ- ment Ad Hoc Committee as an addendum to the 1983 Comprehensive Plan i Update. 2. Z-8419. Recommend approval of the application submitted by Gordon Russell for rezoning of property at the southern City limits east of old Highway 218 S from I-1 to I-2, subject to final legal documentati- on of the joint easement agreement with the Johnson County Chapter of the Izaak Walton League of America and the Wagner Memorial Holding Corporation. 3. V-8501. Recommend approval to vacate permanent box culvert easement at Lots 37 and 38 of First and Rochester, Part One Subdivision. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Scott called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 1, 1984 AND JANUARY 17, 1985: Horowitz moved to approve the minutes of November 1, 1984. Courtney seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-0-1, with Jordan abstaining since he was not present at the meeting. Jordan moved to approve the January 17, 1985 minutes. Horowitz seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was no public discussion of any item not on the agenda. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF THE POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT 4, AD HOC COMMITTEE AS AN ADDENOUR To THE 1983 COMPREHENSIVELAN U Scott asked if the Commission had received a corrected copy of the +i recommendations, and delineated the changes. Horowitz moved to recommend to Council the adoption of the Policy Recom- mendations of the Urban Environment Ad Hoc Committee as an addendum to the 1983 Comprehensive Plan Update. Jordan seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously, 5-0. 309 2 ZONING ITEMS: 1. Z-8419. Public discussion on reinstating an application by Gordon Russell for rezoning of property at the southern City limits east of old Highway 218 S from I-1 to I-2; 45 day limitation period: waived. Jakobsen moved to reinstate the application for the rezoning of the property at the southern City limits from I-1 to I-2. Jordan seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously, 5-0. Jakobsen mentioned that this action was unique in all her years on the commission. Milkman submitted two letters to be considered by the Commission. Paul Tinsinger stated his agreement to the 100 foot buffer and the 50 foot easement for the planting of trees for screening. A letter dated February 7, 1985 from Jay Honohan to the Izaak Walton League clarified the easement issue. The staff recommendation remains the same, the western portion of the property remain I-1 and the eastern portion of the property be rezoned from I-1 to I-2. Milkman reported that a bond must be posted with the State to ensure that the site is rehabilitated and graded back to 4:1 slope with vegetation. PUBLIC DISCUSSION: Jay Honohan, representing Gordon Russell, reported that he had spoken with Carl Chadek, president of the Wagner Memorial Holiday Corp., and discussed the 50 foot easement. Chadek spoke to other members of the board and of the 8 members contacted, all concurred with allowing the 100 foot strip. Honohan presented a rough sketch of the area and the location of the sloughs, pointing out the owners primary interest in the eastern portion of the land. It was requested that the entire property be rezoned I-2, stating that extraction would not occur in a 100 foot boundary around the property. Russell would also grant right of first refusal to purchase the real estate west of the Izaak Walton League property to the League when the business of excavation is completed in the future. Honohan on behalf of Russell urged the Commission to take action tonight because of bids Russell has the opportunity to make now. Honohan asked that the entire property be rezoned I-2 since the western edge along the highway is not presently developable, except for this kind of use. He stated the only chance for commercial development would be after the area was filled. Honohan added that the bond arrangement with the state has been set. Horowitz asked if the sand to be extracted was above or below the surface. Honohan answered that the sand is below the top soil, and what would be left after excavation is a pond. Russell added that the top soil is sold. Scott asked if it was the intention of the applicant to grant an easement to the Wagner Memorial Corp. in agreement with the Izaak Walton League for the planting of the screen. 3 Honohan stated that it was the intention to grant a joint instrument at this time between the Johnson County Chapter of the Izaak Walton League and the Wagner Memorial Corp. Izaak Walton has indicated that they will plant the trees, although the details have not been worked out specifically between them. Scott conferred with Boyle, clarifying that the City is not party to the documents, but the City should see them to ensure there is nothing done in the 100 foot easement, except for the planting of the screen and the 4:1 slope of the inner 50 feet of the easement which will be dealt with by Russell. Bob Russell, a representative of the Wagner Memorial Holding Corp., and a member of the Izaak Walton League, stated that the easement agreement should be in the names of both the Johnson County Chapter of the Izaak Walton League of America and the Wagner Memorial Holding Corporation. He concurred with Honohan on all points and felt the situation to be workable from this standpoint. Horowitz questioned staff, asking why they upheld the original recommendation of the western portion remaining I-1 and the easterly portion being rezoned from I-1 to I-2. Milkman stated that it is a good location for future industrial development, considering that it is near Highway 218. Horowitz asked if the area could be divided into thirds, therefore, making the I-1 area smaller. Further, she felt it necessary to have more accurate maps on the area to find out the value of the property. Scott stated that the narrow strip of I-1 that Horowitz proposes would have to be refilled to get commercially saleable lots. Courtney moved to recommend approval of the rezoning of item Z-8419 from I-1 to I-2 subject to final legal documentation of the joint easement agreement with the Johnson County Chapter of the Izaak Walton League of America and the 'Wagner Memorial Holding Corporation, stating that the item will not go before Council until the agreement is finalized. Horowitz seconded the motion. The motion carried unani- mously, 5-0. 2. Public hearing on the amended zoning ordinance and zoning ma Franklin presented Commission members with the amended zoning map, and stated that under discussion were all changes since the map was last approved, December 20, 1983. Franklin stated that the map does reflect all zoning changes since then, but not rezoning currently under discussion. It will, however, reflect all final action taken prior to adoption of the map. Franklin also submitted correspondence concerning the amended zoning map: - Joyce and John Sales, 909 and 919 Burlington. They are recorded as protesting the change in zoning of their property from R3A to RNC -20. 309 4 - William Meardon in speaking for a number of land owners, protests the zoning changes from the 1962 zoning ordinance. - Barker, Cruise, and Kennedy submitted correspondence on behalf of the West Side Company and Bryn Mawr Heights Development, as well as representing themselves, protesting the rezoning of West Side Park to CI -1 and the rezoning of lots in Bryn Mawr Heights to RS -5 and RS -8. The Commission will review copies of these correspondence. Franklin will distribute to the Commission copies of the December 20, 1983 map. PUBLIC DISCUSSION: Anthony Frey, 19 Caroline Court. Frey questioned the Ch -1 zone. Over a 2-3 year period, much discussion on the previous Highway zone has taken place. The commercial creamery was consistent with the zone, and Hometown Dairy was acceptable within the CH -1 zone, although some felt it was actually an industrial use. Frey stated that he felt the term creamery was inconsistent with industrial zoning, and secondly, that dairy products processing and packaging was inconsistent with the CH -1 zone. He suggested that the Dairy be called a creamery or that the area be rezoned I-1. He stated that he had no desire to make the dairy move. Larry Schnittjer, 465 Highway 1 West. Schnittjer stated that a popular sized lot was lost when the old RIB Zone was changed to RS -5. There is a problem in that small lots can't be designed because of the lot area requirements of the RS -5. Horowitz asked if a developer can use the PDH zoning to vary the lot f size. Schnittjer responded that action causes extra effort and frustration on the part of the developer. Scott stated that the comments will be discussed at the next informal meeting. OTHER BUSINESS: 1. V-8501. Public discussion on a corrective ordinance to vacate permanent box culvert easements at Lots 37 and 38 of First and Rochester, Part One Subdivision. Milkman reported that the area has two box culverts and one is not needed. When construction in the area took place, it was realized that the original location of the culvert was not appropriate; therefore, new easements were needed. Jakobsen moved to recommend to Council approval of item V-8501. Horowitz seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously, 5-0. 5 2. Election of Planning 8 Zoning Commission officers. Horowitz moved to nominate Thomas Scott for Chairperson. Jordan seconded the nation. Jakobsen moved that nominations cease. Courtney seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously, 5-0. Jakobson moved to nominate Horst Jordan for the office of Vice - chairperson. Horowitz seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously, 5-0. Jordan moved to nominate Darrell Courtney for the office of Secretary. Jakobsen seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously, 5-0. 3. Planning 5 Zoning Commission Information. The next informal meeting is scheduled for February 19, 1985. the members will be notified concerning time and place. The format of the 6:30 meeting February 19th was discussed. The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. The minutes were taken by Linda Manning. ort Jordan, re ary .309 t I I i 5 2. Election of Planning 8 Zoning Commission officers. Horowitz moved to nominate Thomas Scott for Chairperson. Jordan seconded the nation. Jakobsen moved that nominations cease. Courtney seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously, 5-0. Jakobson moved to nominate Horst Jordan for the office of Vice - chairperson. Horowitz seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously, 5-0. Jordan moved to nominate Darrell Courtney for the office of Secretary. Jakobsen seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously, 5-0. 3. Planning 5 Zoning Commission Information. The next informal meeting is scheduled for February 19, 1985. the members will be notified concerning time and place. The format of the 6:30 meeting February 19th was discussed. The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. The minutes were taken by Linda Manning. ort Jordan, re ary .309 MINUTES _ •• -1; l7 j DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE JANUARY 16, 1984$ iiSCt :J Appwral IOWA CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY - ROOM B MEMBERS PRESENT: Seiberling, Alexander, Amert, Sumnerwill, Sinek, Haupert, Wegman, Eckholt ABSENT: Lafore, Wockenfuss OTHERS PRESENT: Glenn Siders, Robert Carlson, Stan Rohrbach, Miles Braverman, Robert Bray STAFF PRESENT: Franklin, Stewart, Cain CALL TO ORDER: Seiberling called the meeting to order at 4:04 p.m. RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: 1. That the design plans submitted as part of an Industrial Revenue Bond request for the renovation of 325 E. Washington Street be approved. INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BOND PROJECTS: Seiberling said the first item for discussion would be the application by Myles Braverman, on behalf of Southgate Development Company, for $1.5 million in industrial revenue bonds for the renovation of the Elks Building at 325 E. Washington Street. Franklin said the project is within an eligible area for bonds and is consistent with the City's industrial revenue bond policy to enhance the downtown and surrounding area and to allow for the preservation and restoration of buildings of historic or architectural significance. Glenn Siders, Project Construction Coordina- tor for Southgate, introduced Braverman; Bob Carlson of Hansen, Lind, Meyer; and Steve Rohrbach of Wehner, Pattschull 8 Pfiffner, designer of the complex. Siders briefly explained the project. Phase I will require excavation in front of the north side of the structure to add a patio of brick and concrete pavers, with exposed aggregate concrete planters and a retaining wall. A below grade entry will be installed on the west half of the north face, and a concrete stairway will access the first level from the walkway. The area under the stairway will be open to allow unimpeded access to the entry and to a mock entry on the east half of the north face, which may become an actual entry. This design negates the need for ramps for handicapped accessibility. The existing porch system will be expanded and renovated to look like the original. The deck will be concrete, with balustrade and columns of wood. The smoke and glazed concrete windows will be removed and aluminum sash double hung windows will be installed. Most of the renovation will be on the north side, and the entryway on the east side will be eliminated. Interior work will be included in Phase I. Phase II, at a later date, will involve the reshingling of the entire roof and other work. 310 Design Review Committee January 16, 1984 Page 2 Siders showed examples of the colors of the brick, doors, windows, terraces and entries, and described how the bricks would be mortared. Siders said approval of signage and landscaping designs, which have not been finalized at this time, will necessitate a return to the committee. No exterior lighting is expected, except for some recessed lights in the balcony. Siders explained how the concave/convex effect of the split -face block is achieved, and how it will be utilized in the exterior construc- tion. Amert asked whether the concrete of the stairway would match the earth tones of the rest of the exterior. Carlson and Rohrbach said the concrete can be colored to match the exterior. No other attempt to match the exterior will be made, in an effort to minimize maintenance of the stairway. Plain, smooth concrete and not aggregate is best for snow and ice removal, Braverman said. Siders said the primary use of the building will be office space.. Braverman said the interior of the building will eventually have two more floors. There was some discussion of salvaging the ballroom floor. Vote on the of the item Ho iday Innwas aof Iowa ed ilafter a City- Whenort the bvote wasert taken, Bray, manaer edesign plans were approved 8-0. OTHER BUSINESS: f FACIA SIGNS ON THE HOLIDAY INN { Mr. Bray informed the committee that the cost to the Holiday Inn of replacing the facia signs which are currently green instead of the approved white, will be approximately ;3,400. Mr. Bray said he as not aware of the need for variances when he sent in the application to the sign manufacturer to have the sign made white instead of green. Sumnerwill reiterated that the committee had made the correct decision when it voted for the signs to be made white, and although the Inn's problem with the sign manufacturer is unfortunate, the Committee feels the hotel should pursue the white sign. Other members also expressed their preference for the white sign. Bray said the signs should be completed in the next few weeks. A firm in Cedar Rapids will do the work. Eckholt asked whose responsibility it is to clean the sidewalk and parking area of the Holiday Inn development site. Eckholt mentioned specifically the HUD sign on site. Franklin said the sign may have to remain in place until the account is closed; she stated she would check on the require- ments. The committee also discussed the area between the Holiday Inn and Bushnell's Turtle, known as the Dubuque Walkway. WINDOW DESIGN OF THE ROCKY ROCOCO BUILDING Franklin told the committee that in following the approved plans for renovation of the front exterior of the building, it was discovered that architectpated. The original ast iron ned, which had harmonizedesignertof rtheinew facade decided tono eutilizeithese posts and eliminate mullions and sash bars, which would not harmonize with the Iran posts. This individual checked with Franklin, d w owasuagreeht d proval from Seiberling for this change in the plans,ango 316 Design Review Committee January 16, 1984 Page 3 ahead with renovation of the cast iron posts. Franklin said the committee should discuss this formally so that it may be entered officially in the minutes for the benefit of the Council. Alexander noted that renovators and owners of historic buildings should take advantage of chance discover- ies of this type and leap to the opportunity to make use of them. Seiberling said it was a very fortuitous discovery. Other members agreed that in this case the mullions and sash bars are not necessary. LOW PROFILE TRANSFORMERS IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT Pursuant to discussion at the previous meeting. Franklin informed the committee that Iowa -Illinois has ordered the smallest transformers avail- able to be installed in the median of Iowa Avenue between Clinton and Dubuque streets. The transformers will be installed in parking spaces, will be shielded by the existing median, vegetation and cars parked in adjacent parking spaces, and will allow for parking of cycles in the spaces used by the transformers. The utility company is looking at replacing other downtown transformers with the smaller models as older transformers are replaced. In response to a question from Seiberling, Franklin said there is no plan to turn the Iowa Avenue median back into a median free of parking spaces any time in the near future. Seiberling noted that if this were to take place, the transformers could be centered in the median. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE INFORMATION Franklin introduced Patt Cain to the committee. Cain will replace Andrea Hauer as staff assistant to the Design Review Committee and Economic Development Planner. A public hearing on the work of the Urban Environment Ad Hoc Committee will take place Thursday, January 17, at the Planning and Zoning Commis- sion meeting. Eckholt broached discussion of the windows on the Clinton Street face of the Old Capitol Mall. It was generally agreed that the appearance of these windows is unattractive and the responsible parties should develop uniformity in the use and appearance of the display window. Further discussion centered on how best to proceed in this matter, what the alternatives are and who is responsible. Haupert suggested that the committee could write a letter. Franklin said the staff would check on whether the City had any agreements with the owners regarding this issue. Seiberling expressed the belief that this committee should know what the plan of the Mall is for the windows. It was agreed that the committee should follow up on the matter. ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned by consensus at 5:10 p.m. Minutes submitted by Cinda Stewart. .3/D MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DECEMBER 12, 1984 - 4:30 P.M. y ! CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: VanderVelde, Fisher, Slager MEMBERS ABSENT: Barker, Randall STAFF PRESENT: Boyle, Franklin, Milkman, Chandler CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson VanderVelde called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. VARIANCE ITEMS: 1. V-8401. Public hearing on request submitted by Autohaus Ltd. for an extension for the variance granted on March 6, 1984, to allow a second free-standing sign at 715 E. Highway 6 Bypass. Franklin explained the letter received from Autohaus as being Autohaus's justification for seeking the Board's authorization of an extension and suggested a two month extension to December 26, 1984. Fisher asked if it was possible to grant an extension after the expiration of the original period. Boyle said the language of the Code says the Board may grant an exten- sion. The word extension may imply that the original is still in effect: Slager expressed the concern that a•90 -day lapse between the expiration and the new request was too long. VanderVelde said that the Board should proceed cn that advice because this was not the next meeting after the expiration. Slager asked how this had come up. Franklin replied that a sign permit was issued in error. Slager asked who put it on the agenda. Franklin replied that Autohaus requested it. Slager asked if they knew it would be discussed today. Franklin said they knew but may not have known the complexity of the issue. VanderVelde said the Board should not act in the absence of any authority to do so and asked Boyle if that was his advice. Boyle said that the lateness of the action was reason to not act. Fisher moved that the request from Autohaus for an extension of the variance granted on March 26, 1984, to allow a second free-standing sign at 715 E. Highway 5 Bypass be denied on the grounds that the Board has no authority to grant an extension after the expiration date of the vari- ance, which was September 26, 1984, has passed. It was seconded by Slager. The motion carried unanimously. 3// Board of Adjustment December 12, 1985 Page 2 DISCUSSION OF PROCEDURAL RULES FOR THE BOARD: Boyle discussed possible changes for formal procedural rules. Boyle stated that by law the Board is a quasi-judicial body and should adopt a procedure. Instead of a motion, the staff could provide the Board with an order to help clarify the action taken. An example cited was the McLean Street case when there were two amendments on the motion. He also recommended formal orienta- tion for new members and a voting order of junior members first similar to that of the courts. Slager indicated that she was comfortable with the procedure that allowed junior members of the Board to vote last, providing the opportunity to reflect on their vote as others vote. VanderVelde said it is important that the public know the basis of the decision. Junior members would be in an uncomfortable position. Randomness of the vote has some value. Slager said there are a few occasions when the immediacy of the situation would not give the possibility of reflection. Slager further said she liked hthe ad idea of of alwaysindonefull thatwhichmay of the be due vote anlack deofthat the orientatioo VanderVelde asked Boyle if he would provide a first draft of the proposals. Boyle agreed he would. Stager said we still need input after the motion. VanderVelde said that she tended to agree with that and that she remembered the McLean case which was a problem of order. She added that we cannot always depend on the staff. Since we have the power to condition, it is good to have the opportunity to air changes. Boy 1e said that he did not want to suggest that changes could not be made. VanderVelde said that orientation is a good idea. Slager said she agreed. Fisher asked Slager if she still wished to discuss attendance. Slager replied that if there is a conflict, attendance should be open for discus- sion. Fisher said all we could do was establish guidelines. Franklin said that the City Council has a policy that says if any Boardmember has three unexcused andces it shouldabe addressed. Boyle Slager id we ated hewe had a would provideea draft of the proposals for the Board. SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS: 1. SE -8415. Public hearing on an application submitted by Detlef Schellin cial xptmplansd requirements at 1211 S. Riverside Driveasshownonthe submitted. Franklin explained that a variance was applied for before and denied. The applicant deferred the special exception until this time and has proposed that the land be subdivided. The special exception would be predicated on a sion subsubdivi Franklin replied rthat the eeowner d if whad nbe ew nhyouteof-statre was e Franklin further explained that this is currently a CC -2 zone. The use proposed with a revised application was for office space. Therefore there is no need for a special exception to modify the use, only for modification for the front yard. Staff recommended the maximum front yard be required with modification only to permit the proposed structure. VanderVelde asked what to do about the six feet to the north of the building. Franklin illustrated the staff recommendation as shown in the staff 311 Board of Adjustment December 12, 1985 Page 3 report. Slager said the six foot extension on the north goes right to the property line and wondered if that was permissible. Franklin replied yes. Slager asked if that wouldn't require a subdivision. Franklin replied yes, the recommendation is contingent upon subdivision and on the basis that everything complies with Iowa City laws, particularly the airport overlay zone. A 21 foot high building is too high. Before the building permit is issued, all items must be in compliance. Slager asked if it is wise to decide before we know the answers to these questions. VanderVelde, asked if a zero lot line is permissible. Boyle said that it was as long as it doesn't run down the middle of a building and is in compliance with all other ordinances. Slager asked if it was wise to decide before we know the facts. Boyle said yes, because of conditions in the language of the recommendation. Franklin said there would be no building permit issued unless compliance was achieved. VanderVelde said it is possible to find it unsafe, because that was within the Board's au- thority in determining what effect the special exception had an to be finalized the public welfare. Slager commented that nothing appears Franklin said what the Board would be permitting is construction in the front yard; no other act is authorized. In certain zones there are no side yard requirements. As to the automobile use next to a residential area, the applicant states that the automobile use will be confined to the existing area and the exception does not address automobile use expansion. PUBLIC DISCUSSION: Schellin said he needs a storage area and the request pertains to the front yard. VanderVelde asked Mr. Schellin what he was going to store. Schellin replied that he would store snow removal equipment and diesel equipment. VanderVelde said that that sounded like some sort of vehicle. Schellin said that those vehicles are there now and that his aim was to make it more attractive by enclosing them. Slager asked what the automotive use was now. Schellin replied that there would be a wall dividing it from the new use and that he repairs equipment. Slager asked if he was expanding the customer area. Schellin replied no, that he was just expanding a place to store the equipment. Fisher asked if an existing building on the plan measuring 20x21 feet would stay or not. Schellin indicated that it would be removed. Fisher asked if there would be a second floor on the building. Schellin replied yes, for storage but that its ultimate use may change. He stated that basically the front yard determines how far back he had to go to subdivide. Slager asked why the front yard determined how far he'll subdivide. Franklin replied that she wasn't all buildings were ewergone, theeusetive wouldabeif the determinedption s by the sizetofrtheelolf t VanderVelde parking d for espondeda 20x20 foot builds would require one forse each300r anklin rsquare feet of auto oriented use. 31/ Board of Adjustment December 12, 1985 Page 4 VanderVelde asked whether snow removal equipment was an automotive use. Fisher replied that it was just indoor storage. Slager indicated that she j could see that. Slager added that these vehicles a•e not part of the existing business. She indicated that her basic question was how one could say this was the same square footage if the business starts over. Franklin indicated that the existing use was 400 square feet devoted to automotive use. She further added that with a 400 square foot use in their new build- ing, they can stay as they are; that an expansion of that area would require a special exception. Franklin added that if you modify the yard to allow the structure, the fact that it was non -conforming originally is not relevant to the subject at hand. VanderVelde said that she is concerned about the. unspecified variables. She is concerned about how high the building will be. She further added that she sees snow removal equipment as an accessory to auto -oriented use. She has a concern for safety and that concern was still there because of the many variables. Slager said that right now because of the unanswered questions that she could not pass it but possibly could in the future. Schellin said that they would build the building no matter what. Their concern right now was about the interiortdimensions. Mrd Schellied that for in indicated sthatyheeneed to n ow would liketo have a list f their asked could provide such alist. Franklin nsaid yes, Vshe ecould and rthat �n if e it would include height of the building, subdivision line, uses in the building and a tenta- tive floor plan. Slager said that it would be helpful to the Board to have that kind of information. Fisher said that he didn't know why a subdivision line was relevant to the front issue ofrd. how fardthelde automotive useais fromthought relates a residence. Fisher responded that the 20x20 foot square area of the building would salve that problem. be VanderVelde thatwasn't clear. Slager liketo i that thehposition yweenot asking granting scmething exception to use. VanderVelde responded that she didn't know what the use would be until the interior dimensions were clear. Slager said that the height of the building was a problem. Schellin responded that they were not asking for any of those kinds of things, that they were just asking for an exception to the front yard. Fisher said it was not ambiguous to him. He added that he would be satisfied that what the owner says he will do will be done. Slager responded that she saw that the height was controlled by the airport overlay. Franklin responded that yes, that was true. She stated the Board was looking at a front yard question based on the testimony of the uildnfor aalicant uto-orientedtuse. square gThere fwill eet ibeano buill ldinglpermit use fissued the new bthatiis not SO. VanderVelde asked how one could get an interpretation of what auto -oriented use is. Boyle indicated that it is a question of parking of vehicles. We may have separate uses including storage and parking and that they were two different things. Storage of vehicles is not an automotive use. VanderVelde I asked what about automotive accessories. Boyle said that relates to the sale of those thateyounow couldmoval pa k esnowmremoval not vehicles rota 3// Board of Adjustment December 12, 1985 Page 5 residential zone. VanderVelde asked if this was one single business. Schellin replied that the business was for storage of equipment and for his brother-in-law's business; that they wanted to consolidate both businesses into one building. VanderVelde asked that when he built the new building if any of the tools in the one business would be in the area of the other business. Schellin replied that that was possible, but that the building would be divided up. Slager moved that the application submitted by Detlef Schellin for a special exception to modify the front yard requirements at 1211 S. Riverside Drive as shown on the plans submitted be approved subject to the following conditions: a) that the property in question be subdivided so that the proposed structure is on a separate lot; b) that the lot and use are in compliance with all regulations of the City of Iowa City; c) that the proposed building is in compliance with the Airport Overlay Zone; d) that the Zoning Code Interpreta- tion Panel rules that the storage of snow removal equipment and concrete finishing equipment is not an expansion of an auto -oriented use. Fisher seconded the motion. Motion was carried unanimously. 2. SE -8423. A public hearing on an application submitted by Mercy Hospital or a special exception to provide screening other than that specified in the Zoning Ordinance along Johnson Street and Van Buren Street around the hospital parking lot. Franklin explained the new plan. She further added that a variance had been previously denied. The new landscape plan would better serve the public interest. The zone around the hospital is multi -family or commercial. The Code requires the screening of the ari ingareafom The the residential area. An alternative "landscaping p possible. landscaping plan calls for a mix of deciduous trees and evergreen trees. This plan differs from the original plan submitted and serves the public interest both aesthetically and in terms of potential safety concerns. Franklin entered into the record comments received in favor of Mercy Hospital's request. PUBLIC DISCUSSION: VanderVelde said that the Board would apprcciate an explanation of how the pian differed from the original pian. Larry Schnittjer said that the plan added evergreens that were interspersed with deciduous trees. Consequently the plan was an informal and open one. The Code requires an evergreen hedge. The new plan that they had submitted is one that includes repetitive plantings rather than random plantings. He further explained the plan and submitted a sketch of what it looked like. He further added that this is a i request for Johnson and Van Buren Street frontages only. Sister Mary Venarda explained that she was a representative from Mercy heir tostheland was screeningthe e to requiements. Shete tfurtherpport addedior thaththeyecial weretherexception there to respond to any questions that might come up. 311 Board of Adjustment December 12, 1985 Page 6 Margaret Nowysz said that Hospital for their efforts She said that she and the plan. VanderVelde asked that yes, she represented BOARD DISCUSSION: she would like to commend the people from Mercy to create better and more attractive landscaping. neighbors had had some concerns about the original if she represented anyone else. Nowysz responded herself and two other neighbors. Slager moved that SE -8423, an application by Mercy Hospital for a special exception, providing screening other than that specified in the Zoning Ordinance along Johnson Street and Van Buren Street around the hospital parking lot be approved. VanderVelde seconded the motion. Slager stated that she thought that all the questions had been answered. Fisher added that Jefferson Street had never been a question in his mind. Franklin agreed and said that there was no requirement along Jefferson Street. The landscaping plan submitted for Johnson Street and Van Buren Street was unanimously approved. VanderVelde said that she wanted to commend Mercy and their neighbors for their efforts. She added that we now have a better law because of it. on 3. SE -8424. Public spe=c aT exc ption toemodify thearearp application yard requireMildred Keller requirements t 725 E. College Street. Milkman explained the existing site. She said there is no current parking on the lot now; that there is parking an the lot to the west prior to this time. New construction on that lot will eliminate that parking. She said that the staff recommends granting the application with the following conditions: ay that a three bay carport be con- structed as illustrated on the site plan; b) that a minimum of 180 square feet of open space be maintained in the rear of the existing principal structure in addition to the modified, required rear yard. PUBLIC DISCUSSION: Richard Kruse introduced himself as the architect for the project. He added that they were attempting to provide parking in a crowded area. He added that the owner and the architects had no problem with the two conditions. he ide Fisher it. as ed if thererespowere that yesaces thatnwase so, thatw carportwthe grade level ith two on eachswas higher than the parking level. BOARD DISCUSSION: Slager wanted to know if 1365 square feet is what is left after the carport 4 is built. Milkman responded yes, it was. Slager said that didn't seem large enough. She II actually that athat was sked if tthe he ffront. Franklin said rontage on Lucas was a that ethernarrow lkman i part ofa corner lot is the front yard and the wider frontage is a side yard with front yard setbacks. Fisher said it looked like the rear overlapped the front yard. VanderVelde wanted to know how it was calculated. Milkman responded that it is thisaisuantimprovement thKr Kruse sde aid that their ot lito happroach was e side lot line. naesthetic one; 311 Board of Adjustment December 12, 1985 Page 7 that they wanted to beautify the area and provide off-street_ parking. He further added that this was for the convenience of the tenants. The landlord in this case is trying to do something good. VanderVelde said that she didn't understand what we were trying to calculate here. Milkman explained if they didn't grant the exception that the carport couldn't be built. VanderVelde said then that this was a variance to density. Milkman said yes, that in a sense that was correct. Fisher asked for an explanation of the area that the architect used. Kruse explained the area in question through the use of the map and site plan. Milkman stated that the calculation in the staff report was incorrect and that the modification required was a reduction from 20 feet to 14.3 feet (not 16.5 feet as stated in the report) as Kruse had explained. She added that the applicant should be required to preserve a minimum of 180 square feet of open space in addition to the required rear yard. Fisher asked if there was more open space in the rear yard than you would have if there was no exception granted. Boyle said yes, they do. Fisher moved the approval of the application by Mildred Keller for a special exception to modify the rear yard requirements at 725 E. College Street from 20 feet to 14.3 feet with the following conditions: a) that a three bay carport be constructed as illustrated on the site plan; b) that a minimum of 180 square feet of open space be maintained in the rear of an existing principal structure in addition to the modified, required rear yard. Slager seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. 4. SE -8425. A public hearing on an application submitted by H.P. Smith aper Z`ompany for a special exception to reduce the required number of parking spaces at 2000 Industrial Park Road from 209 to 106. Franklin explained the'proposal and submitted pictures of the 3:00 shift change, indicating the parking spaces available. VanderVelde wanted to know how this issue had come up. She asked further if there was an expansion of the plant. Franklin responded yes, that there was an expansion and that the manufacturing parking requirement appears to create a need for an excessive number of parking spaces in this case. There's no problem with warehouse space in this instance. She directed the Board's attention to Exhibit C in the staff report. Franklin further explained that there are two reasons for the reduction in the number of parking spaces: a) the company's practices demonstrate a lack of need; b) green space would be maintained. PUBLIC DISCUSSION: Jim Doyle introduced himself in order to respond to questions from the Board. VanderVelde asked him if he had any objections to the new plan. Doyle said no, he did not. VanderVelde asked him if the plant had visitors. Doyle said yes, that they had visitors but that they came during the daytime and off-peak hours. Slager moved the approval of an application submitted by H.P. Smith Paper Company for a special exception to reduce the required number of parking spaces at 2000 Industrial Park Road from 209 to 106. The motion was seconded by Fisher. The motion carried unanimously. 3 // Board of Adjustment December 12, 1985 Page 8 5. SE 8426. A public hearing on an application submitted by Harry R. strap er of Imprinted Sportswear, Inc, for a special exception to permit off -premise parking at 310 E. Prentiss Street for retail use at 509 S. Gilbert Street. Milkman explained that the staff recommended approval of the application with the following conditions: a) that the required four parking spaces and the drive to these spaces be paved; b) that the four subject spaces be designated by signs; c) that signs be posted at 310 E. Prentiss Street and both' entrances of Imprinted Sportswear that parking is available at 310 E. Prentiss for patrons of Imprinted Sportswear, Inc.; d) that the applicant submit to the City an agreement signed by the owner of the property at 310 E. Prentiss Street stating that he agrees to the parking, paving and signage on his property. PUBLIC DISCUSSION: VanderVelde asked if Maiden Lane was in a city right-of-way. Milkman responded yes, the rtenkwas She further addthathe propertyiscurenlyowedby Thomas Milian, sonosigned agreement concerning the parking is in hand. VanderVelde asked where access to the parking lot came from. Milkman responded that it was off Prentiss n Street. Ostrander said that he was not aware that the agreement had to be with the owner until today. He added that he had talked to the owner. He asked that the approval be contingent on the provision of documents to the staff indicating that the parking agreement had been made. Fisher asked if the current owner had -agreed to pave the property. Ostrander responded that no, he had not. He added that he had talked to Brown and had talked about pretty goothe d parking now to end xthatnthey would go eitherdthat that way. Fisherarea is in indicated that they may be in the city right-of-way. Milkman said that no they were not but added that they were not permitted to back out of the parking area into the City right-of-way. Fisher indicated they do it now. Milkman responded that that may be true but was not permitted. VanderVelde asked what lkman are re - would be e abot nklin addednthat thesigns. responsibility for the d that y paving and the signs is that of Mr. Ostrander. VanderVelde said we will need to require it in the agreement. Boyle said that this is different from the Fitzpatrick case. He furtheadded Milkmanity add d couldnot thegstaffhim hadnreceived occupancy rmit without menotification to esti tof he area. Sheoosition from the owner of further added that the Mansion staff felttthatine duspaceewas available in Fisher asked what the status of Goldie's was. Franklin said that they were moving. VanderVelde stated that a mall was being established in this block. She further added that we should pass it because we had passed others. Slager added that this is about the besplan liationfor submitted rbytHarryiR. Ostrandeng that r'of seen. Fisher moved that the appppc Imprinted Sportswear, Inc. for a special exception to permit off -premise granted with Othe followingStconditions:reet for a) thail use t ttthe 9requirS. ed beStreetrt E. four parking spaces and the drive to these spaces be paved; b) that the four subject spaces be designated by signs; c) that signs be posted at 310 E. Prentiss 31/ Board of Adjustment December 12, 1985 Page 9 Street and both entrances to Imprinted Sportswear; Inc: that parking is available at 310 E. Prentiss Street for patrons of Imprinted Sportswear, Inc.; d) that the applicants submit to the City an agreement signed by the owner of the property at 310 E. Prentiss Street stating that he agrees to the parking, paving and signage on his property. Slager seconded the motion. The motion to approve carried unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS: Vandervelde requested that the minutes note that this is the last Board meeting of Marcia Slager. She commended her for her wit, her concern and her respected insight and further added that she thoroughly enjoyed being on the Board with her. Slager thanked her for her comments. ADJOURNMENT: Slager moved to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Fisher. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Minutes taken by Sam Chandler. Lee VVa J erV_eldee, Acting Chairperson n Franklin, ecre ary 3 // vW) MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 9, 1985 - 4:30 PM IC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS CIV MEMBERS PRESENT: Barker, VanderVelde, Fisher, Randall (arrived at 5:05), Mask MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Milkman, Franklin, Boyle, Manning CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Barker called the meeting to order at 4:30 PM. I SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS: Public hearing on an application submitted by Mercy Facili 1. 5E-8427. Pu - at s, Inc Bloomington Sl etCeption to modify the required front yard on Milkman discussed tiicantb compliesack irwithtsther20 hnson and foot requirement ton Streets. The app Bloomington, but on Johnson, a 9 foot setback is planned. Since the the requiredifronts yard, theon nfrontare f yard ive feet then areaer o iseestablishedstreet nfive feet closer to the street, i.e. at 15 feet. Milkman stated that red upublict ointeresyard since there was adequate openwould bcontrary to the residences across Johnson Street, and a wide area between the sidewalk and the street. to Staff finds the granting of this exception wouspecial ld not bexception yfor the public interest, and recommends that he special modification of the yard requirement from 15 feet to 9 feet on Johnson Street be granted. er Milkman also noted on the Special Exception Alproved'cityebuilding 6, that the executed plans have not been app an pro ert awner,a0ladysi Lumsden, 317 N Johnson lkman had received one oStreetent ,rconcerningtthe roposed inhibit near thersidewalk. cConcern centered on whether the hedge would hedian Public Discussion counsel to Mercy Chuck Mullen, Bremer Building, Iowa City, Iowa, Facilities, Inc., stated that he concurred with the findings of John Lind, R.R. 6, Iowa City, Iowa, of Hansen Lind Meynot er, of for Mer the needre y forantexception toInc Ithesetback they requirement, thereforeethe design was conceived without this in mind. In terms of design and ,3// i Board of Adjustment January 9, 1985 Page 2 compatibility of the building, the proposed brick is similar to what was used for Mercy Hospital. The design is compatible with the surrounding area, and not intrusive. In answer to a question from VanderVelde concerning the number of stories, Lind again stressed the compatibility of the structure. A two story building is proposed with the first floor used for patient facilities and the second for support facilities. Mr. Miller of 530 E. Bloomington location of the proposed structure tions. Board Discussion asked for an explanation of the He stated that he had no objec- VanderVelde stated her concurrence with the staff recommendation and moved that the special exception for SE -8427 be granted. Mask seconded the motion. The motion carried (4-0-1), Randall did not take part in the discussion or the vote. Randall joined the Board for the rest of the agenda. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES: Franklin stated that approval of the minutes should be done by consensus and approved at the meeting, rather than by phone, primarily due to their legal status. VanderVelde felt this to be time consuming for the board. Boyle, Franklin, Randall and Mask all agreed the procedure to be neces- sary. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12•, 1984: Minutes were approved with one amendment: page 5, a 6th condition was added as follows: That the asphalt paving in the right-of-way on the south side of the building be removed and replaced with a four foot sidewalk and a grass median between the curb and sidewalk. Randall moved to approve the 9-12-84 minutes as amended. The motion was seconded by Fisher. The motion carried (3-0-2), with VanderVelde and Mask abstaining. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 26 1984 AND OCTOBER 10, 1984: Randall moved to defer approval of the minutes of 9/26/84 and 10/10/84. VanderVelde seconded the motion. The motion carried (4-0-1) with Mask abstaining. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 14t1984'- Randall 4,1984: Randall moved to approve the minutes of 11-14-84. Barker seconded the motion. The motion carried (3-0-2) with Mask and VanderVelde abstaining. The Board requested that copies of the decisions for the first 6 months of 1984 showing whether or not there was compliance be circulated again. 311 Board of Adjustment January 9, 1985 Page 3 SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS: 2. SE -8428. Public Hearing on an application submitted by Roger Larson for a special exception to permit off-site parking at 404 E. Jefferson Street for a use at 424 E. Jefferson Street. Staff recommends deferring this item. VanderVelde moved that item SE -8428 be deferred. Randall seconded the motion. The motion carried (4-0-1) with Mask abstaining. Scott suggested that staff contact the applicant to either attend the next meeting or give a good explanation, why the item should be further deferred. He also suggested that the issue could be a possible addition to the Board of Adjustment Rules. It was also decided to have approval of the minutes on the agenda right after Roll Call. DISCUSSION OF APPROVAL OF PROCEDURAL RULES FOR THE BOARD: VanderVelde questioned the effect of the staff report. Since the staff person receives the information from the applicant, there is a high risk of receiving a one sided report, with potential blind spots. Potential opposition by others involved or concerned in the community is not part of the staff report. Barker stated that it is not the responsibility of the staff to solicit information from potential opponents. Franklin interjected that staff does pcovide an opportunity for possible opposition through the notification of abutting property owners. VanderVelde stated the problem lies in information gathering. She suggested to add in Section I that the staff be required to solicit information to balance the report. Mask felt there would then be a problem in defining "solicit". Mask suggested adding to the staff report that the statements made by staff are based on information provided by the applicant, and are not an exhaustive statement. Boyle felt this to be a legitimate point and recommended accepting the suggestion. VanderVelde proposed several recommendations: - Staff reports be available in the hall, and earlier than the meeting. (Boyle pointed out this to be in last sentence of Section I.F.) - Have staff give background on how the regulation was formulated. (Franklin said this is revealed by the explanation of intent.) 3// Board of Adjustment January 9, 1985 Page 4 - Staff be encouraged to bring information on issues the appli- cant wouldn't provide. (Franklin stated that this is also dealt with in the staff report. Fisher questioned whether property owners were sent a staff report. Franklin said they are not sent a staff report, but reports are available upon request. Fisher asked for clarification of item E referring to the submittal of evidence. He asked what documents are acceptable from the applicant. Boyle stated that whatever the applicant files is admissible. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION: VanderVelde pointed out that she would have a time conflict during the spring semester with the 4:30 meeting time. After discussion, Randall moved that for the next four months, the meeting time be set at 5:45. Barker seconded the motion. The motion carried (5-0). The next regular meeting is February 13, 1985, at 5:45 PM. VanderVelde moved to adjourn. Randall seconded the motion. The motion carried (5-0). The meeting adjourned at 6:30. The minutes were taken by Linda Manning. Approved: Scott rker, Chan KArin Franklin, Secretary 311 I i i 311 MINUTES BOARD OF EXAMINERS OF PLUMBERS DECEMBER 18, 1984 IOWA CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY, MEETING ROOM B MEMBERS PRESENT: Andersen, Mason, Deppey STAFF PRESENT: Boose, Vezina PUBLIC PRESENT: Bob Wolf, Brian Byrne The meeting was brought to order at 4:00 p.m. as scheduled. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF LAST MEETING: Andersen moved that the minutes of the November 15, 1984 meeting be approved as written. Mason seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE REQUEST BY WOLF CONSTRUCTION, INC.: Boose explained Wolf Construction had installed a plastic sewer line with no clean outs, on a project located at 2920 Industrial Park Road, which is in violation of Sections 1103(a) and 1107(a) of the Iowa City Plumbing Code. Boose referred the Board members to their copies of the correspondence that had transpired between he and Mr. Wolf and then invited comments from Mr. Bob Wolf, President of Wolf Construction Inc. Mr. Wolf explained that he was unaware that plastic pipe was not allowed for use as sewer pipe in Iowa City. He then distributed copies of a letter from Jerry A. Fangmen, Vice President of Pharmaceutical Development Systems, in which the use of plastic pipe was recommended due to the nature of the waste being discharged by his company. A discussion followed concerning the exact nature of the detrimental type of waste being discharged and which lines are or are not to be carrying these wastes. The lack of clean outs was also discussed with all Board members expressing concern about this problem. Andersen, then moved that the plastic seller line be approved under Section 612(a) of the Uniform Plumbing Code provided that the clean outs are in- stalled at such intervals as necessary to assure that the line can be properly cleaned and that provisions are made to protect the existing cast iron pipe from deterioration by the ultra pure water. This action will be y dependent upon the Board receiL'in^y n engineer's desian of this system. Mason seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS: Mr. Brian Byrne appeared before the Board to request an interpretation of the Plumbing Code pertaining to the operation of a plumbing business doing repair work only. Specifically, he was wishing to start such a business without a plumber's license, doing only repair work which does not require a permit. After a short discussion it was decided that such work does come under the jurisdiction of the Plumbing Code and as such should not be permitted without a plumber's license. The points of gas pipe and sewer pipe installations 3 /0Z_ " a. I Board of Examiners of Plumbers December 18, 1984 Page 2 without licensed plumbers were also brought up and discussed. Andersen then moved that a public hearing be held within the next six months to receive input as to the establishment of one or more classes of restricted plumbing licenses. Deppey seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Andersen moved to adjourn the meeting. Deppey seconded the motion. The