Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-05-22 Bd Comm. minutesMINUTES DESIGN REVIEW C014MITTEE MAY 9, 1984 4:10 P.M. CITY MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Eckholt; Haupert, Lafore, Seiberling, Sinek, Wockenfuss MEMBERS ABSENT: Amert; Alexander, Summerwill, Wegman STAFF PRESENT: Boothroy; Hauer; Showalter, Johnston GUESTS PRESENT: Houzel, Maynard, Rubright RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL• I. The Design Review Committee recommends approval of the replacement awning for 114 E,College St. [Jackson's Gifts S China] on City Plaza. The Committee would also look forward to reviewing plans for the future restoration of the building because of the importance of the building to City Plaza. 2. The Design Review Committee recommends the concept of permanent building extensions on the City Plaza is not desirable because of the negative functional and aesthetic impacts upon the City Plaza. The Committee recommends seasonal and other temporary uses. It was noted the Historic Preservation Commission might have some concerns with extensions added onto older buildings. DISCUSSION OF THE DESIGN OF BLACKHAWK MINIPARK: Boothroy reviewed recommendations for Blackhawk Minipark from the staff regarding the wall mural; name change, stage and stage area; service building, seating and tables. Boothroy said the owners of the Paul -Helen Building are not interested in its exterior wall with a mu renovation plans, and nthe bPossibility of rthe al bbuilding being sold ecause of Ce Heostaatted there are moisture and deterioration problems with the wall. Boothroy asked the Committee to state its preference about the mural. Boothroy explained the present exterior wall was not built as an exterior wall initially. To renovate it, the owners may use some type of a plastic, sealer or stucco to protect it. Lafore stated that brick could be handled in an attrac- tive manner. Eckholt said he would like the exterior appearance of the wall to be pleasing aesthetically and the color be complementary to the City Plaza. Boothroy asked the Committee if it wanted to make a recommendation regarding the park name. Eckholt stated if the mural is no longer there, then there isn't reason to call the area Blackhawk or a minipark. Seiberling suggested calling it Pastime Place or Pastime Park, based on the name of a former building on the site. She said the name would be doubly appropriate, given the present use of the area. i• DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MAY 9, 1984 PAGE 2 Boothroy, explained the stage must be handicapped accessible. A ramp must be constructed to reach the stage. Sinek asked what the stage height is. Maynard replied the suggested height is 30"-36" and that 30" is the minimum height for the stage. The minimum height is necessary because the performers must be at a level for an audience to be able to see the performers. Seiberling asked if the ramp could wrap around the stage in some way. Maynard stated a ramp could be built along the wall next to the Paul -Helen Building. Boothroy stated Showalter, Director of the City's Parks and Recreation Depart- ment, doesn't feel that a storage building is needed. Also, Showalter doesn't like the building location because it isn't feasible to get a truck to it. Showalter said the storage area is not in the right place to get any type of equipment in and out of and he feels it is impractical since it would only be useful to store handtools. Haupert stated the service building could be used by the performers to put some of their items in it. Sinek asked if amplifiers and other equipment that would be used on the stage could be stored there. Seiberling stated a service building could be used to store water hoses and that certainly would make life easier as she remembers what Project GREEN went through dragging hoses down on the Plaza. Eckholt said this is a problem space and it shouldn't be publicly accessible. Wockenfuss asked if the designer could possibly redesign the stage in another area. He felt this ..may be a way to handle the space problem if a service building isn't needed. Emily Rubright asked the Committee to look ten years down the road and to build the service building now when it is possible rather than wishing later that one had been built. Maynard indicated he could meet again in two weeks with the Committee and would make any necessary adjustments to the design. Boothroy discussed seating. He stated the planters should be constructed wide and high enough to accommodate seating. Maynard said the planters are now 16" high and in some areas, even higher. Seiberling stated this was a good idea as people will sit anywhere and maybe this will stop them from sitting an the plants. Boothroy next talked about the tables and asked if they should be permanent or moveable. Permanent tables are inflexible and present a problem for maximum utilization of the area. Hauer stated the tables presently in City Plaza cannot be used by the handicapped because of seat placement. Eckholt asked if moveable tables were used, whose responsibility is it to put up the chairs - the City or the group performing? Maynard said he wanted an outdoor, cafe type setting and the tables presently in the Plaza consume a lot of space. He said one or two seats could be left off the tables to accommodate the handicapped. Haupert questioned if there was a table design which allowed for semi -movable tables which somehow could be bolted down so they wouldn't be carried away. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MAY 9, 1984 PAGE 3 Wockenfuss said not to mix the benches and tables - the design should go with one or the other. Seiberiing asked if the trash receptacles were in the design. Maynard replied they were not. Showalter said he didn't like all of the cubbyholes in the design because they collect trash. He prefers a design with more straight lines. Boothroy said that the stage visibility was limited because it is enclosed by certain areas and maybe another access from the City Plaza could be included. Haupert asked if there were more staff concerns and that the Committee should hear about these. He said an executive group should meet with the staff and go over the concerns. Haupert, Eckholt, Boothroy, Franklin, and Maynard will meet regarding this. I Boothroy said he would like to get this item to the City Council in several weeks. Boothroy noted Amert was appointed to the Urban Environmental Ad -Hoc Committee. AWNING REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION: 114 E. COLLEGE - JACKSON'S GIFTS & CHINA Wayne Houzel; representing Jackson's; stated that Jackson's would replace the present awning and he showed the material which would be used. The purpose of the awning is because of the pigeon problem. Houzel stated that every morning they have to shovel up quite a bit of the pigeon residue: He said Jackson's is considering cleaning up and redoing the front of the building: Seiberiing asked when the building was built. Houzel said somewhere between 1892 and 1896. After some discussion, the Committee indicated it would appreci- ate reviewing the building renovation plans because of the importance of the building to City Plaza. It was moved by Lafore that the replacement awning be approved and that building renovation plans be presented to the Committee. The motion seconded by Haupert. The motion passed unanimously with Amert, Alexandwas er; Summerwill, and Wegman absent. Hauer gave a brief review of the City Plaza Ordinance which was adopted in 1978. She stated the ordinance allows for up to a 10 foot permanent building extension to be constructed in front of the building. Wockenfuss said the ordinance was adopted to alleviate some of the straight line effect of buildings on the City Plaza. Lafore he is not e of ermanent structure id extensionabut would be receptive to enthusiastic seasonal abouta ypeyof structural extension. M 1 I DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MAY 9, 1984 PAGE 4 Wockenfuss questioned if the ordinance had to be changed. Hauer stated that the ordinance was undergoing a review by the City Council and staff. Sinek stated he also could visualize seasonal extensions but not anything permanent. Lafore stated the Plaza has a personality of its own and he felt it would be destroyed if permanent extensions were constructed. He proposed the Committee recommend that it is no longer a good idea if a permanent extension was constructed. He has no objection to temporary extensions, such as awnings or sidewalk cafes, subject to Committee approval. He also noted that the vendors have generated additional pedestrian traffic and that all of the space on the Plaza was being used. Lafore pointed out that if the 10 feet were used, pedestrians would have to use the center lane. Seiberling stated the open space of City Plaza would be gone if permanent structures were allowed to be built. She feels some sort of professional guidance is needed to help assess the impact of permanent structures. It was noted that some Plaza planters obstruct the passage between the center lane and the 10 foot zone which could necessitate removal of the planters. Seiberling questioned if the Historic Preservation Commission would have any concerns regarding this and recommended it be contacted for input. Lafore moved to recommend to City Council that permanent structure extensions on City Plaza were not desirable. Seasonal extensions are more desirable because of the interaction they would encourage with the City Plaza and the temporary nature of seasonal extensions. Haupert seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously with Amert, Alexander, Summerwill and Wegman absent. REVIEW OF MINUTES OF MARCH 28, 1984: Sinek moved to approve the minutes of March 28, 1984 as submitted. Haupert seconded. The motion passed unanimously with Amert, Alexander, Summerwill and Wegman absent. OTHER BUSINESS: The next meeting of the Committee will be May 30. The meeting ended by general consensus at 5:45 P.M. Minutes submitted by: Jean Johnston NWA 54(2) MINUTES COMMITTEE ON COMMUNITY NEEDS MAY 10, 1984 - 7:30 PM' CITY MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: May, Patrick, Kubby, Stimnel, Lauria, Becker, Leshtz, Williams MEMBERS ABSENT: Logan, Smith, Parden i STAFF PRESENT: Milkman, Hencin, Moen, McCormick GUEST PRESENT: Thea Sando, Ruth and Roy Dawson (Johnson County Committee on Aging) iRECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: I In light of a recent request for IRBs for elderly housing, CCN recommends that the City Council issue no IRBs for housing until the new IRB policy has been established. CCN has concerns regarding this project but does not currently have enough information. The concerns are as follows: 1. Is this the most appropriate place to build housing for middle-income elderly? 2. The reported rents seem high. 3. There appears to be a greater need for low-income housing for the elderly. I 4. Could the percent of required units for low-income persons be more than 20%? REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR APRIL 17, 1984: The minutes were unanimously approved with the following changes: The Quarterly Report on page 3 titled "Human Services Agencies" should be changed to "United Way Allocations Committee." The first sentence should read "Leshtz questioned what the future relationship of CCN with the Human Services Agencies should be." PUBLIC DISCUSSION/MEMBERS DISCUSSION: There was no public discussion of any item not on the agenda. Kubby stated that she had some concerns with regards to the last informal Council meeting. She stated that there was a proposal for an elderly housing complex on Dubuque and Court Streets for which IRBs were being sought. Kubby questioned whether the location was more appropriate for congregate housing and stated that this development was intended for the middle income elderly. She questioned whether IRB funds should subsidize middle income housing. Patrick stated that she felt it was more important to build for the low income elderly and felt the amount of rent being charged was very high. E Committee on Community Needs May 10, 1984 Page 2 Williams moved to recommend that the developer investigate industrial revenue bonds for the proposed elderly housing to specifically address the issue of the housing needs of lower income elderly. The motion died for lack of a second. Lauria stated his concern that the viewpoints of this committee be consis- tent. Milkman stated that there are currently 81 units in Capitol House and 81 units in the Ecumenical Towers for low-income elderly who get first priority. Kubby stated that the developer was seeking a Memorandum of Agreement so that construction could begin around May 22. The City Council was currently reviewing the new IRB policy but it had not been finalized. The Memorandum of Agreement would not be a final agreement, but would allow the developer to use 10% of the monies to begin construc- tion. Stimmel questioned whether the CCN had ever made recommendations on prior IRBs. Milkman stated that last month's recommendation on the IRB housing policy was the first time. She stated that there would be a public hearing with regards to this IRB issue. Patrick moved to recommend to the City Council that in light of a recent request, CCN recommends that the City Council issue no IRBs for housing until the new IRB policy has been established. CCN has concerns regarding this project but does not currently have enough information. The concerns are as follows: 1. Is this the most appropriate place to build housing for middle-income elderly?. 2. The reported rents seem high. ' 3. There appears to be a greater need for low-income housina for the elderly. 4. Could the percent of required units for low income persons be more than 20%? The motion was seconded by Becker. The motion carried (7-1, Stimmel opposed). Milkman stated that the next CCN meeting was Tuesday, June 19, and would include a public hearing for the Community Development Plan. She 'asked whether the Committee wanted to meet in the afternoon or the evening. It was decided that the meeting would be held on Tuesday, June 19, 1984, at 7:30 PM at the Public Library. DISCUSSION OF DRAFT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING Nrrnc aNn tnur..TCDM Lauria stated that he wanted to thank the subcommittee and staff for their efforts. He suggested in reviewing the draft that the Committee decide what the priorities of funding with CDBG monies were and possible removal from the draft those items that should not be funded with CDBG monies. i r ■ E Committee on Community Needs May 10, 1984 Page 3 Hencin stated that the draft was written by three different staff members. Milkman stated that these were the 'main sections of the plan and the beginning section, a City profile, would follow. After lengthy discussion of this draft it was the consensus of the Commission to make the following changes: 1. Page 2, paragraph 1, should be changed from "The highest priority in housing" to read "there is a need in housing". 2. Page 2, paragraph 2, should be changed from "also identified as a priority" to "there is also a need to provide." 3. Page 4, #6, Northside Commercial Neighborhood should be moved to a separate section. 4. Page 5, paragraph 1 under Community Facilities and Improvements should read as follows: The City Council and local human service agencies have indicated a need for a joint Human Services Facility. The human services agencies are located all over town, resulting in inconvenien- ce and additional expense to clients, as well as the duplication of overhead and secretarial costs. Housing a limited number of compat- ible agencies, such as youth services under one roof would be benefi- cial. 5. Page 6, paragraph 1 regarding economic development projects should be removed from this draft. 6. Long term objectives for housing, paragraph 2, should read "three areas of low-income housing needs are identified as being of highest priority in Iowa City: - housing for the elderly - housing for new households and families - housing for the handicapped." 7. Long-term community development objectives for neighborhood improve- ment areas, page 3, both items on that page should be deleted. 8. Page 2, item 1 under long-term objectives for community facilities and improvements should be modified to say: To purchase or construct a joint Human Services Facility which could house a limited number of compatible agencies, such as youth services, serving Iowa City resi- dents. 9. Page 3, item 3 under riverfront improvements should be modified to read "To provide pedestrian access to the riverbank below the Burling- ton Street Dam." 10. Delete: to develop Sturgis Ferry Park for use by residents of south Iowa City. RIM Committee on Community Needs May 10, 1984 Page 4 Discussion It was recommended that a separate document relating to other needs not covered under CDBG funds be created to include the following items: 1. A new sewage treatment plant. 2. Street lights in those areas identified in the Rape Victim Advocacy Program. 3. Revitalization of the north side commercial neighborhood. QUARTERLY REPORTS: 1. Congregate Housing Hencin reported on behalf of Lyle Seydel with regard to congregate housing. He stated that congregate housing had been under discussion by CCN and the Housing Commission for the last two years. Hencin distributed a project schedule report recommended by the architect, and indicated that currently these were only tentative target dates. He stated that the City is investing approximately $400,000 of CDBG funds in this project. These funds would be used for direct acquisi- tion and construction and would be considered seed money. He stated that private sponsors would be sought and it would be the sponsor's responsibility to manage the facility. He stated that a public discussion of the project would be held at the Senior Center on Thursday, May 17, from 1-3 PM. Mary Parden, Al Logan and David Leshtz will represent the CCN at this meeting. Hencin stated that this meeting was to obtain specific ideas from the elderly. Thea Sando questioned whether any plans were being incorporated to involve the medical profession in the congregate housing. She stated that the idea of planning for the lifespan of the building was very exciting to her. She felt that there were many opportunities avail- able in this development including using this facility as a model for teaching those persons involved in the field of aging. She felt that congregate housing could be an imaginative combination of health, education and recreation. Hencin stated that Dr. Woody Morris from the College of Medicine at the University of Iowa has offered his services as a consultant with regard to medical involvement in congregate housing. Discussion of future of Elm Grove Park Kubby stated that she had taken an informal survey of this area in 1981 and again in 1984. She found slightly increased usage in the park, approximately 8.7 persons per day. Kubby felt that the park was used every day and was concerned that the City would sell the space to build a park elsewhere. Lauria questioned what the exact plans of the City were in regard to the money they would gain by selling the land. Milkman stated that the funds would be used to acquire other parkland. She Committee on Community Needs May 10, 1984 Page 5 ■ indicated that in the City's Comprehensive Plan the entire area surround- ing the park was designated for intensive commercial use. She felt in the future there would be less,and less residential uses in the area. Leshtz stated that the County had been looking at the property for office space. Stimmel questioned whether an alternative plan could be to use the area near the animal shelter as a park. It was decided that discussion of Elm Grove Park would be continued at the next meeting. The remainder of the quarterly reports were deferred to the next meeting. Kubby moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:00 PM. The minutes were taken by Colleen McCormick I r I Mayor's Youth Employment Program Minutes Board of Directors April 25, 1984 Board Members Present: Scott Boyden, Tom Muller, Mark Weaver, Ted Halm, Doug Allaire and Joan Jehle Staff Present: Peg McElroy I. Call to Order: Scott Boyden called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. II. Approval of Minutes: The minutes from the February 22, 1984 meeting were read by the board. The minutes were approved unanamously. III. Financial Reports - February/March, 1984. The financial reported was presented in its new form. MYEP is using a software program called "Logicalc" to summarize the account- ing completed by the City of Iowa City. Scott Boyden pointed out that there was an error in the year to date revenue column. Peg indicated that she would check the error and send revised financial statements out for the month of February. The financial statement as approved unanamously with the correction in February noted. IV. Additional Agenda Items 1. 0_utstanding enrollee selection: Peg explained that board members Doug Allaire, Scott Boyden and Tom Muller reviewed th files of enrollees and the recommendations of the staff and determined two outstanding enrollees, two with honorable mention with distinction and one with honorable mention. The awards will be given by Mayor John McDonald on May 8 and the week will be declared "Youth Employment Week" in Iowa City. Peg thanked the board members for their assistance in the selection process. V. New Business 1. Director's Evaluation: Peg explained that the director of MYEP is evaluated on an annual basis with a report to the full board at the June meeting. Joan Jehle outlined the process of evaluation and indicated that a committee should be selected for this process. Scott Boyden and Joan Jehle agreed to serve as the evaluation committee for the 1984 evaluation. A full report to the board will be given in June. 2. Mayor's Youth Board/youth/worksite supervisor party• Peg announced that the annual party will be held on Thursday, May 24, 1984 at 4:00 - 5:30 p.m. at City Park (lower). She encouraged all board members to attend. 1 gz? Board of Directors Meeting Minutes Continued 2 VI. Old Business 1. Approval of Typewriter Purchase Peg presented the results of her search for typewriters that would inter- face with the computer and could be used as a printer Terry's Office Products had the lowest rate on a Brother CE -65. The total cost was $658.95. The purchase of ithe typewriter was unanamously approved. 2. Evaluation Format: Joan Jehle explained that she had met with Peg to discuss changing the format for evaluation of the director to include management by objectives with semi-annual or periodic review. After a discussion it was determined that this method would be incorporated and reviewed on a semi-annual basis. 3. Replacement of board members• Peg explained that Mark Weaver renewed his term, however,,vacancies (3) still existed. She in that it was discovered= during the application process that Bob Cummings resided outside the city limits and could not come on the board until there was a county position open. Names submitted for the vacancies during April (or by May 3) are Renato Deleon and Denise Tiffany. Peg indicated that she will contact Marsha La Follette from Norld,rest Junior although she may reside in Coralville. 4. Joint Human Service Facilitv Reoort• Scott and Peg informed the board that the grant written to the state had not been accepted. A meeting of the steering committee will be held in the near future to discuss possible alternatives. Tom Muller asked how the arrange- ment in the new office was going and Peg indicated that it was working very well. 5. Director's Salary Survey/Contingency• Peg reported that the steering committee had reviewed 4 of the agency director's surveys submitted in March and that the re- maining surveys would be reviewed by a few members of the committee with Ann Carroll. The full committee will review the results in early May and a report should be available to the report by mid-May. Joan Jehle indicated that it would be most helpful to receive the report before Peg's evaluation was completed. 6. FY 1985 Funding report• Peg passed out a copy of the funding results and changes in the proposed budget for Fy 85. The board will finalize the budget in June and again in August after the close of the fiscal year. Board of.Directors Meeting Minutes Continued 3 V. Old Business (Continued) 7. Quarterly Report: Peg passed out the quarterly report to the board that was submitted to the City of Iowa City. She indicated that she will prepare a statistical report for comparison with FY 83 since there were significant changes in programming and numbers served this year. This will be done FY 84 ending. 8. Summer IYC Report: Peg reported that she wil attend State Camp on April 28 and will choose the 36 youth to be interviewed for the positions of starters/alternates to the program. She also indicated that Family IYC Night will be May 30, 1984 at 7:00 p.m. in Room B of the Iowa City Recreation Center. She mentioned that the initial plan for constructing two shelters was changed to one shelter and playground equipment in five low—moderate income neighborhood parks. This change was due to an unfavorable response from the neighborhood near College Green concerning construction of the shelter. She closed by thanking board member Tom Muller for giving her the correct pronunciation of "Madrid", the locatim of State Camp. The meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Mark Weaver, Treasurer Peg McElroy, Director MINUTES HOUSING APPEALS BOARD APRIL 9', 1984 MEMBERS PRESENT: Goldene Haendel, Beth Ringgenberg, Danel Trevor, Charlene Knox-Renfield MEMBERS ABSENT: Al Logan, Fred Krause, Janet Schlechte STAFF PRESENT: David Malone, Kelley Vezina, David Brown, Larry Kinney, Lyle Seydel, Judy Hoard SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION AND ACTION TAKEN: Haendel called the meeting to order. Ringgenberg made a motion to approve the minutes of the February 14, 1984, meeting. Knox-Renfield seconded the motion. The motion carried. APPEAL OF INN NO SHINN 619 IOWA AVENUE: Present: None. Inspector Vezina reported that this appeal had not been filed within the ten day filing period and was in fact approximately five -months late. Knox-Renfield made a motion to not grant the appeal rights. Trevor seconded oroteChalirpersonnHaendelostated that the motion was gtougrantntheestioedwahether ppeal rights. In checking with Haendel she did in fact say that the motion was to grant the appeal rights despite the fact that the motion and the second to the motion were to deny granting the appeal rights. This request to hear the appeal will be brought before the Appeals Board members again at the May 8, 1984, meeting. APPEAL Of EMIL TROTT 810 DEWEY: Present: Emil Trott. Inspector Vezina reported that this appeal was not filed within the ten day filing period. Mr. Trott explained to the Board that there had been a problem with the person who had previously managed the property and that when he had been made aware of the violations he did file the appeal promptly. Ringgenberg made a motion to grant the appeal rights. Knox-Renfield seconded the motion. The motion carried. The appeal will be heard at the May 8, 1984, meeting. APPEAL OF KEVIN AND JANE DEETZ 1217 PICKARD: Present: None. Inspector Malone stated that this appeal had not been filed within the ten day filing period and was approximately a week late. Haendel made a motion to grant appeal rights. Knox-Renfield seconded the -motion. The motion carried. The appeal will be heard at the May 8, 1984, meeting. go Housing Appeals Board April 9, 1984 Page 2 APPEAL OF MAX NEPPEL, 1401 ROCHESTER: Present: None. Inspector Vezina reported that this appeal had not been filed within the ten day filing period. He read to the Board a letter from Mr. Neppel stating that he as the owner of the property lived out of town and that the violation notice had first been sent to his father who lived in Iowa City and hence by the time it had gone through the postal system, the ten day filing requirement was missed. Ringgenberg made a motion to grant appeal rights. Knox-Renfield seconded the motion. The motion carried. The appeal will be heard at the May 8, 1984, meeting. APPEAL OF MIKE HODGE, 30 VALLEY AVENUE: Present: None. Inspector Malone reported to the Board that this appeal had been heard at the February 14, 1984, meeting and at that time.the Board had requested further research into the two additional dwelling units the City property records did not indicate as being present. Inspector Malone stated that former Housing Inspection Director Michael Kucharzak had recently approved of the additional two units and that they would now be legal. Hence Chapter 17-4.A.(1) and (2) lack of valid certificate of structure compliance and rental permit for the two dwelling units that had not been previously licensed by the City was approved and would not be presented to the Board as an appealed violation. The first violation to be appealed was Chapter 17-5.I.(2)(e) basement unit lacks adequate egress. The northwest basement room window is not large enough for egress. Inspector Malone stated to the Board that there was no window in the northwest basement dwelling unit that met the Housing Code requirements for egressing. He stated that the window in the bedroom had an opening of 4.5 square feet and needs to have an additional 8.5 square feet. Fire Marshal Kinney indicated that the size of the window in his opinion was not sufficient to egress properly. After some discussion by the Board members as to whether the window could be located in the bedroom or in another room in the dwelling unit, it was decided that a window could in fact be located in another room. Ringgenberg made a motion to uphold Chapter 17-5.I.(2)(e) basement unit lacks adequate egress. Knox-Renfield seconded the motion. The motion carried. The next violation appealed was Chapter 17-5.N.(4) lack of required minimum 7' ceiling height. Inspector Malone stated that the ceiling height in the basement dwelling unit ranged from 6'5" to 6110" Haendel made a motion to grant a variance to Chapter 17-5.N.(4) lack of required minimum 7' ceiling height. Ringgenberg seconded the motion. The motion carried. MW Housing Appeals Board April 9,. 1984 Page 3 APPEAL OF MEL ROTH, 729 E. WASHINGTON: Present: Mel Roth. Inspector Hoard stated that she conducted a licensing inspection at 729 E. Washington on February 27, 1984. The violations appealed were Chapter 17-5.J.(1) lack of required natural light and 17-5.K.(2)(b) lack of required natural ventilation. Apt. 1 basement, north room, has 8.66 square feet of natural light lacking the required minimum of 9.39 square feet and has 3.89 square feet of natural ventilation lacking the required minimum of 4.22 square feet. Mr. Roth told the Board that he had previ- ously enlarged the window in this room with a building permit and thought that it met the requirements for natural light and ventilation. Inspector Hoard told the Board that this was the only wall on which a window could be located as the other wails had an adjoining room or an adjoining structure. Knox-Renfield made a motion to grant a variance to Chapter 17-5.J.(1) lack of required natural light and 17-5.K.(2)(b) lack of required natural ventilation. Ringgenberg seconded the motion. The motion carried. APPEAL OF MARI GREB, 533 NORTH LINN Present: Mari and Allen Greb. Inspector Hoard reported that she conducted a licensing inspection at 533 North Linn Street on February 23, 1984. The first two violations appealed were Chapter 17-5.J.(1) lack of required natural light, dining room has 8.66 square feet of natural light, lacking the required minimum of 11.84 square feet and Chapter 17-5.K.(2)(b) lack of required natural ventila- tion, dining room has 3.89 square feet natural ventilation, lacking the required minimum of 5.32 square feet. Mr. Greb, upon examining the floor plan that had been drawn by Inspector Hoard, stated that he did not feel that an accurate representation of the dining room had been drawn. Inspector Hoard stated that to the best of her knowledge the floor plan was an accurate representation of the dining room. Mr. Greb felt that the doorway into the dining room from the living room should have been bigger and wanted to know if because of the openness of the doorway if the living room and dining room could be considered one room. Inspector Hoard stated that there was a provision in the Code that allowed for the natural light and ventilation in one room to count towards the natural light and ventilation needed in another room if half of the common wall was open and that there was more than 25 square feet opening. She stated also that she was not sure of the window sizes in the living room and could not make a determination if there were enough natural light and ventilation present from the living room to meet the requirements needed in the dining room. She did, however, state that she did not feel that the provisions of the Housing Code that would allow this provision existed in this particular situation. Ringgenberg made a motion to postpone a decision on Chapter 17-5.J.(1) lack of required natural light and Chapter 17-5.K.(2)(b) lack of required natural ventilation until Inspector Hoard had an opportunity to return to the property recheck her measurements and also measure the windows in the living room. Trevor seconded the motion. The motion carried. Housing Appeals Board April 9, 1984 Page 4 The next violation appealed was Chapter 17-5.M.(1) lack of required electrical outlet, second floor, west bedroom, convenience outlets are 11 feet apart, lacking the required minimum distance of 14'2". Mrs. Greb asked Inspector Hoard if, in fact, an additional outlet was present on the east wall of the bedroom. Inspector Hoard stated that she was only able to locate the two, one on the north wall and one on the west wall. Mr. Greb questioned the necessity of an additional outlet. Inspector Hoard stated that at the time of her inspection, extension cords were in use in the bedroom and that if an additional outlet were installed this would minimize the need for extension cords. Fire Marshal Kinney emphasized the safety problems involved with the -usage of extension cords. Mr. Greb questioned the formula used in determining the placement distance that Inspector Hoard had arrived at. Trevor made a motion to uphold Chapter 17-5.M.(1) lack of required electrical outlet. Ringgenberg seconded the motion. The motion carried. The next violation appealed was Chapter 17-5.N.(4) lack of required 7' minimum ceiling height, second floor, east and west bedrooms have 6'9" ceiling height. Mrs. Greb stated to the Board that it would not be feasible to increase the ceiling height for three inches and stated that it had existed as such for many years. Knox-Renfield made a motion to grant a variance to Chapter 17-5.N.(4) lack of required minimum 7' ceiling height. Ringgenberg seconded the motion. The motion carried. The next violation appealed was Chapter 17-6.A. lack of required access, second floor, access to east bedroom can be gained only by going through west bedroom. Inspector Hoard explained that the room arrangements on the second floor were such that in order to get to the east bedroom one had to go up the stairs to the second floor and then go through the west bedroom. Mr. Greb inquired as to how this could be structurally changed. Inspector Hoard stated that it might be possible to construct a permanent wall and thus make a hallway from the stairway back to the east bedroom. Mrs. Greb felt that that was not a feasible correction as it would make the west bedroom considerably smaller and cut down on the amount of light going into the bedroom. Mr. Greb stated that at present there was a family living at the property and that the east bedroom was occupied by a small child. Knox-Renfield acknowledged that the present living arrangements would not constitute an access problem but that in the future, depending upon the usage, a more unworkable situation might exist. Knox-Renfield made a motion to uphold Chapter 17-6.A. lack of required access. Ringgenberg seconded the motion. The motion carried. The next violation appealed was Chapter 17-7.I. electrical system not maintained in good and safe working condition; dining room, ceiling light, no means provided to activate light fixture. After Inspector Hoard explained the problem involved with the light fixture, Mr. Greb stated that he had not previously understood what the violation was and did not wish to appeal the violation but would correct it. FA_W Housing Appeals Board April 9, 1984 Page 5 APPEAL OF ROSE ABRAMS 410 THIRD AVENUE Present: Rose Abrams. he conducted a licensing inspection Inspector Vezina reported that Third Avenue on February 11 1984. The first violation appealed was required handrail, steps to basement lack a Chapter 17-5.I.(2)(a) lack of plained that there was a door in the floor handrail. Inspector Vezina ex that opened up with steps leading down to the basement. Mrs. Abrams told the Board that the tenant did not use the erso basesent Ringgenbergthe madela people that went down there were se�erc17p5.I.(2)(a) lack of required motion to grant a variance to Chap handrail with the provision made that the basement door be secured such that the tenant did not have access to the basement. Knox-Renfield II seconded the motion. The motion carried. Baled was Chapter 17-5.J.(1) lack of required The next violation app lack of required natural ventila- natural light and Chapter 17-5.K.(2)(b) tion, room being used as bedroom contains no window. Mrs. Abrams told the Board that there were four windows in the living room and a large window ore bedroom which both provided light inthebathroomthat ms. She did not thatthere was between thee tw000 any structural way possible to install a window in the bedroom. Inspector Vezina was questioned as to the type of construction of the structure. He notn as to whether or tthethat wallit was betweencthenbedroom and the dor couldbediscussiopened Vezina making an L-shaped room out of the living room and bedroom He told the Boardpthat rineaddition tto that this might be a possibilit the natural light and ventilation problems in the bedroom the Board should also feet and the r rehe fact that quired m nimumh was o70 used as the square feet bedroomKnox-Ren field5 madera motion to uphold Chapter 17-5.J.(1) lack of required natural light, Chapter o uphold lack of required natural ventilation, and Chapter 17-5.M.(3) lack of required minimum room size. Ringgenberg seconded the ­&­. Tho motion carried. Present: Gene Huling. Inspector Vezina requested that both of these appeals be presented at the same time as the violations that were being appealed were similar in ducted at licensinguinspectionnateC305 tor Ve305a1/2zinpS South Lucas orted that hea dad311n- 311-1/2 South Lucas on October 21, 1983. The right to hear the appeals, which had both been filed late, was granted at the February yof , 1984, meeting. The violations appealed are Chapter 17-5.J.(1) lacktion, red a305i9h305n1/2hSouth Lucas ter natural ventila- K d dining room windok of w does not. face directly to the outdoors and 311 - 311-1/2 South Lucas, bedroom window does not face directly to the outdoors. Inspector Vezina stated that both the bedroom and the dinigg room opened onto a sun porch that contained nine windows. He stated that the violation existed because the requirement of 8 i D r Housing Appeals Board April 9, I984 Page 6 the Code was that the window in both of these rooms had to open directly to the outdoors. He stated that the amount of natural light and ventila- Housintion gInspector bthe present Code. �n each oVezinarequiredom was sufficient to meet that , through photographs taken erlie, showed the Appeal Board members the existing conditions. Mr. Ruling stated that the properties had been constructed in 1930 with the sun porch present. He stated that he felt there was adequate natural light and ventilation present. There was discussion among the Board members as to how similar gto rls of this nature had been a variance to Chapter 17-5.J.(l)elackKofxrequireddnatural light and antand Chapter 17-5.K.(2)(b) lack of required natural ventilation. Ringgenberg seconded the motion. The motion carried. APPEAL OF SANDRA SWEENY 1007 NORTH OODGE STREET Present: Sandra Sweeny. i Inspector Vezina reported that he had conducted a licensing inspection at 1007 - 1007-112 violation appealed rhad Dodge March 2 first been improperly cited 4 1984. Hstated itedandtheCode section eshould be amended to read Chapter 17-6.L. kitchen/kitchenette inadequately equipped, second floor kitchen lacks a stove and refrigerator. Inspector Vezina reported to the Board that this property had been recently remod- eled to a duplex and at one time had had a stove and refrigerator in it. However, at the time of the inspection, neither stove nor refrigerator were nowOccupied by one family and ithat-the Propertylained to the r wash currentld tat this yrineatttrust and would shortly be put on the market to be sold. She explained that the money in the trust was to be used for the children who were beneficiaries of the trust and that the trust did not have access nor it wish to spend the funds that were present to install a stove and refrigerator in a unit that was currently unoccupied. Knox-Renfield made a motion to uphold the violation with an extension of six months given to correct Chapter 17-6.L. kitchen/kitchenette inadequately equipped. Ringgenberg seconded the motion. The motion carried. Inspector Vezina reported that he was dismissing Chapter 17-7.F. exterior wood surface unprotected from the elements as he did not feel at this time the paint peeling on the house was sufficient to continue the violation. Ms. Sweeny requested that the Board hear one additional violation that she had not previously requested to be appealed. The Board members agreed to hear the violation. The additional violation she wished to appeal was Chapter 17-5.K.(3)(a) lack of required adequate mechanical ventilation, basement bathroom lacks a system of mechanical ventilation. Again, Ms. Sweeny explained that there were not adequate funds present at this time to correct the violation and wished additional time be given which would allow for the sle of Chapter 17-5.K. (3)( ) tlackroofr required/adequateemechanical ioventilation with a six month extension of time given to correct violation. Ringgenberg seconded the motion. The motion carried. Housing Appeals Board April 9, 1984 Page 7 APPEAL OF TIM LAUGHLIN 120 NORTH GOVERNOR Present: None. Inspector Vezina reported that he conducted a licensing inspection at 120 North Governor on March 14, 1984. The violation to be appealed he wished to amend to Chapter 17-7.A.(2) roof not maintained in weathertight condition, southeast roof is deteriorated. Inspector Vezina read to the Board the appeal of Mr. Laughlin which stated that the shingles were of a synthetic material with the resulting curling typical of this type of shingle and that the roof will be replaced in approximately two years and at this time no leakage problems have occurred. Inspector Vezina showed the Appeal Board members pictures of the roof in question. He was questioned as to the presence of leaking problems and he stated that he had not observed any but it was his past instruction that when deteriora- tion of this type had occurred that a violation of the Housing Code was present. Haendel made a motion to uphold Chapter 17-7.A.(2) roof not maintained in weathertight condition. Ringgenberg seconded the motion. The motion carried. Ringgenberg made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Haendel seconded the motion The motion card M nutes Prepared for Acting Chairperson Goldene Haendel by Judy Hoard RME ■ r� MINUTES SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION APRIL 11, 1984 3:00 P.M. SENIOR CENTER CONFERENCE ROOM COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Conrad Brown (4:50 p.m.), Margaret Clover, Bill Coen, Henry Fox, Bob Jackson, Gladys Scott ABSENT: Mike Kattachee STAFF PRESENT: Bette Meisel, Jill Smith, Eka Udom OTHERS: Larry Oleson, Ruth Wagner, University of Iowa Political Science Students CALL TO ORDER/MINUTES Bill Coen called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. The minutes of the March, 1984 meeting were approved as read. PUBLIC DISCUSSION Bette Meisel noted the University of Iowa political science students were attending this meeting. Bill Coen introduced Larry Oleson, the new Director of SEATS. SENIOR CENTER EVALUATION COMMITTEE REPORT Bette Meisel, Pat Ducey, Jim Lapitz, Kathleen Norris, Bill Coen and Margaret Clover served on the Senior Center Evaluation Committee. It was noted that the Committee was pleased that the Senior Center met the goals of the NCOA study. The report presented at the meeting includes only the issues in each area for which means of improvement were identified. Meisel specifically noted that a practicum student will work this fall on setting up guidelines for research at the Center; members of the Council of Elders, Senior Center Commission and Eldercraft Shop manager will attend the Governor's regional conference on volunteerism; and the Pan-haienic Associa- tion and Interfraternity Council has volunteered to do a community survey and distribute information about the Senior Center on April 28. SIZE OF SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION Bette Meisel referred to the survey of Boards and Commissions comparing the varioud to the Seniors sizes of Center Comnissioniobylaws eand lordinance reviewed the 9-P947ndmenhe Senineedor Center Commission recommended that revisions be made in the bylaws Article II, Sections 1 and 2, Article V, Section 4 and Article VI, Section 1, and in Ordinance 79-2947, Article V, Section 25-60, 61, 64. SENIOR CENTER UPDATE Bette Meisel reviewed the March 1984 Senior Center attendance totals. ■ 1 Senior Center Commi ion April 11, 1984 Page 2 Meisel reported that the Senior Center was inspected by the City of Iowa City's liability insurance agent. Four safety concerns were pointed out: dull radio arm saw blade and needed retraction repair, missing table saw guard, improper food storage, and missing light globe in Congregate Meal area. Table saw users remove the guard to make special wood cuts. Meisel recommended buying a router to minimize misuse of the table saw. The Commission agreed with the recommendation to buy a router, router table and router bits. Henry Fox moved, Jackson seconded, to purchase the router equipment with gift fund money. The motion passed unanimously (5 yes, 2 absent). Henry Fox recommended buying carbide tip saw blades for the table saw when a replacement saw blade is needed. Bill Coen said the Council of Elders heard a presentation about the phonic ear - hearing augmentation system. The Lion's Cub has offered to organize a raffle to raise $4,000. The Lion's Club would like Senior Center members to help sell the raffle tickets. The phonic ear system costs $2500 for the initial base unit plus four personal receivers. Additional receivers cost $200-5300 each. Fox disliked having Senior Center participants sell raffle tickets. Clover said that the system offers minimal benefit for the major expense. The Commission discussed the use and advantages of the system. Jackson moved to accept the Lion's Club proposal if Senior Center members should not be required to sell raffle tickets. The motion was seconded by Fox and passed unanimously (5 yes, 2 absent). Meisel reported that many people turned in surveys and attended the trip meeting. Input was received about the type, length, and costs of trips that the Senior Center should is spri g. TheSenior Cen er trip volunteers trip hopecontract id out h to have 12 trips June. Meisel stated the Senior Center agency contracts need to be reviewed. Henry Fox and Mike Kattachee will assist Bette Meisel. The contracts should be submitted to the City Council by June, 1984. OLDER AMERICANS' DAY REPORT Ruth Wagner reported that Older Americans' Day plans are being finalized. The main program's script was written by Margaret Clover and involves pantomime, various costumes and the chorus. The program is about changes in Iowa City since the 1800's. There will be over 35 exhibitors. Bill Coen suggested asking cablevision to videotape the day's events. Wagner said that Council of Elder members are each inviting members of the Johnson County Board of Supervisors and City Council to attend the event. Wagner le ed he Senior Center.said there In responseetongoing efforts Wagner, Meiselto get explained pit wouldvcosti ant estimated $700 to change the Senior Center sign located in front of the building to include Johnson County. Wagner has been in contact with rural Johnson County groups to get them involved at the Senior Center. In response to Margaret Clover, the Commission discussed spending Senior movedr too all allowon up gift $50und n theeOlder on Older Americans' iDays'expenexpenses. ses.MMotion was seconded by Jackson and passed unanimously (5 yes, 2 absent). eW I Senior Center Commi- ion April 11, 1984 Page 3 CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT Bill Coen urged everyone to attend the Senior Center Health Fair, Monday, April 16. Bill Coen announced the Governor's Council on Aging conference will be held May 21, 1984, in Des Moines. Margaret Clover said the Senior Center chorus will be singing at the conference. Jackson moved that the Senior Center pay for the conference for two people, one Commission member and one Council of Elder member. If a Commission member cannot go, an additional Council of Elder member should be sent. Clover seconded the motion, motion passed unanimously (6 yes, 1 absent). Bill Coen appointed himself, Margaret Clover and Mike Kattchee to a committee to evaluate Bette Meisel, the Senior Center Coordinator. Coen stated that a letter was sent to the Committee on Community Needs stating the Senior Center Commission's input about community development and housing needs. Coen reported that the Senior Center Post editorial board proposed expanding the size of the newspaper to eight pages. Senior Center staff and volunteers decided that adding a one-page schedule of events insert would allow space to continue using a four-page Post. Staff and volunteers cannot handle the additional workload of editing,, proofreading, etc. an eight -page newspaper. Conrad Brown suggested using larger print to ensure filling eight pages. The next Senior Center Commission will be May 9. Meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m. Y9/ MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 12, 1984 - 6:30 P.M. CIVIC CENTER LAW LIBRARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Margaret Nowysz, Howard Jones, Steve Vanderwoude, Jackie Blank, Greg Duffy. MEMBERS ABSENT: Chuck Skaugstad, Jim Hayes I VISITORS PRESENT: Cablevision, Barbara Diment, Laura Peterson, Gail G. Wiley, Burstein, Laura Behrens, Jan Sull, Linda Robinson, Andy Cellbogen, Tom Surf, Lisa Anelleyra, John Roberts. I I STAFF PRESENT: Monica Moen, Colleen McCormick f I f ACTION TAKEN BY COMMISSION: 1. Motion to request Mayor McDonald to proclaim May 13-19, 1984, as Historic Preservation Week. 2. A motion to commend Jim Clark on the Gilbert Street project across from The Mansion. A copy to be sent to the architect. I 3. A motion to submit the list of historic preservation -related community development and housing needs to CCN. 4. A recommendation to hold a special meeting to review the draft of the proposed revisions to the historic preservation ordinance on Thursday, April 19, 1984, at 6:45 PM in the law library. CALL TO ORDER: Nowysz called the April 12, 1984 meeting to order at 6:45 P.M. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: A recommendation was made to amend the minutes of March 14, 1984, under the section of public discussion to read as follows: "He showed the Commission a letter from Joanne Mosher...". Jones moved to approve the amended minutes of March 14. The motion was seconded by Vanderwoude. The motion passed unanimously. VanderWoude moved to approve the minutes of March 27 as submitted. The motion was seconded by Jones. The motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC DISCUSSION: Nowysz stated that she had received a phone call from a concerned citizen regarding two buildings rumored to be scheduled for- demolition on S. Dubuque. She stated that these were brick buildings and that they were very old and owned by a local person. Blank stated that the buildings were zoned commercially and that commercial development would be required on the first floor of the building. VAIN Historic Preservation Commission April 12, 1984 Page 2 Nowysz suggested that a subcommittee be formed to find out more about these pieces of property. Blank volunteered. Nowysz stated that if necessary, a meeting regarding these structures would be called. VanderWoude suggested advertising for willing persons to move the build- ings rather than see them demolished. Blank stated that there were certain prohibitions against moving buildings, that it was very hard to find a place to move them to because of bridges, overhead wires, and difficulty in the use of cranes. NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION WEEK ACTIVITIES: Moen distributed information with regard to the work completed since the last meeting. She stated she had submitted a memorandum to the legal staff with regard to four questions: 1) can a commission, appointed by City Council,sponsor a run? 2) can they charge entry fees? 3) must liability insurance be provided? 4) does the Historic Preservation Commission need to post a bond? She stated that Boyle's response to the memorandum was that the powers of this commission prohibits the commission to commit the City to any financial undertakings. It was his recommendation to request permission from the City Council. He stated that at the same time the commission request permission from City Council the remainder of the questions could be answered at that time. Moen submitted a memo to be sent to Mayor McDonald. Nowysz suggested rewording the memo to state "who has contributed to historical preserva- tion in the community". Moen stated that 100 brochures from the National. Trust for Historic Preservation were available. Ten posters have also been ordered. Moen also stated that the National Trust for Historic Preservation suggested having the post office postmark the mail for that week. She stated that this takes time to organize and there was an approximate fee of $300 to prepare the dyes. She stated that this would also need to be authorized by the City Council. Moen circulated a memo with an attached sample proclamation for the City Council. Blank moved to recommend use of the proclamation by City Council. The motion was seconded by VanderWoude. The motion passed unanimously. Nowysz stated that she and Howard Jones had given up on the resources fair for this year. They would continue to pursue the list of crafts people interested in this work. The list will be made available at the public library as of May 1. Nowysz stated that the slide show in the library would be located in the library lobby during the month of May as would be a display of award winners, bibliography and poster. Suggestions were made to locate the other nine posters in the Civic Center, P&Z office, Old Brick and banks as well as the public library. �'yz Historic Preservation Commission April 12, 1984 Page 3 LIST OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION—RELATED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING NEEDS TO BE SUBMITTED TO CCN: 1. Continued interest in linking rehabilitation programs to older homes suitable for restoration. 2. Concern to CCN with regard to sensitivity in historically significant homes that will be developed with CDBG funds. 3. That the Historic Preservation Commission be informed every time an older structure is involved. VanderWoude moved that the above list be forwarded to CCN. The motion was ` seconded by Duffy. The motion passed unanimously. j UPDATE OF NORTH SIDE HISTORIC DISTRICT: Moen stated that this had been placed on the Planning and Zoning agenda for a public hearing on April 16. She stated that members of the Historic Preservation Commission are encouraged to be there. She stated that the north side reports had been forwarded to the State for review. REVIEW OF PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE: It was recommended after discussion that a special meeting be held to review the final draft of the revisions to the Historic Preservation Ordinance on Thursday, April 19, 1984 at 6:45 P.M. The meeting would take place in the law library. Vanderwoude moved to submit the ordinance as a rough draft to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The motion was seconded by Duffy. The motion passed unanimously. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS: Moen referred to a bill which proposes establishing an historic building code. She stated that this had been passed in the Senate on March 9 and the House March 30. She stated that no letter endorsing this bill was sent to legislators as the City Council needs to approve letters of endorsement sent from the Commission and that the bill had already been approved by the Senate and House. Moen stated that there had been no response to the letter sent to the owners of the Englert Theater. Moen stated that one person still needed to be appointed to serve on the urban environment ad hoc committee. It was recommended that this be discussed at the special meeting April 19. Blank moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:30 P.M. The motion was seconded by VanderWoude. The motion passed unanimously. Minutes taken by Collen McCormick. Y9.2 MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 19, 1984 CIVIC CENTER LAW LIBRARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Margarget Nowysz, Greg Duffey, Jackie Blank, Chuck Skaugstad, Steve VanderWoude, Howard Jones MEMBERS ABSENT: Jim Hayes STAFF PRESENT: Monica Moen, Colleen .McCormick GUESTS PRESENT: Jane Murphy, Michael Farbnor, Nancy Gore The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Nowysz at 6:55 P.M. PUBLIC DISCUSSION: Chuck Skaugstad stated that Joe Kennedy, the owner of the building across the street from Jim Clark's new Gilbert Street project, was interested in putting up an awning and coordinating that awning with the entrance to the Vine. He was interested in recommendations from this Commission. Skaugstad suggested a flat angle awning like old porches used to have with brackets or columns on each end. She suggested a letter from the Commis- sion with their input analyzing the function of the awning, the relation- ship of style with the existing appendages and the relevance to architec- ture.Nowysz recommended that the Commission members look at the building and give their input to Moen. Blank questioned whether the Shaw House was undergoing sandblasting at its current stage. After some discussion, it was decided that it may not be sandblasting but that a chemical method of paint removal was being used. PROPOSED*REVISIONS TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE: Nowysz read the revisions of the redrafted ordinance with the following discussion: Page 5, Section VI., item C, that section should state that the comments would come back to the Historic Preservation Commission for action. Section VII, page 6, item B, the Secretary of the Historic Preservation Commission would be appointed by the City Manager and would be a staff person. Therefore, both the Commission and the staff would be required to sign off on the Certificate of No Material Effect. Moen stated that Section VII, Item F. refers to that,after the decision to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness has been made by the Commission, no further restrictions could be imposed on an individual. Nowysz suggested that consideration be given to including the ability of the Commission to recommend the designation of historic sites as well as historic districts in the ordinance. It was suggested that the Commission may want to review changes made to the exteriors of City owned sites also. VanderWoude moved and Skaugstad seconded that a decision regarding the proposed revisions to the Historic Preservation Ordinance be postponed until the Commission reviews the ordinance further. The motion passed unanimously. MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 19, 1984 PAGE 2 URBAN ENVIRONMENT AD HOC C014MITTEE APPOINTMENT: Duffey moved that VanderWoude be appointed to the Urban Environment Ad Hoc Committee. Skaugstad seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS: Skaugstad reported that it is impractical to consider sponsoring a run during Preservation Week. Much more preparation is required than time permits. He suggested that the Commission consider a run for fall 1984. The U of I Athletic Department and the Johnson County Historical Society may be interested in working on this event. Nowysz directed Skaugstad to continue planning this event for fall 1984. Nowysz reported that the "Who To Book of Historic Preservation" will be available in the library during Preservation Week. The 1983 Historic Preservation Award Winners will gather materials for the library display. VanderWoude is preparing a bibliography of preservation literature available in the library. Nowysz attended the Iowa -Illinois Gas and Electric franchise meeting and discussed the issue of charging Iowa -Illinois rent for the use of City rights-of-way. It was pointed out that one of the 1983 award winners is significantly obstructed by power lines and that proposed lines along the railroad ROW would run past the Summit Street Historic District and not contribute to the integrity of that district. Unsightly power meter boxes attached to historic structures were discussed. L Moen read the response received from Central States Theatre regarding the Englert Theatre. Skaugstad moved that the meeting adjourn. VanderWoude seconded. Motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. ;1 I MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING COIMIISSION APRIL 19, 1984 - 7:30 P.M. CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAI4BERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Courtney, Perry, Scott, Jakobsen, Blank, Jordan MEMBERS ABSENT: Horowitz STAFF PRESENT: Franklin, Knight, Boyle, McCormick SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: Chairperson Scott called the meeting to order at 7:40 P.M. Consideration of the minutes of March 22, 1984. Blank moved to approve the minutes of March 22, 1984 as submitted. The motion was seconded by Courtney. The motion passed unanimously (6-0). PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT INCLUDED ON THE AGENDA: There was no public discussion of any item not on the agenda. RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: 1. That the City initiated application for rezoning of approximately ten acres between Highway 1 West and Benton Street, along Harlocke Street and the proposed Harlocke Street Extended, be denied. 2. That the application submitted by Hallmark Homes, Inc., for approval of the preliminary large scale residential development (LSRO) plan of Harlocke Ridge, located south of Benton Street, east of Harlocke Street, and 'north of Highway 1 be deferred to the first meeting in April, 1985. 3. That the application submitted by Pharmaceutical Development Systems, Inc., for approval of a revised preliminary and final large scale non-residential development (LSNRO) plan for lot 1 of BOI Fifth Addition be approved. OTHER ACTION TAKEN: 1. A public hearing was set for May 3, 1984, to consider establishment of the proposed North Side Commercial Historic District and the North Side Residential Historic District. 2. The Planning & Zoning Commission initiated the consideration of the rezoning of approximately ten acres between Highway 1 West and Benton Street, along Harlocke Street and the proposed Harlocke Street Extended to some appropriate zone. ROM Planning y, Zoning Commission April 19, 1984 Page 2 ZONING ITEMS: Z-8407. Public discussion of a City initiated application for rezoning of Haapproximately rlockeStreeacres etandthe p oposed HarlockiWest aBenton Street, eStreetE Extended; 45 -day period: 4/27/84. Boyle stated that the City Council could not waive the 45 -day limitation period and that action must be taken on this zoning item before April 27, 1984. Knight stated that the options available were to act on the RS -5 zoning and then the Commission could initiate their own application to consider some other zoning. Dave Dierks, of 905 Weeber Street, stated that the single family residents of the area had put together a questionnaire and submitted it to the multi -family residents in the area. The questionnaire included the number of autos owned, and the access point the residents used most often. 24-34 units were polled showing the following facts: 1) out of 36 individuals polled, 26 persons had automobiles; 2) 25 worked at the University of Iowa; 3) 8 persons lived in the units for the cost convenience, 17 for the i convenience in being close to work; and 4) 17 said they enjoyed living in a residential area. When asked what development they would like to see, one stated a multi -family unit and 25 stated single family homes. Dierks indicated that all but one of the respondents stated that they would travel north on Harlocke and Weeber when leaving their residence rather than travelling south to Highway 1. He stated that a neighborhood meeting was held Sunday, April 15, and the consensus of the group was that the RS -5 zoning request would probably be denied. He stated that both the size of the development and the access Problem were interrelated and that the neighbor's basic concern was to not have further traffic through Harlocke and Weeber Streets. As a group they decided that a POH could be approved and that would be acceptable if the access question was dealt with. He stated that the neighborhood was willing to work with the Commission and the developer on this issue of access and safety. Chuck Mullen, attorney for the Viggo Jensen Co. who owns a portion of the property under consideration for rezoning, stated that he understood that the RS -5 zoning did not follow the Comprehensive Plan. He requested that since Mr. Hershberger had asked to defer action on the LSRD for a period of one year, that the Commission take the time to consider the issue of the LSRD and the zoning when it came back to the Commission a year from now. Mr. Dierks questioned whether or not their petition could legally be changed to a request for RS -12 at this time or if it would have to be resubmitted. Boyle stated that since this was a City initiated petition it must go back to City Council, but that the Commission could make a motion to initiate a separate application to consider RS -12 or any other zoning. Jakobsen questioned rezoning to RS -5 was legally defensible. Boyle stated that although one could argue that RS -5 zoning was not a taking. There would be a legal question as to whether RS -5 zoning was reasonable. r` Planning & Zoning Commission April 19, 1984 Page 3 Perry moved to approve the City initiated application for rezoning of approximately ten acres between Highway 1 West and Benton Street, along Harlocke Street, and the proposed Harlocke Street Extended. The motion was seconded by Jordan. Perry stated that he was not ready to make a decision at this time because he did not feel all alternatives had been discussed. He stated that he would vote against the application at this time. Courtney stated that he felt he was at a disadvantage as a new member of the Commission but was at an advantage by knowing people on Harlocke Street and having visited the area an numerous occasions. He did not feel that the developer had presented a feasible alternative. He stated that although it was hard to imagine increased traffic on Harlocke Street, it was also hard to imagine an RS -5 zone down to Highway 1. He stated that he would vote against RS -5 zoning. The motion was defeated unanimously (0-6). Perry moved to deny Z-8407 as submitted. The motion was seconded by Jordan. The motion passed unanimously (6-0). Jakobsen moved that this committee initiate an application for rezoning of this area to some appropriate zone. The motion was seconded by Blank.. Jakobsen stated that RM -44 zoning for the entire area was probably not appropriate. She felt that at this time they had not fully explored all of the problems in the area. She stated that she hoped that this Commis- sion could arrive at a resolution before Mr. Hersberger developed the property. The motion passed unanimously (6-0). SUBDIVISION ITEMS: S-8403. Public discussion of an application submitted by Hallmark Homes, Inc., for approval of the preliminary large scale residential development (LSRD) plan of Harlocke Ridge, located south of Benton Street, east of Harlocke Street and north of Highway 1; 45 -day limitation period: waived. Knight stated that the developer had requested that the action be deferred for a period of one year. Boyle stated that this commission should defer to definite time and that the application would start over with a public hearing when it comes before the board. Jordan moved to defer S-8403 to the first meeting in April, 1985. The motion was seconded by Jakobsen. The motion passed unanimously (6-0). *Chairperson Scott adjourned the meeting for ten minutes at 8:10 P.M. The meeting resumed at 8:20. roz-jm Planning G Zoning Commission April 19, 1984 Page 4 S-8409. Public discussion of an application submitted by Pharmaceutical Development Systems Inc. for approval of a revised preliminary and final large scale non-residential development (LSNRD) plan for Lot 1 of BOI Fifth Addition; 45 -day limitation period: 5-20-84. Knight stated that the Commission had previously acted on this request but the application had never gone to the City Council at the applicant's request. The applicant wished to revise the previously submitted LSNRD. He stated that the building plans were very similar but that the buildings were smaller, the parking lot smaller, and the trees had been changed from large to small trees. Jakobsen moved to approve S-8409 as submitted. The motion was seconded by Courtney. The motion passed unanimously (6-0). S-8414. Public discussion of an application submitted by Michael Rocca for approval of a final plat of block 3, replatting of tat 1, Rocca Subdivision, a subdivision in Johnson County and subject to an agreement between Iowa City and Coralville dated August 3, 1976. Jordan moved to send a letter to the City Council recommending that no recommendations for approval or denial be granted due to the fact that this property is not within an area which would ever be annexed to Iowa City. The Commission suggested that the Council thank Coralville for the opportunity to review this, application. The motion was seconded by Perry. The motion passed unanimously (6-0). ZONING ITEMS: Public discussion of amendments to tree regulations of the Zoning Ordi- nance. Blank moved to defer discussion of amendments of the tree regulations of the Zoning Ordinance to the May 3, 1984 meeting. The motion was seconded by Perry. The motion passed unanimously (6-0). VACATION ITEMS: V-8402. Public discussion of a City initiated application for the vacation of Melrose Avenue east of the Melrose/Byington intersection. Jakobsen moved to recommend to the City Council vacation of a portion of Melrose Avenue from the eastern boundary of its intersection with Byington Road to its intersection with Highway 6/218 with easements retained over all public utilities in the right-of-way and an agreement executed regarding the maintenance of the storm sewer, provisions for storm water drainage, and the maintenance of the retaining wall on the east side of the site. The motion was seconded by Perry. The motion passed unanimously (6-0). OTHER BUSINESS: Public discussion of amendments to the Large Scale Residential Development (LSRD) plan regulations. Planning E Zoning Commission April 19, 1984 Page 5 Jakobsen moved to recommend that Chapter 27 of the Iowa City Municipal Code be amended as stated in the memo from Mr. Boyle dated February 2, 1984. The motion died for lack of a second. i Consideration of appointments to the urban environment ad hoc committee. Chairperson Scott recommended to City Council that Jane Jakobsen and Horst Jordan be appointed as Planning b Zoning representatives to the ad hoc committee.. PLANNING 3 ZONING INFORMATION: Monica Moen stated that the public hearing set for May 3, 1984, for the amendments to Section 36.50 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Historic Preser- vation Overlay Zone, be postponed because the Historic Preservation Commission needed more time to make additional changes. She stated that their next meeting was May 9 and that the public hearing would have to be set after May 9, 1984. Jakobsen moved to rescind the previous action setting a public hearing for May 3, 1984, on an amendment to Section 36.50 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Historic Preservation Overlay Zone. The motion was seconded by Courtney. The motion passed unanimously. Knight stated that the next Planning b Zoning Commission meeting would not be held in the Civic Center. Council Chambers and that the Commission members should be aware of that upcoming change. Courtney stated that he was concerned about not being informed prior to attending the meeting that the vote on Z-8407 had to be made that night. He stated that in the future he would like some advance notice. Scott stated that if he were to continue attending the Planning b Zoning Commission meetings, guarantees would have to be made that he could be kept warm or he would not be able to attend. The meeting adjourned at 8:40 P.M. Minutes submitted by Colleen McCormick. Approved Horst or an, a ary 873 I MINUTES IO11A CITY PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION THURSDAY, MAY 3, 1984 - 7:30 P.M. CIVIC CENTER. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Blank, Jordan, Perry, Scott, Horowitz, Courtney MEMBERS ABSENT: Jakobsen STAFF PRESENT: Franklin, Boyle, McCormick RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: 1. S-8415. Recommend to City Council approval of a request for consent to vacate a portion of the Sturgis Corner Addition, Part 2, final plat. 2. S-8416. Recommend to City Council that no recommendation be made for approval of a preliminary and final plat of Reeve's First Subdivision, in Johnson County, north of I-80 and west of I-380 to the City of Coralville. The Commission stated its appreciation of the opportunity to review this item. 3. That an ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance to amend the off-street parking requirement design standards be approved. 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 APRIL 5, 1984 Blank moved to approve the minutes as circulated. The motion was seconded by Perry. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). SUBDIVISION ITEMS: 1. S-8415. Public discussion of a request for consent to vacate a portion ai'iTie Sturgis Corner Addition, Part 2, final plat:. Franklin stated that Myles Development, Inc., wished to vacate a portion of the Sturgis Corner Addition, Part 2, which includes Lot 6, Lot 9, the river front area, and a portion of Sturgis Corner Drive right-of-way. It was the intent of the owners to give to the City the river front area as shown, and to develop the land which remains in the future. She stated that the proprietor of a plat may vacate any portion of that plat prior to the sale of the relevant lots, with the consent of the City, by recording an affidavit to that effect with the County Recorder. The northerly section of Sturgis Corner Drive has never been constructed or accepted by the City. All of the property abutting Sturgis Corner - extended is owned by Myles Development, Inc. Vacation of the right-of-way may be accomplished through the partial vacation of the plat by the owner. r. Planning 8 Zoning Commission May 3, 1984 Page 2 The property which would obtain access from the extension is owned by the applicant, Myles Development, Inc. All other properties have alternative means of access. By cutting off this option to access its northerly property, Myles Development, Inc., may need at some future date to provide a drive through its own property or acquire an easement from someone else. Staff recommended that consent be givento Myles Development, Inc., proprietors of Lot 6, Lot 9 and the river front area to vacate that portion of Sturgis Corner Addition, Part 2, shown on the plat submitted. Perry -moved that consent to vacate a portion of the Sturgis Corner Addition, Part 2, final plat, be approved. The motion was seconded by Jordan. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). 2. S-8416. Discussion of an application for approval of the preliminary and fi— naT—plat of Reeve's First Subdivision, in Johnson County, north of I-80 and west of I-380; 45 -day limitation period: 6/11/84. Franklin stated that Reeve's First Subdivision is within Johnson County and the two mile extraterritorial jurisdiction of Coralville. It is also within the bounds of an agreement reached between Iowa City and Coralville regarding future annexation. It is because of this agreement that the subdivision must come before the City. The proposed subdivision is for three lots on which housing presently exists. The property is located well outside of any area which Iowa City would conceivably anticipate for annexation. Staff recommends that the Commission pass this subdivision an to the City Council without detailed review and make no recommendation regarding approval or denial. Jordan moved to recommend to City Council that no recommendation be made on this subdivision and that the Commission and Council thank the City of Coralville for the opportunity to review and comment. The motion was seconded by Courtney. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). ZONING ITEMS: 1. Public hearing on the designation of the north side residential historic district and the north side commercial historic district. Monica Moen, staff person 'for the Historic Preservation Commission, stated that the main issue of concern to the Planning 8 Zoning Commission at the informal meeting on Monday appeared to be the number of contribut- ing structures in the proposed district. She stated that the North Side had a larger percentage of key structures than did Summit Street or Woodlawn. She presented the Commission with a chart of the classifica- tion of historic structures and a breakdown of the number of buildings in . each category. This breakdown showed that the Nortti Side has 90 key structures; over one-third of all the structures there. In the three areas concerned, the North Side Residential Area has 34.2% which are key structures, Summit Street has 16.4%, and Woodlawn has 21% which are key Planning & Zoning Commission May 3, 1984 Page 3 structures. With regard to contributing structures and intrusions, Moen stated that the North Side residential district has lower percentages of these types of structures than Woodlawn and Summit districts. The criteria established to determine a key structure is that the structure is either historically significant or architecturally signifi- cant. Perry questioned the age criteria for the type of structures. Moen stated .that many of the houses of the North Side were built between 1839 -and 1920. Horowitz questioned whether it would be more difficult to have under- ground wiring installed if the entire neighborhood was not designated a district. Moen stated that a district designation would be more suppor- tive of such a project. She stated that although wiring had not been listed as a priority by the Historic Preservation Committee, underground wiring would improve the integrity of the historic neighborhood. Scott questioned where the figures for the graph came from. Moen stated that Jim Jacobsen, a former intern for the Planning department, obtained this information. She stated that it was a very comprehensive document. Perry questioned the number of contributing structures that were over 100 years old. Moen stated that the community was established in the 1830's; prior to that time there was no significant number of structures in the area. She stated that 1939 represents the 100th anniversary of the community. Many of the houses were built in the early 1900's and that most were at least 50 years of age. She stated that she would be willing to determine the number of key structures which are at least 100 years old if the Commission requested it. Perry. questioned how many of the structures had been demolished. Moen replied that this information was not known but perhaps could be obtained by investigating the number of demolition permits requested. She was willing to obtain this informa- tion. Scott questioned when the north side was downzoned. Boyle replied 1977 or 1978. Scott stated that he would like to have the multi -volume North Side Study available to the Commission for at least one work session. Franklin stated that copies were available in the archives and that Jim Jacobsen's research could also be obtained for the Commission to review. Perry requested that Moen obtain information as to the percentage of structures 100 years old or older. Howard Jones, Vice Chairman of the Historic Preservation Commission, read a letter to the Commission from Loren Hickerson, former mayor, supporting the preservation of historical buildings. He asked the Commission to review the ordinance considering the region, the area, or the neighbor- hood. He stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission should have concerns for upgrading the commercial as well as the single family buildings. Jones felt that the Historic Preservation Commission could quickly and effectively aid the property owner whose plans were not inconsistent with historic preservation standards. 1 -- Planning & Zoning Commission May 3, 1984 Page 4 Scott questioned concerns of how this ordinance would affect the non - historic structures in a district in the least possible way and yet retain the character of historic buildings. He questioned if there would be some way to designate an historic building in a district as opposed to an entire district. With the present ordinance, all property in a district would have to obtain a certificate of appropriateness if exterior modifications which require a regulated permit are undertaken. He questioned whether the ordinance could be altered so that the Commis- sion had power which applied to key structures but not to contributing structures. Jones replied that there may be times when an adjacent con- tributing structure could have serious impact on the key structure. Franklin stated that there were some constraints within the state legislation to have an ordinance covering an entire district and then applying the ordinance to only some structures within that district. Mr. Jones stated that the Historic Preservation Commission is concerned with any change which alters the exterior of a building. He stated that the Historic Preservation Commission could not mandate many changes with regard to a structure; only those exterior changes for which a regulated permit is required. It was also the Historical Preservation Commission's goal to equally safeguard the rights of the property owner. It does not wish to impose stringent regulations on property owners. The Historic Preservation Commission would prefer to see an entire area designated as a district so that they would have the opportunity to review other structures. He felt that the Commission could function best by educating builders and upgrading historical buildings. Members of the Historic Preservation Commission along with Old Brick are currently preparing a manual of those professionals involved with restoration as an educational effort. He felt that the educational aspects of historic preservation are equally or more important than the ordinance. The emphasis of the Commission was to acquaint persons with the importance of historic districts and of preserving historic structures. Jim Harris, resident of Iowa City, stated that he supported the adoption of the ordinance on a district -wide basis. He had previously been active in the downzoning of that area. This downzoning was done to maintain this area as a residential district. He felt that the north side neighbors continued to be concerned that this area remain a historic district and approved of the effort. William Bywater of 2501 Potomac Drive, Iowa City, opposed the north side commercial area becoming an historic district for three reasons. He did not want to see another City agency come into being and he did not feel that there was a common theme among the properties of the area (i.e. no comnon architectural designs, etc.). He felt that this should be a neighborhood interest and did not see any representatives of the neigh- borhood there. Lastly, he felt that most of the interesting structures in that area had already been removed. Charles Ruppert of 1406 North Dubuque Road, Iowa City, felt that the district designation would be a problem for churches, and sororities. He felt that there would be ramifications if this ordinance went into effect. He stated that although he was in favor of restoration, he felt RIM Planning 3 Zoning May 3, 1984 Page 5 Commission r - that the people of that area did not want to be interfered with, and felt that that was true of the whole north side area. He felt that this ordinance would be just one more added restriction and stated surprise that the residents of the north side were not present. He did not feel that the residents of the north side were aware or understood the ramifications of this ordinance. Blank stated that she was in favor of historic districts and would encourage an ordinance which would maintain the City's character, beauty and charm. She felt that the North Side downzoning had kept one side of town from becoming another South Johnson Street. This area provided an opportunity for many people to live modestly. She felt that one way to preserve that opportunity was through this ordinance. She was not an advocate of holding onto something old simply because it was old, but felt that this ordinance offered advice and assistance in helping to make that decision. Jordan stated that he had walked through this area and found a number of notable structures. He stated that his concerns were with the other structures that were not key structures. He stated concern with the public having to ask yet one more commission's approval before having something changed on their own house. Perry stated that he also felt the key structures were worth saving but stated concerns over the contributing structures and additional restric- tions on property owners. Scott stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission had debated and recommended to City Council the formation of the Historic Preservation Commission by ordinance. At that time he voted against the adoption of an ordinance based on his objections to this type of approval. He was opposed to an entire district falling under an ordinance instead of just those properties with historic distinction. He stated that with regard to the Woodlawn and Summit Street Districts the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 7-0 in favor of adopting an overlay zone in those two districts. In those two districts he stated that he felt it was a community bond of the property owners and that they wanted historic designation and were aware of how it would affect the property owners. He questioned whether the Historic Preservation Commission had notified all the residents in the commercial and residen- tial district. He had done a random sampling of both the residential and commercial property owners and found that most of the owners did not have any realization of what was potentially going to happen in that area and furthermore they didn't understand what it meant. He felt that this Commission should attempt to discover what the public's opinion was with regard to this zone. He felt that the Commission and the City had maintained the integrity of the north side with the downzoning. With the current zoning being RM -12, it tended to make construction of multi -family dwelling units more difficult due to the minimum lot requirements. r - Planning 8 Zoning Commission May 3, 1984 Page 6 Moen stated that the mailing had gone to the north side residents in November of 1983. The mailing list has been generated in October, 1983, by using tax records available in the City Assessor's Office. Horowitz stated that she thought a majority of the property owners in that area lived out of the city. She felt this was the reason there were not more residents present at this meeting. She stated that she had had a conversation with a property owner who lived in an old home and questioned why it was not on the historical preservation list. The reply was that they would love to be on the historical preservation list but they did not want the bureaucracy involved to get it done. Courtney stated that he needed more input from the residents in this area. He felt that many of the homes did not have a place in this zone. Scott stated that a number of things the Planning and Zoning Comnission was responsible for helped to retain the integrity of neighborhoods. He felt that the downzoning in 1978 contributed to this integrity. In addition, the new zoning ordinance had fought for nonconforming uses. He felt that if a single family structure of an older building was destroyed by fire or an act of God that it should be able to be rebuilt on the same foundation. He stated that one thing included in the new ordinance was that once designated as a single family dwelling it would always be a single family dwelling. With that provision it could always be rebuilt in the same way. He felt that if the neighborhood were requesting an ordinance for the historic district it would have more credence than simply an indication of what this body or the Historic Preservation Commission wanted. Franklin stated that prior to the next Planning and Zoning formal meeting a press release could be submitted to the paper. This press release would be at the newspaper's discretion for printing. Scott questioned when the Planning 8 Zoning Commission must vote on this ordinance. It was determined that it could be voted on at the formal meeting May 17 or June 7, 1984. Scott requested two informal meetings prior to the voting. He felt that the Commission needed time to digest the information and that the scheduled vote should be for the first meeting in June. Jones stated that without the support and acceptance of the neighborhood the ordinance would not be effective. 2. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE TREE REGULATIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE Franklin stated that the tree ordinance had been redrafted since the informal meeting. Perry stated that he had a minor problem with the wording allowing developers to plant two and one-half inch trees but not allowing them to keep two and one-half inch trees that were already existing. NO Planning & Zoning Commission May 3, 1984 Page 7 Franklin stated that a developer could always use an existing tree in lieu of planting a new tree. She suggested that language be included which would state that if a developer has an existing tree they can change the ratio of existing trees as well as new trees and that they could use existing trees to fulfill the tree requirement. Franklin stated that it would be up to the discretion of the City Forester to determine whether or not an existing tree was diseased. Franklin stated that two remaining aspects of the tree regulations were the traffic islands and parking. A public notice had not .been issued regarding those requirements and therefore a decision would have to wait until the March 17, 1984 meeting. Glenn Siders of North Liberty requested some changes to the tree regula- tions. He stated concerns with' the temporary certificate of occupancy being issued and wished to omit the temporary and have simply a certifi- cate of occupancy issued. Franklin replied that the reason for the temporary certificate of occupancy was to obtain compliance. She stated that the temporary certificate would be issued on a seasonal basis. Mr. Siders stated concerns that if the sale was contingent upon a certificate of occupancy developers would be unable to sell the property. Blank stated that it was common practice to have money escrowed for compliance purposes. Siders felt that escrow monies would take funds out of the developer's circulation for four to five months. Siders stated concerns that the minimum size trees be reduced from one and one-half inches to one inch. Scott replied that the Commission had determined the larger the tree, the more likely it would be to survive. Siders stated concerns with the planting of trees in ten foot utility easements. He stated that the utility companies do not want trees in their easements and that developers would have to move their buildings back. Franklin stated that compliance would be mandatory if the developer could comply. However, if compliance could not be achieved without moving a building which complied with the required setbacks, the developer would not be forced to comply with the right-of-way regulation regarding trees. Siders stated additional concerns with regard to spacing trees 30 and 16 feet apart. He would like to see that reduced to 20 feet and 10 feet, respectively. Franklin stated that the distance apart was to allow the tree room to grow and these figures were in compliance with the City Forester's recommendations. Siders stated concerns regarding page 6, section d - that large trees shall be eight feet from the edge of the planting area. He stated he discussed this item with the City Forester who indicated he was not opposed to reducing that figure to four and one-half feet. The City Forester had stated that a tree could probably survive and reach maturity with four and one-half feet. Scott stated that if money were held in escrow to force compliance, there might be less opposition than if a certificate of occupancy was granted and an escrow account obtained. He suggested that the language in the Planning & Zoning Commission May 3, 1984 Page 8 escrow agreement cover the cost of the plantings' and give the City power to do the planting if the developer did not. Franklin expressed concern that the ordinance not be warded in such a way as to make it easier to have the City do the planting than the developer. Perry moved to defer public discussion of the tree regulations until the May 17 meeting. The motion was seconded by Jordan. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). 3. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF AN AMENDMENT EXCEPTING SINGLE FAMILY AND TWO FAMILY Franklin stated that the first section had been revised regarding the introductory paragraph for parking generally to include "or provided.' The reason was to ensure that when parking was not required but was provided, the additional parking constructed complied with the Zoning Ordinance. An additional change was in section (e) with regards to an exception for single family dwellings to add "and duplexes." She stated that when the design standards were adopted in the spring of 1983 they were adopted prior to the Zoning Ordinance changes and excepted single family and duplexes. Perry moved to amend the Zoning Ordinance to revise the off-street parking requirement design standards beginning with the second paragraph of the draft copy. The motion was seconded by Jordan. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). OTHER BUSINESS Blank stated that the old Shaw property is currently up for sale as a five-plex with five parking spaces and, questioned whether this was in compliance withi the Zoning Ordinance. Franklin stated that she could check on the number of units that were on file in the Building Department. Jordan stated that he had had lunch with Fred Zehr and had spoken to him with regard to a letter from the FAA. Franklin stated that the developers had initiated the FAA review. Jordan reported that Zehr had indicated that the FAA had a 60 day response period by law, and questioned whether any communi- cation had been received. Franklin responded that she would check. The meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m. The minutes were taken by Colleen McCormick. Approved by: Horst Jordan, Secretary