HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-06-05 Bd Comm. minutes-•,,d .1a
Ry
MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 19 npFroval
APRIL 25, 1984 - 4:30 P.M.
CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Randall, VanderVelde, Slager, Barker
MEMBERS ABSENT: Fisher
STAFF PRESENT: Knight, Boyle, Frantz
FINAL ACTION TAKEN:
1. 5E-8406. The Board approved the application submitted by
ow�a-fTlinois Gas d Electric Company for a special exception to the
height limitations of the Airport Overlay Zone in accordance with
Section 36-43 of the Zoning Ordinance with the following conditions:
a. The tower will be located as shown on the site plan.
b. Lighting will be installed as required in accordance with FAA
standards.
c. The existing tower will be promptly removed upon completion of the
proposed tower.
2. 5E-8407. The Board approve the special exception for a modification
C
of -Me -yard requirements in accordance with Section 36-69(d) of the
Zoning Ordinance.
3. V-8404. The Board deferred the request submitted by Mercy Facilities
7 -F. -Tor a variance to the provisions of Section 36-58(e)(2) regarding
screening of off-street parking areas to the May 9, 1984, meeting.
4. V-8405. The Board denied the request submitted by James Clark for a
reversal of the interpretation of the City Manager regarding Section
36-20(c)(1) of the Zoning Ordinance, and a request for a variance to
the same provision.
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION:
Randall moved to appoint VanderVelde temporary chairperson. The notion
was seconded by Slager. The motion carried unanimously.
VanderVelde called the meeting to order at 4:40 p.m.
Barker arrived at 4:45 p.m.
Special Exception Items:
1. 5E-8406. Public hearing on an application submitted by Iowa -Illinois
a� s ZElectric Company for a special exception to the height limita-
tions of the Airport Overlay Zane in accordance with Section 36-43 of
the Zoning Ordinance.
997
Board of Adjustment
April 25, 1984
Page 2
Knight reviewed the staff report and stated that the applicant was
requesting a special exception to allow construction of a new 140 foot
microwave radio tower to replace the existing 140 foot tower located
on the north side of the same building. The communication tower is an
accessory use, and according to Section 36-56(e)(4) must be located a
distance at least equal to its height from an R zone. The distance
of the proposed tower from any property line is greater than the
height of the tower.
Reports from the FAA and the Aeronautics Division as specified in
Section 36-43 have been received stating that the structure would not
be a hazzard to flight if lighting as required by the FAA is provided.
Knight had contacted Fred Zehr, Iowa City Airport Manager, who had no
additional comments or concerns in addition to what had been provided
by the FAA and the Aeronautics Division.
Based on the findings of the FAA and the Aeronautics Division, the
staff recommended in favor of this proposal with three conditions: 1)
the tower be located as shown on the site plan; 2) lighting be
installed as required in accordance with FAA standards; 3) the
existing tower be removed upon completion of the proposed tower.
i
Public Discussion:
Bob Hawk, attorney for Iowa -Illinois Gas & Electric, Charles Luther
and Eric Fritz of the engineering department of Iowa -Illinois made
themselves available for additional questions.
Pal Melise, a resident in that area, raised concerns as to the purpose
and function of the new tower and the necessity of replacing the
existing tower. Mr. Fritz replied that the existing tower was not
strong enough to support a proposed new microwave dish. The purpose
of the tower was to provide a microwave radio channel between the Iowa
City and Davenport office which will replace the leased phone lines
and allow them to operate at a decreased cost.
Board Discussion:
VanderVelde questioned whether there were any negative side effects to
the microwave broadcasting. Mr. Fritz replied that the signal level
used for the microwave was slightly less than five watts, which is
less than the average CB radio used in automobiles and therefore,
there were no harmful side effects.
VanderVelde questioned Boyle with regards to any liability the City
might incur with approval of this request. Knight stated that
according to the reply from the FAA and the Aeronautics Division it
was not hazardous and would not in any way jeopardize the intent of
the overlay zone. He explained that the overlay zone was adopted in
1980 and completely revised last year. The height limitations have
been imposed since 1980 and a special exception provision was included
in last year's revisions.
99T
Board of Adjustmen
April 25, 1984
Page 3
Boyle stated that the intent of the overlay zone as stated in the or-
dinance is to prevent airport hazards or those structures which are of
a height to be a hazard to flight. The FAA's findings were that it
was an obstruction, but not a hazard to flight. The obstruction will
have to be marked on maps so that pilots know it is there.
Barker moved to grant the special exception SE -8406 for the height
limitations
following conditions: A�1)p the Overlay werbeZ locaone tedcaso shown4on theSetin 36-3witn sithe
te
plan; 2) lighting be installed as required in accordnace with FAA
standards; 3) the existing tower be promptly removed upon completion
of the proposed tower.
The motion was seconded by Randall. The motion carried unanimously
(4-0).
2. SE -8407. Public hearing on an application submitted by Charles Conlon
on ba alf of the Howard Johnson Company for a special exception
modifying the yard requirements in accordance with Section 36-69(b) of
the Zoning Ordinance for the property located at 830 South Riverside
Drive.
Knight stated that the applicant had requested a special exception to
modify the yard requirements to allow the extension of an existing
building into the 20 foot front yard area. The Zoning Ordinance
states that a special exception may be granted '...when such modifica-
tions would not be contrary to public interest, nor contrary to the
general purpose and intent of this chapter and meet the conditions of
Section 36-91.'
He stated that this project was approved for a building permit
previously under the provisions of the old zoning ordinance, however,
due
for aobd lain the permit was never obtained. The applicant reapplied
20 foot front permit under the new zoning ordinance, which now has a
yard
in
that the problem the applicants licantsfaced wa a eprimarily the resus. lt ofstated
foot building in the would extend into then 20 foot yard. t,Thert of portioo proposed h of
the 17 foot jog would comply with the 20 foot yard requirement. Knight
stated that he had spoken with the Department of Transportation in
Cedar Rapids to determine whether they had any plans for this part of
the right-of-way. The Department of Transportation indicated that
they had completed all of their plans for widening that right-of-way
and they had no future plans for any use of the 17 foot strip of
right-of-way adjacent to this. property. Based on the fact that
adequate separation would remain between the street and the building,
staff recommended in favor of this proposal.
Public Discussion:
Mel Truomel of 314 4lest Benton Street questioned whether hardship,
reasonable return and uniqueness had to be shown in this request and
what the actual distance from the right-of-way to the proposed
extension was.
99,7
Board of Adjustment
April 25, 1984
Page 4
Knight stated that hardship, reasonable return and uniqueness applied
to a variance request and not a special exception. Knight also stated
that in accordance with the photo submitted to the Board, the
McDonald's building is approximately the same distance from the street
as the proposed extension.
VanderVelde questioned how much an extension forward from the existing
building this would be. Knight replied that the extension would be 22
feet at the nearest point. VanderVelde questioned whether the
proposed extension would be further back or closer than the
McDonald's.
Barker moved to table item SE -8407 to allow time for Mr. Conlon to
arrive and be available for further discussion. Fisher seconded the
motion.
Variance Items:
V-8404. Public hearing on an application submitted by Mercy Facili-
ties, Inc. for a variance to the provisions of Section 36-58(e)(2)
regarding screening of off-street parking areas.
Knight stated that the applicants were requesting a variance to the
screening requirements. A plan had been submitted showing the
required screening and an alternative plan for the proposed landscap-
ing. Knight explained that the Zoning Ordinance required the appli-
cant to demonstrate unnecessary hardship before a variance is granted.
This requires a showing of no reasonable return, uniqueness to the
property, and that the hardship not of the landowner's own making.
Knight explained that the applicants have indicated concern that the
screening will provide a protective environment for rapists, muggers
and vandalism. They have proposed an extensive landscaping plan as an
alternative. Although the landscaping is attractive, it does not
fulfill the screening requirements for two reasons: it would allow
visibility into the parking area, and it proposes primarily deciduous
plantings which would not have foliage during the winter months.
Knight stated the purpose of requiring screening of off-street parking
is to block the view of what is typically the major area of activity
associated with commercial uses (i.e. the parking area) from those
less intensive uses. The way the ordinance is currently written, a
parking area is required to screen from view within 100 feet of any
use which requires four or less parking spaces. Therefore, although
the best interest of those using the parking area may be served by
waiving the screening requirements, it would appear that limitation of
the screening requirements may have an adverse effect on the low
density residential uses which are located to the east and west of the
property in question.
Although security is of major concern, it does not fall within the
test requirement to be shown by hardship and it is the applicant's
responsibility.
997
Board of Adjustment
April 25, 1984
Page 5
A reasonable return can be obtained regardless of the screening
requirement. Even if it can be determined that elimination of the
screening would reduce the applicants' security costs for the proposed
parking area, this does not constitute unnecessary hardship. Rather,
it appears to be a necessary expense for the operation of a large
parking area.
Knight also stated that while the scale of this property area may be
unique, the concerns raised are not. They are concerns which would be
applicable for any parking area used late at night.
It was staff's opinion that while the proposed landscaping was
attractive, it would also be able to harbor persons with ill intent
towards persons using the parking area. If there was a problem with
regards to security in parking areas as a result of screening, then
staff felt it would be appropriate to look, at an ordinance amendment
rather than to grant a variance based an concerns which are applicable
to all parking areas with screening. It was the staff's recommenda-
tion that this variance be denied.
Randall stated that he was a member of the Board of Directors for
Mercy Facilities and would therefore not be able to participate in
this variance request.
Public Discussion:
Chuck Mullin, attorney for Mercy Facilities Inc., stated that there were
two issues which he would deal with; that this proposal fall within the
necessary criteria and that the alternative plan has merit in its own
right.
With regard to the criteria necessary for the Board's judgment, he stated
that the subsection regarding property which could not yield a reasonable
return within that particular zone does not apply to this variance appli-
cation. It is permissible to use this lot for parking, and no other use
is proposed. He felt that the section of the hardship requirement is for
a variance request of a different use than is permitted under the ordi-
nance. This variance request is solely concerned with the screening
requirement. He also stated that he did not feel that reasonable return
had any place in this particular variance application.
VanderVelde questioned what test should be met for unnecessary hardship
that would apply to the screening requirement.
Mullin stated that he felt the other two tests would apply. He stated
that he would define unnecessary hardship in this case as an unreasonable
security risk. He did not feel that this was applicable in any other
place in this community. He stated that this is a hospital use which
discharges patients anytime day or night. They are discharging not only
visitors and people from the hospital but also staff persons, primarily
nurses, at very odd times at night. He felt that this was unique and
peculiar to this property. This is the only hospital in Iowa City subject
to Iowa City's rules. The concerns and perception of undue hardship is
997
Board of Adjustment
April 25, 1984
Page 6
their genuine concern for the security of their employees, visitors and
families of persons in this hospital. This hardship as defined is not of
their own making or any predecessor of this property, but a function of
the use of this property as hospital property.
He did not feel the proposed landscape would have any negative impact an
the neighborhood or property. If the screening as required were insti-
tuted it would be a clearly unimaginative use of the parking lot. If the
proposed landscaping is used, the neighborhood would be improved and the
parking lot would be more attractive. Therefore, the property and/or
neighborhood would not be damaged. The security aspect of the required
screening could also pose a security risk to the neighborhood from any
persons who had ill intent. The positive aspects of what is proposed
would outweigh the negative.
The intent of the ordinance was to enhance beautification and he felt this
was being done. He. felt the facility being constructed there would be
better than the previous use of the land, and superior to the facility if
they only did that which was required. The proposed landscaping design
would also be more costly than the required screening.
VanderVelde questioned what had been explored in the way of security. She
stated that it was the responsibility of the landowners to provide
security and felt 24 hour security should be made available.
Mr. Mullin replied that it would be very expensive to maintain 24 hour
security on a lot when it may not be necessary. He felt that it would be
a waste of manpower and coney if it could be solved without negative
impact on the neighborhood. He did not feel 24 hour security was the
answer if it could be avoided. VanderVelde questioned if he felt the
submitted landscaping plan would pose any security threat to persons going
to the parking area or the neighborhood. Mr. Mullin felt that it has been
designed towards that intent.
Barker questioned the width of the right-of-way of Johnson Street and the
westerly street. Mr. Mullin replied that there was an 80 foot
right-of-way.
Roger Garrett, treasurer of Mercy Facilities, spoke on the safety and
security questions addressed in Sister Mary Ven
arda's letter of.March 23,
1983. He stated that according to recent past studies, an average of 100
visitor automobiles and 233 employee -owned automobiles could be expected
in one evening and/or night shift. Approximately 155 employees enter or
leave the hospital, of which the majority is female. In addition, there
are those individuals with critically ill family members entering or
leaving the hospital who are under stress, and are vulnerable because they
are preoccupied and not concerned with their personal safety.
Mr. Garrett also noted that in addition, the required screening would
shield the parking attendant from view of the hospital. This attendant
would have cash on hand and would be a security problem if screened from
the hospital. The screening would also prevent visibility of pedestrians
on either the east or west side of the parking area as well as those
persons walking in the middle of that area.
997
Board of Adjustment
April 25, 1984
Page 7
Finally, 'Mr. Garrett stated that during the last nine months there have
been 21 reports from the security department of Mercy Facilities of
suspicious looking persons within the vicinity of the hospital, 10 reports
of vandalism and 82 requests for escorts. The Rape Advocacy group reports
that the north side area has a higher rate of personal injury crimes than
most other areas of Iowa City.
Larry Schnittjer, landscape architect for Mercy Facilities, gave a
description of the proposed landscaping plan. With the exception of the
south area along Jefferson Street, all of the 10 to 12 foot area between
the curb and the sidewalk would be covered with ground cover, plantings,
and trees. VanderVelde questioned what objections Mr. Schnittjer had to
the visual effects of the screening requirements. Mr. Schnittjer replied
that -the planting materials required by the screening ordinance would
negate many of the other materials because they would not grow altogether
nor would they be aesthetically pleasing together.
Margaret Nowysz of 405 Highway 1 West, owner of property located at 431
East Market, directly across from the entry of Mercy Hospital, stated that
her property is a single-family residence, occupied by four individuals.
She felt the hardship as defined by Mr. Mullin was reasonable and the
landscaping plan was above and beyond what is required, and probably one
of the best use of landscaping design for a parking lot that she had seen
in Iowa City. She complimented Mercy Hospital's efforts. After looking
at the proposed plan, she felt that they had met the objective criteria.
The low density buildings adjacent to the street are at a different
perspective towards that piece of property. Her primary concern was to
recommend clusters of evergreens in some locations so that the view
during the winter months would be minimized. She felt, in general, that
the proposed plan was far superior to the City's requirements. Other
concerns she had regarding this lot were the entrance on Van Buren Street
and the existence of the large power pole. She questioned whether this
pole would obstruct the entrance or if would be moved. The color of the
gate and lighting were also concerns.
Mr. Schnittjer stated that as proposed, the lighting system would have
little impact on her property. As planned, the light level at the
perimeter of the parking ramp would be somewhat less than one foot candle.
The entrance location was at the recommendation of the City Engineer. The
power pole would be relocated to be in the center of the one-way in,
one-way out median. The northeast -northwest entrance would have greenery
all year round.
VanderVelde noted that the parking spaces at the ends of the aisle would
have the largest amount of headlight problems and wondered if the appli-
cant could provided evergreen plantings in those locations. Mr.
Schnittjer stated that it was possible but not part of his current
landscaping plan.
997
Board of Adjustment
April 25, 1984,
Page 8
Board Discussion:
Barker stated that he was unalteratively in favor of anything that goes on
in this parking lot being able to be visible from any of the surrounding
streets. He is especially concerned for the visitors entering and leaving
the hospital. He stated that he had very little difficulty in finding
hardship and uniqueness in both location and use. He stated that he saw
this request as being significantly different than screening of a parking
lot for an apartment use. He would have very little difficulty supporting
this request on the reason of safety and the peculiar circumstances of the
hospital use.
Slager stated that having left hospitals very late she would agree with
the need of visibility. She stated that she was encouraged by the fact
that there was no opposition from the neighborhood.
VanderVelde disagreed with the showing of unnecessary hardship, but stated
that she had not always believed unnecessary hardship was necessary when
the issued involved a non -business use. She would rather see 24 hour
security available. She stated concerns of a false sense of security
which may be created in the community or with the employees and patients
of Mercy Hospital as a result of the belief that the area was safe because
a patrol car could see into the lot. She had concerns that the parking
lot would depend on the Iowa City police for protection.
Barker stated that the tendency for crimes against- persons or property
increases then the persons or property are blocked from public view. If
the parking lot was screened so that it became an enclosed square, he felt
that it would create more problems than it would solve.
VanderVelde suggested that compromise be met to allow some screening of
the headlights without a complete enclosure as the screening requirements
would mandate.
Mr. Garrett from Mercy Facilities stated that security forces were
available on the facility, but they have to make rounds so would not be
able to be at the same location all evening. He stated that their duties
sent them to many different parts of the building and were not on-site'24
hours a day.
VanderVelde questioned if there were any way to allow Mr. Schnittjer to
come forward with some alternative plans that would attempt to strike a
compromise between no evergreens and no screening to some screening. She
questioned if this issue could be deferred to another meeting.
Barker stated that Mr. Schnittjer's proposed plan would allow a partial
screening of headlights. Barker questioned the average height of a
headlight on a vehicle. It was determined to be an average of about three
and a half feet.
Slager stated that the height of the low -growing foliage would provide
some screening. Barker questioned if Mr. Schnittjer could give a percent-
age of headlight obstruction below the three foot level on the east and
west side on a year round basis. Mr. Schnittjer stated that the required
917
Board of Adjustment
April 25, 1984
Page 9
screening would provide greater visual blockage than what was proposed,
which would offer less than one-half of that. VanderVelde questioned if
it would be possible to provide denser screening in the intersection areas
of the isles. Mr. Schnittjer stated that it might be possible but would
not solve the problem. VanderVelde questioned how Mr. Schnittjer could
integrate some evergreens into the plan. Mr. Schnittjer stated that it
may be possible to provide some evergreen trees between the sidewalk and
the curbs. He had done an investigation to see if this would meet the
Forester's criteria for trees within the right-of-way. Mr. Schnittjer
stated that the south side of Jefferson Street would require no screening.
The materials being added were to enhance the area. Van Buren Street was
similar but not quite as elevated as Johnson Street at the north end.'
Knight stated that for trees planted in the right-of-way there is a
requirement that they not be located within 70 feet of the intersection of
curb lines along arterial streets, 50 feet along collector streets within
30 feet of the intersection of curbs along sections of residential
streets. Market and Jefferson would be a minimum of collector and may
fall into the arterial category. There was also a provision that when
allowed within a right-of-way they are not allowed within a 30 foot
triangle measured along the right-of-way lines from the intersections.
VanderVelde stated that she would prefer the landscaping plan be altered
to provide additional screening in key locations. Barker stated that he
is prepared to support the request for variance. Slager stated that she
was prepared to support the variance but would prefer to see more
evergreens that would provide some screening during the five month season
without foliage.
A five minute recess was called to allow Mr. Mullin to consult with his
clients.
Mr. Mullin stated that he would prefer the item be deferred to a date
that will allow time to create a modified plan as expressed by the Board.
Barker moved to defer item V-8404 to the next Board of Adjustment meeting,
May 9, 1984. The motion was seconded by Randall. The motion carried
unanimously.
VanderVelde stated that she would like to have Ms. Nowysz notified at the
time of the next meeting so that she could express her concerns.
V-8405. Public hearing on an application submitted by James A. Clark
app�3ng an interpretation of the City Manager regarding Section
36-20(c)(1) of the Zoning Ordinance, regarding the provisions of dwellings
in the C82 zone or alternatively, requesting a variance to the same
provision.
Slager stated that she had a conflict of interest on this item and would
not participate in the discussion. She left the meeting at 7:30 p.m.
997
Board of Adjustment
April 25, 1984
Page 10
Knight stated that the applicant was proposing to construct a four story
building consisting of parking on the basement floor, a combination of
office and parking for those offices on the ground floor, and two floors
of multi -family dwellings above the ground floor. The property in
question is located in a CB -2 zone, which allows .as a provisional use
"dwellings located above or below the ground floor of another principal
use permitted in this zone, provided they are developed in accordance with
the dimensional requirements of the RM -145 zone." It was the City Man-
ager's interpretation that to have residential dwellings above the ground
floor, the entire ground floor area below those dwellings must be occupied
by a principal use in the CB -2 zone. Parking is an accessory use accord-
ing to Section 36-56(a)(2)c and would not, therefore, be permitted on the
ground floor below the proposed residential dwellings.
The applicant indicated in his comments that it does not say anywhere that
dwellings must be located above a principal use. It does not require that
the entire ground floor be occupied by a principal use.
The Board's powers indicate that in regards to interpretation, it is their
duty to find the meaning of the provision, and to review whether the City
Manager's interpretation is within the meaning of that provision.
The City Manager's review of this ordinance is based on what Planning b
Zoning's intent was. He stated that Planning E Zoning Commission specif-
ically added this provision late in the process of reviewing the zoning
ordinance because of concerns that an entire ground floor be occupied by
parking instead of reserving that space for commercial use.
Don Schmeiser's memo indicated that it was the intent and his understand-
ing of what the Commission was expecting him to do was to reserve the
entire ground floor for commercial activity.
If that is the intent of the ordinance, then it would appear that the City
Manager's interpretation is within that intent.
With regards to the variance question, Knight explained it is necessary
for the applicant to show unnecessary hardship. The first showing is that
of reasonable return. It did not appear to staff that there was any
inability to gain reasonable return on this property. Although they may
have difficulty with the project they are presently proposing, it appears
that adequate use of the property would be possible. Further', the value
of the property is based on what is allowed in that zone. If the purchase
price was in excess of what would be permissible, then any hardship would
be of the applicant's own making.
Knight noted that in regards to public interest, the applicant states that
"The proposed uses are in the public interest. The neighborhood is of
mixed commercial residential and institutional use.. The proposed
development is consistent with and well integrated into the neighborhood."
Staff agrees that the proposed use is consistent with uses in the neigh-
borhood. In fact, the Comprehensive Plan's recommended land use for this
9W
Board of Adjustment
April 25, 1984
Page 11
area is mixed 'use. However, if the intent of the provision in question was
to ensure that adequate space was available for commercial uses in the
CB -2 zone, while secondarily allowing a mixture of uses, then the struc-
ture as proposed is not in the public interest.
Knight stated the applicant argues that the ordinance is overly restric-
tive and alleges that without the variance, he w u provisionalot useusable le to
develop the provisional use on this property. A
principal use which is allowed in the zone in which it is listed subject
to compliance with the specific requirements mentioned with the use." It
is the intent of the zoning ordinance to allow provisional uses only when
secificose of
potentialrconflicts tbetween thee
provisithe onalpuse and the hpermitted are to mitigate
uses in
a zone. The action allowed by the variance is contrary to this intent.
The applicant also argues that the situation is unique to the property in
question. 'All the property within one block radius, with one exception,
is either new construction or located within a different land use zone."
However, uniqueness is based only on a limited geographic area of a one
block radius. This eliminates a great deal of land zoned CB -2 in the
immediate vicinity. Much of this land is underdeveloped and will probably
be proposed for redevelopment at some time in the near future. One
project, which has been proposed for a larger lot located south of the
Post office and zoned CB -2, is very similar to this proposal.
Knight stated that staff finds that the City Manager's interpretation is
within the legislative meaning and the intent of the provision does not
result in an overly restrictive application of the zoning ordinance.
Further, if it was determined that this provision was more restrictive
than desirable, it would not be appropriate to grant one property owner a
privilege not available to other property owners in the CB -2 zone.
Rather, if the provision is overly restrictive, it should be amended to
allow consistent treatment of all property.
Staff feels that the City's position concerning the interpretation is
correct and recommends that the requested variance to Section 36-20(c)(1)
be denied.
Public discussion:
Joe Holland, attorney for Jim Clark, stated that City staff had made an
interpretation of the zoning ordinance with which they disagreed. He
stated that the Board of Adjustment serves as a buffer between the public
and the staff to bring some common sense and voice of the public into the
interpretation of the ordinance. Also, a primary goal of the Board of
Adjustment is to do what is right for the community and to build some
flexibility into the ordinance.
He submitted a drawing of the proposed building. He stated that this is a
single lot plus three feet off of the lot to the south. There are
currently two houses that occupy the lot.
997
Board of Adjustment
April 25, 1984
Page 12
VanderVelde questioned whether a floor plan was available. - Mr. Holland
stated that one was available but the plan itself wasn't at issue, the
ordinance was. Knight stated that the question at issue was whether the
entire ground floor could be used as an accessory use. Mr. Holland
explained that the critical language is that of "dwellings located above
or below the ground floor of another principal use". A principal use is
defined in the zoning ordinance as the primary use of the structure or the
land as distinguished from an accessory use. It is described more for
what it isn't rather than what it is. Parking is a permitted accessory
use in every zone in the Iowa City Zoning Code. In fact, it is required
in every zone other than a CB -10 zone.
Holland explained that the applicant's proposal is to construct a building
with the ground floor occupied by 50% office space and 50% parking. Staff
maintained that it can be done if you only build apartments above the
office space area. They cannot be built above the parking used in
conjunction with the office space. Holland felt that when discussing the
ground floor of a principal use, it did not mean it had to be occupied
entirely by a principal use; an accessory use can be permitted on that
same level. Holland noted that in the memo from the City Manager regard-
ing the interpretation, it was stated that the Planning and Zoning
Commission inserted the language in question to make sure that residential
buildings would not be developed by placing the required parking on the
ground floor. Holland pointed out that his client's proposed building
would not occupy the entire ground floor with parking. Therefore, they
felt that they had met the intent. It was not clear that the intent was
not to allow a mixture of parking and commercial use on the ground floor.
Holland noted that Mr. Schmeiser's memo also states the intent in this
manner.
Holland stated that the Zoning Ordinance does not say that the dwelling
unit must be located above a principal use. It says above the ground
floor of a principal use. It does not say that you cannot have dwelling
units above an accessory use. VanderVelde questioned if the ordinance
said specifically that you may have dwelling units above an accessory use.
Holland stated that when you are interpreting you have to go by what was
written. VanderVelde questioned the design of the proposed building and
why the commercial use was on the front and not on the back side. Holland
stated that this design was used due to the sloping topography of the
site.
VanderVelde questioned the amount of proposed parking on the ground floor.
Holland stated that the first floor would be 50% parking and 50% offices,
while the basement area would have parking available for the 28 apartment
units.
Knight reitereated that it needed to be determined whether the intent is
in the keeping with the interpretation. Holland stated that he felt the
City Manager's interpretation was to not allow parking for the entire
first floor. He felt that there was more than one interpretation of this
ordinance. Holland felt the 'ordinance should be looked at in terms of
what it did say and not what it might or should say. He stated that if
you do not allow a mix of principal and accessory uses on the ground floor
Board of AdjustmeW
April 25, 1984
Page 13
you seriously impair the economic viability of putting any residential use
on these properties. The project could not pay for itself if you could
only put residential uses above an area occupied by a commercial use (50%
of the second and third story would remain vacant). In CB -2 zones, the
lots are not large enough to provide parking somewhere else. He felt that
the staff reading of the ordinance was not only inconsistent with the com-
prehensive plan, but that it violated the comprehensive plan.
Holland stated that this project would enhance the comprehensive plan by
allowing a mixed use, which is the best use of property, and ease -conges-
tion of the city streets. The interpretation asked for is a logical
interpretation of the ordinance and is more consistent with the intent of
the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance than that of the City Manager.
Knight stated that in addition to the requirement regarding residential
development being located above a commercial use, there is also a require-
ment to comply with the dimensional requirement of the RM -145 zone. That
requires a minimum lot size of 5000 square feet.
Mr. Bob Downer, attorney for Mr. d Mrs. Januszdardach, and Mr. and Mrs.
Richard Handel, owners of the property immediately south of Mr. Clark's
land, stated that his clients were in favor of Mr. Holland's interpreta-
tion of the ordinance and support his appeal. In addition, he stated that
In analyzing the purpose of the ordinance, Section 36-1 states that it is
to promote the public health, safety, morals, convenience... etc. He felt
Mr.Ciark's use of this property and his interpretation was consistent with
the ordinance. He did not feel this was true of the City Manager's
interpretation: Mr. Clark's proposal is for a mixed use, with accessory
parking. The purpose of the ordinance is best fulfilled in the interpre-
tation provided by Mr. Clark.
Board Discussion:
Randall stated that he felt they had presented a very good case and also
felt that the interior of the ordinance is met by this proposal.
Barker referred to Mr. Berlin's memo, the fourth paragraph, "...of another
principal use..." was added specifically because the Planning and Zoning
Commission wanted this area reserved for commercial uses. Mr. Holland
stated two things: using the ground floor for one-half of commercial use
and one-half parking to serve that use constitutes a total of a commercial
use and complies then with Mr. Berlin's interpretation. He also stated
that he questioned how effective the ordinance was in translating the
Planning and Zoning Commission's desire into law. The ordinance, as it is
written, does not reserve the ground floor of buildings in the CB -2 zone
for commercial uses excluding parking. Barker argued that a commercial use
includes those reasonable accessory uses which are commonly found attached
to that commercial use.
VanderVelde questioned what was considered ambiguous in this interpreta-
tion. She felt principal use was not ambiguous.
99z
Board of Adjustment
April 25, 1984
Page 14
Knight stated that principal use is defined as "...the primary use or uses
of land or a structure as distinguished from an accessory use, e.g. a
house is a principal use in a residential area; a garage or pool is an
accessory use."
VanderVelde stated that if principal use was not ambiguous it would be the
commercial use.
Barker stated that if the ground floor is devoted to commercial uses then
he felt that would include anything that is required by law or attached
thereto, by way of accessory, provided that it serves the commercial use.
He stated that he felt the Board had to intepret the ordinance first and
then look toward its intent.
VanderVelde again questioned where the ambiguity was in the ordinance.
Barker stated that "Above or below the ground floor of another principal
use" was ambiguous. That the other principal use is commercial in this
particular zone. That was the use that was sought to be encouraged.
VanderVelde stated that the interpretation available states 'Dwellings can
be put above the commercial use.' The interpretation is to disallow
building above the accessory use. Barker stated that he tied the commer-
cial parking and commercial offices together because you cannot have one
without the other. VanderVelde stated that in her interpretation they
were not tied together. Accessory was used for the parking and principal
for the commercial.
Knight read from the intent section of the central business service zone
which stated "it is intended to allow for the orderly expansion of the
central business district of Iowa City, to serve as a transition between
the intense land uses located in the central business district and
adjoining area, and to enhance the pedestrian orientation of the central
business district by providing suitable, peripheral locations for
auto -oriented commercial and service uses." It also states "This zone is
intended to accommodate mixed land uses and requires that the intensity of
use be less than that permitted in a CB -10 zone." Knight pointed out that
the primary intent is stated first which is to provide for commercial and
service uses. If that is the primary intent, then any interpretation
which would reduce the amount of commercial space that can be provided is
contrary to that intent. The City Manager's interpretation was that
allowing the part of that area intended to be reserved for commercial use
to be occupied by an accessory use, goes against the intent of the zoning
ordinance.
Barker moved that V-8405, interpretation by the City Manager regarding
Section 36-20(c)(1) of the Zoning Ordinance be reversed to allow the
construction of a residential use above a commercial use and the parking
required for that commercial use within the CB -2 zone.
The motion was seconded by Randall. The motion was defeated (2 to 1).
997
Board of Adjustment
April 25, 1984
Page 15
SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS
1. SE -8407. Public hearing on an application submitted by Charles Conlon
on behalf of Howard Johnson Co. for a special exception modifying the
yard requirements in accordance with Section 36-69(b) of the Zoning
Ordinance.
Mr. Charles Conlon spoke on behalf of Howard Johnson and agreed with
staff's recommendation. He stated that this problem is a product of
poor timing on behalf of Howard Johnson and an erratic lot line. This
was true because a permit. had been approved under the old zoning
ordinance, but had not been obtained. The new zoning ordinance
required a 20 foot front yard, which was a problem due to the 17 foot
jog in the front property line of this lot.
Knight reiterated that he had contacted the Iowa Department of
Transportation and that they have no plans at this time for that 17
foot strip of right of way. They had no objections to the proposal by
Howard Johnson.
Barker moved that item SE -8407 for special exception for the modifica-
tion of the yard requirements in accordance with Section 36-69(b) be
granted as requested.
Discussion:
VanderVelde asked that the motion include that the proposed building
be no closer than McDonald's to the front lot line. Mr. Conlon
objected because he did not have the information on McDonald's
setback.
Barker moved that item SE -8407 for special exception for the modifica-
tion of the yard requirements in accordance with Section 36-69(b) be
approved as applied for and as reconnended for approval by the staff,
provided that the westerly edge of the proposed building be no further
west than the westerly edge of the McDonald's building as it is
presently located on April 25, 1984.
The motion was seconded by Randall. The motion passed unanimously (3
to 0).
The meeting recessed at 7:30 and resumed at 7:40.
VARIANCE ITEMS:
1. V-8405. Mr. Holland asked that the Board reconsider the appeal. He
stated that he agreed with VanderVelde that the ordinance had a plain
meaning. He stated that it would have been very easy for the City
Council, and Mr. Schmeiser, to say that dwellings could only be above
a principal use. That is not what was said, they did say above the
ground floor of a principal use. In any commercial zone in the city
you cannot have a commercial use without parking. Holland stated that
Mr. Knight gave the definition of "principal use". There is also a
definition of "use". "Use" refers to the activity which the land,
997
Board of Adjustment
April 25, 1984
Page 16
structure or .portion of the structure is used for. A use does not
have to occupy the entire structure. His argument was that the statute
is being read to say that dwellings can only be above a principal use.
In reading it to say that you can only have dwellings above the ground
floor of a principal use it is being assumed that the entire ground
floor must be occupied by a principal use. Even though it is a mixed
use of office use and the required parking spaces, it still consti-
tutes the ground floor of a principle use. His emphasis lies on the
'ground floor." Holland stated that if the Council and/or Mr.
Schmeiser had intended that reading, they could have left out the
.phrase "ground floor", or specifically said "not- above an accessory
use". Holland stated he would like to see a reconsideration of the
motion with emphasis on "ground floor" rather than "principle use".
He felt this was the most fair reading of the ordinance.
VanderVelde stated that she appreciated his argument. She understood
his point about above or below ground floor and the lack of precision
'between ground floor and principal use. However, she felt compelled
to go along with the suggested interpretation of the drafter.
Barker moved that SE -8407 be reconsidered by the Board in light of Mr.
Holland's request. The motion was seconded by Randall.
Mr. Holland stated that he was distressed at the outcome of this
issue. He stated that the majority of the Zoning Code Interpretation
Panel had favored our interpretation, plus the majority of this quorum
of the Board, and yet the result of the majorities' desire was not
obtained.
The motion to reconsider passed unanimously (3-0).
Randall moved to re -read the motion that was previously voted on. The
motion was re -read as voted upon. There was no further board discus-
sion.
Mr. Holland stated that when the Zoning Code Interpretation Panel was
approached about this, the staff members were in favor of this
interpretation (3-1), that Mr. Boyle and Mr. Kucharzak were in favor
of it, and ultimately it came down to one person. He stated concern
that one person's intent was the controlling intent, and if that was
so he should have said what he meant rather than interpreting the
ordinance based on what he meant to say. Holland thought his
interpretation was in keeping with the intent of the ordinance.
The motion was defeated (2-1).
Variance Request. Mr. Holland stated that in regards to public
interest he had showed the Board the alternative building plan. This
was two and three bedroom apartments constructed lot line to lot line
each requiring one parking space. This would result in 60 to 90 cars
in the area. The alternative plan would also access off a one-way
alley. It would be in the public interest to build the first proposal
rather than the alternative plan.
997
Board of Adjustment
April 25, 1984
Page 17
The hardship requirements lie on the public. The owner's hardship is
that the property cannot be developed in a fashion which is consistent
with the public interest and still yield a reasonable return. The
lternativep roiect yields a reasonable return if it is built accord -
Ing to the proposed design.
Unique or peculiar is due to the sloping topography on one side of the
site. The best use is to have access off of Court Street and not off
of the alley. In order to comply with the Zoning Code, it must access
off the alley which is both a hardship on the owner and the neighbor-
hood.
VanderVelde questioned if Mr. Clark had taken this proposal to the
Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Holland stated that they had met
with the Planning staff. She stated that given the interest in the
CB -2 zone, it would be appropriate for this issue and the issue of the
best development of the lot to go directly to the Planning and Zoning
Commission in order to allow both the proposed building and also to
have that available for everyone else on that block.
Mr. Holland replied that he had written to the Planning and Zoning
Commission and asked to be put on the informal agenda to discuss this,
which they did. However, Mr. Holland and Mr. Clark were not notified.
The Planning and Zoning Commission process takes four to six months,
and the property in question is losing approximately $100 per day not
producing
speedy remedy which would ed allowhthe oAdjustment
property t
provide be developed
properly. He stated that he was not prepared to defend a variance
request. Holland stated that the alternatives were either for the
zoning ordinance to be changed to say what it is supposed to mean, or
the zoning for the property to be changed. Both would take long
periods of time. The initial request to the City was several months
ago. The developer cannot afford to wait any longer.
Barker questioned whether there was any additional evidence to prove
hardship for the variance. He stated that given the material pre-
sented so far, he would need to hear more hardship evidence to vote in
favor of the variance request.
Mr. Holland stated that hardship was on the owner of the land to -build
one or the other of the plans. Also, hardship is imposed by the
parking requried by the zoning ordinance. One parking space would be
necroperty
was purchased for for $225'000. Thisfeet of w commercial
not an uor area. nreasonable h
unre sonableprice. Mr.
Clark has a piece of land that under the interpretation of the zoning
ordinance will not yield a reasonable rate of return because it
doesn't allow for reasonable construction. The hardship is not of Mr.
Clark's own making but due to the interpretation of the ordinance, the
topography of the land, and the limitations of the development.
07
Board of Adjustment
April 25, 1984
Page 18
Board Discussion:
Randall observed that according to Holland, the alternative plan could
yield a reasonable return and, therefore, the applicant was unable to
meet the hardship requirement.
VanderVelde stated that she was bound by the language in accordance
with the powers of the Board of Adjustment. She stated that she was
appalled at the fact that the Planning and Zoning Commission had not
notified Mr. Clark of the informal hearing.
Knight interjected that this was an error and apologized for that,
but noted that it was not done in any way intentionally. Further, the
Commission was not prepared to deal with the issue until after the
Board of Adjustment's findings in case the interpretation were
changed.
Barker moved that the staff report the findings of this board to the'
Planning and Zoning Commission and attempt to expedite the issue.
Knight stated that it would be on the next informal agenda.
James Clark stated that he felt Mr. Holland had given a fair reading
of the intepretation. He stated that when he purchased the property
he was under the impression that he could build the proposed building.
He further stated that regardless of what action was taken by .the
Planning and Zoning Commission, he would have to proceed with another
plan as soon as possible.
Randall moved that V-8405, request for a variance for the property
located at 404-405 S. Dubuque be approved.
The motion was seconded by Barker.
The motion failed (0-3).
SPECIAL EXCEPTION
2. SE -8407. Barker moved to reconsider SE -8407. The motion was seconded
by Randall. The motion passed unanimously (3-0).
Discussion:
Mr. Conlon requested that the condition tying his setback to that of
McDonald's be removed since McDonald's had a 25 foot setback. Barker
noted that the McDonald's setback was further back from the
right-of-way than the proposed extension.
Knight stated that McDonald's setback was further back than what was
required by the ordinance and should therefore not be imposed on the
applicant. He further stated that it was the staff's finding that the
interest of the 20 foot setback requirement was met by the applicant
since the problem resulted from the jog in the property line.
9W
Board of Adjustment
April 25, 1984
Page 19
Barker moved that the special exception SE -8407 for modification of
the yard requirements in accordance with Section 36-69(b) be approved
as applied for and as recommended by staff.
The motion was seconded by Randall. The motion passed unanimously
(3-0).
DISCUSSION
The minutes of 3-22-84 were deferred until the next Board of Adjustment
meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 8:40 P.M.
The minutes were taken by Colleen McCormick.
Doug Boot5roy, Secretary
Scott -Barkers Chair
997
MINUTES
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
FRIDAY, MAY 4, 1964 12:00 NOON
CITY MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Walker, Maxwell, Murphy
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Carroll, Steinbach
SUMMARY OF RELEVANT DISCUSSION:
1. Meeting called to order by Chairperson Walker at 12:00 noon.
2. Carroll explained the current entry level police testing scoring/weight-
ing system (30% APQTC, 30% SRA, 40% interview) and discussed potential
problems which may increase the likelihood of a challenge by disqualified
applicants. Because of the large number of people tested, women passed
the APQTC (physical agility) but did not score high enough to qualify for
an interview.
Carroll presented and recommended the alternative of using pass/fail for
APQTC and interviewing top SRA candidates which would result in a more
representative pool of qualified applicants to be interviewed. This
would also support the City's affirmative action policy. Another
alternative was to change the weights to 20% APQTC; 40% SRA; 40% oral
interview. Commissioners discussed their concerns in changing the
weighting system at this point. Maxwell felt this was the wrong time to
change the weights; Murphy felt the APQTC should be pass/fail; Walker
questioned how the weights were originally determined because the Civil
Service Commission was following past practice.
The MMPI test was discussed and Carroll explained that people classified
in category IV were automatically disqualified from further consideration
because of relatively significant personality difficulties. Carroll also
explained that anyone in category II or III is questioned carefully
during the interview process to help answer concerns regarding potential
problem areas.
3. Discussion was held with regard to the interview process. Carroll stated
that some police department personnel had indicated a desire to partici-
pate in the interviews. Commissioners encouraged this type of involve-
ment. Commissioners stated they do not want to interview anyone not.
eligible, therefore, every attempt should be made to have completed
thorough background checks prior to interviews. Carroll was not sure
that this could be accomplished to meet previously established interview
dates. Carroll recommended that the Commission also meet following the
interviews to review all background information prior to certification.
4. Carroll indicated that new business involved scheduling a new firefighter
entrance exam. It was decided this should be discussed at the next Civil
Service Commission meeting. Walker felt that would be an appropriate
time to discuss changing the weighting system.
Civil Service Comm, ion
May 4, 1984 -"
Page 2
5. Vote was taken on the motion that the weights on the entry level police
officer test be left as they currently stand. Motion carried 2-1
(Walker, Maxwell - yes; Murphy -no). Maxwell and Walker felt that the
fact that applicants had been advised of the current weighting system
precluded change at this time. The Commission discussed the possibility
of meeting again in the near future to reconsider this question.
6. Meeting adjourned at 12:50 p.m.
gull
I
MINUTES
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
FRIDAY, MAY 11, 1984 12:00 NOON
CITY MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Walker, Maxwell, Murphy
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Carroll
SUMMARY OF RELEVANT DISCUSSION:
1. Meeting called to order by Chairperson Walker at 12:00 noon.
2. Commissioners again discussed the weights currently given to the APQTC
and SRA tests for the position of Police Officer and the potential
problems involved with the challenge. Alternatives were discussed and
Commissioners agreed that they should consider going to pass/fail for the
APQTC in the future.
3. For the current applicant group the Commission decided to increase the
number of applicants interviewed. Because it was previously announced
that the top candidates would be interviewed based on APQTC 30% and SRA
30%, Commissioners agreed to interview the top 40 candidates from this
group. Additionally, to meet the affirmative action objectives of the
City and the Police Department the Commissioners also agreed to interview
the top 40 candidates based on pass/fail APQTC and SRA scores. This
alternatives includes four female applicants. Because many applicants
were among the top 40 candidates on both lists the Commission will
interview a total of 50 people.
4. Additional interview times were scheduled. The interviews will be held
as follows:
Saturday, June 9, 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.
Monday, June 11, 6:30 p.m. -9:00 p.m.
Tuesday, June 12, 6:30 p.m. -9:00 p.m.
Thursday, June 14, 6:30 p.m. -9:00 p.m.
Friday, June 15, 6:30 p.m. -9:00 p.m.
Saturday, June 16, 9:00 a.m.-12:00 noon
Carroll will request assistance from the Police Chief so that Police
Officers may be available to participate in the interviews.
Commissioners discussed updating the current interview format. Murphy
will work with Carroll on the update.
5. Meeting adjourned 12:45 p.m.
1
MINUTES
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MAY 17, 1984 7:30 P.M.
CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Scott, Jakobsen, Courtney, Perry, Blank, Jordan
MEMBERS ABSENT: Horowitz
STAFF PRESENT: Franklin, McCormick
Chairperson Scott called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL:
st
rett
1. S-8417. Recommend
for approval of the preliminary nplatdofyBeeren
Hill Subdivision
located one-half mile north of Butler Bridge on the east side of Old
Highway 218 be approved.
2. Recommend approval of the Tree Regulations, Section 36-72 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
amend the
eet
3. Rcomrequuirf eementnd approval
ovthe Zoning Ordinance too include provisions rfor traffic
islands.
4. Recommend approval of the ordinance to amend the Zoning Ordinance to
including a definition of planting area.
e an
5. Z-8409. iT�i -for the mrezoning toftha oneplacre itract submittedby
btwo miles nora
th of
I-80 on Highway 1 from A-1 to RS be denied.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA.-
There
GENDA:There was no public discussion of any item not on the agenda.
Subdivision Items:
rett
1. S-8417.
eilDiscussion
approval of f an t eliprelion imi arymplat of Beer Hilland
Subdivision
located one-half mile north of Butler Bridge on the east side of Old
Highway 218.
Franklin stated that this is a request for approval of the preliminary
plat of a five lot subdivision located within two miles of Iowa City in
Johnson County. As a result of the 18 month expiration date on prelimi-
nary plats in the Iowa City Subdivision Code, it is necessary for this
subdivision to be resubmitted for approval. Staff recommended that the
preliminary plat of Deer Hill Subdivision be approved.
Jakobsen moved to approve S-8417 as submitted. The motion was seconded
by Jordan. The motion carried unanimously (4-0).
■
Planning & Zoning F'�iission
May 17, 1984
Page 2
Zoning Items:
1. Discussion of amendments to the tree regulations of the Zoning Ordinance.
Franklin stated that changes should be made on page 7(e) to indicate that
large trees may be four and one-half feet from the edge of a planting
area. Also under consideration was the ordinance to include a definition
of a planting area, and an ordinance to amend the off-street parking
regulations of the tree ordinance to include provisions for traffic
islands.
Jordan moved to approve the tree regulations as revised on page 7(e). The
motion was seconded by Courtney. The motion carried unanimously (4-0).
Courtney moved to approve the ordinance to amend the off-street parking
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance to include provisions for traffic
islands. The motion was seconded by Jakobsen. The motion carried
unanimously (4-0).
Perry arrived at 7:35 P.M.
Jordan moved to approve the ordinance to amend the Zoning Ordinance to
include a definition of planting area. The motion was seconded by
Courtney. The motion carried unanimously (5-0).
2. Discussion of the designation of the, North Side Residential Historic
District and the North Side Commercial Historic District.
Perry moved to defer discussion until the June 7, 1984, Planning and
Zoning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Jordan. The
motion carried unanimously (5-0).
Scott reminded the Commission that it was within their powers to change
the boundary lines of the districts.
3. Z-8409. Discussion of an application submitted by George and Mary Theil
or the rezoning of a one acre tract located two miles north of I-80 on
Highway 1 from A-1 to RS.
Franklin stated that the County had received an application for the
rezoning of one acre two miles north of I-80 on Highway 1 from A-1 to RS.
This property is within Area 4 of the Johnson CountylIowa City Fringe
Area Policy agreement. The policy for Area 4 states that residential
development should be discouraged, and encouraged to take place in Area 3
and other parts of the county zoned for residential development; agricul-
tural use is the preferred use in Area 4.
Franklin indicated that the County Zoning Commission had recommended
approval of this item since surrounding properties were zoned for
non-farm uses. She reminded the Commission that the City's review, as
stated in the agreement, was to be in the context of the policy statement
and that the rezoning requested was contrary to that policy.
Planning & Zoning ' _ mission
May 17, 1984
Page 3
Staff recommended that the Commission recommend denial of this rezoning
request to the -City Council.
Scott questioned whether the County would make the final determination on
this request. Franklin stated that they would, and to -date the County
had not voted on this application.
Jakobsen stated that this request should be in conformance and compliance
with the 28E agreement.
Jordan moved that Z-8409 be denied.
!
The motion was seconded by Jakobsen. The motion carried unanimously
(5-0).
i
OTHER BUSINESS:
In response to various questions brought up by Commissioners at previous
meetings, the staff reported as follows: Franklin stated that the Shaw
property is designated in the City file as five rooming units. Jakobsen
stated that this property was advertised as a two bedroom apartment.
Blank arrived.
Franklin stated that there had been no response received from the FAA by
either the staff or the developer.
Franklin stated that the Emmanuel House of Prayer was previously designated
for five dwelling units. It is currently a church, and as such retreat
events would be within the legal activity of the church. The church may not
rent on a long term basis to members of the general public.
Jordan moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:42 p.m.
Minutes submitted by Colleen McCormick.
Approved by:
Horst Jordan, Secretary
im
r --
MINUTES
RIVERFRONT COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 4, 1984, 7:30 P.M.
CIVIC CENTER LAW LIBRARY
MEMBERS PRESENT: McGuire, Lewis, Oehmke, Willis, Scott, Leo
MEMBERS ABSENT: Boutelle, Nelson, Rausch, Fountain, Gerleman
STAFF PRESENT: Moen, McCormick
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION:
Lewis called the meeting to order at 7:45 p.m.
REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 22 1984 AND MARCH 7 1984:
Leo moved to approve the minutes of February 22, 1984, as submitted. The
motion was seconded by Oehmke. The motion passed unanimously.
McGuire moved to approve the minutes of March 7, 1984, as submitted. Scott
seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
0
Lewis questioned whether any follow-up information regarding the riverbank
stabilization meeting held on February 22, 1984 had been forwarded to the
Hydraulics Division of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Moen stated that
the individuals representing the Corps at the meeting passed the information
on to the Hydraulics Division. Lewis stated that the major concern of the
public was the quantity of water released from the reservoir and the severe
drop of the water level within the river when the quantity of water released
was reduced. She stated that the river drops so quickly that the riverbanks
are no longer stabilized by the force of the water. The saturated banks then
fall into the river. Gradually reducing the release rate may improve this
problem.
Scott moved to invite the Chief of Reservoir Regulations to a Riverfront
meeting. The motion was seconded by Oehmke. The motion passed unanimously.
It was suggested that the most profitable time to meet with the Chief of
Reservoir Regulations would be while the river was high. It was suggested
that if this individual had any materials on the subject it could be sent out
to the concerned public. Scott suggested that the press be invited for an
interview. Willis suggested that if they could not get the Chief of Reser-
voir Regulations to attend the Riverfront Commission meeting that some
Commission members go to him/her with these concerns.
UPDATE OF SHUTTLE BOAT/INNER TUBE RENTAL PROPOSAL ON THE IOWA RIVER:
Moen stated that she had been contacted by Commission member Pat Boutelle and
that Boutelle had stated that this project was not at the request of the Uni-
versity of Iowa. Concerns were raised over the jurisdiction of the river
itself. Willis stated that the City had -an ordinance addressing the speed of
Riverfront Commissi...
April 4, 1984
Page 2
vessels on the river. Although river regulations currently do exist, Moen
stated, the City has not aggressively monitored the river. The Iowa Conser-
vation Commission has assumed the responsibility of monitoring the river
within the corporate limits from time to time. Moen stated that she had
spoken with the City Attorney to confirm that there are no regulations
prohibiting the use of boats and inner tubes on the river with the exception
of the reach between the Iowa Avenue Bridge and the Burlington Street Dam
where all activity is prohibited. Moen stated that the Coast Guard has
approved the use of inner tubes filled with a styrofoam substance. She
continued that inner tubes fall within the category of a vessel and, there-
fore, must be inspected and licensed. As a life jacket must accompany each
vessel, individuals using tubes must also have a life jacket along. No
action was requested of this Commission at this time.
Further discussion was postponed until a formal request was made.
I
REVIEW OF RIVERFRONT COMMISSION LIST OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NEEDS AND
UAIKYNA u i n rrN-
1 Moen stated that the deadline to submit requests to CCN had been extended
until the middle of April. It was suggested that item #2 on the CCN list be
modified to state "Update and revise Sturgis Ferry in cooperation with the
i
Parks and Recreation Commission and the Airport Commission."
PUBLIC DISCUSSION:
The City Council iias passed a resolution establishing an urban environment ad
hoc committee. Moen indicated that one member from the Riverfront Commis-
sion would sit on this 10 member committee. Although the commitee is sched-
uled to terminate on July 1, 1985, the committee could continue, if neces-
sary, beyond that time. She continued that the purpose of the committee is
to identify environmentally sensitive areas within the community.
McGuire stated that if no one else was interested in sitting on the committee
I she would be willing to volunteer.
Oehmke moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:45. Scott seconded the motion. The
motion passed unanimously.
/DDo
IOWA CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
REGULAR MEETING
THURSDAY, MAY 24, 1984
4:00 PM ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE ROOM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Bovbjerg, Cavitt, Drum, Grimes, Willis, Zastrow
MEMBERS ABSENT: Gritsch, Lyman, Pegnetter
STAFF PRESENT: Eggers, Tiffany, Jehle
OTHERS PRESENT: Gladys Benz
President Cavitt called the meeting to order at 4:05 PM. Minutes of the
April 26, 1984 Regular Meeting were approved. Bovbjerg/Grimes. Disbursements
from May 1 and May 15, 1984 were approved. 7_astrow/Drum.
The Board decided to take up agenda -item IX,1., Demonstration of the Cable Catalog,
before the remaining items of business.
Assistant Library Director Connie Tiffany reviewed the background of the
project which was first discussed nearly four years ago. The software was
developed by CLSI, the library's computer system vendor, and the equipment
and some technical assistance was provided by ATC, parent company of Hawkeye
Cable -Vision. Working from an Apple IIe computer connected to the library's main
computer and housed in the cable control room at the library, the software
allows• buildings on the institutional two-way loop of the cable system to
search the library's on-line catalog via a numeric pad and a TV monitor. The
system was installed on May 8 at Sabin school for the alternative high school,
and will be installed at the Senior Center in June. Other institutional loop
buildings where equipment could be installed include the Court House, the
County Jail, Mercy Hospital, the Civic Center and Recreation Building.
Board members then went to the Hawkeye Cable Control room to view a
demonstration. A public announcement and ceremony is planned for June when
the Senior Center installation is ready.
The Director reported on the following:
1. The new plaque honoring volunteers has been mounted in the library.
2. The city has begun the self-evaluation study required of all jurisdictions
receiving Federal Revenue Sharing to insure compliance with Section 504 of,
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 barring discrimination on the basis of
handicap,. A plan of action must be filed by this fall. While the library
is a very accessible facility, the guidelines stress accessibility to all
programs and services. At the library this presents considerable barriers
to the blind, deaf or those in wheelchairs unless there is a high
involvement of staff or considerable additional equipment is purchased.
3. East Central Regional Library is providing a workshop for library staff
June 14-15 on Increasing Sensitivity to Disabled Persons. The person
conducting the workshop is editor of a newsletter on library services to
handicapped & elderly who will receive an award from the American Library
Association this summer for her work in this area.
IOWA CITY PUBLIC LII lY r
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
REGULAR MEETING
THURSDAY, MAY 24, 1984
Page two
4. The Iowa LSCA Advisory Council met this month (Eggers, Zastrow, Gladys Benz,
Carl Orgren are members from Iowa City) to finish the guidelines for
distribution of FY85 LSCA Title I grants to public libraries to begin work
on the required 5 year plan for FY86-91. There will be as much as $200,000
in federal monies to distribute. I'CPL should perhaps consider developing
a grant in connection with our plans to target handicapped users in FY86
as part of the library's 5=year plan. Services to handicapped is on of
the priority guidelines.
Because property tax collections are down this fiscal year due to delinquencies,
the City's cash flow will be very tight for.the next few months. 'Therefore they
have placed a freeze effective immediately on the purchase of major capital
itdm and on the filling of vacant positions. We have no vacancies for
permanent positions at this time.
President Cavitt announced that a general discussion of the Foundation will be
on next monthk..agenda as a follow-up to the informal discussion at the April
meeting. She suggested that Board members think about the following:
A. What has the Foundation accomplished in its first two years?
B. What support does the Foundation need from the Board?
C. What do we'want the organization to become?
Cavitt asked if the Board wished to have their "annual" dinner meeting in
July after the regular meeting. Willis will make reservations at the Athletic
Club.
Eggers announced for the FRIENDS that their next booksale will be Saturday,
June 19, in the library's garage. The Foundation has received $2770 from its
teltpionerampaignsotfar. A more complete report will be available at the June 6
meeting of the Foundation Board of Directors.
The Library Board Policy Sub -Committee will hold its first meeting on Wednesday,
May 30, at 4:00 PM. Eggers distributed background materials for the meeting.
Drum reported for the Nominating Committee in the absence of Linda Gritsch, chair.
The recommended slate for FY85 officers: Carolyn Cavitt, President; Riley Grimes,
Vice President; Charles Drum, Secretary. It was moved by Bovbjerg and seconded
by Zastrow to accept the slate as presented. Unanimous.
Cavitt reported that the Evaluation of the Director committee requested her to
call each Board member to get input on the Director's performance. She collected
the remarks into a statement that included the committee's recommendation of a
4 1/2% increase. It was moved by Zastrow and seconded by Grimes that the
recommendation be attached -to the minutes. Motion approved. It was decided to
accept the recommendation of the committee concerning salary. Zastrow/Drum.
Meeting was
adjourned at
:00
PM.
oan Jehle
ode
Lolly Eggers,
R
/D0/