Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-02-28 Bd Comm. minutesMINUTES OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY/IOWA CITY AIRPORT ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 25, 1984 IOWA CITY CIVIC CENTER MEMBERS PRESENT: BLUM, DONNELLY, LACINA, TIFFANY, PERRY STAFF PRESENT: Zehr, Boyle, TePaske, Schmeiser GUESTS PRESENT: A. Lehely, J. Beal, J. Pelchic, B.Mickel, C. Ruppert Meeting was called,to order at 7:05 p.m. by chairman Blum. The minutes of the Last meeting were considered and moved for acceptance by Donnelly and seconded by Tiffany. All voted aye. There being no public input, bylaws for the commission were discussed. It was moved by Tiffany and seconded by Perry that a sub committee should be formed to review the matter as more information became available. The bylaws will be discussed further at the next meeting. Don Schmeiser reviewed the airport overlay zoning ordinance now in effect by the city and answered questions over some of the finer points of the ordinance. Discussion followed on the effects the ordinance will have on the city and the county. Chairman Blum asked all members of the commission to develop a list of uses that should be limited in the clear zone and present them at the next meeting. The similarities in the names of the existing Iowa City Airport Commission and the Iowa City Airport Zoning Commission were discussed. It was felt that it would be very confussing having such similar titles for the two bodies. It was moved by Lacina and seconded by Tiffany that "the name of the Iowa City Airport Zoning Commission should be changed to Johnson County / Iowa City Airport Zoning Commission. " All voted aye. Meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. �Ab III MUTES RESOURCES CONSERVATION COMMISSION P FEBRUARY 13, 984 CIVIC CENTER - LAW LIBRARY APP MEMBERS PRESENT: Vogel, Levy, Parsons, Singerman MEMBERS ABSENT: Sheehan, Gartland, Mc Peak STAFF PRESENT: Webb GUESTS: Robert Dvorsky APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of the meeting of December 12, 1983, were approved by consen- sus as presented. FRANCHISE PROPOSAL REVIEW: Among the relevant elements of discussion, the Commission updated new member Ron Vogel on some of the thinking that has gone into reaching a consensus toward recommendations to the Council on franchise matters. The Chair established that a draft statement would be ready for the February 27th .special meeting to review and act on. Otherwise, no motions were made or votes taken. OTHER BUSINESS: The Chair informed the Commission of the Annual Report of the Commissions he recently attended before the Council and that short-range R.C.C. business concerned formulating a recommendations) on utility franchise matters, and in the long-range that the need still remained for a Commu- nity Energy study/plan. The next (special) meeting of the Resources Conservation Commission was set for Monday, February 27, 1984 at 7:30 pm in the Law Library. Meeting adjourned at 8:40 pm. Tom Gartland, Secretary Minutes prepared by: Richard Webb, Energy Coordinator ,307 �IhL31 _ ' i �ili�j:D� '?u .�y�ifuVSi MINUTES i1 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 26, 1984 CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Jakobsen, Perry, Jordon, Scott, Courtney, Blank, Boyle MEMBERS ABSENT: Horowitz STAFF PRESENT: Franklin, Boyle, McCormick SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: Chairperson Scott called the meeting to order at 7:35. There was no public discussion of any item not on the agenda. CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 17 AND DECEMBER 1, 1983: Scott suggested the following amendments to the minutes of November 17, 1984: Page 2, in paragraph three, change "limiting to two points access off the eight acre tract" to "limiting to two access tract." points off the eight acre Page 4, Seward's letter of resignation was to become effective February 1, 1984 "or when a successor was chosen whichever occurs first." Jordan moved and Jakobsen seconded to approve the amended minutes of November 17. The motion carried unanimously. i Jakobsen moved and Perry seconded to approve the minutes of December 1, 1983. The motion carried unanimously. iSUBDIVISION ITEMS: 1. S-8401. Public discussion of an application submitted by Business Development, Inc. for the preliminary subdivision of 25.8 acres, called BDI, Fifth Addition, off Heinz Road extended; 45 -day limitation period: j 2/24/84. Franklin stated that all discrepancies originally noted in the staff report were addressed. It was found that the specifications for the Swale s were not the same as those stated in BDI, Part 2, in which the design for storm water management was included. Calculations are required to show that the Swale will handle the same amount of flow as the original design. It was recommended that approval be made subject to resolution of the flowage requirements. John Schumacher, Shive-Hattery Associates, agreed with the above recom- mendations. Jordan moved to approve S-8401, BDI Fifth Addition, subject to resolution of Swale drainage design. Seconded by Perry. Motion carried unani- mously. M9 0 1 Planning & Zoning Commission January 26, 1984 Page 2 2. S-8402. Public discussion of an application submitted by Jomac Develop- ment Co. for the final subdivision of 50.8 acres, called the Highlander Development, First Addition, in the northeast quadrant of the Highway H1/I-80 intersection; 45 -day limitation period: 2/25/84; 60 -day limita- tion period: 3/12/84. Franklin stated that the secondary access questions have not been resolved to date and formai action should be withheld until the February 9, 1984 meeting. Chairperson Scott recommended a motion to defer any action until the February 9, 1984, meeting regarding S-8402. Moved by Perry, seconded by Blank. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). It was suggested by Jakobsen that it would help to have all previous minutes relating to the discussion of the preliminary plat prior to the next meeting. VACATIONS AND EASEMENTS: I 1. V-8401. Public discussion of a request submitted by West Side co. for the vacation of a public highway easement along Mormon Trek Boulevard Realigned. Franklin stated that this public highway easement was granted to IDOT in the name of the county at the time Highway 218 and Mormon Trek Realigned were being constructed. The City iias subsequently annexed this property. West Side Development Co., who owns the land, has requested that the City vacate the easement. The City staff has determined that the entire easement is no longer needed, as there is a dedicated right-of-way for Mormon Trek Boulevard and for West Side Drive, the necessary utility and sewer easements and access easements off of Mormon Trek. Staff recommen- dation is for the approval of this vacation. Jim Houghton suggested using the legal description submitted for West Side Company for the benefit of the motion. Perry asked if there was sufficient room in the 80 foot dedicated right-of-way for acceleration and decerlation lanes, if they became necessary. Franklin stated that there was sufficient room in the 80' right-of-way. Jakobsen moved to recommend vacation of the public highway easement excluding all sewer and utility easements and the two access easements south of Mormon Trek; the 80' right-of-way at the Mormon Trek Boulevard Realigned and the 60' right-of-way for West Park Drive as shown on the final plans; seconded by Jordan. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). A motion was made to amend S-8401 to include a waiver of the sidewalk requirements. Motion moved by Jakobsen and seconded by Blank. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). Planning 8 Zoning Commission January 26, 1984 Page 3 2. Public dicussion of a request submitted by Mr. and Mrs. William Hahn of 1621 Wilson Street for an access easement over the vacated right-of-way of William White Boulevard. Franklin stated that she had spoken with Keith Borchart, the Hahn's attorney regarding this right-of-way that the City had vacated but never disposed of. This area has been used as open space for many years and to grant any easements across it would impede the use as open space. The Hahn's major concern was the keeping of this area as open space. At one time this area was considered for low-income housing; the proposal was rejected by the City Council. The Housing Coordinator would not consider reopening this issue. It was recommended that this easement not be granted. It was also recommended that the area be considered by the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Council for designation as open space. Keith Borchart stated that his client's concern was that the space be protected as an open space. Boyle stated that the Parks and Recreation -does not designate an area of less than five acres as a park and that the City's liability may be a factor in determining an official "open space" area. A motion was made that the request for an access easement over the vacated right-of-way of William White Boulevard be granted. Moved by Jordan, -seconded by Perry. The motion was denied (0-6). Jakobsen moved that a request be made for staff assistance to discuss with Parks and Recreation the open space concept; second by Courtney. The motion was approved unanimously (6-0). OTHER BUSINESS: 1. Public discussion of revisions to the design requirements of the off-street parking regulations of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 36-58C). Franklin stated that the final interpretation of the Zoning Code Panel that was previously requested was not completed. It is expected that there will be no changes; however, no formal decision has been made. Franklin also stated that some language changes had been made. The major points concerning the use of the lot and number of spaces required on the lot were unchanged. The provision for parking spaces 5' from a ground floor door or window of a princip�aI building was revised to: "No parking space shall be located closer t ground floor doorway or window of a principal building the ground floor or basement of which is used as a residence." Franklin suggested that the item be deferred to the next formal meeting to permit the customary two meetings on an ordinance change. Planning & Zoning Commission January 26, 1984 Page 4 Motion made to approve the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance 36-58C. Moved by Perry, seconded by Jordan. Perry questioned whether cars could be parked up to a blank wall. Franklin responded that they could if it is a blank wall. An amending motion was made to defer the issue until the next meeting. Jakobsen moved; seconded by Perry. Scott stated that he felt there was no need for deferral of the item. He argued that the changes carried out the original intent of the Commission and were therefore not a significant change. Franklin responded that the enforcement of the ordinance would change considerably since anything larger than a 4-plex would no longer be able to have any parking spaces exiting onto an alley. She suggested that this may have an impact on infill development. Discussion followed of the effect of the changes and the need for additional time for review and public comment. iMotion to approve revisions to off-street parking. Vote 3/3; motion died. Motion made by Jakobsen; seconded by Perry, to defer this item to 2/9/84. 6/0 approved. Scott stated that the language in the provision dealing with windows and I doors appears awkward. Jakobsen moved to rescind the motion made on January 5, 1984, to appeal to the Board of Adjustment the issuance of the building permit on 505 South Johnson. Perry seconded. Approved 6-0. Planning & Zoning Commission business. A letter was received from Eleanor Trummel asking the Commission to jpublish notice of the format meeting before the date of the meeting. Adjourned 8:30 P.M. Minutes taken by Colleen or jApproved by: Horst Jordan, Sec r y hh�dl MINUTES HOUSING APPEALS BOARD DECEMBER 13, 1983 MEMBERS PRESENT: Fred Krause, Beth Ringgenberg, Al Logan, Janet Schlechte, Danel Trevor, Charlene Knox 14EMBERS ABSENT: Goldene Haendel STAFF PRESENT: David Malone, Kelley Vezina, David Brown, Larry Kinney, Judy Hoard SUMMARY OF DICUSSION AND ACTION TAKEN: Krause called the meeting to order. Ringgenberg made a motion to approve the minutes of the November 8, 1983, meeting. Schlechte seconded the motion. The motion carried. APPEAL OF DAVID SMITH, 200 SOUTH SUMMIT: Present: None. . A letter had been submitted to the Appeals Board members from Mr. Smith's attorney, Angela Ryan, requesting a continuation of the appeal to the January 10, 1984, Appeals Board meeting. In the letter to the Board Ms. Ryan stated that the violation that was the basis for the appeal would- be corrected between the December and January meetings. Logan made a motion to grant an extension to January 10, 1984. Krause seconded the motion. The motion carried. APPEAL OF TOM MARTIN, 203 RIVER: Present: Tom Martin Inspector Malone explained that the violation being appealed was Chapter 17-4 lack of valid certificate of structure compliance and rental permit. The j Housing Appeals Board had heard this appeal at the September 8, 1983, meeting and at that time had deferred a decision for 30 days to allow Mr. Martin an opportunity to check with the Zoning Inspector. Mr. Martin told the Board that at the time he had purchased the property a year ago in September he was unaware of the problems involving the usage of the basement dwelling unit. He told them that he did own the adjoining property and that there was parking available there for the usage of the occupants of 203 River Street. Mr. Martin further explained that he had been unable to get on the Board of Adjustment agenda before he had to return to Florida earlier this fall to care for his elderly parents. He said that there was a rather lengthy procedure involved as far as notifying owners of adjoining properties of the zoning request change. Assistant City Attorney David Brown recommended that the Board consider granting an extension pending Zoning Code changes. Schlechte made a motion to grant an extension to Chapter 17-4 lack of valid certificate of structure compliance and rental permit to July 1, 1984. Ringgenberg seconded the motion. The motion carried. Housing Appeals Board December 13, 1983 Page 2 APPEAL OF TOM MARTIN, 223 SOUTH JOHNSON: Present: Tom Martin. Inspector David Malone reported that he conducted a complaint inspection at 223 South Johnson on August 18, 1983. The violations appealed were Chapter 17-7.B. accessory structure not maintained in good state of repair. The two story wood frame structure to the west side of the lot is unpainted and has some rotten boards, Chapter 17-7.F. 'exterior wood surface unprotected from the elements. Several places on the exterior are observed to have no paint or peeling paint and Chapter 17-7.A.(4) window not maintained in good and functional condition, sash cords on west basement dwelling unit window are broken. Mr. Martin told the Board that the building had not been painted for a number of years and felt that Inspector Malone had had pressure put on him to take some action on the building. Inspector Malone stated that the exterior painting violation would be granted an extension to May 15, 1984, before correction of the violations would be due. Mr. Martin stated that he felt the complaint process was unfair and could be used personally against him as he was an attorney and it could be possible that a person he may have prosecuted previously could through the complaint process seek revenge against him. In this particular case he told the Board that a friend of the tenant had initiated the complaint process who did not actually live at the premises. Assistant City Attorney Brown explained that it was the obligation of the inspector to receive all complaints and to investigate them and, that it was not necessary to find out with whom the complaint originated. Mr. Martin expressed his concern about the complaint inspection process stating that the property had within 20 days of the complaint inspection received a -y licensing inspection. Inspector Malone stated that the complaint inspection was limited to those violations pointed out to him by the complainant and that he did not inspect the entire building again. Assistant Attorney Brown further stated that a complaint inspection could be done at any time regard- less of the proximity of a previous licensing inspection. Mr. Martin did not feel that it was proper that the sash cords on the west basement dwelling unit were cited as violations as he knew that there were other windows in the house that also had broken sash cords. Schlechte made a motion to uphold all three violations including Chapter 17-7.A.(4) window not maintained in good and functional condition, Chapter 17-7.B. accessory structure not maintained in good state of repair and Chapter 17-7.F. exterior wood surface unprotected from the elements. Ringgenberg seconded the motion. The motion carried. APPEAL OF HAYWOOD BELLE, 222-22 1/2 PRENTISS: Present: Haywood Belle, Inspector Dave Malone reported that he conducted a licensing inspection at 222-22 1/2 East Prentiss Street on July 26, 1983. The appeal had been filed late but at an earlier Appeals Board meeting the Board had voted to grant appeal rights to Mr. Belle. The violation appealed is Chapter 17-5.N.(4) lack of required minimum seven foot ceiling height. The second story bedrooms have ceiling heights from 6'5 1/4" down to 5'. Mr. Belle told the Board that he had purchased the property four years ago and at that time was not aware of any ceiling height violations. During the time he has owned the property he had not received any complaints from the tenants regarding the ceiling height. He did not feel that raising the roof was a practical 30 Housing Appeals Board December 13, 1983' Page 3 sol.ution to complying with the Housing Code. He felt that he was making an attempt to comply with the requirements of the Code as he had corrected the other violation cited. Logan made a motion to grant a variance to Chapter 17-5.N.(4) lack of required seven foot minimum ceiling height. Ringgenberg seconded the motion. The motion carried. APPEAL OF MICHAEL HODGE, 115 NORTH DUBUQUE Present: Michael Hodge Inspector David Malone reported that he conducted a licensing inspection at 115 North Dubuque on September 28, 1983. The violation appealed was Chapter 17-6.A. lack of required access. Apartments A, B, C, F, G, H and 0 are so designed that the second bedroom in line acts as a passageway and access between habitable rooms. Inspector Malone reported to the Board that the previous housing code did not require the same access provisions as the present code. He stated also that the floor arrangement had not changed since 1919 and that the second bedroom did have a door that accessed into the public hallway. Mr. Hodge reported that he had purchased the building a year ago and had an inspection done prior to the purchase and at that time no violation was cited. Krause made a motion to grant a variance to Chapter 17-6.A. lack of required access. Schlechte seconded the motion. The motion carried. APPEAL OF JAMES AND BETTY KLEIN, 509 THIRD AVENUE Present: Betty Klein 140 Inspector David Malone reported that he conducted the licensing inspection at 503 Third Avenue on October 24, 1983. The two violations being appealed are both under Chapter 17-5.I.(2)(a) lack of required handrail. The first violation is the stairs to the second floor lack a handrail. Mrs. Klein told the Board that the stairway was very narrow and she felt that it would be a i problem to install a handrail that would take up further space. She did indicate that the stairway was steep. Schlechte made a motion to uphold Chapter 17-5.I.(2)(a) stairs to second floor lack a handrail. Ringgenberg seconded the motion. The motion carried. The next violation appealed under Chapter 17-5.1 (2)(a) was the first set of steps leading to the basement with four risers did not have a handrail. Inspector Malone explained to the Board that the door had been installed flush against the wall and that when it was closed and opened it would be very difficult to install a handrail that would allow the door to move. He said that if there were casing around the door frame this would not be a problem but because of the unusual installation of the door the installation of a handrail would be difficult. Mrs. Klein told the Board that she rents to a family with three children and she thinks it is more important to have the door present than it would be to install a handrail as she felt she would have to make a choice between the door or the handrail. She also stated that this door serves as protection from the outside weather elements. Krause made a motion to grant a variance to Chapter 17-5.I.(2)(a) lack of required handrail on the first set of steps leading to the basement. Schlechte seconded the motion. The motion carried. 3139 ■ Housing Appeals Board December 13, 1983 Page 4 APPEAL OF DOM FRANCO, 630 IOWA AVENUE Present: Mike Waltz Inspector David Malone reported that he conducted a licensing inspection at 630 Iowa Avenue on October 26, 1983. The violations being appealed are Chapter 17-5.J.(1) lack of required natural light and Chapter 17-5.K.(2)(b) lack of required natural ventilation, the southeast room has no windows. Mr. Waltz explained to the Board that a closet had been put in the room thus closing off a window that had been present previously. He felt that if skylights were to be installed there would be a problem with them. When questioned as to whether or not a building permit had been issued to make this alteration in the room he stated that none had been applied for. Assistant City Attorney Brown explained to the Board that this particular violation had, in fact, been created by the appellant. Logan made a motion to grant a variance to Chapters 17-5.J.(1) and 17-5.K.(2)(b). There was no second to the motion. Logan withdrew his motion. Schlechte then made a motion to uphold Chapter 17-5.J.(I) lack of required natural light and 17-5.K.(2)(b) lack of required natural ventilation. Trevor seconded the motion. The motion carried. Krause then made a motion to grant an extension to June 1, 1984, to correct the violations. Logan seconded the motion. The motion carried. APPEAL OF BERNIE BYRNE, 916 EAST BURLINGTON Present: None. _ 1V Inspector Kelley Vezina reported to the Board that the appeal had not been filed within the ten day filing period. Logan made a motion to grant appeal rights. Ringgenberg seconded the motion. The motion carried. APPEAL OF ROBERTA UTTERBACK, 525 SOUTH LUCAS Present: None Inspector Kelley Vezina reported that he conducted a licensing inspection at 525 South Lucas on September 26, 1983. The violation being appealed is Chapter 17-5.N.(4) lack of required 7' minimum ceiling height. Basement unit, kitchen has ceiling height of 6'10", living room and bedroom have ceiling heights of 6'8". Schlechte made a motion to grant a variance to Chapter 17-5.N.(4). Krause seconded the motion. The motion carried. APPEAL OF BERNARD BARBER, 119 PEARL Present: Bernard Barber Inspector Kelley Vezina reported that he conducted a licensing inspection at 119 Pearl on October 17, 1983. The violation being appealed was Chapter 17-5.N.(4) lack of required 7' minimum ceiling height. The kitchen ceiling has a ceiling height of 6'4-1/2" sloping down to 6'. Mr. Barber told the Board that in order to correct the violation the kitchen would have to be removed and completely rebuilt. Krause made a motion to grant a variance to Chapter 17-5.N.(4) lack of required 7' minimum ceiling height. Ringgenberg seconded the motion. The motion carried. 3a9 Housing Appeals Board December 13, 1983 Page 5 APPEAL OF BERNARD BARBER, 119 1/2 PEARL Present: Bernard Barber Inspector Kelley Vezina reported that he conducted a licensing inspection at 119 1/2 Pearl on October 17, 1983. The violation being appealed was Chapter 17-5.E. lack of required lavatory basin, bathroom lacks a lavatory. Inspec- tor Vezina reported to the Board that this dwelling unit has previously been a garage that had been converted into habitable space years ago. It is now an efficiency apartment with a small bathroom consisting of a toilet and a shower stall. Mr. Barber told the Board that there was no place to install a lavatory, if such space existed he would have no problem in providing a lavatory. He stated also to the Board that the kitchen sink was located a short distance away from the bathroom. Assistant City Attorney Brown told the Board that according to the Housing Code the lavatory did not need to be contained within the toilet room but could be adjacent to it. Ringgenberg made a motion to grant a variance to Chapter 17-5.E. lack of required lavatory basin. Schlechte seconded the motion. The motion carried. APPEAL OF NORBERT HEIMAN, 1909 MORNINGSIDE Present: Norbert Heiman, Cindy Parsons Inspector Vezina told the Board that this appeal had been heard at the September 8, 1983, Appeals Board meeting and had been continued at that time to allow for previous owners to be located in order to verify the usage of the property. The violation being appealed is Chapter 17-4 lack of certifi- cate of structure compliance and rental permit, basement unit being operated in violation of Chapter 17, Housing Code, and Chapter 8, Zoning Code of the City of Iowa City. Ms. Parsons reported to the Board that the property had been purchased in 1980 as a three-plex and had been rented ever since as three dwelling units. She stated that she had been able to contact previous owners and was told that the property had been rented as three dwelling units from 1962 until 1968. She was unable to locate the owner prior to 1962. She shared with the Board the fact that there was a lease with the tenant currently occupying the basement dwelling unit until June 1, 1984. Inspector Vezina stated that he had inspected the basement dwelling unit but had not officially cited those violations pending the outcome of the appealed violation dealing with the third dwelling unit. He said that there were four other violations in the basement dwelling unit. Ringgenberg made a motion to grant a continuation of Chapter 17-4 lack of certificate of structure compliance and rental permit the violation to June 1, 1984. Krause seconded the motion. The motion carried. APPEAL OF FRANK PAULSON, 814-14 1/2 SOUTH LUCAS Present: None Inspector Vezina told the Board that he had received a message that Mr, Paulson would be unable to attend the meeting and that he might wish to withdraw his appeal. Inspector Vezina recommended that the appeal be continued to the January Appeals Board meeting. At this time Appeals Board member Schlechte left. Krause did not wish to wait until the January meeting 3R9 Housing Appeals Board December 13, 1983 Page 6 to hear the appeal and requested that action be taken on the violations 4 today. All of the violations cited during the licensing inspection of October 19, 1983, are being appealed. Inspector Vezina read a letter from Mr. Paulson dated September 23, 1983, in which he stated that the property had previously been a duplex and had subsequently had remodeling work done during which time the kitchen on the second floor had been removed and a closet installed in that room. Mr. Paulson stated that neither he nor his wife were aware of the fact that the removal of the kitchen had in fact changed the classification or use of the structure and that because of his lack of knowledge the building had been rented to five unrelated people for which he was asking for an extension to the end of the lease to August 1, 1984. Assistant City Attorney Brown told the Board that he felt that the violations involving health and safety should be upheld and required to be corrected within the normal 90 days given for correction of violations. He felt these violations should include Chapter 17-7.I. electrical system not maintained in good and safe working condition and Chapter 17-6.C. lack of or improper location of fire extinguisher. Krause made a motion to uphold all the violations that were appealed from the licensing inspection and to grant an extension to August 1, 1984, for the correction of the violations except Chapter 17-7.I. electrical system not maintained in good and safe working condition and Chapter 17-6.C. lack of or improper location of fire extin- guisher. Ringgenberg seconded the motion. The motion carried. Krause made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Logan seconded the motion. The motion carried. Minutes prepared for Chairperson Fred Cuse by Judy Hoard. J� MINUTES HOUSING APPEALS HOARD �.� JANUARY 10, 1984 MEMBERS PRESENT: Fred Krause, Al Logan, Janet Schlechte, Danel Trevor, Goldene Haendel MEMBERS ABSENT: Beth Ringgenberg STAFF PRESENT: David Malone, Kelley Vezina, Larry Kinney, Michael Kucharzak, Judy Hoard SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION AND ACTION TAKEN: Krause called the meeting to order. The minutes from the previous meeting were not ready for the Board's approval. APPEAL OF MICHAEL HODGE, 30 VALLEY AVENUE: Present: None. Inspector Malone reported to the Board that the appeal had not been filed within the ten day filing period._ Logan made a motion to grant appeal rights. Haendel seconded the motion. The motion carried. APPEAL OF MICHAEL CAMP, 2212 MUSCATINE AVENUE, LOT 5E: Present: Michael Camp. Inspector Malone reported that he conducted a licensing inspection at 2312 Muscatine Avenue, Lot 5E, on December 5, 1983. The violation appealed was Chapter 17-5.N.(3) lack of ,minimum roan size. The farthest south roan from the kitchen being used as a bedroom has 68.87 square feet lacking the minimum 70 square foot requirement. Krause stated that he was under the impression that the Commission had asked for a general variance on this particular violation. Kucharzak replied that it had been determined that the Housing Commission could not initiate a general variance and that a request for a general variance had to cane from a citizen. He stated that a code change could be a consideration and that he would research the matter. Mr. Camp stated that this Mould be a problem with any mobile hone that was 12 feet wide or narrower. Logan made a motion to grant a variance to Chapter 17-5.N.(3) lack of minimum roan size. Schlechte seconded the motion. The motion carried. APPEAL OF WILLIAM GEARHART, 938 MILLER: Present: William Gearhart. Inspector Malone reported that he conducted a licensing inspection at 938 Miller Avenue on November 29, 1983. The first violation being appealed was Chapter 17-5.N.(2) Overcrowding. The property is currently over -occupied by two people, four people is the maximum permissible occupancy. Mr. Gearhart 391 ;I HOUSING APPEALS BOARD JANUARY 10, 1984 PAGE 2 stated that he was not contesting the overcrowding violation but had thought that the violation was of an electrical nature as that is what the violation notice stated that he had received. Logan made a motion to uphold Chapter 17-5.N.(2) overcrowding. Schlechte seconded the motion. The motion carried. The next violation appealed was Chapter 17-5.N.(4) lack of required 7' minimum ceiling height. The second floor has a ceiling height of 6'9". Inspector Malone stated to the Board that there was a 3' flat section of the ceiling with a 6'9" height that sloped down to 51. Krause made a motion to grant a variance to Chapter 17-5.N.(4) lack of required 7' minimum ceiling height. Haendel seconded the motion. The motion carried. The next violation appealed was Chapter 17-7.A.(3) door lock not maintained in good and functional condition. The front door lock assembly is backwards. Inspector Malone stated that during the inspection the tenants registered a complaint about the door lock saying that a credit card could be used to open the door. Mr. Gearhart explained that he had had a locksmith out to work on the lock after the tenants had moved out and had also had a carpenter check to verify that the lock was working properly. He stated that both the locksmith and the carpenter felt the lock was in the proper position and working properly. Logan made a nation to uphold the violation until such time that Mr. Gearhart could furnish written documentation from a qualified locksmith. Haendel seconded the motion. The motion carried. The last violation appealed was Chapter 17-7.A.(5) interior ceiling not maintained such that it may be kept clean and sanitary. The second floor non -habitable area ceiling is waterstained and bulging. Mr. Gearhart reported- to the Board that the ceiling had been inspected earlier in a similar condition and had passed. Inspector Malone stated that the area had been vacated due to the ceiling height violation and now needed to meet different requirements. Haendel made a motion to uphold Chapter 17-7.A.(5) ceiling not maintained such that it may be kept clean and sanitary. Trevor seconded the motion. The motion carried. Krause then made a motion to grant an extension to May 15, 1984, to correct the violation. Haendel seconded the motion. The motion carried. APPEAL OF ELIZABETH KADERA, 811-11 1/2 EAST FAIRCHILD: Present: Arthur Leff, Elizabeth Kadera. Inspector Malone reported that he conducted a licensing inspection at 811-11 1/2 East Fairchild on November 17, 1983. The first violation appealed was Chapter 17-5.I.(2)(a). lack of required handrail. No handrail is observed on the second set of steps up from the first to the second floor. Mr. Leff stated that this violation was not being contested. Schlechte made a motion to uphold Chapter 17-5.I.(2)(a). lack of required handrail. Haendel seconded the motion. The motion carried. The next violation appealed was Chapter 17-6.A. lack of required access. The occupant of the first floor south bedroom has a pass through the adjoining north bedroom to access the rest of the house. Mr. Leff stated that this part of the house was 100 years old and the floor plan has remained un- changed. He explained to the Board that the two bedrooms were arranged such that the occupant of the north bedroom does have use of a full bathroom and that the occupant of the south bedroom has to share one of the accesses into 3a9 HOUSING APPEALS BOARD JANUARY 10, 1984 PAGE 3 the north bedroom. He does not feel that there is a problem with this situation and rather than deprive Mrs. Kadera of the use of one of the bedrooms, he is requesting a variance from the Board. Trevor made a motion to grant a variance to Chapter -17-6.A. lack of required access. Logan seconded the motion. The motion carried. The last violation appealed was Chapter 17-6.D. lack of smoke detector. No smoke detector is observed in either dwelling unit. Mr. Leff stated again that smoke detectors had been purchased and that he had advised Mrs. Kadera not to place the Broke detectors until she had been given instructions as to where to install them. He stated that there was a sprinkler head in every room of the house as it had at one time been used to house women. Schlechte made a motion to uphold Chapter 17-6.D, lack of smoke detector. Haendel seconded the motion. The motion carried. APPEAL OF DUANE MEANS, 515-15 1/2 NORTH DUBUQUE: Present: None. Inspector Vezina reported that he conducted a licensing inspection at 515-15 1/2 North Dubuque Street on November 8, 1983. The violation being appealed was Chapter 17-5.N.(4) lack of required 7' minimum ceiling height. 515 1/2, kitchen ceiling has 6'11" ceiling height. Haendel made a motion to grant a variance to Chapter 17-S.N.(4) lack of required 7' minimum ceiling height. Schlechte seconded the motion. The motion carried. APPEAL OF BERNICE KRI2, 717-17 1/2 EAST MARKET: Present: Bernice.Kriz. Inspector Vezina reported that he conducted a licensing inspection at 717-17 1/2 East Market on November 21, 1983. The violation being appealed was Chapter 17-5.N.(4) lack of required 7' minimum ceiling height. 717 1/2, kitchen ceiling has a ceiling height of 616". Ms. Kriz stated to the Board that she had purchased the property 23 years ago and that she did not feel it would be feasible for her to raise the roof in order to correct a situation that existed on such a small part of the house. Schlechte made a motion to grant a variance to Chapter 17-5.N.(4) lack of required 7' minimum ceiling height. Haendel seconded the motion. The motion carried. APPEAL OF ARTHUR KLOOS, 1120 BURLINGTON: Present: Arthur Kloos. Before Inspector Vezina began his presentation, Trevor stated that she would not be participating in the discussion or vote on this particular appeal. Inspector Vezina reported that he conducted a licensing inspection at 1120 East Burlington on November 29, 1983. The first violation appealed was Chapter 17-5.M.(1) lack of required electrical outlet. The first floor northwest room lacks one convenience outlet and second floor west bedroom lacks one convenience outlet. Mr. Kloos stated that he would correct both violations. Krause made a motion to uphold Chapter 17-5.M.(1) lack of required electrical outlet. Haendel seconded the motion. The motion 14 carried. 3a9 HOUSING APPEALS BOARD JANUARY 10, 1984 PAGE 4 Mr. Kloos stated that he had indicated in his appeal request that he was also appealing Chapter 17-6.C. lack of fire extinguisher. Haendel made a,motion 114 to uphold Chapter 17-6.C. lack of required fire extinguisher. Logan seconded the motion. The motion carried. There was some discussion by Mr. Kloos and Inspector Vezina regarding which violations he was in fact appealing. Mr. Kloos was under the impression that it was not necessary for him to write down all of the violations that he wished to appeal but just some of then. He was instructed by Krause that we would go in order of the violations that were stated on the appeal request form. The next violation that was appealed was Chapter 17-7.A.(3) door not main- tained in good and functional condition. The three violations under this section were presented at the sane time. They were entrance door to living - roan from foyer had been missing pane of glass, north storm door has a torn screen and south storm door has a torn screen. Mr. Kloos stated that he was appealing these violations because he did not feel that as the owner he was responsible for the correction as he had not created the violation to begin with. Inspector Vezina explained to him that it was not his job to determine who was responsible for creating the violations; was his job to cite the violation and then it was the owner's responsibility to correct and, if need be, receive compensation from the tenant. Haendel made a motion to uphold Chapter 17-7.A.(3) door not maintained in good and functional condition. Logan seconded the motion. The motion carried. The next violation appealed was Chapter 17-7.A.(4) window not maintained in good and functional condition. North window in livingrocm is cracked. Mr. Kloos again stated that he did not break the window and he did not feel it was his responsibility to make the corrections. Haendel made a motion to uphold Chapter 17-7.A.(4) window not maintained in good and functional condition. Logan seconded the motion. The motion carried. At this point, Mr. Kloos again attempted to bring other violations to the Board's attention that he had not specifically stated in his appeal request form. After some discussion from the Board, Krause made a motion to hear any other violations that Mr. Kloos wished to appeal at the February Appeals Board meeting, provided that they were properly stated on an appeal request form. Haendel seconded the motion. The motion carried. The last violation appealed was Chapter 17-7.I, electrical system not maintained in good and safe working condition. Annex is strung along ceiling and south wall of north roan in basement and mmex is strung along north wall of middle room in basement. Mr. Kloos questioned the requirement that a licensed electrician had to make these corrections. Electrical Inspector Bowers was present and stated to the Board that a homeowner could make repairs in his own hone, but that a licensed electrician was required to correct violations of this nature in all other properties. Mr. Kloos volunteered to close the ram and not allow usage of it. Bowers replied that this would not be acceptable and that the ramex wiring must be covered or strung through the floor joists regardless of whether the mom was locked or not. Kloos stated that this condition had existed in the property when he had purchased it in 1966. Fire Marshal Kinney was asked by a Board member if there was a safety problem with the ramex not being covered. Kinney stated ,ry that if the wiring was not tampered with that a safety problem did not exist. ,14 HOUSING APPEALS BOARD JANUARY 10, 1984 PAGE 5 Haendel made a motion to uphold Chapter 17-7.1. electrical system not maintained in good and safe working condition. Logan seconded the motion. y The motion carried. APPEAL OF MARORIE TRUSTY, 1014 COITONWOOD: Present: None. Kucharzak stated to the Board that all of the violations that had been cited were corrected before the appeal had been filed. He stated that Ms. Trusty requested simply that the information that was included in the Board members' packet be made available for them to review. Schlechte left the meeting at this time. APPEAL OF DAVID SMITH, 200 SLOTH SUMMIT: Present: Doug Ruppert. Kucharzak presented the appeal for 200 South Summit. He stated that there had been a continuance granted at the December 13, 1983, Appeals Board meeting to hear the violation cited which was Chapter 17-4.A. lack of required certificate of structure compliance and valid rental permit. Kucharzak explained to the Board that the property had been a single-family and had been converted into a roaming house. He stated that there was an addition made to the existing structure and that the violations which lead to the violation letter were multiple in nature. He stated that the parking present was not adequate to meet the occupancy of the structure. The new owners had purchased two adjoining properties and an easement was being obtained to provide access to 200 South Summit. Kucharzak explained that in a conversation with Attorney Ryan, the necessary easement papers were presented to the City the day previously and were now being reviewed by the City's Legal Department. The second problem involved the fact that when the addition was added the electrical requirements were such that all of the wiring in the existing structure had to be placed in conduit. The owner had appealed this requirement to the Electrical Board of Adjustment and the violation was upheld. The extension that had been granted at the December meeting was to allow for the electrical work to be completed over the University college break to allow for work to be done while the property was unoccupied. Kucharzak stated that Electrical Inspector Bowers had conducted inspection of the property the day previously and was told at that time that the remaining electrical work wouldbe completed within a few days. Ruppert explained to the Board that his client was asking for an extension of time. Logan made a motion to grant an extension to February 1, 1984. Trevor seconded the notion. There was discussion among the Board members regarding the feasibility of granting this additional time as it was felt to be exces- sive as the violation was to have been corrected by January 10, 1984. The motion failed. Haendel made a motion to uphold the violation with an extension given to January 17, 1984. Trevor seconded.the motion. The motion carried. ,T) .�_. N HOUSING APPEALS BOARD JANUARY 10, 1984 PAGE 6 APPEAL OF JAMES COOPER, 304 RENO: 114 Present: James Cooper. Inspector Vezina reported that he conducted a licensing inspection at 304 Reno on November 4, 1983. The violations appealed were Chapter 17-5.J.(1) lack of required natural light. Northwest bedroom basement unit has 7.55 square feet of natural light, lacking the required 10.38 square feet. Southwest bedroom basement unit has 7.47 square feet of window area lacking the required 9.31 square feet. The second violation appealed was Chapter 17-5.K.(2)(b) lack of required natural ventilation. Northwest bedroom and southwest bedroom basement unit lack window area for natural ventilation. Mr. Cooper stated that he had enlarged the window in the north bedroom to meet the exiting requirements. The third violation that was also appealed was discussed in conjunction with the natural light and ventilation violation. The violation was Chapter 17-5.L.(2) location of heating unit obstructs egress. Furnace causes egress obstruction to north and northwest bedrooms in basement unit. Kucharzak stated that it was necessary to go through the furnace roan to enter the northwest bedroom. He stated that when the plans for the change in usage of this dwelling unit were presented that the building official dealt only with those roams being converted and did not review the requirements needed in the southwest and northwest bedroons for natural light and ventilation. Mr. Cooper stated that he had made six visits to the building division prior to having his plans approved for the conversion of the basement area to a duplex. Kucharzak stated that the certificate of occupancy and the certificate of structure compliance oxild not be issued because the windows in the bedroom did not meet the natural light and ventilation requirements of the Building Code or Housing Code. The Board was concerned about the fact that access to the north bedroom and northwest bedroom was through the roan that contained the furnace and water heater and Krause asked Mr. Cooper if he would consider building a wall around the furnace. Mr. Cooper stated that there was a sprinkler system in the furnace roan. Krause made a motion to continue the appeal to the February 14, 1984, meeting to allow an inspection by Fire Marshal Kinney to examine the dwelling unit in regard to the egressing violation. Trevor seconded the motion. The motion carried. Logan made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Haendel seconded the motion. The motion carried. Minutes prepared by Judy Hoard for Fred Krause, Chairperson n 3A MINUTES Iowa City Housing Commission Tuesday, January 10, 1984 at 8:30 a.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Krause, Logan, Schlechte, Trevor. Haendel MEMBERS ABSENT: Knox, Ringgenberg STAFF PRESENT: Kucharzak, Seydel, Flinn, Barnes 1. Meeting to Order - Meeting called to Order at 8:30 a.m. by Chairperson Krause. 2. Housing Rehabilitation - Barnes presented information regarding request for Forgivable Loan at 924 Hudson. She advised property located in Miller Avenue Improvement Area, and if funded, will be funded from Jobs Bill monies. Moved Haendel, seconded Logan, that Forgivable Loan be approved in the amount of $11,700 for property located at 924 Hudson. Approved 5/0. 3. Adjourned - Meeting adjourned by Chair at 8:35 a.m. APPROVED BY: Fred C. Krause, Chairperson 330 0) MINUTES IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION CITY MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM CIVIC CENTER, 410 E. WASHINGTON STREET JANUARY 11, 1984 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Margaret Nowysz, Greg Duffey, Howard Jones, James Hayes, Chuck Skaugstad, Steven VanderWoude MEMBERS ABSENT: Jackie Blank GUESTS PRESENT: Ron Johnson STAFF PRESENT: Pat Keller ACTION TAKEN BY COMMISSION: 1. Approval of minutes December 14, 1983 - passed unanimously. 2. Send Bishop O'Keefe and Mike Hodge copies of the Historic Preservation Ordinance and invitations to attend the next meeting of the Commis- sion. 3: Send letters of thanks to Hills Bank & Trust Company, First National Bank and Pierce King Architects and Associates regarding their contributions to the 1983 awards program. CALL TO ORDER: Margaret Nowysz called the meeting of the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission to order at 7:40 p.m. _ PUBLIC DISCUSSION: Ron Johnson introduced himself and stated that he was attending the meeting to find out what the role of the Commission was and if any City tax incentives were available for historic preservation. He also stated that he was interested in seeing the Kirkwood Avenue Area studied for inclusion as a possible historic district. Margaret Nowysz explained the function of the Commission and suggested that Ron Johnson start to contact residents along Kirkwood Avenue to determine if there was interest in being included as a historic district. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Jim Hayes presented a motion to approve the December 14, 1983, minutes of the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission. Steve VanderWoude seconded the motion and it passed unanimously without discussion. HISTORIC DISTRICTS UPDATE: Pat Keller informed the Commission that Tuesday, January 17, 1984, the City Council would hold its first public hearing. regarding the proposed Woodlawn Avenue and South Summit Street historic districts. The Planning & Zoning Commission is scheduled to receive the proposed North Side 331 IOWA CITY HISTORIC JANUARY 11, 1984 PAGE 2 PRESERVATION COMMISSION Residential District for possible review on Monday and Thursday, February 6 and 9, 1984, respectively. The Commission was urged to attend all of the upcoming meetings. - Pat Keller explained that three buildings located at the northwest corner of Jefferson and Dubuque streets, two of which are owned by Mike Hodge and the third by the Catholic Diocese of Eastern Iowa, had expressed concern about inclusion in the proposed North Side Commercial historic district. The Commission suggested that the owners be sent copies of the Historic Preservation Ordinance and a letter inviting them to attend the next meeting of the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission. A brief discussion started regarding incentives of being included in a historic district. Jim Hayes suggested staff look into and investigate the legal issues determining if state enabling legislation was required in order to allow cities the ability to grant tax breaks to individuals who restore historic structures. Howard Jones stated that it was an important function of the Commission to try to provide incentives in addition to the protection already provided by the Historic Preservation Ordinance. PROPOSED ORDINANCE CHANGES: Pat Keller reviewed the draft changes to the Historic Preservation Ordinance suggested by the Commission. In Section VI. paragraph C, the word altered was removed from all but the firs sen ence. Jim Hayes also suggested that a "Certificate of No Material Effect" be added to the list of Definitions. Margaret Nowysz suggested that the removal of the word final from the first section of Section VI. paragraph D. The Commission requested staff to prepare a draft of the ordinance to be reviewed at the February meeting. CORRESPONDENCE: The letter sent by the Commission to John Fowler, owner of the parcel of land located at 522 East -College Street, which was destroyed by fire, was reviewed. The Commission stated its interest in the architecturally sensitive redevelopment of the parcel of land by the owner. The Commis- sion directed Steve VanderWoude to ascertain if Mr. Fowler had applied for a building permit for this parcel of land. Staff agreed to assist the Commission in its inquiries. Margaret Nowysz read a letter from Loren Hickerson concerning his home at 618 Brown Street. Loren expressed interest in preserving architectural examples from all periods of time including his home which was initially constructed in 1923. Margaret Nowysz and Howard Jones felt that a response to Loren's letter was necessary and agreed to draft a response. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS: Margarget Nowysz suggested that thank you letters be sent to contributors of the 1983 Historic Preservation Awards Program. Staff was directed to draft letters for Commissioners' signatures. 331 IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COIMIISSION JANUARY 11, 1984 PAGE 3 Steve VanderWoude mentioned that in the past months's issue of the Bracket a list of Iowa Jobs Commission/Cultural Grant Program awards wasis He. He felt that somehow residents of proposed historic districts should be made aware of the awards. Margaret Nowysz suggested that by the February meeting, members of the Commission compose a draft of goals and objectives that they felt the Commission should accomplish. Howard Jones felt that a central repository, preferably in the City Library, should be established with historic preservation materials so that the Commission members could readily obtain information. ADJOURNMENT: Jim Hayes presented a motion to adjourn the meeting of the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission. Chuck Skaugstad seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. The Commission adjourned at 9:15 p.m. 331 kc— / CITY COUNCIL RULES COMMITTEE January 30, 1984 RULES COMMITTEE: Meeting of January 30, 1984, 5:45 P.M., in the City Manager's Conference Room COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Erdahl and Baker STAFFME.BERS PRESENT: Boothroy, Helling, Karr RESOURCES CONSERVATION COMMISSION The Committee requested that the wording be changed in two sections. Article V, Section 4, page 3, Notice of Meetings, be changed to read "Notice of regular and special meetings shall be required; meetings may be called upon notice not less than twenty-four (24) hours before the meetings. The news media shall be notified by staff as required under Chapter 28A, State Code." The second change requested is Article III, Section 5, page 2, Vacancies, to read "Any vacancy on the Commission because of death, resignation, long-term illness, dis- qualification or removal shall be filled by the City Council after at least 30 days public notice of the vacancy." The Rules Committee approved the proposed change (Article V, Section 1 -changing meeting time from Tuesday to Monday) and are additionally recommending the above changes CITY COUNCIL ABSTENTIONS The Committee discussed the Rule Concerning Abstentions as distributed by Erdahl (Exhibit 1). Members distinguished between a conflict of interest and the preference not to vote. After discussion, moved by Baker, seconded by Erdahl, to recommend adoption of the amended Rule Concerning Abstentions (Exhibit 2). The Committee directed the City Clerk to furnish copies of both Exhibits to the City Attorney and to Atty. Wm. Sueppel, legal counsel for the'League of Iowa Municipalities, for their comments. The Rules Committee requests Council not adopt the Rule until the comments have been received and reviewed. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE The Committee discussed that the future of the Design Review Committee and design review in the downtown area should be brought to Council attention for staff assistance in expanding their role in the review of downtown development. The Rules Committee will discuss the matter with Council. 33o2 I Exhibit 1 Distributed for discussion RULE CONCERNING ABSTENTIONS 1. A councilmember who abstains from voting on a particular issue must state whether the abstention is based on: a) a perceived conflict ofIinterest or b) a preference not to record an affirmative or negative vote. 2. Better practice is to reveal publicly the reason a conflict of interest exists at the time of abstention, however, this may not always be possible. If a councilmember perceives any potential conflict of interest a confidential legal opinion should be requested from the City Attorney. 3. If an abstention is based on a conflict of interest, the majority or vote must be computed on the basis of the number of members not disqualified by reason of conflict of interest. However, a majority of all members is required for a quorum. q. If an abstention is merely a preference not to record a vote, that will be considered an acquiescence in the expression of the majority of those present and voting. If there is no majority such an abstention will be counted as a negative vote. 5. The first two considerations of a proposed ordinance cannot be waived by'less than a 3/4 majority of all seven (7) council members except under paragraph 3 of this Rule. 33a Exhibit 2 as amended RULE CONCERNING ABSTENTIONS 1. A councilmember who abstains from voting on a particular issue must state whether the abstention is based on: a) a conflict of interest or b) a preference not to record an affirmative or negative vote. 2. If an abstention is based on a conflict of interest, the majority or vote must be computed on the basis of the number of members not disqualified by reason of conflict of interest. However, a majority of all members is required for a quorum. 3. On any measure which requires a recorded vote a councilmember must vote "yes" or "no" unless he/she has a conflict of interest. 4. The first two considerations of a proposed ordinance cannot be waived by less than a 3/4 majority of all seven (7) councilmembers except under paragraph 2 of this Rule. 33A