Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-10-07 Bd Comm minutesMINUTES PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION AUGUST 20, •1986 MEMBERS PRESENT: Willis, Steinbrech, Alvarez, Hradek, Weideman, Henry and Hesse MEMBERS ABSENT: Watson and Jordison STAFF PRESENT: Trueblood, Moran, Harvey, Carroll, Ertz and Ellerbrock RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL Moved by Steinbrech, seconded by Alvarez, to recommend to the City Council that staff's proposed Recreation Division FY187 budget changes be approved and the budget amended. Unanimous. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION AiLD FORMAL ACTION TAKEN iTrueblood outlined the proposed Recreation Division FY187 budget, as it relates to increased program fees and reductions in service. (See attached information.) Moved by Steinbrech, seconded by Alvarez, to recommend to the City Council that staff's proposed Recreation Division FY'87 budget changes be approved and the budget amended. Unanimous. i Moved by Henry, seconded by Hradek, to adjourn at 5:30 p.m. Dee Harvey, Secr tary Parks and `Recre ion Commission Af?4F I Rl W The following information was presented by staff at the Commission meetings of August 13th and/or 20th, for consideration in amending the FY187 Recreation Division budget.• POSSIBLE NEW FEES/FEE INCREASES Additional Recommended by staff Revenue Institute equipment rental fee (average $2.00) --------------- $ 500.00 Increase park shelter reservations from $4.00 to $6.00, and from $10.00 to $12.00 ---------------------------------------- $1,200.00 (Future proposal likely to alter this) Increase darkroom fee from $2.00 -to $4.00 -------------------- $ 400.00 Increase cost of pottery studio card from $10.00 per season to $5.00 per month (or similar) ------------------------------ $ 265.00 Increase S.P.I. adapted aquatics fee from $3.00 to $5.00 per ten -lesson session ------------------------------------------- $ 240.00 Initiate charge for senior citizens aerobics and fitness programs; $6.25, based on 50% of "regular" fee --------------- $ 900.00 Increase softball field reservations from $4.00 to $5.00, and from $14.00 to $15.00 (with lights) -------------------------- $ 210.00 Increase racquetball court reservations from $2.00 to $2.50 percourt hour ----------------------------------------------- $1,250.00 Increase adult volleyball entry fee from $45.00 to $50.00 perseason ----------------------------------------------- --- $1,150.00 Increase adult basketball entry fee from $130.00 to $140.00 per season ------------------------- $ 800.00 Initiate fee for tennis court reservations ($1.00 per court hour) --------------------------------------------------------- $ 240.00 Discontinue current practice of charging senior citizens only $1.00 to participate in "regular" adult programs; establish a fee policy to charge 50% of usual rate --------------------- $ 777 Miscellaneous revenue adjustments due to previously determined fee Increases, more up-to-date estimates, etc. --------------- $27,208.00 Less sales tax (on all taxable revenue) ---------------- ($7,562.00) TOTAL $26,801.00 r Arps' POSSIBLE EXPENSE REDUCTIONS Recommended by staff Eliminate Program Supervisor (vacant); convert two other permanent part-time positions into full-time; general savings . due to personnel changes ------------------------------------- Reduce weekday game room hours by one hour per day (open at 10:00 a.m., as opposed to 9:00 a.m.); also includes some miscellaneous reductions in hours budgeted for game room staff Eliminate drop-in aerobics ----------------------------------- "Contract" for sports officials and various Instructors (saves F.I.C.A.)--------------------------------------------- Reduce part-time office staff Reduce part-time maintenance staff at Recreation Center Reduce budgeted hours for part-time building supervisors at Recreation Center -------------------------------------------- Reduce part-time maintenance staff responsible for softball/ baseball----------------------------------------------------- Eliminate drop -In aquacizing --------------------------------- Ellminate after-school recreation program -------------------- Eliminate Saturday "Play Day" program ------------------------ Eliminate adult "social activities" -------------------------- Eliminate certain senior citizen "cultural activities" ------- TOTAL Approximate Savings $11,300.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 900.00 $ 5,086.00 $ 2,800.00 $ 750.00 $ 1,900.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 200.00 $ 400.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 990.00 $ 300.00 1,126.00 u OTHER POSSIBILITIES Not recommended at this time) Eliminate or reduce "Aid to Agencies"($1,100 each to Babe Ruth, Little League, Girls Softball) ______________ ------------------- Eliminate darkroom specialist -----__ Eliminate Children's Museum program ________________ -------------- Eliminate or reduce Summer Playground program --------__- Youth football - eliminate program or Increase fees to cover costs Youth basketball - eliminate program or increase fees to cover costs -------------------- Initiate fees for Special Populations Programs (currently free); $3.00 for five-week sessions; $4.00 -for ten -week sess for fifteen -week sessions -----__-_ ions; $5,00 Increase "Kinderground" fees from $6.00 to $7,00 _________________ Initiate fee for Summer Playground program (currently free) - Charge Girls Softball and Babe Ruth Baseball for field maintenance (currently no charge) ---- Initiate 25C per hour fee for use of Recreation Center tables (pool, foosball, table tennis,•bumper pool) _game room Increase Recreation Center room rental fees from $5.00 to $7 00, and from $25.00 to $30.00 (effective January 1st) ---------------- Start -----___-_ _Start charging "affiliate groups" and other groups receiving free room usage (effective January 1st) ____________________ jCharge Swim Club $5.00 per hour for pool usage, effective January ist (currently free) ------------------------------------- $3,300.00 $ 400.00 $1,200.00 $6,000.00 $3,650.00 $4,64o.00 $2,160.00 $ 400.00 $2,400.00(77) $1,350.00 $5,000.00(77) $ 900.00 $1,200.00 $ 250.00 Irflo N 3 k(v-) MINUTES IOWA CITY RIVERFRONT COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 1986 - 7:30 PM SENIOR CENTER CLASSROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Gerleman, Helmer, Lovell, McGuire, Stroh, Wachal, Watson, Wielert MEMBERS ABSENT: Daly, Leo, Wallace STAFF PRESENT: Rockwell, Manning i OTHERS PRESENT: Rick Fosse RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL: I None. I i CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Helmer called the meeting to order at 7:37. i INTRODUCTIONS: Rockwell introduced Rick Fosse, a member of the City Engineering Department. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF AUGUST 6, 1986 MINUTES: i Wachal moved to approve the minutes of August 6, 1986. Wielert seconded the motion. The motion carried, 6-0-1, with McGuire abstaining. j DISCUSSION OF RIVERBANK STABILIZATION PROJECTS: At the last meeting of the Commission, Rockwell understood there to be inter- est as part of the public education strategy to survey people along Ralston iCreek. This issue is tied up with the Commission's recommendation to Council concerning the expansion of its authority to tributaries. Don Schmeiser, PPD Director, feels Council should defer discussion on this issue with the River - front Commission until the roles and possible reorganization of City Boards, Commissions, and Committees are resolved. i Brochure As far as organizing an information packet -brochure, Rick Fosse recommended adapting a pamphlet published by the Iowa Department of Water, Air and Waste Management in 1984. It was suggested that this pamphlet could be used with a local sheet attached, although some recommendations contained in the pamphlet are prohibited in Iowa City, such as tires, wire fences, and old autos. Fosse felt pages 1 through 10 seemed most appropriate. It,was noted that although cottonwood trees are recommended in the pamphlet, they are prohib- ited in Iowa City. The Commission requested Rockwell to speak with the City Forester to understand which trees would be more appropriate. Helmer ques- tioned Rockwell on the cost of producing the pamphlet. Rockwell explained the Planning Department could print the pamphlet unless the costs run outside a reasonable figure, which would require the Commission to raise the monies. j Z 96 Iowa City Riverfront Commission September 3, 1986 Page 2 Permit Process Regarding the use of riprap, Fosse explained that the procedure would require 1 applying to the City for a permit, 2) the City would forward the applica- tion to the Department of Natural Resources and the U.S. Corps of Engineers for review and approval or denial, and 3) the City would then notify the applicant whether and how to proceed. Helmer asked if the process could be streamlined. Fosse felt the process could be organized to move quicker on the City level where standards could be set up and approved by the State. Then when a request is submitted, a permit could be issued if those standards were met. This process is also dependent on what the Corps of Engineers would require. Rockwell stated that the City Ordinance was written in accordance with the Corps' standards. Helmer asked Rockwell to provide him with the name of the contact person at the U.S. Corp of Engineers headquartered in Rock Island. Helmer, who is in Rock Island quite often, offered to meet with Corps officials to work out a streamlined permit application system consistent with the State requirements. Fosse indicated that the time frame, even it were streamlined, would be approximately two weeks. There was consensus among the Commission members to find out if the permit process could be streamlined. Riprapping Regarding appropriate riprap materials, Fosse mentioned that the best materi- als are produced in a quarry. Broken slabs larger than 410' are not good since the current can easily flip them downstream. Generally materials about 18"x 18" are ideal. Something to stay away from would be concrete with rerods, such as reinforced sidewalks. In speaking of costs, Fosse commented that quarries can produce and install riprap for about $10 to $15 per square yard. There is also an additional damage cost caused by heavy machinery crossing over lawns to deliver riprap materials to the site. Gerleman mentioned that he had spoken with the Coralville City Manager who is open to the possibility of stockpiling riprap materials from the Coralville sidewalk replacement program. Lovell asked how the Commission can find out who wants the riprap. Rockwell mentioned the possibility of using a brief survey to target persons wanting riprap materials. Watson suggested furnish- ing the appropriate listing as part of the sidewalk permit process. Seminar Rockwell asked if the Commission was still interested in setting up a riprap seminar. Helmer suggested notifying people along the river to let them know when someone would be available to answer questions. Lovell asked if there was a significant number of people wanting or needing riprap information. Wachal asserted there is a need for a 2-3 hour seminar. Fosse suggested that a representative from the State Department of Natural Resources and the U.S. Corps of Engineers be invited to attend. Stroh felt that people would want to know basic information about costs, the permit process, how riprapping is done and who to call to do it. Lovell suggested that including engineers could be helpful in order to gain advice on streambank stabilization technol- ogy. Iso Iowa City Riverfront Commission September 3, 1986 Page 3 In response to costs for the seminar, Wachal suggested charging a nominal fee to participants. He stressed that the purpose of the seminar should be informational, not technical advising. People want to hear the information from creditable sources. The seminar would not just reiterate the booklet, but answer people's questions. Gerleman suggested including Carl Chadek as a seminar speaker. Wielert thought that people who have successfully carried out riprap projects should be included. Wachal volunteered to organize the proposed Saturday morning seminar. Stu- dent interns will work on preparing the pamphlet. With regard to the time- frame involved, McGuire felt coordination in coinciding the release of the pamphlet, which includes information on a streamlined permit process, and scheduling the seminar. She suggested a winter deadline when the riprap projects themselves would be easier to plan and implement. n•erueernu nc ocrnmwNnaTtnNS TO COUNCIL REGARDING EXPANSION OF AUTHORITY TO Helmer commented on the proposed recommendations, which were to be presented to City Council at the September 9th meeting. As part of the presentation to City Council, Helmer had drafted a statement setting forth the Commission's reasoning.for requesting the bylaws and enabling resolution amendments. He asked the Commission for suggested changes or additions to his draft memo. McGuire felt the memo should stress that the expansion of authority would not increase the amount of staff time required, but rather would clarify the activities the Commission presently undertakes. Wachal commented that the statement should emphasize the Conmission's good track record as a participa- tory Commission. McGuire asked Helmer to highlight how the Commission has worked well with outside agencies, i.e., Project GREEN and Mayor's Youth Employment Program. Discussion followed regarding the limitations of staff time. McGuire en- dorsed the idea that the Commission, although realizing that staff will not always be available for every project, should continue to undertake a broad range of projects. Wielert agreed, and added that even without an increase in staff or monies, the Commission has increased the number of sponsored projects. Stroh asserted that the Commission needs the clarifying amendments in order to fulfill their charge. CONSIDERATION OF APPLYING FOR 1981 CDBG FUNDING FOR RIVERFRONT PROJECTS: Rockwell explained that the procedure involved is similar to last year's application for the benches in Terrell Mill Park. Lovell considered CDBG monies a good source for funding handicapped accessi- bility to parks along the river. Stroh asked if that would be under the auspice of the City Parks and Recreation Department. Rockwell said the CDBG application could be submitted by both. Helmer proposed that the CDBG funding could aid a demonstration project for riprap in Terrell Mill Park. Rockwell explained that Terrell Mill Park's eligibilit for CDBG dollars last year was due to the percentage of low and moderate income persons residing in that area. McGuire stated her concern that the riprap project would not meet CDBG objectives. 150% Iowa City Riverfront Commission September 3, 1986 Page 4 Stroh volunteered to investigate the costs involved for the riprap project, feeling that the Commission should choose the amount of footage that could be done with a reasonable amount of money. Wielert protested that the project would only have money to do an insignificant portion of the riverbank. Watson felt the Commission should choose the site along the river most in need of riprap this year, and next year designate another area most in need. McGuire voiced her disagreement with requesting CDBG monies for the riprap project. In justifying her comments, she reiterated her statement that there is no direct, tangible benefit. She felt the CDBG funding should be used for the Mayor's Youth Employment Program since this would also provide jobs for low/moderate income people. Wielert asked how the cost of last years MYEP project was funded. Rockwell explained that it was funded by lottery monies. McGuire offered to work with McElroy on an application for CDBG funding. Helmer felt the three ideas discussed should be submitted. In voting, the Commission approved each item: riprap project - 4-3, handicapped trails in riverfront parks - 7-0, and Mayor's Youth Employment Program - 7-0. Rockwell asked for volunteers to draft the applications for each proposal. Lovell and McGuire will work on the Mayor's Youth Employment Program applica- tion, Watson on the handicapped accessibility proposal, and Stroh on the riprap project. Watson will request the Parks and Recreation Commission to consider being a co -applicant on each of the three proposals. Rockwell mentioned that she will need the completed applications by September 12 in order for Helmer to present the applications to the Committee on Community Needs at the September 16th public hearing. REMAINDER OF AGENDA: The remainder of the agenda was deferred. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS: On fishing access via University of Iowa property, Helmer asked Stroh about property which is blocked off by a chainlink fence along the east side of the river below the Burlington Street Dam. Stroh responded that the fencing has been put up by a private contractor to protect the work area. The fencing should be removed upon completion of construction. Stroh volunteered to check into this further. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:13 p.m. Minutes submitted by Linda Manning. 150 i 3 j3) DECISIONS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 24, 1986 - 4:30 P.M. CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Messier, Mask, Fisher MEMBERS ABSENT: Randall, McDonald STAFF PRESENT: Franklin, Boyle, McClean SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS: 1. SE -8625. A request submitted by Hartwig Motors, Inc. for a special ex�fon to permit the expansion of an auto and truck oriented use in a CC -2 zone for property located at 629 South Riverside Drive in accordance with the revised site plan filed September 15, 1986, was granted by a vote of 3-0. On a separate notion, the applicant's request for a special exception to reduce the 'required front yard from 20 feet to 0 feet for property located at 629 South Riverside Drive in accordance with the revised site plan filed September 15, 1986, was granted by a vote of 3-0. Karin Franklin, Secretary F 9 L E D SEP 2 6 1986 MARIAN K. KARR CITY CLERK (1) 9;50 ac.,. /S7 l -7 3 g jl) al MINUTES Ann FORMAL MEETING PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 1986 - 7:30 P.M. CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Cooper, Dierks, Horowitz, Jordan, Perry, Scott, Wallace MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Boyle, Franklin RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: 1: Recommend approval of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to permit small animal clinics as a provisional use in the CC -2 zone: 2. Approval of an amendment to Section 36-4(r) concerning the definition of roaming unit and roomer: 3: Approval of amendments to the Planned Development Housing Overlay (OPOH) zone, Section 36-47 to permit the use of an OPDM plan on tracts of land which are less than two acres but one acre or more in size, where the land is surrounded by existing development, is characterized by environmentally sensitive or natural features, has older structures on the tract or in the area, or has scenic assets. REOUEST TO THE CITY MANAGER FOR STAFF ASSISTANCE: I 1. Request staff assistance to develop an overlay zone for the entrance- ways to Iowa City consistent with the recommendation of the Urban Environment Ad Hoc Committee: CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Scott called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 21 1986: Perry requested that an amendment be made to the minutes on page 4 in the last paragraph of the discussion concerning small animal clinics, suggest- ing that the word "would" be changed to "could" in referring to the effect an ordinance amendment would have on the existing small animal clinic on First Avenue. Wallace moved approval of the minutes as amended; Cooper seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0-1 (Horowitz abstained), ZONING ITEMS: 1. Public discussion of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to permit small animal clinics in the CC -2 zone. /5-940 Planning and Zoning Commission September 4, 1986 Page 2 a Franklin reviewed the provisions of the proposed amendment, pointing out that the clinics under discussion would be for small domestic animals, that kennels would not be permitted, and that the use was being considered as a provisional use. The provisional use require- ments would eliminate the possibility of outside runs and would re- quire that the building housing the clinic be at least 200 feet from any residential zone. Jordan questioned whether the 200 foot requirement would make the clinic which exists on First Avenue non -conforming. Franklin res- ponded that the clinic would remain non -conforming if this provision were adopted. Perry stated that he had spoken with the state Department of Health and the Department of Agriculture in Des Moines. He had called them to inquire about whether there were any state regulations which pro- hibited businesses dealing with animals or having animal shelters from being next to businesses which prepared food. He had been unable to get a definitive response. Franklin stated that the staff had con- tacted the County Health Department with the same inquiry and had found that there were no restrictions against having a food establish- ment next to an animal clinic. Horowitz stated that she had spoken to Dr. Nyren of Veterinary Associ- ates regarding the issue of boarding animals, and the question of whether outside runs were better for the animals. Dr. Nyren had responded that the indoor kennels were preferable for the health and i safety of small animals and that most veterinary clinics are designed to be self-contained, particularly in regard to noise and odors. Jordan stated that he felt there were enough questions surrounding this issue and that the Commission generally spent two meetings on an ordinance amendment, and moved that the issue should be deferred to the next meeting: Franklin pointed out that with a rezoning consid- eration the Commission did, as a matter of practice, spend two meet- ings on the item and that this was also true for ordinance amendments which were considered by the Commission to be major amendments. Perry stated that he would like an answer to his question about the state regulation of food preparation establishments near animal clinics before he considered the ordinance. Perry seconded the motion made by Jordan to defer the item to the next meeting. Perry also raised the question of whether clinics should be provided in other parts of the community. Horowitz stated that she had raised that issue initially in the infor- mal meeting but now felt that the question of whether clinics should be in other commercial zones, particularly the CN -1 (Neighborhood Commercial) zone was no longer an issue. She suggested that the Commission pursue the amendment before them and observe, in the fu- ture, whether the market called for expanding this use into other commercial zones. 1157Y Planning and Zoning Commission September 4, 1986 Page 3 Perry questioned whether the 200 foot distance from the residential zones should be required if there was no requirement that animal clinics be separated from food establishments. Wallace stated that she felt the Commission was going beyond the intent of the proposal that was before them, which was to allow a clinic in the CC -2 zone just like the one already in existence on First Avenue. She then questioned precisely what made the Eastside Pet Clinic non -conforming. Boyle responded that the 200 foot limitation of the proposed ordinance and the existing zoning which did not permit clinics made the Eastside Pet Clinic non -conforming. Scott stated that it was his understanding that the distance require- ment was to ameliorate any noise generated by the clinic. He stated that the evaluation of the exact distance is a subjective matter. He also felt that the County Health Department was a reliable agency and if they did not require separation between a food establishment and a clinic, that it was probably not a state requirement. He stated further that he did not feel that the ordinance under consideration was a major amendment to the zoning ordinance and would not require two meetings. Dierks questioned whether the clinic would have a separate entrance from other businesses in the building. Al Wells, contractor for the building in which the clinic would be located, stated that the clinic would have an outside entrance. Dierks expressed concern that clinics not be located in enclosed malls where the only entrance would be through the mall. Horowitz stated that she saw no need to defer the item. She stated that her questions had been answered and that the Commission could consider clinics in other commercial zones if people came before them requesting that. She felt that right now there was not that much demand for clinics to warrant their location in other areas. Perry questioned whether anyone else on the Commission had any doubts about the 200 foot requirement. Jordan stated that he could not understand requiring somethingwhich would leave an existing clinic non -conforming, just to create an ordinance amendment for a single request. Scott countered that this was not an ordinance amendment for a single request, but that the Commission historically responded to requests that brought to their attention general problems with the ordinance. He stated his commitment to having the Commission respond to the community. Perry asked if it was the Commission's desire to remove the 200 foot requirement. Horowitz responded that the existing clinic was operat- ing without any complaint and the ordinance should be left alone. The motion to defer the amendment to the meeting of September 18 was denied by a vote of 3-4 (Dierks; Scott, Horowitz and Wallace voting no). Perry moved to approve the amendment to permit small animal clinics in the CC -2 zone as a provisional use, prohibiting outside Planning and Zoning Commission September 4, 1986 Page 4 runs and requiring a minimum of 200 feet between the clinic and any residential zone; Wallace seconded the motion. The motion carried, 6-1 (Jordan voting no). 2. Public discussion of an amendment to Section 36-4(r) concerning the definition of rooming unit and roamer. Franklin explained the substance of the ordinance pointing out that the ordinance amendment clarifies definitions and does not address any change in the number of roomers permitted or in current .enforcement practices. Cooper moved that the. ordinance be recommended for approval; Horowitz seconded. The motion carried unanimously, 7-0. 3. Public discussion of amendments to the OPOH zone, Section 36-47. Franklin pointed out the changes that had been made in the ordinance text: 1] that no commercial or institutional uses would be permitted in an OPOH on less than two acres, and 2] that the reference to delet- ing streets included public and private streets. Perry called the Commission's attention to the fact that he had circu- lated a proposed amendment and requested from the Chairperson the proper procedure. Scott responded that a main motion on the amend- ments to the OPOH ordinance should be made first and then any amend- ments to that main motion would be considered. Scott requested public comment. Al Wells, of Al Wells Construction Co., stated that he felt the amend- ments proposed were very strict and gave the Planning and Zoning Commission a lot of control. He expressed his support for the amend- ments and stated that he looked forward to working with the Commission on his project at their next meeting. Horowitz questioned whether Wells had discussed his plans for the "Emmanuel House of Prayer" site with members of the Homebuilders Association. Wells stated that he was a•member of the Association but had not discussed his project. He pointed out that many builders will not put the time and effort re- quired by the ordinance into a project. He also pointed out that ahere project Horownot itz asked aces WellsnIowa if he Cwouldndocumentothe process sssuch of his project for possible publication. Wells stated that it could be put in Professional Builder magazine or any of the other building trade magazines. He pointed out that magazines solicit projects for awards and that although the sort of project that he was considering was not unusual in the country as a whole, it would be something different for Iowa. He felt therefore that the magazines might have an interest in running an article on the project. Perry asked Wells his motivation for doing this particular project. Wells responded that he was attempting to do a different kind of aproject iIowa City, tewould here ndfelttheprojectthathehadin mind would be a creativity Planning and Zoning Commission September 4, 1986 Page 5 community. Horowitz asked Wells if he had any suggestions for changes in the ordinance. She stated that she was uncomfortable with the fact that the ordinance did not permit developments on less than one acre. Wells responded that he had no suggested changes; that he felt he could work with it as it was. He did point out, however, that the ordinance was very strict, but that he intended to work with people from the very beginning and saw advantages to laying out for the neighborhood exactly what kind of project he had in mind. Horowitz asked if he would be willing to bargain with the neighbors. Wells responded that he would make every effort to work with the neighbor- hood until it reached a point in which the project no longer became feasible or marketable. He stated that he had no intentions of "shoving the project down their throats." Dierks questioned whether he would rent or sell the units he proposed. Wells responded that he would sell the units as condominiums. Dierks asked if there would be an association. The response was yes. Wells pointed out further that it was possible that someone would purchase a unit and rent it out, however, the rent would have to be quite high at approximately $1200-$1400 per month. He stated that the cost of the condominiums would be approximately $150,000. Perry pointed out that the Commission's consideration of the OPDH ordinance must apply to the entire community and not be geared to any particular development. Horowitz moved that the amendments to the OPOH zone be approved; Wallace seconded the motion. Horowitz stated that she enthusiastic- ally supported the amendments. She pointed out that given her experi- ence with the Urban Environment Committee and the Historic Preserva- tion Commission, she thought the amendments would be very important in the developed parts of Iowa City. Wallace stated that she felt the amendments would allow creativity in developed areas and that it opened up a lot of possibilities. She also reiterated the fact that the amendments were quite restrictive and gave the Commission a lot of control. Perry moved to amend the main motion by inserting in Section 36-47(c)(2) the following language: For development of an area of land less than two acres but one acre or more in size according to the provisions of this section, where, by reason of environmentally sensitive areas, land com- pletely surrounded by development, age of existing development or scenic assets. such development is more appropriate than conven- tional development (see Section 36-48(h) for specific standards relating to developments of less than two acres). Horowitz seconded the nation. Perry stated that he saw no problem with most areas of Iowa City or with the Wells' development as had been presented. He stated his feeling that there are areas where OPDH plans are very appropriate. He pointed out that there are areas outside the developed areas of the City which are environmentally sensitive and should be preserved. /65-f4 Planning and Zoning Commission September 4, 1986 Page 6 However, he felt that one place OPOH plans should not be used were in developing or peripheral areas of the city. He expressed his concern with potential spotty development of multi -family residential struc- tures in predominantly single family developments in the currently undeveloped portions of Iowa City. Horowitz stated her concern with innercity problems and her concur- rence with Perry. She stated that she had no problem in restricting the use of the less than two acre PDH to developed areas. Cooper stated his support for Perry's amendment. Perry questioned the legal staff as to whether the language of the amendment he proposed would achieve what he intended. Boyle responded that the language would restrict application of the OPDH substantially and that it should carry out what Perry wanted, as Perry had expressed it earlier. Scott questioned whether the references to environmentally sensitive areas was so broad that it would be difficult to delineate whether a tract was applicable or not. He questioned how the parameters set by Perry's language would differ from the earlier language of the amend- ment. Boyle pointed out the language that had been deleted, specific- ally topography, existing natural features, street configuration, tract configuration. He stated that these items would no longer define the use of the less than two acre OPOH. Scott questioned that if, for instance, a ravine is not categorized as an environmentally sensitive area, could the OPDH be used in the situation where there was a ravine or was the term, environmentally sensitive area, too vague. Boyle responded that the determination of the applicability of the OPDH ordinance would be up to the Planning and Zoning Commission to determine on a case by case basis what was an environmentally sen- sitive area. Horowitz interjected that until some definition of envi- ronmentally sensitive is developed, the use of that term will be subjective. Wallace stated that the use of the less than two acre OPDH plans seemed to be more applicable in developed areas. She questioned why someone wanted to go through the lengthy process in the outer areas if they would be prohibited from doing so. Boyle pointed out that a developer could still use the OPOH zone in the periphery of the City if the developer had more than two acres to work with. Scott questioned Perry as to why he had deleted existing natural features. Perry responded that he felt it was incorporated into the term environmentally sensitive area. Discussion followed on how to apply the "new" criteria set forth by Perry's proposal. Perry stated that he thought the reason to adopt the less than two acre OPDH was to provide quality development on in -fill tracts. Scott stated his concern that the Commission be able to justify the applica- tion of the OPDH zone for tracts where there was an existing stand of /.594f al Planning and Zoning Commission September 4, 1986 Page 7 trees or other natural features. He suggested that the words "exist- ing natural features" be included in Perry's proposal. Perry accepted this suggestion as a friendly amendment; Horowitz approved as the seconder of the original motion. Franklin pointed out that the series construction of the sentence setting forth the reasons for permitting an OPOH on less than two acres allowed the Commission to use any one of those factors as a reason to permit an OPDH. She stated that she raised this issue be- cause as the language was presented the Commission could consent to an OPDH in the periphery on a tract of less than two acres if there were environmentally sensitive areas there and that Perry seemed to be asserting that his proposal was to limit the use of OPOH to in -fill development. Scott responded that if the intent is to limit the OPDH to in -fill development only, he would not support the amendment. Perry stated that it was his intention that the less than two acre OPDH zone be applicable only to in -fill development and to developing areas with environmentally sensitive features. Dierks questioned what the age of existing development meant. Horowitz responded that it was her understanding that it could apply to the development or redevelopment of land which was in the midst of an historic area such as the North Side; that by virtue of the age of the area the OPDH would be appropriate. Scott pointed out that even if any one of the reasons could trigger an OPOH request, the Commission is not compelled to approve the plan. Dierks stated in reference to the age of existing development that it would be helpful to include "neighboring" before development to indicate that the neighborhood was the critical point. Scott asked Boyle if this would preclude redevel opment of a single site in which there was an older structure. Boyle stated it would not. The Commission approved the motion to amend the main motion with Perry's proposal by a vote of 7-0. Dierks moved to amend Section 36-47(a) to insert the word 'unique' to describe situations in which conventional development would not be appropriate; Perry seconded the motion. Dierks stated that she wished to make the impression on any developer that this ordinance was in- tended to be for special areas. Horowitz questioned whether Perry's amendment hadn't taken care of this. Boyle pointed out that the purpose section is for all OPDH plans, those greater than two acres as well as those less than two acres. He stated further that an OPDH on a larger tract may not be unique. Perry stated that he had no problem with clarifying that the OPDH on less than two acres should reflect a unique situation. Scott stated that he felt the question was addressed by the previous amendment. Dierks withdrew her motion; Perry concurred, Horowitz suggested that the ordinance be made applicable to any devel- opment less than two acres and that there be no one acre limitation. Scott explained that the Commission had discussed this in August when Horowitz was absent and had reached a compromise by applying the one -I Planning and Zoning Commission September 4, 1986 Page 8 acre limitation. Perry stated that he could understand a need in given situations in developed areas to permit an OPDH on a tract less than one acre. Horowitz stated that what she wanted was site review on small parcels. Boyle pointed out that the OPDH was a voluntary measure and that the Commission did not have the authority with this ordinance to compel the use of an OPDH zone. A roll call vote was called for on the main motion as amended: Perry - yes Jordan - yes Dierks - yes Cooper - yes Wallace - yes Horowitz - yes Scott - yes OTHER BUSINESS: I I. Jordan moved and Wallace seconded a request for staff assistance to develop an overlay zone to address the protection of entranceways as proposed by the urban Environment Ad Hoc Committee. The motion car- ried 7-0. 2. Planning and Zoning Commission Information Franklin pointed out that the environmental regulations regarding grading and erosion control plans and site development review for environmentally sensitiveareas would be discussed by the City Council on September 8 at 7:15 PM in the Council Chambers. This was a change in date from September 15. Franklin reminded the Commission that they should reach consensus on what projects they would like to propose to the Committee on Community Needs for CDBG funding of projects to benefit low and moderate income people. Scott pointed out that there were four projects which had been discussed at the informal meeting, which were as follows: a. Provision of a sidewalk from the Hilltop Mobile Home Park along Waterfront Drive north to the intersection with Southgate Avenue and the bus stop. b. Acquisition of land south of Burlington Street between Gilbert Street and Van Buren along Ralston Creek for Ralston Creek Park. c. Provision of a sidewalk on Hudson Street and Miller Avenue from Highway 1 to Benton Street. d. Acquisition and removal of the house at 11 S. Johnson Street which was falling into Ralston Creek. Horowitz moved and Dierks seconded a motion to recommend that the CCN consider funding the projects listed above. The motion carried 7-0. Discussion then followed of Commission attendance at Council meetings. Planning and Zoning Commission September 4, 1986 Page 9 It was decided that the Commissioners would be responsible for attend- ing the informal meetings since that was the time at which the Plan- ning 8 Zoning items were discussed in the most depth. A new schedule for Commissioner attendance was requested, to begin October 6th. Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Minutes submitted by Karin Franklin. Approved by: _L..., J.w;,) Sally fflerks, Secretary 0 r PRELIMINARY MINUTES Subject to Approval FORMAL MEETING PLANNING 6 ZONING COMMISSION THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1986 - 7:30 P.M. CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Cooper, Dierks, Horowitz, Jordan, Perry, Scott, Wallace MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Beagle, Boyle, Moen, Manning RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL: 1. Recommend adoption of an ordinance amendment to the off-street parking requirements of the Zoning Ordinance to clarify the number of required parking or stacking spaces for use conversions. 2. Recommend approval of an application submitted by Hartwig Motors, Inc. for a preliminary Large Scale Non -Residential Development plan for property located at 629 South Riverside Drive, 3. Recommend approval of the request submitted by Susan Gaffey to vacate an alley extending east -west between South Gilbert Court and South Van Buren Street. 4. The Commission finds that Walton's Valley Hide -A -Way is compatible with other uses in the area with access by Old Highway 218 and offers no objection to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (County). REQUEST TO THE CITY MANAGER FOR STAFF ASSISTANCE: None. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Scott called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION: None. CONSIDERATION OF THE SEPTEMBER 4, 1986, MINUTES: Horowitz submitted the following corrections (as underlined): - page 2, paragraph 4, first line, "Dr. Nyren of the Veterinar Associa- tion regarding the issue of boarding animals... (the ast two correc- tions contribute—r6y Dierksf. "Dr. Hyren had responded that the indoor kennels were acceptable for the health and safety of small animals and that most veterinary clinics are designed to be self-contained..." Planning 8 Zoning Commission September 18, 1986 Page 2 - page 4; last paragraph, first line, "Perry asked Wells his motivation for -doing this particular project." - page 7, second_ paragraph, third line, "...develop or redevelopment of land which was..." Perry submitted the following changes (as underlined): - page 6, first 'paragraph, third line, "with potential spotty develop- ment..." - in the second paragraph, fifth line, "language of the amendment he proposed would achieve..." Dierks noted the following corrections on page 7: - first paragraph, in the fourth line and fifth line the word an should appear before OPOH. - the last paragraph should be struck from the minutes. ZONING ITEMS• 1. Z-8606. Public discussion of an application submitted by Benjamin 7aFfito rezone properties located at 401, 408 and 409 South Gilbert Street from CC -2 to CB -2. Wallace moved to defer action on this item until the October 2; 1986, formal meeting. Cooper seconded the notion. The notion carried, 7-0. 2. Public discussion of an amendment to Section 36-4(g)(3) of the Zoning Ordinance concerning the definition of grade. i Scott explained that due to questions raised at the informal meeting, he would entertain a motion to defer this item. Dierks moved to defer s this ituntil the November 6;.1986; fond sleeting. Cooper seconded the notion. The notion carried; 7-0. 3. Public discussion of an amendment to Section 36-58(b)(4) of the Zoning Ordinance concerning the application of the parking regulations on a iuse Conversion. Beagle noted that the Council referred this item back to the Commis- sion after the fraternity at 711 E. Burlington Street, which prompted the issue, satisfactorily met all parking requirements. He added that the ordinance has been modified by deleting reference to trees and natural features. Horowitz requested that this issue be discussed along with the Envi- ronmental Regulations. Wallace asked Beagle what would happen if a tree affected the ability to meet the required parking. Beagle ex- plained that the ordinance revision clarifies the intent of the ordi- /679 id Planning 8 Zoning Commission September 18, 1986 Page 3 nance and alleviates ambiguity in the language of the ordinance. He added that a tree would have to be removed to accommodate the required parking. Scott interjected that the amendment to the ordinance is basically a housekeeping issue, and that the issue of natural features will be discussed in the future. Horowitz moved to adopt the ordinance to amend the off-street parking requirements of the Zoning Ordinance to clarify the number of required parking or stacking spaces for use conversions. Cooper seconded the motion. Wallace stated that she would vote for the amendment but expressed concern that there is not an ordinance that protects natural features. Horowitz agreed, but recognized the need to clarify the ordinance. The motion carried unanimously, 7-0. DEVELOPMENT ITEMS: 1. S-8617. Public discussion of an application submitted by Ed Huff for approval of a preliminary Large Scale Non -Residential Development.plan for Southway Park located at 2930 Industrial Park Road. Moen distributed a memorandum requested by the Commission which out- lined the unresolved deficiencies and discrepancies identified in the preliminary LSNRD plan for Southway Park. Of the fifteen deficiencies and discrepancies, the following remain unresolved: 8. The location and dimensions of existing and proposed off-street loading spaces should be shown on the plan. Moen stated that this is a matter of identifying loading spaces on the plan that already exist on the site. 10. The applicant and the City must enter into a stormwater management agreement.. The Department of Public Works asks the applicant to identify the phase of the plan by which the stormwater management system will be in place. The applicant is capable of providing this informa- tion. Moen explained that the Commission could approve the appli- cation with the provision that resolution of this item be achieved prior to Council approval. 11. The stormwater plan should be revised to reflect the construction details of the weir and the intake. This item is still deficient, although the applicant and the City are arriving at mutually acceptable construction details. 12. The City and the applicant must arrive at a mutually acceptable alternative to the water main easement granted to the City on October 1, 1979. �S�Q Planning & Zoning Commission September 18, 1986 Page 4 Moen explained that presently a blanket easement covers the prop- erty. The applicant wishes to narrow this easement and the City is receptive to this idea. Again the Commission could grant approval of the preliminary LSNRD plan subject to an agreement between the City and the applicant prior to Council consideration of this application. Jordan stated his displeasure with the number of outstanding deficien- cies and discrepancies and felt the Commission should defer until all jr are resolved. Horowitz agreed, stating her discomfort in granting approval while the issues of stormwater management are unresolved. Wallace also stated her reservations. If the Commission voted to defer this item, Perry asked when the issue would go before the City Council. Boyle reminded the Commission of the opportunity to review this application at its October 2 meeting. Moen stated that the next formal Council meeting would be October 6 and 7 and that the application could be placed on that Council Agenda. Perry questioned staff on the intentions of the developer. Moen stated that the applicant intends to connect the two buildings within the next six months. The timeframe for construction of the mini -warehouses is within two years. The remainder of the plan would be completed within ten years. Jordan moved to defer item 5-8617 until the October 2, 1986, formal meeting. Horowitz seconded the motion. Perry asked Moen if the applicant could have submitted only the imme- diate changes he wanted. Moen responded that the applicant was en- couraged to note improvements to the entire site in order to give consideration to the design of the entire development. An incentive to this consideration is that final plans will only be subject to administrative review. The motion to defer was carried unanimously, 7-0. 2. 5-8618. Public discussion of an application submitted by Hartwig o ors, Inc, for approval of a preliminary Large Scale Non -Residential Development plan for property located at 629 South Riverside Drive. Located in the CC -2 zone, Beagle explained that the applicant is requesting LSNRD approval to expand an existing auto oriented use. An application for a Special Exception to permit the expansion will come before the Board of Adjustment on September 24, 1986. Of the six deficiencies and discrepancies outlined in the staff report, all have been resolved with the revised plan received Monday night. Staff reconnends approval of this item. Horowitz asked Beagle to review each of the deficiencies and discrep- ancies noted in the staff report. 159P Planning 8 Zoning Commission September 18, 1986 Page 5 11. Clarify the intended time schedule for the establishment of all parking spaces as identified an the plan. With the first phase, 29 parking spaces will be marked on site, along with seven additional spaces. 2. The number of trees within the planting areas for the parking area north of Building "A" should be reduced to not more than two trees per planting area. The applicant has reduced this to two trees per planting area. 3. The intended timeframe for each phase of scheduled improvement for the property should be indicated. This is included under the development character statement. 4. The separate uses of the addition to Building "A" should be iden- tified to determine their parking requirement. The square footage for each portion has been identified with parking calculated. 5. The plan should show the continuation of the sidewalk on the east side of Orchard Street across the northernmost access drive into the property to the west line of the property. A sidewalk extending around the elbow of Orchard Street has been identified. 6. Clearly distinguish between existing and proposed parking spaces. This has been identified graphically and also in the legend. Public Discussion: Todd Rees, 224 Orchard Court, Iowa City. As a property owner on Orchard Court, sfconcern cthe aastheuse ofOrcd Streetor acommerialuse.He remarked that ! there are currently four access points to the Hartwig property an Orchard, and felt the applicant uses Orchard as the primary access to i the property. Rees would rather see a commercial street used for access to commercial property. Wallace questioned staff regarding the line of sight on Orchard Street. Beagle explained that sight distances from properties front- ing on Orchard Street would not be diminished by this proposal. i Having recently visited the site, Jordan noted that of 26 cars that left the Hartwig property, 24 left via Orchard. Exiting onto River- side Drive, one would be forced to make a right turn (south) since it is impossible to cut across traffic to the north. Jordan noted that Planning 8 Zoning Commission September 18, 1986 Page 6 the planned improvement will not serve a larger number of cars. Also, the dust created by the unpaved areas will be reduced since these areas will be paved. Dierks asked if they could require traffic to exit more to the south to avoid disturbing the apartments and homes. Jordan interjected that it is safer for motorists to use Orchard. With the widening of the Benton Street bridge, Horowitz thought that the rest of Benton Street would be widened, while also moving its intersection with South Riverside Drive to the north. She felt this would became one of the primary east -west arterials. With regard to a buffer between established residential properties and the applicant's property, Horowitz felt a buffer was necessary. Scott noted there are seven spruce trees already planted on Orchard Street. Larry Schnittjer explained that the trunks of the spruce trees are 8 to 12 inches in diameter. There is presently an oak tree in that area. The plan noted new trees to the north of the access drive on Orchard Street. Scott asked if they would meet the technical requirements of a buffer. Beagle responded that technically the buffer should be arbor vita, as noted in the performance standards. Schnittjer inter- jected that the screen is dense, but not arbor vita. Beagle noted in the Zoning Ordinance, relative to screening, that arbor vita is pre- ferred. On the plan Wallace noted that while the traffic enters Hartwig from Riverside Drive, it exits on Orchard Street. Beagle stated that the plan involves a one-way flow-through design through the service write-up bay. Wallace asked if the City could prohibit left turns out of Hartwig to the north on Riverside Drive. Boyle explained that this is accomplished by installing a center median. Since Riverside Drive is a State highway, the determination would cane from the State. Horowitz asked if there was discussion given to eliminating the curb cut on the elbow of Orchard Street. Schnittjer felt this would be more of a violation to everyone. He added that even business enter- prises have a right to use street frontage. Agreeing that there will be an increase in traffic, Scott stated his agreement with Jordan about the current use of Orchard Street. Previ- ously the site involved two different enterprises, Hartwig and MHI. Scott felt the traffic would be reduced if the Commission approves one owner to basically take over the site. Horowitz felt there was no problem with one owner using the property. The problem, she contended, was allowing the applicant to use a City street as a part of their commercial establishment: Scott asked if there are curb cuts on Orchard Street. Schnittjer responded that there are currently two, with the last curb cut located 124 feet from Benton Street. Boyle commented that the applicant has a right to a public street, but the Commission could restrict that use. Planning & Zoning Commission September 18, 1986 Page 7 Horowitz questioned if the applicant could redirect traffic away from Orchard Street without changing the design of the building. -Beagle explained that the only way to regulate this would be to change the design, otherwise it would be too difficult to enforce. Chairperson Scott requested a motion. Wallace moved to approve the application submitted by Hartwig motors, Inc. for approval of a preliminary Large Scale Non -Residential Devel- opment plan for property located at 629 South Riverside Drive. Jordan seconded the motion. Boyle asked to clarify two points. First with regard to screening, the Code provides that screening is not required for existing commer- cial and industrial uses which are not in compliance with the screen- ing requirements, provided that the uses complied with the performance standards in effect prior to adoption of the existing regulations. Secondly, with an LSNRO, the Commission's power is only to review the site plan to assure that the plan is in compliance. The Commission cannot deny the application if it is in compliance. Since the operation requires a Special Exception, Horowitz asked if the screening could be required then. Boyle reminded the Commission that is a separate issue. He added that the Commission is acting in an administrative matter and can't hold up the plan just because they don't like it. The Commission's vote tells the Council whether or not the plan complies with the LSNRO regulations. Perry questioned why the large parking area at the north end of the property is not paved. Boyle stated that vehicle display and storage areas are not parking areas. In summary, Beagle explained that the overall increase in building area is only around 4,000 square feet. Although there is an increase in Building A, there is a decrease in Building B. In voting, the motion to approve carried, 5-2; with Dierks and Horowitz voting in the negative. 3. V-8603. Public discussion of a request submitted by Susan Gaffey to vacate an alley extending east -west between South Gilbert Court. and South Van Buren Street. Beagle informed the Commission that there are no public or private utilities located on the property of the proposed vacation. Jordan moved to approve the request submitted by Susan Gaffey to vacate an alley extending east -west between South Gilbert Court and South Van Buren Street. Wallace seconded the motion. For the public record, Perry stated his belief that with both vacation and subdivision items, there should be public notification and a sign posted. ISYiP Planning 8 Zoning Commission September 18, 1986 Page 8 Boyle noted a new provision in the State Code that with vacations which do not include utilities, the property will be RiM to abutting property owners upon vacation. In voting, the motion carried unanimously, 7-0. OTHER BUSINESS: 1. Discussion of a statement regarding a Conditional Use Permit for Walton's Valley Hide -A -Nay (County). Horowitz moved that Walton's Valley Hide -A -Way is compatible with the other uses in the area with access by.01d Highway 218 and recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit. Cooper seconded the nation. The motion carried unanimously, 7-0. 2. Planning and Zoning Commission. Information. i As the Commission representative at the last City Council meeting, Wallace mentioned that three Planning and Zoning issues were quickly approved. The issue involving Dr. Dull, however, has been deferred for two weeks. The amendment to the RNC -20 zone presented by Dull's attorney, Mr. Downer, is under consideration. The Commission requested copies of a documented chronology of issues relating to this situation which was drafted by Boyle. Cooper, the Commission representative to the Chamber Environmental Concerns Committee, reported that, at the last meeting, ways of get- ting more members to attend was discussed. Horowitz reported that she had attended the Committee on Community Needs (CCN) meeting where the Commission's CDBG proposal of removal of a house on the Ralston Creek flood plain was discussed. Horowitz felt a Commission member should be in attendance at the next CCN meeting. Since the next Commission meeting will be at the same time as the CCN meeting, no Commission members will attend that CCN meeting. Scott felt it more important to have all Commission members in attendance at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Beagle distributed a revised Council meetings schedule and an article submitted by Larry Baker. ADJOURNMENT: Horowitz moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:20 p.m. Wallace seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously, 7-0. Minutes submitted by Linda Manning. Approved by: Sally Dierks, Secretary rSY/ Regulaa. Coumcil I'Y E6049 Y:30 P. M. 'Please Sism IN: d s 3. 4. L. z a 9, ro, u. r9. r3. ry, l S%8 V MINUTES SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION JULY 16, 1986 SENIOR CENTER CLASSROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Sandy Boutelle, Bill Coen, Geri Hall, Bob Jackson, Mike Kattchee, Ruth Wagner, Dorothy Whipple MEMBERS ABSENT: Don Crum, Henry Fox STAFF PRESENT: Bette Meisel, Bonita Devance GUESTS PRESENT: Louise Ledman, CoE; Harold Donnelly, Betty Ockenfels, Johnson County Board of'Supervisors CALL TO ORDER/MINUTES/PUBLIC DISCUSSION: The meeting was called to order at 3:07 p.m. by acting chair, Ruth Wagner. Meisel explained that Hall had been delayed but expected to join the meeting shortly. The minutes of June 12, 1986, were approved as read. Wagner intro- duced visitors, Louise Ledman, the newly elected representative for the Council of Elders, and Board of Supervisors members Harold Donnelly and Betty Ockenfels. There was no public discussion. VOLUNTEER SPECIALIST: Meisel explained that the new Volunteer Specialist, Susan Rogusky, had been unable to attend the meeting due to schedule conflicts. She will be invited to attend the August meeting. Commissioners were invited to come in and meet Susan, who works from 10 a.m, to 2 p.m. daily. COUNCIL OF ELDERS REPORT: Ledman reported that officers had been elected and committees appointed at the July 9 meeting. Officers are: Leo Cain, Chair; Dean Andersen, Vice President; Rowena Harvey, Secretary; Nic McCleery, Recording Secretary. Members set a date for the 1987 Older Americans Day. Plans for the event will be discussed at a later time but the Press Citizen had suggested that they could better prepare to cover the event if the date was set well in advancg. There was a discussion of the plans for the 5th Anniversary Celebration at the Senior Center. The Council of Elders agreed to take responsibility for the Volunteer recognition portion of the celebration. The dates for the 5th Anni- versary celebration will be September 28th and 29th. SURVEY COMMITTEE REPORT: Boutelle distributed copies of the draft of the survey. The committee, com- posedso th outelle, Wagner, ag h , Whipple and Crum, selected seventeen Senior Centers country population sizes roughly comparable (approximately 40,000 to 60,000) to that of Iowa City. Meisel drafted a cover letter to introduce the Center and to outline the goals of the survey. Suggestions were T Senior Center Commission July 16, 1986 Page 2 noted and committee members agreed to consider revisions to the cover letter before its release. It was suggested that a self-addressed stamped envelope be included with the survey to make it more convenient to return. COMMISSION OUTREACH: Hall urged Commissioners to sign up for the rest of the calencar year for Outreach visits to the City Council, Board of Supervisors and Council of Eld- ers. s suggested months theyhaveagd h of the reedtorepresentat a cthe eCommitssion. Harold Donnelly, to remind s Johnson County Board of Supervisors, encouraged Commissioners to visit during the weekly sessions. He suggested that Commissioners inform the Clerk at least 24 hours ahead of the visit to be placed on the agenda. Hall reminded Commission- ers to trade dates if it became impossible to attend the meetings. FIFTH ANNIVERSARY PLANS: I Meisel reminded Commissioners that September would mark the Center's fifth year of service to the community and shared staff suggestions regarding possible ways in which to commemorate the anniversary. Staff recommended a two-day (Sunday and Monday) intergenerational experience that would highlight both the educational and social aspects of the Senior Center. The program would begin with an intergenerational Congregate Meal and dance on Sunday. It would progress on Monday to a series of short educational programs. The day would end with a dessert reception honoring five-year volun- teers. Other highlights would include a raffle for the quilts that have been conated to the Senior the ookbook of all thedessertseto by e served matrthe receptionkla tallltale-t ll�ing session with former Post Office employees who remember the Center in its former capacity, and the unveiling of a mural by volunteer instructor Charles Fisher. Staff is attempting to enlist the Golden K Kwanis to assist volunteer coordina- tor Margaret Clover and intern Nancy Timmer with the raffle. The Council of Elders agreed to handle the entertainment end of the event, soliciting des- serts, preparing the cookbook, etc. The Council of Elders asked that the Com- mission also take part in the anniversary. Meisel asked Commissioners for their input regarding the proposed plans. She urged Commissioners to take an active part in the anniversary celebration. Meisel suggested that Commissioners might take on the responsibility of programming the events for the second day. Commissioners made suggestions to staff regarding ways in which to carry out the plans, Commissioners questioned how well an educational series would be received at pert of the celebration. Hall pointed out that the educational programs at the Center are very popular, she pointed out that the last two Be Advised !qqal issues programs brought in more than three hundred people com- have tomeato expectdtheout Senior the C Center to take the lead inProviders providingthe information on pertinent topics. It was suggested that staff consider the possibility of hosting a fashion show, using Don Crum as a resource, Meisel suggested that the committee might be formed by Commissioners interested in contributing to the plans. It was sug- gested that staff should take the responsibility of planning the event. �..._.�.- ..� _ is 99 L Senior Center Commission July 16, 1986 Page 3 ANNUAL REPORT: Meisel received suggestions, corrections and additions to the draft of the annual report. Wagner expressed her concern regarding the lack of concrete, long range goals of the Commission. The annual report, she felt, should con- tain a more detailed list of Commissioners' goals for the coning year and the future of the Senior Center. Kattchee reminded Commissioners that some goals had been set at an earlier meeting (October 9, 1985) but that it was difficult to work through goals and strategies when Commissioners were unwilling to stay more than two hours at the monthly meetings. He suggested that the goal of the Commission should be to give direction to the staff and advise on issues that were important in the daily work of the Senior Center. He reminded Commission- ers that some goals had in fact been acted on by vote, research or individual action. Commissioners agreed to add an item to the directions for FY1987 to indicate that the Commission would develop a five-year plan of action for the Senior Center. Jackson moved that the draft of the Annual Report of the Senior Center Commission be adopted as amended. Wagner seconded, Accepted, unanimous voice vote. DIRECTORS REPORT Meisel reported that she had worked out a plan with Teleconnect to have a daily announcement about Senior Center activities made available by dialing a number listed in the Teleconnect service directory and in the Senior Center Post. The phone message will be changed daily and will include information about special events at the Senior Center. The service is paid for by one of the area medi- cal supply houses. Meisel reported that the seminars she had attended in California were informa- tive and worthwhile. She reported that she ran into people in California who were familiar with the work with Alzheimers being done by the Commission Chair, Geri Hall. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 5:36 p.m. Submitted by Ruth Wagner, Secretary Senior Center Commission Prepared by Donita Devance Senior Center Secretary o't Mayor's Youth Employment Program Minutes Board of Directors Meeting September 17, 1986 Board Members Present: Bill Casey, Bob Miller, Doug Allaire, Joan Jehle, Marsha La Follette Staff Present: Peg McElroy, Teresa Ulin I. Call to Order: Joan Jehle called the meeting to order at 4:10 p.m. 11. Approval of Minutes: Minutes from the May 21, June 25, and July 16, 1986 meetings were reviewed by the board. Bob Miller/ Bill Casey moved to approve them. MSC. III. Financial Reports — May, June, July, 1986: The financial reports were reviewed by the board. Peg asked board members to note that the July financial report was done on our computer using Supercalc software. Bill Casey/Marsha La Follette moved to approve the reports. MSC i IV. Additional Agenda Items Peg reported that she will be applying for Community Development Block Grant funds with the Parks and Recreation Department for 2 projects to be completed next year. One of the projects is supported by the Riverfront Commission and Project Green. It would consist of beautification and stabilization work In the area between Washington and College Streets on Ralston Creek. The second project would be working with Parks and Rec creating a parking lot with regular handicapped parking spaces on Sand Road. It would adjoin with the handicapped trail leading to the restroom completed this summer. The decision regarding funding will be made following a presentation to the Committee on Community Needs and City Council. A letter from the Riverfront Commission thanking the Iowa Youth Corps for the work completed this summer was passed around. Peg reported that the 10th Anniversary of the Iowa City Hospice Road Races will be held on October 19. Six people have agreed to be celebrity runners for Mayor's Youth: Bill Cook, Bob Dvorsky, Mike Kennedy, Mayor William Ambrisco, Marlene Perrin, and Ed Steinbrech. VI. New Business FY 1988 Budget Peg is now designing the budget for FY 1988. She will submit It to Marge Penney on October 6. It will be very similar to the FY 1987 budget with changes In revenue from the Department of Human Services and CDBG funds. Peg also expects to be notified very soon If Mayor's Youth Is to receive the Episcopal Diocese grant that would allow us to work with 10 more young people. Doug Allaire/Bob Miller moved to submit the budget as scheduled on October 6. MSC /�O D -I Quarterly Report and Final Statistics for FY _1986 Board members received In the mail a copy of the quarterly report. A copy of the comparative statistical report was given to each member present. It shows that MYEP worked with 205 young people in FY 86 and 201 in FY 85. Because these figures are inflated by the large number of JTPA enrollees we served last summer, there will be a decrease in clients served in 87. As the report shows, Grant Wood AEA and the Iowa City Schools continue to be our major referral sources. Terminations are low this year, with most occurring at the end of the program. Peg attributes less Involuntary terminations to the fact that she has been able to dramatically increase the actual support time she spends with them due to the addition of the full- time administrative support position. Bob Miller commented that this is particularly impressive where high risk Grant Wood AEA referrals are concerned. Resignation of Board Member Denise Tiffany Due to a health setback, Denise Is now working half-time and feels that she should resign from the Board. She would like to return when her health is Improved. This position, as well as the spot vacated by Keith Kafer, are being advertised by the city. Also, Joan Jehle's term will expire In December. Peg asked the board for suggestions In filling these vacancies. Janet Miller Is the new Johnson County representative to the Board. She lives in Salon and works as a teacher's aide at the Linn County Youth Shelter. Board Elections - October Peg asked for volunteers to meet with her to develop a slate of candidates for the election of officers. Marsha La Follette and Bill Casey agreed to assist her. VII. Old Business Transition Program Peg updated the board on the progress of the Transition Program. A purpose statement has been developed for the program. the program will offer employment opportunities to Johnson County residents with an emphasis on recent high school graduates who are not competitively employed. Services may Include pre-employment training, Job search assistance, Job coaching, employment placement, and follow -along services. Eight young people are now receiving services funded by the Department of Human Services. The Transition Program Is enjoined with the Placement Service Providers coalition. The agencies Involved meet monthly to discuss the available programs and do Joint client Intake. Case Report Peg reported the results of working with one of her clients on the Transition Program. Iowa Youth Corps - Summer Program Report Peg Informed the board that the work in Napoleon Park is now being completed and the restrooms will officially open In spring. The plumbers are finishing their work and Parks and Rec has made minor modifications to conform to HUD standards. An exterior coating was applied to the building to satisfy any concerns about Its appearance. 1(0DO Outstanding Enrollees IYC'enrollees John Beck, Angel Kron, and Jenny Rowray were chosen as outstanding enrollees for the summer IYC program. Iowa City Mayor Bill Ambrisco presented John and Angel with certificates signed by Governor Branstad at the last Iowa City Council meeting. John was also honored at the Coralville City Council meeting by Mayor Mike Kattchee. Jenny was unable to attend as she Is attending college. Bill Casey/Bob Miller moved to adjourn the meeting at 4:47. MSC - The next meeting will be held on October 15, 1986. If you have a conflict with that date, please call the office. JoanJehle, Secret' ary/Treasurer Teresa Ulin, Secretary �W) 3 MINUTES IOWA CITY HOUSING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 9, 1986, 9:00 A.M. IOWA CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Watts, Dawson, Newton, Streb, Crosby and Barfuss MEMBERS ABSENT: Moore STAFF PRESENT: Barnes, Milkman, Boothroy, Seydel and Henderson ALSO PRESENT: Dianna Miller, Jeanne Snow and Maggie Penziner RECOMMENDATIONS: To Council: That the City Council and other potential funding sources continue 'the Shared Housing Program. To Council: That the maximum grant amount for the Residential Accessibility Grant Program be raised from $3,000 to $5,000. To Committee on Community Needs: That the Community Development Block Grant funding request for housing rehabilitation projects as listed in Exhibit A be granted in the amount of $207,951.00. To Committee on Community Needs: That Housing Commission would endorse a request from the Elderly Services Agency to continue the Shared Housing Program j with 1987 CDBG funding. To Committee on Community Needs: That CCN approve a request for CDBG funding for the Housing Modifications for Low Income Frail Elderly Project. MEETING TO ORDER: There being a quorum present, the meeting was called to order at 9:10 a.m. by Chairperson Watts and he introduced new Commission member, Cathy Crosby. MINUTES: Minutes of the August 12, 1986, meeting were approved 6-0 on a motion by Barfuss, seconded by Newton. SHARED HOUSING: Snow stated that funding for the Pilot Program in Shared Housing would expire in June, 1987, and she was present to seek support for future funding for the program. Dianna Miller then gave an overview of the Shared Housing Program and indicated that a major portion of the population being served consists of frail elderly who with some aid are able to remain in their homes. Snow stated that her desire was to see the Shared Housing Program continue and she proposed that the Assisted Housing Division fund one quarter of a position. Seydel responded to this request by giving an explanation of the Assisted Housing Division's method of earning administrative fees and stated that there were no funds available in his budget to consider this request. Discussion ensued and Snow clarified her request that the Shared Housing Program continue with the Housing Commission's endorsement and stated that she would pursue funding elsewhere. It was then moved by Newton that the Commission recommend to Council and to other potential funding.sources that the Shared Housing Program be continued. The motion was seconded by Dawson and approved 5-1 with Streb opposed. /Goi Page 2 REVIEW OF AMENDED FORGIVABLE LOAN: Barnes stated that at the August Commission meeting she had been instructed to investigate an alternate method of insuring a dry basement at 632 Reno Street. She stated that she did research the method recommended and discussed this specific location with the City Civil Engineer. It was his recommendation to use a traditional sump system located in the basement with 4 to 6 inches of rock and a vapor barrier topped with concrete for the floor. It was moved by Watts and seconded by Newton that the City Civil Engineer's recommendation be followed. The motion was approved 5-1 with Streb opposed. HOUSING REHABILITATION FORGIVABLE LOAN: Barnes presented a request for a forgivable loan in the amount of $16,775.00 on property located at 226 Orchard Court and discussed proposed repairs. It was moved by Newton and seconded by Dawson that the request be approved. The motion was approved 6-0. RESIDENTIAL ACCESSIBILITY GRANT PROGRAM: Milkman stated that the Pilot Program indicated that a number of the accessibility projects involved building a ramp to access the applicant's home. This modifi- cation in itself exhausts a major portion of the grant and does not allow for other needed modifications. She requested that the maximum grant level be raised. It was moved by Dawson and seconded by Newton that the Commission recommend to Council that the maximum grant amount for the Residential Accessi- bility Grant Program be raised from $3,000 to $5,000. The motion was approved 6-0. CDBG 1987 HOUSING REHABILITATION FUNDING: Milkman presented the funding request for Community Development Block Grant funds to be submitted on behalf of housing rehabilitation. She explained the breakdown of Exhibit A and asked for Housing Commission endorsement. It was moved by Watts and seconded by Barfuss to recommend to the Committee on Community Needs that the CDBG funding request for housing rehabilitation projects as listed in Exhibit A be granted in the amount of $207,951.00. Motion was approved 6-0. 1987 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS: Newton initiated discussion regarding CDBG funding for the Shared Housing Program. Milkman stated that Elderly Services could submit a request for Shared Housing and the Housing Commission could endorse that request. It was so moved by Watts and seconded by Dawson that the Housing Commission recommend to CCN that it would endorse a request from the Elderly Services Agency to continue the Shared Housing Program with 1987 CDBG funds. The motion was approved 6-0. Discussion then turned to another of the Elderly Services projects, the Housing Modification for Low Income Frail Elderly. The Commission agreed that it would endorse a request for funds to continue this program. It was then moved by Newton and seconded by Barfuss that Commission recommend that CCN approve a request for CDBG funding for the Housing Modifications for Low Income Frail Elderly Project. The motion was approved 6-0. /0,0/ Page 3 COORDINATOR'S REPORT: Seydel requested that the October Commission meeting be scheduled for October 21 and it was agreed to do so. He informed the Commission of a NAHRO training session scheduled in October. Seydel then distributed proposed Utility Allowance changes and explained the purpose and application of the Utility Allowance. This allowance in final form will appear in the updated Statement of Policies. Seydel next informed Commission of new regulations regarding tenancy and admini- strative greivance procedures. He explained that procedures for Public Housing are changed to coincide with the Section 8 Certificate Program regulations. The Iowa City Housing Authority is presently in line with these regulations for the most part, therefore, applicable changes will be with regard to eviction procedures which must be channelled through the court system to allow for due process. Seydel next addressed Alien Regulations and stated that a ruling has been published and is to be effective September 30, 1986, stating that rental assistance may not be paid on behalf of ineligible aliens. It will then be mandatory that participants in the assisted housing program produce proof of citizenship. Seydel next discussed new rulings regarding In-home Small Business in subsidized rental units. The Department of Housing and Urban Development now states that small business activities will be permitted in subsidized units if not in violation of local zoning, nor prohibited by the landlord. This policy change will be addressed in the Statement of Policies update. Public Housing Update - Seydel stated there were three turnovers and he anticipated full occupancy by October 1. Section 8 Update - Seydel stated that $90,065.75 was paid on 442 leases, 10 of which are vouchers totalling $2,093.00 for an average rent of $203.77. There were 23 applications submitted for signature. PUBLIC DISCUSSION: Barfuss, the representative to CCN, indicated that CCN is anticipating a number of applications for 1987 CDBG funding and that applications must be submitted by September 29, 1986. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:50 a.m. Approved: Gary Watts Chairperson /60/ :l EXHIBIT "q" MINUTES DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE THURSDAY, AUGUST 28, 1986 - 4:00 P.M. IOWA CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY - ROOM B MEMBERS PRESENT: Alexander, Amert, Eckholt, Nagle, Novick, Sinek, Welt MEMBERS ABSENT: Haupert, Seiberling, Sunmerwill STAFF PRESENT: Cain, Mullen, Rockwell RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL None. CALL TO ORDER AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Eckholt called the meeting to order at 4:02 p.m. Alexander moved to approve the minutes of the June 19, June 26, and July 24 meetings. Sinek seconded. The motion passed unanimously. DISCUSSION OF LANDSCAPING PLAN FOR ISLAND IN FRONT OF FIRST NATIONAL BANK Cain reported that the First National Bank offered to refurbish and maintain the island in front of their bank. Grass cannot be maintained in that spot and some of the original trees have died of disease, so the bank requested to install brick pavers within the island. Cain showed the Committee a copy of the original landscaping plan and the 1919 change that included a bicycle rack. Sinek initiated the discussion by commenting that he felt it would be best to restore the island as originally intended, though he would consider other options. He noted that paving the island with brick would encourage jay- walking. Different plant materials might have to be substituted to avoid disease problems, he thought. Welt asked if snow removal and the accumula- tion of salt and sand was causing the vegetation to suffer. Sinek thought that it might be a contributing factor, but that it was not a major problem in this area like it was on South Capitol Street. Eckholt did not like the use of timbers to elevate the island edges because they were so different from the design of the rest of the street. He felt the continuity of the streetscape design should be maintained. Sinek noted that at some point the City must expect to replace trees and shrubs that do not survive for one reason or another. Therefore, the City should expect to be putting some money into the downtown landscaping anyway. Nagle noted that paving the area would eliminate concern over keeping vegeta- tion alive. Nowysz felt that a lot stubby vegetation (something that people would not walk on) would be in order. She also felt that raised beds should be consid- ered. 1410X �r, Design Review Committee August 28, 1986 Page 2 Eckholt suggested that angled brick be used to elevate the island edges and ground cover be planted inside. Sinek noted that raising the beds would eliminate the possibility of keeping the ash tree unless a well was main- tained around it. Sinek said that the remaining trees, except for the ash, will continue to decline, and will probably need to be removed in a couple of years. Cain noted that the bank's motivation was to make the area look nice. The Public Works Department, however, also wants to discourage jaywalking. The Committee consensus was that the existing ash tree should remain (and mulched with bark if need be), that the island be designed with raised edges (preferably with angled brick like the south side of Washington Street), and that plantings other than grass be used (preferably bushes and low, scratchy ground cover) to present a physical barrier to pedestrian traffic across it. Cain said she would inform the Parks and Recreation Director of the consensus (see attached memo). DISCUSSION OF THE MINIPARK REDESIGN PROCESS Cain explained that the renovation of the Paul -Helen Building is underway, and that therefore the redesign of the minipark can be completed. She said that in 1984 there were three main groups involved in the design --Project Green, the Design Review Committee, and the Parks and Recreation Department. Cain felt that the main objective of the discussion for the day was to set a schedule for the project. She introduced Melody Rockwell, CDBG staff member, who will be coordinating the redesign project. Staff suggested that during September people discuss in committees and a public meeting how the area should function in relation to City Plaza. Then in October these ideas can be used by the architect to formulate a design. By November the plan would be ready for public discussion and Committee approval, and in December speci- fications could be prepared and bids developed. The Committee thought this schedule was good. Rockwell said she would advise the other groups of the schedule and would set a public meeting for September 22 or 23, after the Parks and Recreation Commission and Project Green had a chance to review the project. Cain showed the Committee the current plans for the remodeling of the Paul - Helen Building. Eckholt noted that the plans had changed many times because of the opinions of the State Office of Historic Preservation architect. Cain said the developer intended to complete construction by the end of the year to take advantage of tax incentives. Cain then showed the Committee the minipark redesign plan that was developed in 1984. This design showed two major areas: a quiet area fairly separate from the rest of the pedestrian mall 'and a stage area for performances. She asked the Committee members to envision how they think the area should func- tion or be used --should the minipark be designed with a secluded area, should it be integrated into the rest of the mall, is a stage area appropriate in this location, what activities have continued in the minipark? Novick, Nagle and Eckholt all felt the area should be opened up. Committee members were urged to think about possible minipark uses before the next meeting. /6Ga- Design Review Committee August 28, 1986 Page 3 DISCUSSION OF DESIGN REVIEW CODE RECOMMENDATIONS This item was deferred until the next Committee meeting. COMMITTEE INFORMATION ice from the on i Cain distributed City Development a not Grant projects iAnyememberr withtproject unitideas sNeeds bout ho ld I. notify Cain, preferablock y before the next meeting. The September meeting was scheduled for September 18 at was p.m. The demon- I; stration of the proposed new City Plaza light fixture was set for Thursday, September 11, at 8:00 p.m. at either the Clinton or Dubuque Street end of the Plaza. Cain will notify ORC members of the exact location. The meeting adjourned at 5:20 p.m. l Minutes submitted by Christine Mullen. ! {' I r I City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM - Date: September 4, 1986 To: Terry Trueblood, Parks & Recreation Department From: Patt Cain, Associate planner Qv i Re: First National Bank Island Landscaping Plans As you know, First National Bank officials have asked the City if they may refurbish the landscaped island in front of their bank on East Washington Street. Specifically, they suggested that they install paving brick over the grass and bare areas, similar to the mini -park surface across the street. The island is unsightly at present, 'partially because of the pedestrian traffic across it. On August 28, the Design Review Committee discussed the Bank's offer. All members agreed that the area needs relandscaping and all appreciated the bank's initia- tive. The Committee did not attempt to develop a specific landscaping plan but did determine elements which would coordinate with the existing streetscape and lead to a design solution for this island. These elements are: 1. Use angled brick to define the edges of the island, somewhat like the island to the Bout west. Timbers were not recommended for this as they are not used at all in the streetscape design, only in the Plaza area. 2. Within the island, grade should be maintained to protect the ash tree, and mulch and wood chips should be used between plantings as recommended by Sherri Thomas. 3. Additional plantings should be added toward the east of the island. Bushes, low growing shrubs and perhaps a small tree (in proportion to the buildings) were suggested. Committee members did not approve of the use of brick pavers in the island. Mem- bers felt that bricking the area would encourage pedestrian traffic through the island and thus endanger the public by making jaywalking more attractive just east of a busy intersection. The Committee also noted that installing brick pavers within the island would introduce a completely new design element for the streetscape islands and could also harm the existing healthy ash tree. These comments should provide guidance in designing a specific landscaping plan for this island. DRC members will be glad to review any designs prior to imple- mentation. If you need additional information or assistance from me, just call (5235). bj4/5 cc: Dale Helling Don Schmeiser /to e0Z PRELIMINARY MINUTES Subject to Approval DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1986 - 4:00 P.M. IOWA CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY - ROOM B MEMBERS PRESENT: Alexander, Amert, Eckholt, Haupert, Nagle, Novick, Seiberling, Sinek, Summerwill, Welt MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Cain, Rockwell, Hoover GUESTS PRESENT: John Gross, Downtown Association Representative; Laura Madewell and Dan Van Wert, Hansen Lind Meyer; Mark Thompson, First National Bank; Jacqueline Foertsch, Iowa City Press -Citizen. RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL The Committee recommends that the City Council approve the canopy sign design for Plaza Centre One, contingent on the sign's meeting the City's sign regulations. The Committee recommends that the City Council allow the First National Bank to reconstruct the landscaped islands in front of the bank on East Washington Street with: (1) the eastern island shortened by one sidewalk section, but with the same configuration, and both islands edged with slanted brick; and (2) the island ground cover and trees be consistent with the existing street landscaping and contingent upon approval of the planting plan by the Parks and Recreation Department. The Committee recommends that the City Council approve the concept of first story storefront windows along the new west facade of the Paul -Helen Building (if such windows are desired by a tenant). CALL TO ORDER AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Eckholt called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. Alexander moved to approve the minutes of the August 28 meeting. Sinek seconded. The motion passed unanimously. DISCUSSION OF PLAZA CENTRE ONE SIGN PROPOSAL Laura Madewell, Hansen Lind Meyer, displayed a drawing of the proposed signage for Plaza Centre One. She noted that this is the second proposed design and reminded the Committee that the original design, two monument signs, failed to meet the City's regulations. Madewell explained that the new signage is incorporated into a remodeled canopy. The canopy will be gray aluminum with a blue reveal (stripe) and internally illuminated lettering in white. She added that the first floor lobby space will be remodeled and color coordinated to match the proposed signage. The lower canopy edge will be eight inches tall and have five panels ,with building tenants' names on them. Design Review Committee September 18, 1986 Page 2 Nagle commented that this proposal was more attractive than the previous (monument) design. Seiberling inquired about the style of the typeface to be used. Madewell explained that each tenant would use its own logo, with five tenants (i.e. logo types) shown across the front of the canopy. Alexander questioned the consequences if a tenant was to move from the building at a later date. Madewell indicated that the sign is designed with removable panels upon which the logos are printed. Cain stated that there is a 12 square foot maximum on total graphic area allowed on the canopy by City ordinance. Amert inquired about the size of the letters. Van Wert stated that the largest will be six inches tall. Welt questioned the legibility of the letters from a distance. Madewell stated that when the building is ap- proached, passersby can discern the names on the sign. Eckholt called for a motion regarding the proposed signage. Haupert moved that the Design Review Committee recommend Council approval of the canopy sign contingent on its meeting the City sign regulations. Nagle seconded. Amert said that she liked the colors of the sign. She expressed concern, however, about the complexity of the sign with its variety of different type styles in the small space. She asked whether (assuming each tenant asked for different logotypes) the spacing between logos would be consis- tent. Van Wert and Madewell both assured Amert that the copy would be visually centered and would appear consistent. Novick stated that if logo sizes vary, the spaces between the copy would necessarily vary if each was centered on a separate removable panel. Welt questioned the ease with which the panels could be interchanged if the necessary. Madewell noted that ease of interchangeability is built into sizeslgAnert inquired as the individual the proposedanels in the placementfof the the iHardee's logn are of ouon the sign. Madewell noted that this too would be on the north and south canopy sides and at the east end of each. Eckholt unanimously. called Sumnerwill andoEckholtn thepstatedl thatroosa. Thethe rfirm of Hanseealier motion na aLind Meyer should be comiendd for their efforts on the sign. DISCUSSION OF THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK ISLAND LANDSCAPING PROPOSAL Cain explained that the agenda sent earlier had been amended to include this item. She introduced Mark Thompson of the First National Bank and reminded the Committee of the bank's offer to refurbish the island in front of its building. She noted that the bank wants to renovate the island this fall, and that Mark Thompson had come to the meeting prepared to present more ideas about the landscaping project. Cain showed blueprints of the existing streetscape. She stated that the Committee needed to recommend a design for the island shape and at least a landscaping concept for the plantings so Council action could be scheduled for September 30. Design Review Committee September 18, 1986 Page 3 -I Cain showed Committee members a drawing of the existing island. She said one proposal was to install brick diagonally along the island edges and plant new trees and low, prickly ground cover, which would discourage traffic across the islands. Cain passed out a second diagram of the island showing the bank's proposal to shorten the island. Cain noted that the east edge of the island could come to a point (as several other islands in the downtown area follow this design) or could be shortened to correspond to the diagonal section of sidewalk north of the island. Thompson noted that this design would be consistent with the existing streetscape. Seiberling noted that, with the automatic teller machine now in place at First National Bank, an adjustment of the landscape is justified. She stated that it seemed as though consistency might be best achieved by moving the eastern island boundary to the west a distance of one sidewalk section. Sumnerwill agreed. Eckholt called for a motion. Haupert moved that the City Council approve an island design whereby the diagonal line one sidewalk section -to the west is extended to form the eastern boundary of the island (thus shorten- ing the island area but maintaining the same configuration) and the is- lands are edged with slanted brick like the islands across the street. Seiberling seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Nagle moved that the island ground cover and trees be consistent with the Washington Street streetscape, contingent upon approval of the planting plan by the Department of Parks and Recreation. Haupert seconded. The motion passed unanimously. DISCUSSION OF THE AMENDED FACADE DESIGN FOR THE PAUL -HELEN BUILDING WEST William Nowysz, architect for the renovation project, showed the Committee a blueprint of the proposed west face of the Paul -Helen Building. He explained the facade and the double -hung "punched" windows to be used in the design. He explained that this design is still being examined by the regional office of the National Park Service. Nowysz pointed out that the original design had shown no windows on the ndows ma orrst mayfnotrthe be actuallytusedafofacder the first He saidtfloor, depending onhat the storefrt �the first floor tenant. But the building owner wanted to have the necessary City approvals in case windows were requested. Cain expressed surprise that the proposed first floor windows were store- front windows, rather than several double hung ones. She wondered whether the Office of Historic Preservation would go along with this proposal, as that office was insistent about the design of the second story windows. /jD,64 Design Review Committee September 18, 1986 Page 4 Summerwill moved that the Committee recommend Council approval of the concept of first story storefront windows along the west facade (if de- sired by a tenant). Seiberling seconded. The vote was nine in favor, none opposed, with Amert abstaining. She explained that a co-worker is the building owner. DISCUSSION OF MINI -PARK REDESIGN Eckholt stated that the public meeting to elicit ideas, wishes, etc., regarding the redesign of the plaza mini -park will be held Monday, Septem- ber 22. A site review of the mini -park is to be held just prior to that meeting, Eckholt explained. Cain introduced Melody Rockwell, CDBG staff member, who is coordinating the redesign project. Cain noted that Rockwell has been gathering ideas and opinions about how the mini -park should function by attending meetings of interested groups, like Project Green and other City commissions. Cain stated that this item, is on the agenda in order that Committee members discuss their concerns and ideas about how the space should be used. Cain explained that Rockwell will report the results of the several public discussions regarding the mini -park to the City Council. The City Council will send whatever it approves to the architect, William Nowysz. Eckholt briefly discussed the history of the mini -park. Summerwill stated that she didn't see the need for a stage, as had been proposed by others earlier in the opinion gathering process. Rockwell stated that those who had proposed the inclusion of a stage saw it as a rallying point -- the stage itself, if built, would take up a minimal amount of space. Seiberling stated that she didn't believe there is a real need for a stage; she felt it is useful to keep the area open as a small space for people to gather. She said the space should be integrated into the exist- ing greenway of the City Plaza. Eckholt stated that he fears the area will be overdesigned. He wants the area to be orto set upsexh bits. Eckholt pstated that he belie ed ce ahthatoa general agreement exists among Committee members that the design of the park be consistent with the general City Plaza area and integrated with it. Seiberling stated that some larger trees in the area would be nice for shade in the summer months. Nagle stated that he'd like to see pedestrian traffic flow easily through the area. Novick stated a preference to have the walkway leading to the proposed Paul -Helen Building west side entrance be defined rather than vague (to prevent crossing the larger side areas of the park). Seiberling added that the important thing is to make the mini -park a part of the whole area. She stressed the need to plan properly at this time for the integration of the park and the surrounding area. Eckholt agreed, saying that he doesn't want the park to appear as separate from the adja- cent area. Novick stated that she'd like to remove the concept of the Aaak h r Design Review Committee September 18, 1986 Page 5 landscaped "wall" as pictured in the blueprint. Eckholt said he'd be in favor of changing the sidewalk plan to make travel in the area irregular, rather than in a straight line. Cain restated the time and place of the public meeting on this issue. She urged all members of the Committee who are able to come to do so. Rockwell stated that while discussions at meetings of other groups indi- cate the design of the park should be consistent with the surrounding area, there is also some desire to have the park set apart as a quiet place. Cain said that if the group has specific recommendations at this time to make to the City Council, they should do so today, as the staff plans to there was send rno tneed foration on tseparatelbOctober 15. recomm ndati ns atCthisttee stageeinthe eagreed proc- ess . DISCUSSION OF DESIGN REVIEW CODE RECOMMENDATIONS Eckholt said that the Design Review Committee needs to set up a special meeting to deal with this issue as there has been little time for it at the regular monthly meetings. Consensus was reached on a meeting time of Wednesday, October 8, at 4:00 p.m., for discussion of this topic. DISCUSSION OF DETERMINATION OF PROPOSALS FOR USE OF 1987 CDBG FUNDS Comnittee members did not suggest any projects for use of CDBG funds for 1987. COMMITTEE INFORMATION Cain noted that the new light fixture proposed for City Plaza arrived and is installed on the Dubuque Street leg of the Plaza. She asked when Committee members could attend a demonstration of the new light. The bulbs. Cain lacements are said that this demonstrationhts ecouldnbe hcheduleduaftermercury mini -park meeting on the evening of September 22. The Committee agreed. ADJOURNMENT Sinek moved that the meeting be adjourned p.m. Minutes submitted by Jim Hoover. The meeting adjourned at 5:16 -I MINUTES COMMITTEE ON COMMUNITY NEEDS AUGUST 19, 1986 - 3:30 PM IOWA CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Barfuss, Cooper, Kubby, Kuhn, Leshtz, Parden, Rawland, Snider MEMBERS ASENT: Becker, McCoy, Patrick STAFF PRESENT: Milkman, Nugent, Rockwell, Van Steenhuyse RECOM E"TIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL: i 1. CCN recommends that the Community Development Plan for 1987-1989 be approved as a policy guide for allocation of CDBG funds. 2. CCN recommends that the Citizen Participation Plan, as amended by the 1983 amendments to the Community Development Act of 1974, be approved. CALL TO ORDER: Kubby called the meeting to order at 4:37. Kubby introduced new committee members James Barfuss and Anne Rawland. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Milkman suggested that page 2 of the July 15 minutes which refer to the Crisis Center/Food Bank Facility be changed from "the property appraisal for the Crisis Center was "too high" to "very high." Parden moved to approve the minutes as amended. Kuhn seconded. The motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC/IEMIER DISCUSSION: None. REVIEW AID DISCUSSION OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RAN FOR 1987-89: Nugent said that the City Council will take action on the Community Develop- ment Plan in early October. Parden asked about item 2 on page ten, referring to cooperative housing. She asked if they were primarily for students. Milkman said that the CCN had a request from the River City Housing Coopera- tive several years ago. They were turned down because they had not proven that they were financially stable. She said that they are more stable now. Barfuss added that the co-op houses in Iowa City have several non -students living in them, and are of benefit to low- and moderate -income persons. Parden said that she did not object to their inclusion. I Committee on Community Needs August 19, 1986 Page 2 a Rawland suggested that the maps in the plan show the location of the parks mentioned. Parden said that adding too much detail would make the maps difficult to read. No changes were made to the maps. Parden moved that the Community Development plan be approved as a policy guide for future allocation of CDBG funds. Kuhn seconded. The motion car- ried unanimously. Kubby asked that staff advise the CCN members as to the date when the City Council will take action on the plan. REVIEW OF THE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN FOR IOWA CITY AS AMENDED: Kubby pointed out the amendments on page 3 of the Citizen Participation Plan. She said that while they, had been already approved by the CCN, it was neces- sary to recommend that they be approved by the City Council. Milkman added that the recommendation is important for the Council as well as CCN, as it would insure that the Council realizes citizen involvement is required when changes are made to the CDBG budget allocations. Kubby asked what was meant by "timetables and procedures" on page 2, number 2. Nugent said that the timetables include items such as meeting agendas and notices, and that procedures include the Program Statements sent to HUD. Leshtz moved that the CCN recommend that the City Council approve the Citizen Participation Plan as amended. Kuhn seconded. The motion carried unani- mously. DISCUSSION OF 1987 PROGRAN STATEMENT PREPARATION: Kubby asked for member participation in distributing information on CDBG funding hearings, in buses, stores, and laundromats, etc. Nugent reminded the Committee that CCN members can make proposals for CDBG funds. Kubby noted that most of the proposals in recent years have come from human service agencies, and wondered how the CCN could help to broaden the types of re- quests for CDBG funds. Rawland suggested that advertisements be placed in the Daily Iowan as well as the Press -Citizen. She noted that many low- and moderate -income persons read the Daily Iowan, which is free to University students and staff, rather than the Press -Citizen. Cooper suggested that leaders of neighborhood organizations be notified. She also suggested placing ads in the Senior Post, the Senior Center newsletter. Nugent said that it was too late to meet their September deadline. Parden suggested having them write a story on the CDBG program for the paper. Parden said that she felt that the CCN and CDBG staff does a good enough job in informing the public about the CDBG program. She said that the CCN re- ceives too many unqualified requests as it is, and too much advertising may increase this. Kubby said that the CCN should prioritize the requests it receives. Lower availability of funds make prioritizing more important. Parden asked what is required by HUD in granting funding requests. Milkman answered that, if possible, they want a balance of types of requests and of types of groups requesting funds. Leshtz said that he felt last year's funding was balanced. Milkman agreed. 110,03 Committee on Community Needs August 19, 1986 Page 3 Kubby asked if the members were happy with the prioritizing scheme used the previous year. She asked if they would be interested in a weighting scheme. Nugent said that she would work with Marge Penny to come up with a system for a weighting scheme. Leshtz asked if the members liked the "straw poll" used in last year's considerations. Kuhn said she like it, as did Kubby. She said that the "low -medium-high" method of consideration made it easy for the members to determine how much time should be given to discussion of each item. Nugent added that the straw poll method is especially effective if the members come prepared with their votes already decided before the meeting. Milkman reminded members indnst a proposal should be donewiththe objectivesofthe CDBG program in mind. Kubby mentioned the problem of on-going projects. While funds are only allocated for one year, there is often an unspoken commitment to continue funding for some projects in subsequent years. She asked if such projects should be funded at the same level as in the past. She also outlined the problems with funding capital building projects and suggested that capital projects be funded by giving the CDBG funds as loans. This would generate funds for the program in a time of dwindling federal funds. Parden said that it would take a long time to get any money back from loaned funds. She said that such projects should have higher priority than capital projects that ask for the funds outright, however. Cooper said it may couraged. Leshtz ple, it's unlikely be better if continuing projects were more strongly dis- said that Goodwill continuing grequ est Punds for reuess are a thirdiyear. exam- Kubby suggested that projects which receive funds on a loan basis receive a higher priority than capital projects which requests funds outright. Milkman said that the application materials could contain a clause which emphasizes the will beegivenitobprojects whichacanurepaynthetspecial consideration CDBG program. Kubby asked if the timetable for soliciting requests was reasonable. She noted that some of it is contingent upon the City Council agenda. Nugent added that television coverage will be provided for the Sept. 16 and Sept. 29 CitCo meetings. he also askeds of if he thegroCCwasethat it�th wasthe beneficialuncil was benefi- cial Milkman asked if the neighborhood meetings should be held. Kubby said that they had been less than successful in the past. Cooper suggested asking if the leaders of the neighborhood organizations want such meetings. Milkman suggested that this be done soon. Kubby suggested that a meeting with neigh- borhood leaders be held on September 3. Nugent said that it wasn't necessary for all of the members to attend. Cooper, Kubby and Rawland all volunteered to attend. Kubby reminded Cooper and Parden that their terms as CCNMembersmembers were will eexpire in September, as well as Becker's. They may re -apply. aged to ask qualified persons to apply. 1104,3 ai Committee on Community Needs August 19, 1986 Page 4 QUARTERLY REPORTS FOR AUGUST: S stems Unlimited Grou Homes: Becker was to have given the report for Systems, Unlimited. Mi :man said that the project is moving ahead. Most of the funds allocated were used for acquiring the property for the group homes. The remainder will be used for site improvements. Residential Accessibilit Pro'ect: Rockwell said that there were seven proJec s curren y eing wore on, with three others in the bidding stages. Most of these are for widening driveways, building ramps, and installing bars around toilets. yy�� that i ral ee Theu receer ra ns have Cooper said laying t cement for newedrivewayseand sidewalks. They have been trying to install new cabinets and floors while working around other projects. The sewers are expected to go in this week. Despite the delays, they expect to have the project completed by the November deadline. ADJOLMIENT: Kuhn moved that the meeting be adjourned. The meeting was adjourned at 4:44, by acclamation. Minutes submitted by Steven J. Van Steenhuyse. P- /4 a3