Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-06-19 Bd Comm. minutesCharter Review Commission: at the Civic Center. Charter Review Commission May 14, 1984 May 14, 1984, at 7:30 p.m. in the Conference room Commission Present: Roberts, Balmer, Davidsen, Welt, Cain, Matsumoto, Goodwin, Ringgenberg, Mintzer. Staff Present: Helling, Karr, Smith. Tape Recorded: CRC -1, Side 1, 1 -End. Helling stated that the Charter Review Commission is an ad hoc commission appointed for one year with terms expiring April 10, 1985. Commission members nominated and elected officers of the Charter Review Commission. Balmer and Roberts were elected as Chairperson and Vice Chairperson, respec- tively. Commission members discussed holding public hearings, publication expendi- tures, how to review the charter, background information about the original charter, soliciting public input about the charter, and scheduling of meetings. Mintzer requested minutes of the original Charter Review Commis- sion meetings be made available. Davidsen, Welt, Cain and Ringgenberg, original Charter Review Commission members, agreed to each review and present specific sections of the charter at the next meeting. Commission members agreed to meet twice a month on alternate Mondays when possible. The next the Day meeting will be Wednesday, May 30 at 7:30 p. holiday. Balmer requested a legal opinion from the City Attorney on the charter. In response to Karr, Commission members want summary minutes of the minutes prepared and enclosed in their bi-weekly packets. Minutes needs not be forwarded dtothe tyu specifically atattendance Carter Council falhrhd herown discretionregardingattend Review Commission meetings. Meeting adjourned at 8:20 P.M. ■ Charter Review Commission May 30, 1984 Charter Review Commission: May 30, 1984, at 7:30 p.m, in the Conference e Room at t Civic Center. Chairperson Balmer presiding. Commission present: Balmer, Cain, Davidsen, Goodwin, Matsumoto, Mintzer, Ringgenberg, Roberts, Welt. Staff present: Helling, Smith. Ta e -recorded: Reel #184, Side 2, 1 -End; #284, Side 1, 1 -End, Side 2, 1-113. Chairperson Balmer called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. and briefly commented on the length of meetings to be held. FORMER CHARTER REVIEW MEMBERS' OVERVIEW: Former Commission members (Cain; Davidsen, Welt, Ringgenberg) summarized the charter's preamble in each article. The Commission discussed the Council-manager form of government, voting districts, duties of the City Manager, repeal of amendments or enactments, City employee compensation and appointments, appointment and removal from boards and commissions, campaign contributions and expenditures, amending the charter and initia- tive and referendum petitions. Mintzer requested that the State law and City ordinance regarding campaign contributions and expenditures be sent to Commission members. Balmer said that he would like the Commission to discuss general election voting on proposed or referred ordinances. MINUTES: The Commission requested minutes be sent to City Council. Minutes should summarize the meeting and include discussion on major issues and the action taken. Individual members expressed their views on shorter concise minutes or a longer detailed version. MEETING SCHEDULE: Commission members agreed to the summer meeting schedule as stated in the May 16th memo from Assistant City Manager Dale Helling, except meetings will not be held in August. PUBLIC INPUT: Roberts suggested that the Commission use the next two meetings to review the charter before soliciting public input. Cain stated the organizations listed with the City at the public library should be contacted. Commission members agreed to initially work on the charter and send letters out to organizations requesting input about the charter in the fall. Meeting adjourned at 9:20. 1691 s i MINUTES RIVERFRONT COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, MAY 2, 1984 - 7:30 PM CIVIC CENTER LAN LIBRARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Oehmke, Rausch, Lewis, Willis, Gerleman, McGuire MEMBERS ABSENT: Scott, Leo, Boutelle, Nelson, Fountain I STAFF PRESENT: Moen, McCormick I SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: Lewis called the meeting to order at 7:45 p.m. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF APRIL 4, 1984: Willis moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Gerleman seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Moen stated that she had spoke with George Johnson, Chief of the Hydrau- lics Division of the Rock Island District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. At this time the Corps is reluctant to attend another public meeting within Iowa City. Moen indicated that although the Commission is unable to hold a private meeting, the Commission could designate a work session with the Corps. Even though the public is welcome at work sessions, public discussion may be limited. The intent of the work session would be to gather information as to how the Coralville Reservoir is regulated. Another alternative is to have some Commission members meet with the Corps in Rock Island. Gerleman stated that the intent of the Commission should be to learn how the formula for regulating the dam was formulated. Moen stated that she felt the Corps of Engineers was sincere in regard to providing the infor- mation and that the Corps wants to link the Commission with someone capable of assisting the Commission in finding answers to questions. Oemhke stated that it would be advisable to generate a list of topics and an agenda which could be sent prior to the meeting date. Rausch suggested that if a public meeting with the Army Corps of Engineers was the ultimate goal, some political assistance might be advisable. He suggested Cooper Evans could be contacted to assist the Commission. Moen ers theresmayebe reimbursement avaat for those �ilableaattending out-of-pocket exthe penses. in Island, Willis questioned whether the City Council needed to be informed, or if this Commission needed approval from City Council prior to attending the meeting. Moen stated that this Commission should inform the Council of its intent to gather information. She stated that a draft memo to the City Council would be included in their packet. 101a Riverfront Commission May 2, 1984 Page 2 Willis moved that the chair appoint a subcommittee of three members of the Riverfront Commission to attend the Rock Island meeting for the intent of preparing the schedule, gathering pertinent questions, and informing the City Council and Chairperson. The motion was seconded by Oemhke. The motion carried unanimously. Gerleman, Oemhke and Willis volunteered for the subcommittee. The first meeting of this subcommittee would be Wednesday, May 16, 12:00 PM. It was recommended that a list of questions be forwarded to Monica Moen in advance of the meeting. Moen stated that she would send a copy of the regulation schedule to the subcommittee members. SELECTION OF A RIVERFRONT COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE TO THE URBAN ENVIRON- MENT AD HOC COMMITTEE --'-- Chairperson Lewis appointed Linda McGuire to represent the Riverfront Commission on the Urban Environment Ad Hoc Committee. PUBLIC DISCUSSION: Moen stated that June is "Iowa Rivers Month". She distributed a proclama- tion which the Mayor could use to proclaim June as Iowa Rivers Month. She stated if the Commission was interested, the proclamation could be read at the Tuesday, June 5, 1984, City Council meeting. It was suggested that a press release be issued possibly using previous articles and articles which refer to the Stanley Plan. McGuire stated that she felt the proclamation would be empty unless the Commission used it to educate and remind the people that the river is a valuable resource. Lewis stated that she would like to see some positive input in the press release with regard to the goals of the Riverfront Commission. Willis suggested an awards program be considered for the following year. Moen stated that she would draft a news release and send it to the members incorporating their ideas into several articles. Suggestions for the articles were: the responsibility of the users of the river, the protection of the river, commendation of the Rocky Shore project, the University of Iowa's input to the walkways around the river, and City Park. Willis suggested that the upcoming canoe trip commence at Sturgis Ferry Park and continue south to Hills. June 30, 1984, was designated as the date for the canoe trip. McGuire moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:35. The motion was seconded by Gerleman. The minutes were taken by Colleen McCormick. 1642, MINUTES PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MAY 12, 1984 MEMBERS PRESENT: Riddle, Willis, Steinbrech, Alvarez, Martin MEMBERS ABSENT: Jennings, Mitchell, Crum, Hart STAFF PRESENT: Showalter, Howell, Carroll, Ertz, Harvey, Ray SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION AND FORMAL ACTION TAKEN Chairman Riddle presented a Certificate of Appreciation to Harry Dean for his years of service on the Commission. Moved by Willis, seconded by Steinbrech, that the March 14 minutes be approved as written. Unanimous. Rick Ertz, Special Populations Involvement (S.P.I.) Program Supervisor, gave a presentation on "Life,Be In It." Week and outlined the activities for the week of June 3-9, which includes an open house at the Robert A. Lee Community Recre- ation Center on June 3rd from 1:00-4:00 p.m. Chairman Riddle suggested that press coverage should be strongly encouraged. Cindy Alvarez suggested sending flyers to the schools, however, it wasn't felt that this would be effective because school will be out on June 1st. Joyce Carroll, Cultural Arts Supervisor, outlined Summer Camp, the summer play- ground program, and the Kindergrounds program. Sumner Camp registration totalled 160 on May 11th. Dennis Showalter stated that mandatory parkland dedication had been revived with a different format. A fair and equitable flat fee per dwelling unit is being proposed in lieu of dedicated land. Dennis is working with Planning on the proposed ordinance and will be submitting a draft to the City Manager in the near future. The Commission and staff discussed the mandatory parkland dedication issue. Willis asked if the fees in lieu would go into the General Fund or Parkland Acquisition Fund, and Dennis answered that they would go into the Parkland Acquisition Fund. COMMITTEE REPORTS Willis reported that the Riverfront Commission is still listing a new design plan for Sturgis Ferry Park as a priority item for CDBG funds. He said that he had told the Riverfront Commission that this should not be a priority item. The Riverfront Commission has been studying the Corps of Engineers policy on raising and lowering the outflow of the river. The study arose from the bank stablization project and public hearing with the Corps of Engineers. and OF PRECEDING DOCUMENT MINUTES PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MAY 12, 1984 MEMBERS PRESENT: Riddle, Willis, Steinbrech, Alvarez, Martin MEMBERS ABSENT: Jennings, Mitchell, Crum, Hart STAFF PRESENT: Showalter, Howell, Carroll, Ertz, Harvey, Ray SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION AND FORMAL ACTION TAKEN Chairman Riddle presented a Certificate of Appreciation to Harry Dean for his years of service on the Commission. Moved by Willis, seconded by Steinbrech, that the March 14 minutes be approved as written. Unanimous. Rick Ertz, Special Populations Involvement (S.P.I.) Program Supervisor, gave a presentation on "Life, Be In It." Week and outlined the activities for the week of June 3-9, which includes an open house at the Robert A. Lee Community Recre- ation Center on June 3rd from 1:00-4:00 p.m. Chairman Riddle suggested that press coverage should be strongly encouraged. Cindy Alvarez suggested sending flyers to the schools, however, it wasn't felt that this would be effective because school will be out on June 1st. Joyce Carroll, Cultural Arts Supervisor, outlined Summer Camp, the summer play- ground program, and the Kindergrounds program. Summer Camp registration totalled 160 on May 11th. Dennis Showalter stated that mandatory parkland dedication had been revived with a different format. A fair and equitable flat fee per dwelling unit is being proposed in lieu of dedicated land. Dennis is working with Planning on the proposed ordinance and will be submitting a draft to the City Manager in the near future. The Commission and staff discussed the mandatory parkland dedication issue. Willis asked if the fees in lieu would go into the General Fund or Parkland Acquisition Fund, and Dennis answered that they would go into the Parkland Acquisition Fund. COMMITTEE REPORTS Willis reported that the Riverfront Commission is still listing a new design plan for Sturgis Ferry Park as a priority item for CDBG funds. He said that he had told the Riverfront Commission that this should not be a priority item. The Riverfront Commission has been studying the Corps of Engineers policy on raising and lowering the outflow of the river. The study arose from the bank stablization project and public hearing with the Corps of Engineers. 2, PARKS AND RECREATION COMMIISSION MINUTES - MAY 12, 1984 Page 2 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT Chairman Riddle suggested that staff continue to investigate purchase of Rapid Creek Development Company for recreational facilities. Moved by Steinbrech, seconded by Alvarez, that staff continue to investigate purchase of Rapid Creek Development Comdany for recreational facilities, and investigate the possibility of trading facilities with the County for Elm Grove Park in exchange for open land by the County Home. Unanimous. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Showalter asked if he should proceed with investigating the purchase of Ryerson's Woods. Moved by Willis, seconded by Martin, to investigate purchase of Ryerson's Woods for parkland. Unanimous. OTHER BUSINESS Martin said she had received calls about Little League and asked if the Parks and Recreation Department could intervene and ask them to move their season back two weeks to begin on Memorial Day. The soccer season overlaps the baseball season and children are forced to choose between the two. It was discussed and agreed that the Commission would not intervene. It was suggested that interested parents call the Little League board members and discuss the matter with them. Steinbrech asked if the Pool Committee had a report and was answered that the Committee hadn't met yet. Moved by Willis, seconded by Steinbrech, to adjourn at 4:02 p.m. Dee Harvey 14 MINUTES CORRECTED VERSION IOWA CITY HOUSING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, MAY 2, 1984 MEMBERS PRESENT: Krause, Logan, Trevor, Haendel NEMBERS ABSENT: John Moore, Beth Ringgenberg, Janet Schlechte STAFF PRESENT: Seydel, Flinn, Nugent, Brown, Barnes RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: Congregate Housing: Moved Haendel, second Logan, that Housing Commission recommend referral of Critical Path Task Analysis to Council for review and comment. Approved 4/0. RECOMMENDATIONS TO STAFF: That representative(s) of Emergency Housing Corporation be invited to report at next meeting. 1. Meeting to Order - Meeting called to order at 3:05 p.m, by Chairperson Krause. 2. Minutes April 4, 1984 - Moved Haendel, second Logan, that minutes be approved as mailed. Approved 4/0. 3. Appeal - Sheri Johnson. Sheri Johnson appeared along with her daughter, Sarah, and Attorneys Janice E. Rutledge and Barbara J. Dougan. Rutledge questioned the denial of benefits to Ms. Johnson. Seydel referred to his letter to Sheri Johnson dated April 6, 1984, wherein he cited the "Statement of Policies Governing Participation in the Housing Assistance Payments Programs Administered by the Iowa City Housing Authority" Part III, Paragraph 3C, Page 10, which states, "In the event an applicant has previously been a tenant in the Iowa City Assisted Housing Program and abandoned or vacated the unit without a proper release from the Agreement of Lease, such applicant will be found not eligible." The validity of the rule was questioned by Ms. Rutledge. David Brown, Assistant City Attorney, advised in his opinion the rule was being interpreted correctly. Upon presentation of arguments on both sides, Logan moved, Krause seconded, that Ms. Johnson be given rental assistance and that she go back on waiting list in proper place. Approved 4/0. 4. Shared Housing - Nugent reported that CCN has made recommendations to Council to approve the Shared Housing Program for $15,000 for Fiscal Year 1984 with stipulation that funding continue for a minimum of three years. The requests for proposal, instructions and invitation are being finalized now. They will be ready for Council May 22, 1984. Hencin recommended a staff review committee comprised of relevant staff persons and a member of the Housing Commission to review applications from non-profit organizations and to make recommendations to City Council. Hencin reiterated CCN's interest in multi-year funding for the program. 109q MINUTES IOWA CITY HOUSING COMMISSION MAY 2, 1984 PAGE 2 5. CCN Report - Hencin reported Emergency Housing Corporation has secured a site at 331 North Gilbert and will be starting renovation soon. He suggested Housing Commission might desire a report in the near future. Moved Haendel, second Trevor, that Housing Commission invite a representative of the Emergency Housing Corporation to its next meeting. 6. Congregate Housing - Burns reviewed Project Schedule and Critical Path Task Diagram. Commission reviewed the Target Completion Dates and questioned who would perform each task. Potential sponsors were discussed as well as site selection criteria. Schedule for public meetings was discussed. Burns suggested potential residents be scheduled for the first meeting. He indicated that potential develop- ers should have a chance to meet with all groups, but also have an opportunity to meet in private to maintain anonymity. Krause and Seydel to determine date of first hearing at Senior Center to solicit input from senior citizens. Moved Haendel, second Logan that Housing Commission recommend referral of Critical Path Task Analysis to Council for review and comments. Approved 4/0. I 7. Coordinator's Report - Seydel reported rent in the amount of $81,100 paid on 435 units May 1. Forty-four new applications submitted for approval. He reported Section 8 undergoing voluminous changes necessitating redrafting of Administrative Policies which should go to Commission in June. He advised a move to reduce administrative fees on Section 8 from 8.5% to 6.0% and that the voucher program would limit administra- tive fees to 4.5%. Rental Rehabilitation - Seydel advised regulations have been pub- lished. Iowa City will get $71,500, and for each $5,000 of rental rehabilitation grant there will be a Section 8 Certificate or Voucher attached on basis of two for one. He further indicated he will be recommending that Pam Barnes be transferred to CDBG Division to handle new rehabilitation program along with existing programs. Application for new program has to be submitted and approved before September 30, 1984. 8. Adjournment - Moved Haendel, second Logan, that meeting adjourn. Adjourned 5:10 p.m. Approved by: Fred C. Krause 160 MINUTES' IOWA CITY HOUSING COMMISSION WEDNESD Y, MAY 2, 1984 MEMBERS RESENT: Krause, Logan, Trevor, Haendel STAFF PRE NT: Seydel, Flinn, Nugent, /nees RECOMMENDAT ONS TO COUNCIL: Congregate Ho sing: Moved Haendel, secoat Housi Commission recommend refe ral of Critical Path Tasto Coun 1 for review and comment. A roved 4/0. RECOMMENDATIONS TO STAFF: That representative( of Emergency Hoation be invited to report at next meeting.1. Meeting to Order - Me ing called to 05 p.m. by Chairperson Krause. 2. Minutes April 4 1984 - M ed Haendogan, that minutes be approved as mailed. ApproveeT4/0. 3. Appeal - Sheri Johnson. Sheri/Johnson appeared along with her daughter, Sarah, and Attorneys nice E. Rutledge and Barbara J. Dougan. Rutledge questioned t �% ial of benefits to Ms. Johnson. Seydel referred to his letter to Shei i Johnson dated April 6, 1984, wherein he cited the "Stateme t of Policies Governing Participation in the Housing Assistance Paym is Programs Administered by the Iowa City Housing Authority" Part II Paragraph 3C, Page 10, which states, "In the event an applicant h previously been a 'tenant in the Iowa City Assisted Housing Progra and abandoned or vacate the unit without a proper release from t Agreement of Lease, such applicant will be found not eligible." The validity of the rule was questioned by Ms. Rutledge. David B own, Assistant City Attorney, �a vised in his opinion the rule w being interpreted correctly. Upod�presentation of arguments on b th sides, Logan moved, Krause seconded that Ms. Johnson be given rental assistance and that she go back �0 waiting list in proper p ace. Approved 4/0. \ 4. Shared Housing - Nugent reported that CCN has made recommendations to Council to a rove the Shared Housing Program for $15,000 for Fiscal Year 1984 th stipulation that funding continue for a minimum of three year . The requests for proposal, instructions and invitation are being/finalized now. They will be ready for Council May 22, 1984. Hencin r commended a staff review committee comprised of relevant staff ersons and a member of the Housing Commission to review applic ions from non-profit organizations and to make recommendations to Ci y Council. Hencin reiterated CCN's interest in multi-year funding for the program. 169q MINUTES HOUSING APPEALS BOARD MAY 8, 1984 MEMBERS PRESENT: Goldene Haendel, Beth Ringgenberg, Al Logan, Fred Krause MEMBERS ABSENT: Janet Schlechte STAFF PRESENT: David Malone, Kelley Vezina, David Brown, Larry Kinney, Lyle Seydel, Judy Hoard SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION AND ACTION TAKEN: Krause called the meeting to order. Haendel made a motion to approve the minutes of the April 10, 1984. meeting. Ringgenberg seconded the motion. The motion carried. APPEAL OF GRACE BURRIS, 837 - 837-1/2 HAGGARD: I Present: None. Inspector Malone reported that this appeal had not been filed within the ten day filing period. He stated that Mrs. Burris was in a nursing home and that her daughter was handling the property at 837 - 837-1/2 Maggard. Haendel made a motion to grant appeal rights. Ringgenberg seconded the motion. The motion carried. The appeal will be heard at the June 12, 1984, meeting. APPEAL OF INN NO SHINN, 619 IOHA AVENUE: Present: Hr. & Mrs. Inn No Shinn. The appeal request for 619 Iowa Avenue was not filed within the ten day filing period. Krause suggested during the appeal request of Grace Burris that both of the late appeals be considered at the same time and thus the motion made by Haendel to grant appeal rights was for both 837 - 837-1/2 Maggard and 619 Iowa Avenue. The motion was seconded by Ringgenberg. The motion carried. The appeal for 619 Iowa Avenue will also be heard on June 12, 1984. APPEAL OF EVAN MATTHEWS, 3413 EAST COURT: Present: None. Inspector Hoard told the Board that she had conducted a licensing inspection at 3413 East Court on March 29, 1984. The violation being appealed was Chapter 17-S.M.(2) lack of required electrical light fixture or switched outlet, livingroom lacks supplied light fixture or switched outlet. Inspector Hoard stated that the livingroom was not provided with any means by which the supplied light requirement of the Housing Code could be met. Haendel made a motion to uphold Chapter 17-5.M.(2) lack of required electrical light fixture or switched outlet. Ringgenberg seconded the motion. The motion carried. 16M Housing Appeals Board May 8, 1984 Page 2 APPEAL OF DAN WILLIS, 630 - 630-1/2 WALNUT: Present: Ban Willis. Inspector Hoard stated that she conducted a licensing inspection at 630 -630-1/2 Walnut on March 26, 1984. The violation being appealed was Chapter 17-5.I.(2)(g) lack of required minimum door/doorway, 630-1/2, entry door to dwelling unit has a 5'8' height. Inspector Hoard told the Board that the minimum required doorway height was 614". Mr. Willis told the Board that he had owned the property since 1979 and that it had been converted to a duplex some 20 years ago with the doorway height at the same point as .it was presently. He stated that there was a step up to the dwelling unit which lessened the height of the door and prevented it from meeting the 6'4" requirement of the Housing Code. He also stated that he felt it would be very expensive to raise the roof to gain the needed doorway height. Haendel made a motion to grant a variance to Chapter 17-5.I.(2)(g) lack of required minimum door/doorway. Ringgenberg seconded the motion. The motion carried. APPEAL OF FRED WIEBERSCH, 529 EAST COLLEGE Present: Fred Wiebersch. Inspector Hoard reported that she conducted a licensing inspection at 529 EastCollege on April 2, 1984. The violation being appealed was Chapter 17-5.N.(2) overcrowding, dwelling unit maximum occupancy of five unrelated persons, property is occupied by seven persons. Inspector Hoard stated to the Board that the Housing Code section that dealt with over -occupancy had been changed to state that the occupancy level for a structure was to be determined by the zoning requirements for the area. She stated that the zone this property was located was RM -12 zone which would allow a family plus three unrelated persons or in this particular situation, five unrelated persons. Mr. Wiebersch stated that he had just recently purchased the property and to the best of his knowledge the current usage and occupancy had not changed for several years and there had been no complaints from tenants regarding the lack of off-street parking. He told the Board that he would like to continue with the number of occupants in the structure and would like to investigate the possibility of being classified as a rooming house rather than as a single-family dwelling. Inspector Hoard stated that he could apply for a rooming house classification but that the zoning requirements for lot size and off-street parking would have to be met before a rooming house permit could be issued. It was suggested to Mr. Wiebersch that if the violation were upheld, he could appeal to the Board of Adjustment for a variance. Haendel made a motion to uphold Chapter 17-5.N.(2) overcrowding. Ringgenberg seconded the motion. The motion carried. APPEAL OF MR. AND MRS. EMIL TROTT, 810 DEWEY Present: lir, and Mrs. Emil Trott. Inspector Vezina reported that he had conducted a licensing inspection at 810 Dewey on January 12, 1984. He stated to the Board that the appeal had been filed late but that appeal rights had been granted at the April 9, 1984, Appeals Board meeting. The violation being appealed was Chapter 17-5.N.(4) lack of required 7' minimum ceiling height, first floor middle room, ceiling 16 Housing Appeals Board May 8, 1984 Page 3 has a 6'11-1/2" ceiling. Mr. Trott stated that the property had been built in 1950 and had met the Code at that time. He felt that because it was an older structure the ceiling height violation should fall under a grandfather clause. Ringgenberg made a motion to grant a variance to Chapter 17-5.N.(4) lack of required 7' minimum ceiling height. Haendel seconded the motion. The motion carried. APPEAL OF DANNY NEIDER 2216-18 HOLLYWOOD BOULEVARD Present: None. Inspector Vezina reported that he had conducted a licensing inspection at 2216-18 Hollywood Boulevard on December 19, 1983. He stated that the appeal request had been brought before the Board during the February 14, 1984, meeting and that at that time no decisions were made pending further investi- gation as to the zoning requirements of the property. Inspector Vezina stated that the questions regarding the usage of the property had been resolved and that he would proceed to present the appealed violations to the Board. Because the basement bedroom contained three of the appealed viola- tions, they were presented at the same time. The first violation appealed was Chapter 17-5.I.(2)(e) basement unit lacks adequate egress, basement window lacks window area for egress; Chapter 17-5.J.(1) lack of required natural light, basement bedroom has 2.17 square feet of natural light, lacking the required minimum of 9.68 square feet and Chapter 17-5.K.(2)(b) lack of required natural ventilation, basement bedroom lacks window area for natural ventilation. Haendel made a motion to uphold all three violations with an extension of time given to September 1, 1984, to correct the viola- tions. Logan seconded the motion. The motion carried. The next two violations appealed involved the basement livingroom/kitchen area. They are Chapter 17-5.J.(1) lack of required natural light, living- room/kitchen area combination in basement has 4.2 square feet of natural light lacking the required minimum of 16.63 square feet and Chapter 17-S.K.(2)(b) lack of required natural ventilation, basement living- room/kitchen area combination lacks window area for natural ventilation. Haendel made a motion to uphold these two violations with an extension given to September 1, 1984, to correct the violations. Ringgenberg seconded the motion. The motion carried. The last violations appealed were Chapter 17-7.I. electrical system not maintained in good and safe working condition, basement bathroom, east wall and ceiling has exposed romex, and kitchen and livingroom in basement have exposed romex. Krause made a motion to uphold Chapter 17-7.I. electrical system not maintained in good and safe working condition. Ringgenberg seconded the motion. The motion carried. APPEAL OF MAX NEPPEL, 1401 ROCHESTER Present: Ralph Neppel. Inspector Vezina stated that he conducted a licensing inspection at 1401 Rochester on March 1, 1984. The appeal request was not filed within the ten day filing period, but the Appeals Board had voted to grant appeal rights at the April 13, 1984, meeting. Inspector Vezina stated that he was unsure what 1095 Housing Appeals Board May 8, 1984 Page 4 violations were being appealed and asked Mr. Neppel to clarify the situation. Mr. Neppel stated that he did not own the property but his son Max Neppel did and he was currently living out of state. Inspector Vezina told Mr. Neppel that if a basement area is not occupied as an apartment but was used rather as a recreation room, most of the violations would not exist. There was much discussion as to how to proceed as Mr. Neppel seemed unsure which of the violations his son actually wished to appeal. Assistant City Attorney Brown recommended that the Board uphold all six violations. Logan made a motion to uphold the violations which included Chapter 17-5.I.(2)(a) lack of required handrails, stairs to attic lack a handrail and handrail on steps from public walkway to sidewalk lacks a handrail; Chapter 17-5.I.(2)(b) lack of required guardrail, guardrail around stairwell to attic is missing and front steps lack a guardrail; Chapter 17-5.L.(5) lack of proper pressure temperature limit controls, hot water heater lacks an extension on the pressure tempera- ture safeief worki g co dititnr lightswitchcat�h ads of atticstem notstairsaisemissimaintind in ngoa cover, basement bedroom east wall electrical outlet is loose in junction box, basement bedroom south wall electrical outlet has exposed romex that runs through closet and is not secured to wall; Chapter 17-7.P, toilet, bath or lavatory not maintained in good and sanitary working conditions, basement shower stall faucet leaks; Chapter 17-4.(a) lack of required certificate of structure compliance and/or rental permit. basement bedroom is being rented without a valid certificate of structure compliance and rental permit. Haendel seconded the motion. The motion carried. APPEAL OF CLIFFORD WALTERS9 520 SOUTH CAPITOL Present: Clifford Walters. Inspector Vezina reported that he conducted a licensing inspection at 520 South Capitol on March 29, 1984. The violation being appealed was Chapter 17-5.N.(2) overcrowding, seven people occupy house, maximum occupancy five unrelated people. Mr. Waiters stated that he had purchased the property in 1980 on the condition that it be able to be used as a rooming house. Mr. Walters presented to the Board a copy of his offer to purchase and two other documents which showed that adjoining properties were classified as a multiple dwelling and as a rooming house. He told the Board that he had been assured by his attorney that the zoning at the time he purchased the property would allow a multiple dwelling and he was very concerned with the fact that the zoning for the area had changed on several occasions. Inspector Vezina stated that there was no evidence in the files to indicate that the property had ever been used as a rooming house. Assistant City Attorney Brown stated that it may be necessary for Mr. Walters to present his case before the Board of Adjustment in seeking permission to use the property as a multiple dwelling. Inspector Vezina stated that the other structures on Capitol Street had been previously licensed before the present Housing Code and Zoning Code had gone into effect. He told Mr. Walters that if he were able to produce evidence to show that the property had been used as a rooming house prior to 1962, then the classification could indeed be changed to a rooming house. Haendel made a motion to uphold Chapter 17-5.N.(2) overcrowd- ing. Ringgenberg seconded the motion. The motion carried. 1095 Housing Appeals Board May 8, 1984 Page 5 APPEAL OF BARBARA WAGNER, 1012 FAIRCHILD Present: Frank Wagner, Inspector Vezina reported that he had conducted a licensing inspection at 1012 Fairchild on March 20, 1984. The first two violations being appealed are Chapter 17-5.1.(2)(8) lack of required minimum door/doorway, second floor south bedroom entry door has 6' height and second floor northwest bedroom entry door has 6'2' height. Inspector Vezina stated that the Housing Code requirement for the doorway height was 614" Mr. Wagner stated that the rooms in question had been recently recarpeted and that might account for some of the deficiency. Krause made a motion to grant a variance to Chapter 17-5.1.(2)(g). Ringgenberg seconded the motion. The motion carried. The next violation appealed was Chapter 17-5.J.(1) lack of required natural light, southwest bedroom second floor has eight square feet of natural light, lacking the required minimum of 10.19 square feet and Chapter 17-5.K.(2)(b) lack of required natural ventilation, second floor southwest bedroom lacks window area for natural ventilation. Krause made a motion to grant a variance to Chapter 17-5.J.(1) lack of required natural light and Chapter 17-5.K.(2)(b) lack of required natural ventilation. Haendel seconded the motion. The motion carried. The last violation appealed was Chapter 17-5.N.(4) lack of required 7' minimum ceiling height, southwest bedroom second floor has 6'11" ceiling height and northwest bedroom second floor has 6011' ceiling height. Krause made a motion to grant a variance to Chapter 17-5.N.(4) lack of required 7' minimum ceiling height. Haendel seconded the motion. The motion carried. APPEAL OF ALEX GILLETTE. 728 BOWERY Present: Alex Gillette. Inspector Vezina reported that he had conducted a licensing inspection at 728 Bowery on February 23, 1984. The first violation appealed was Chapter 17-4.(a)(1) no valid certificate of structure compliance has been obtained for this structure, lack of permit applications and fees for structural com- pliance and rental permit. Mr. Gillette told the Board that he was currently facing misdemeanor charges for essentially the same violations as he was appealing. Assistant City Attorney Brown stated that there were indeed charges filed on the property and it was scheduled for trial, but had been continued pending the licensing inspection. Mr. Gillette stated that he would be willing to make application and pay the fees and was withdrawing his appeal of Chapter 17-4.(a)(1) lack of valid certificate of structure compli- ance and rental permit. The first violation appealed was Chapter 17-5.N.(4) lack of required 7' minimum ceiling height, first floor unit livingroom/bedroom combination and kitchen has a 6'9-1/2" ceiling height. 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. 1095 Housing Appeals Board May 8, 1984 Page 6 Mr. Gillette stated appealed violations. handrail and Chapter good state of repair. that he would be withdrawing two of the previously They are Chapter 17-5.I.(2)(a) lack of required 17-7.G means of egress obstructed or not maintained in The next violation appealed was Chapter 17-5.N.(3) lack of required minimum room size, west room adjacent to room 03 is being used for a sleeping room, has 60 square feet, lacking the required minimum of 70 square feet. Mr. Gillette inquired from the Board how he could make the tenant discontinue putting a bed in this small room. Krause stated that it would be necessary for Mr. Gillette to write a letter to the tenant telling him that he was in violation of the Housing Code if in fact he used the room for living or sleeping purposes, and a copy of the letter should be sent to the Housing Inspection Department to be placed in the file. Mr. Gillette said he would withdraw his appeal on Chapter 17-S.N.(3) lack of required minimum room size. The next violation appealed was Chapter 17-7.A.(4) window not maintained in good and functional condition. Mr. Gillette stated that he did not feel the Housing Code was written specifically enough to include a broken or cracked windowpane as being a violation. Inspector Vezina explained to Mr. Gillette that it was a judgment call by the inspector as to whether or not a violation existed depending upon the type and severity of the crack in the window. He explained to Mr. Gillette and the Board via the blackboard what he would write up as a window violation and which he would not. Mr. Gillette did not deny that the windows that were being cited as violations were in fact cracked. His main concern was that the code did not specifically list a broken or cracked window as being a violation. Inspector Vezina and Assis- tant Attorney Brown explained to Mr. Gillette that the Housing Code was written in a general manner and did not include specific areas that would be a violation of the Housing Code. Inspector Vezina stated that this was done to avoid a very lengthy Housing Code in which every violation that existed would be cited. Logan made a motion to uphold Chapter 17-7.A.(4) window not maintained in good and functional condition. Haendel seconded the motion. The motion carried. The next violation appealed was Chapter 17-7.A.(5) interior wall or other interior surface not maintained such that it may be kept clean and sanitary. The second floor bathroom has peeling paint on the southwest wall. Again, Mr. Gillette did not deny that the violation existed but rather showed the Board pictures of violations in his own apartment that were not cited as a violation during a recent licensing inspection. Haendel made a motion to uphold Chapter 17-7.A.(5), interior wall or other interior surface not maintained such that it may be kept clean and sanitary. 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, room b1 north ceiling has exposed terminals. Mr. Gillette explained to the Board that this ceiling light fixture had screws in the base that may have been mistaken for termi- nals. Inspector Vezina said if that was the case the violation would be okayed at the reinspection. Haendel made a motion to uphold Chapter 17-7.I. electrical system not maintained in good and safe working condition. Ringgenberg seconded the motion. The motion carried. MIS Housing Appeals Boa �1 May 8, 1984 9e The next violation appealed under Chapter 17-7.I. electrical system not maintained in good and safe .working condition was first floor kitchen.. west wall electrical outlet is loose in wall. Haendel made a motion to uphold this violation. Ringgenberg seconded the motion. The motion carried. The last violation appealed was Chapter 17-7.0refrigerator and/or stove not maintained in good and safe working condition, the first floor kitchen i refrigerator is blocked by an old stove in front of it. Hr. Gillette j stove presened t. Haendeer or l made a motios a n to uphold Chapter 17-7.0.iolation as there is rea working frigeratorr and/or stove not maintained in good and safe working condition. Ringgenberg seconded the motion. The motion carried. Haendel made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Ringgenberg seconded the motipn. Th mo in carried. -- Minutes repare rperson Fred Krause by Judy Hoard i i i i 105 MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 18, 1984 - 4:30 P.M. CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS S,;;;ct to ;2r�Iwal MEMBERS PRESENT: Randall, VanderVelde, Fisher MEMBERS ABSENT: Barker, Slager STAFF PRESENT: Boyle, Franklin, McCormick FINAL ACTION TAKEN / 1. V-8402. The Board denied the request submitted by.Phillip Altmaier for a variance to the rear yard coverage requirement - Section 36-57(a)(4) -for r property at 7 Triangle Place. The Board granted a special exception to Section 36-7(e) of the Zoning Ordinance for the property at 7 Triangle Place to reduce the required rear yard in such a way as to permit the construction of an addition to the accessory building in the required rear yard as proposed by the applicant, with the following conditions: 1) no further additions or expansion of buildings on the lot be allowed, 2) the garage and proposed addition be painted and maintained, and 3) the accessory building not be used as a dwelling unit. 2. V-8403. The Board denied the request submitted by Leonard Spenler and Thomas Harney for a variance to the sign regulations to permit two free-standing signs on the Spenler Tire Service property on Highway 1 West. 3. SE -8404. The Board approved the special exception for the Evangelical Free Church to establish for a religious institution in an RS -8 zone and to construct worship and education facilities on the 12 acres between Foster Road and Taft Speedway, immediately west of Dubuque Street. The special exception granted was restricted to phase one of the development in accordance with plans submitted to the City Clerk on March 19, 1984. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION Randall moved that VanderVelde be acting Chairperson for this meeting. The motion was seconded by Fisher. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting was called to order at 4:40 p.m. Variance Items• 1. V-8402. Public hearing on a request submitted by Phillip Altmaier for a variance to the rear yard coverage requirement - Section 36-57(a)(4) for property at 7 Triangle Place. Franklin stated that this is a request for an extension of a garage on a single family lot on Triangle Place. The proposed addition and the garage occupy a portion of the required rear yard in excess of the maximum 15% coverage. The rear lot line on this particular lot is a 1696 ;I Board of Adjustment April 18, 1984 Page 2 diagonal which is defined by the Chicago, Rock Island 8 Pacific tracks running along the back of the lot, so that the 20 foot rear yard which is required on this lot runs diagonal in relationship to the front yard. It is within the rear yard that a garage currently exists. The applicant is requesting that he be permitted to construct a triangular addition to that garage which would be totally within the rear yard. She stated that with the combination of these two structures (garage and addition) more than 15% of the rear yard would be occupied by buildings. In order to do this and get a building permit a variance would need to be granted by the Board of Adjustment. In order to get the variance, it would have to be shown that unnecessary hardship occurs in this case; that the applicant is being unduly burdened by the ordinance; that the circumstances in this case are unique; that to grant the variance would not be contrary to the public interest or the intent of the ordinance. Hardship as defined by the variance case is that one would not be able to use their property in a reasonable fashion. This is a single family tot. The construction of this building will not affect the use of the single family dwelling. Franklin stated that in the context of hardship under the variance procedures there is not a hardship since use could still be made of the property. She stated that as to the public interest and intent of the ordinance there does not appear to be any negative impact created by the proposal. The rear yard that would be occupied by this additional structure is along the diagonal portion of the lot. To the back of it is the railroad right-of-way. There is not abutting property to the rear which is used for any single family, residential or commercial purposes. To either side of this lot are two other single family residences. She stated that this garage addition would be in a portion of the yard which is re- stricted from view from the public right-of-way. It could possibly be seen by the property owner to the north of 7 Triangle Place. In terms of the intent of the ordinance which is to provide open space in the rear yard of a lot and to lessen congestion in an urban environment, the railroad right-of-way to the rear of the lot provides considerable open space which visually lessens congestion. Franklin stated that hardship could not be shown in this case and the staff, therefore, recommended that the variance be denied. She submitted to the Board of Adjustment photographs of the rear yard. Public Discussion: Mr. Phillip Altmaier stated that hardship was difficult to prove. He stated that he could not use the portion of the rear yard where the garage addition was to be located for anything else. He stated that after the addition, 1100 square feet would be remaining (excluding the existing garage). It was his intent to take the west wall of the garage and expand to the west from that point. He stated that his intent for the building was for storage. He questioned whether he would be able to request a waiver to the rear yard requirements. Franklin stated that a special exception to modify the yard requirements could be considered. 1096 Board of Adjustment April 18, 1984 Page 3 Board Discussion: VanderVelde questioned under what provision of the Code that would come. Franklin responded that Section 36-69(b) was applicable. Randall stated that he did not feel the hardship argument had been made. He stated that the only negative factor about the proposed construction would be the landowner on the north, who had not protested the proposal. VanderVelde stated that she felt a special exception might be appropri- ate. i Fisher moved to approve V-8402 as submitted. Randall seconded the motion. The motion was denied unanimously (0-3). i Fisher moved to amend V-8402 to consider a special exception. Randall seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Franklin stated that the specific standards for yard modifications were that the proposed modification was not contrary to public interest. She did not find the proposal either contrary to the public interest or to the intent of the ordinance. She cautioned that any portion of a lot that was not required yard was buildable space. It was the staff's recommen- dation that specific conditions be imposed if the exception were granted to vary the rear yard requirement. Randall stated that he did not feel it was contrary to the public interest due to the lack of negative response from the neighbors. He felt that it would be a reasonable restriction to ask the applicant to paint both the garage and the addition. VanderVelde stated that she would support the condition that no further additions be added to the lot. Fisher questioned how a future owner of that home would know that the lot had restrictions. Franklin stated that it would be recorded and on file in the Building Division. VanderVelde felt that a condition that the garage and addition not be used for human habitation was appropriate. Boyle stated that the code restricted human habitation to the principal building which was the home in this case. Fisher moved that a special exception to Section 36-7(e) of the Zoning Ordinance be granted for the property at 7 Triangle Place to reduce the required rear yard in such a way as to permit the construction as proposed by the applicant with the following conditions: 1) that no further expansion of the any buildings on the lot be allowed, 2) that the garage and new addition be painted and maintained, and 3) that the accessory building not be used as a dwelling unit. The motion was seconded by Randall. VanderVelde suggested an amendment to the motion with regards to @1 that no further additions or expansions of buildings be allowed. The motion passed unanimously (3-0). 2. V-8403. Public hearing on a request submitted by Lenard Spenler and Thomas Harney for a variance to the sign regulations to permit two free-standing signs on the Spenler Tire Service property on Highway 1 West. N.ig Board of Adjustment April 18, 1984 Page 4 Franklin stated that Spenler Tire Service was cited in a letter dated August 11, 1983, for displaying two free-standing signs and for the use of six facia signs. The request is only for a variance to permit the use of two free-standing signs. She stated that the facia sign issue has been addressed by the applicants to some extent. Franklin explained that there is a Conoco sign and a Michelin free- standing sign. She stated that Spenler Tire Service sells tires. They also sell gas. They purchased Conoco gas from the Harney Oil Company which is located in Coralville. Franklin stated that the regulations for signs state that in a CC -2 zone each establishment is permitted to have a single free-standing sign with specific dimensional requirements for that signage. In this case there are two signs; either one sign must come down, or the two signs may be combined on one standard as long as the combined signage does not exceed 125 square feet. She stated a variance is requested by the applicants to permit the continued use of the free-standing Conoco and Michelin signs. She stated that these signs have been up for several years. Spenler Tire Service was cited during a routine check of Highway 1. Franklin stated that the granting of a variance requires the showing of unnecessary hardship, i.e. that no reasonable use of the property can be made if the ordinance is enforced. She stated that if the Conoco sign were removed the Michelin sign could remain; the Spenler Tire Service sign (which is a facia sign) could also remain. She stated that the Spenler Tire Service seemed to be the principal use of the property. Sales of tires and the service of vehicles for tires was the principal use. She felt there could still be a reasonable use of the property if one of the signs was removed; Spenler Tire Service could still sell gas without the Conoco sign. She stated that hardship was not found since an alternative of combining the two signs existed, and the Spenler business could continue without the sign variance. In regard to the public interest, the applicants contend that the use of both signs would have no appreciable affect on the value of adjoining properties. Franklin stated that this establish- ment is in a commercial area and that the signs have been there for some time, and therefore will probably have little effect on the public interest. The intent of the ordinance is to decrease the frequency of free-standing signs along rights-of-way and to decrease visual congestion in commercial areas where there may be excessive signage. Restricting the use of free-standing signs to only one free-standing sign per establishment was meant to address this concern. Staff found nothing unique in this case to argue for an exemption for this applicant from compliance with the ordinance and therefore recom- mended denial of this request. 1096 Board of Adjustment April 18, 1984 Page 5 Public Discussion: Mike Kennedy, attorney, spoke on behalf of Thomas Harney and Leonard Spenler. He stated that Thomas Harney was the owner of the Conoco sign and that he operates a business out of Coralville. He stated that Harney also owns the two pumps and tanks at the Spenler location. Kennedy explained that Thomas Harney had supplied people for over 20 years at the rate of approximately 15,000-20,000 gallons per month with sales on an average of $250,000 a year to Spenler Tire. He stated that a large portion of Harney's business was connected with Spencer Tire Service. He stated that Harney has a franchise agreement with Conoco which requires him to maintain a free-standing sign. Harney was informed that if the sign was taken down it would jeopardize the selling of Conoco fuel and the honoring of Conoco credit cards. Kennedy stated that Conoco would not allow combining both signs on one standard. On behalf of Spencer Tire Service Kennedy asserted that this was a unique tire business that sells both tires and gas. He explained that Saturn Tire Company actually owned the property and that Spenler leased it. He stated that this was the only Conoco gas station in Iowa City. He explained that the facia signs were for Spenler Tire Service which comprised about 751. of Spenler's annual income; 25% of the Spenler business was related to gas, lubrica- tion, and service work. Spenler Tire Service employs eight employees, six of whom do the tire work, and two who work exclusively in to the gasoline business. He stated that the Conoco sign was essential to bring business in and that it was necessary for the credit card holders to see the sign as they came into town. He felt that any business that lost 25% of their Income would demonstrate unnecessary hardship. Kennedy felt that the continued presence of the signage would not threaten the integrity of the area and that it was in harmony with the general character of the area. He stated that the signs were 100 feet apart on a large lot in a commer- cial area of the city and felt there was no visual congestion there. Board Discussion: VanderVelde questioned whether or not Conoco would allow the combining of the free-standing signs. Kennedy stated that it was unacceptable to Conoco. VanderVelde stated that since this Conoco outlet was the only one in Iowa City the corporation might be unwilling to give up their franchise just because of the sign. Fisher questioned who owned the Michelin franchise. Kennedy stated that Saturn Tire Company owns the business. Randall questioned whether facia signs would be permitted on the west and/or east side. Franklin stated that the west and the south sides of the building would be permitted a total of two facia signs. Two of the six facia signs have been painted over and one was taken down. Randall stated that he felt a persuasive case had been made for Conoco but not necessarily for Michelin. VanderVelde stated that simply because the business had two products they should not be entitled to separate free-standing signs. Fisher stated that he felt this argument for uniqueness based on the combined businesses for gasoline and tires defeated any hardship argument since many establishments which sold only tires or only gas and could have only one sign would be at a disadvantage by comparison. 1096 Board of Adjustment April 18, 1984 Page 6 Randall moved to approve the variance to Section 36-63(e) of the sign regulations of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the continued use of two free-standing signs in a CC -2 zone. Fisher seconded the motion. The motion was denied (0-3). VanderVelde informed Lenard Spenler and Thomas Harney that they had 30 days to appeal this action to District Court. Special Exception Items: 1. SE -8404. Public hearing on an application submitted by the Evangelical Free Church for the establishment of a religious institution on 12 acres at 15 Foster Road. Franklin stated that the Evangelical Free Church wishes to establish a new church site on 12 acres between Foster Road and Taft Speedway. In order to expand or establish a religious institution in an RS -8 zone, a special exception must be granted by the Board of Adjustment. She stated that a religious institution is required to have access to an arterial street or a street with pavement width greater than 28 feet. The proposed church accesses directly to Foster Road, which has a paved width of 25 feet. However, the church property is adjacent to the Dubuque Street right-of-way which is a primary arterial. Specific dimensional requirements consist of a minimum 40,000 square foot lot and a setback of two feet for every one foot of building height. The entire church site consists of 12 acres; the building height is 23 feet and a setback of more than 46 feet is provided from any property line. The following general standards presented issues of concern: 5. The proposed use will attract an increased amount of traffic to the area at certain times of the week. The concern by the staff is not related to the traffic on Foster Road but to the turning movements which will be occurring from the north bound lane of Dubuque Street from Foster Road. She stated that until Foster Road is continued east across Dubuque Street and a traffic light is installed, problems with traffic queuing to turn left off to Dubuque Street may occur. She stated that the fact that Dubuque Street is a four lane road and that this project is a church with high activity times confined to Sunday mornings should reduce the impact of the increase in vehicles to the area. 6. The plot plan by the church complies with all provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. 7. The short range Comprehensive Plan indicates development of this area at 2-8 and 8-16 dwelling units per acre. Traditionally, churches have been permitted in any residential area. With adoption of the new Zoning Ordinance, restrictions have been placed on the establish- ment and expansion of churches, particularly in single family zones. However, churches have not been excluded from these zones. She stated that the establishment of a church in this residential area is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Board of Adjustment April 18, 1984 Page 7 Franklin stated that the staff recommends that the special exception requested by the Evangelical Free Church at 15 Foster Road be granted in accordance with the plans filed with the City Clerk on March 19, 1984, for phase one of the development. Public Discussion: Bruce Haupert stated that he recommended approval of this special exception. He stated that he would request approval of stages two and three and that this was a long range plan. Rev. Dave Jenkins requested that the Board not put special conditions on the building project at this time. VanderVelde questioned the size of the congregation. Reverend Jenkins stated that current membership was approximately 250 and that the new facility was designed for 400 persons. VanderVelde confirmed that the plans viewed were for phase one. Franklin stated that she had received correspondence from Mr. and Mrs. j George Gay of 5 Knollwood Lane supporting this request. I There was no public opposition to this request. Board Discussion: Randall moved to grant special exception SE -8404 for a religious institu- tion in an RS -8 zone to construct worship and educational facilities on 12 acres between Foster Road and Taft Speedway, immediately west of Dubuque Street, in phase one of the development according to plans submitted to the City Clerk March 19, 1984. Bruce Haupert stated that the church intended to expand in a three stage process. Contractual agreements made by the church were based on the approval of the Board of Adjustment. He voiced concern that the church be allowed to do what ultimately they want to do without being required to come before the Board of Adjustment again. Boyle stated that any enlargement of a• rel igious institution would require further action by the Board of Adjustment. Haupert stated that he felt the plan should be viewed as a whole. Boyle reiterated that any expansion was required to come before the Board of Adjustment. Franklin stated that there were specific standards relating to building height and setbacks that could not be dealt with at this time. Margaret McDonald of Foster Road spoke in favor of the church's interest in the property. She questioned some rumors of future plans the church had to build housing on that lot. Mr. Haupert reassured her that at no time in the future would housing be built on that lot. VanderVelde encouraged her to look at the plan submitted. Franklin stated that a church could not build multiple housing in that zone without coming before the Board of Adjustment and that cdnstruction of any multi -family housing, not for church purposes, would require a rezoning and public hearings. The motion was seconded by Fisher. The motion passed unanimously. 1015r Board of Adjustment April 18, 1984 Page 8 2. SE -8405. Public hearing on an application submitted by the Free Method- ist Church for a special exception to expand a religious institution at 2024 G Street. The applicant requested that this application be withdrawn. OTHER BUSINESS: VanderVelde stated that any changes to the minutes of February 8, 1984, and/or March 14, 1984, would be phoned in to Karin Franklin at the Department ,of Planning prior to 5:00 p.m., April 19, 1984. Fisher moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:15 p.m. The motion was seconded by Randall. The motion passed unanimously. Minutes submitted by Colleen McCormick. Approved by Accepted by 1a96 716 MINUTES IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WEDNESDAY, MAY 9, 1984 4:30 P.M. CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Slager, Fisher, VanderVelde, Randall MEMBERS ABSENT: Barker STAFF PRESENT: Knight, Frantz, McCormick, Boyle FINAL ACTION TAKEN: 1. 5E-8408. The application submitted by John Roffman for a special exception to modify the 20 foot front yard requirement for property located at 5 Sturgis Drive along Riverside Drive was approved to allow the following modifications of the front yard requirements: 1. The building may extend no closer than six feet to the Riverside Drive right-of-way. 2. The building may extend no closer than 15 feet to the Sturgis Drive right-of-way. VARIANCE ITEMS: 1. V-8404. Public hearing on an application submitted by Mercy Facilities Inc. for a variance to the provisions of Section 36-58(e)(2) regarding I screening of off-street parking areas. Slager moved to defer V-8404 to the next Board of Adjustment meeting. The motion was seconded by Fisher. The motion carried unanimously. SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS: 1. 5E-8408. Public hearing on an application submitted by John Roffman for a special exception to modify the 20 foot front yard requirement for property located at 5 Sturgis Drive along Riverside Drive by reducing it to zero. Knight stated that the applicant was requesting a special exception for a complete waiver of the 20 foot front yard required along Riverside Drive for Lot 1 of Sturgis Corner Addition. This is a triangular shaped corner lot located in the southern quadrant of the T-intersection of Sturgis Corner Drive and Riverside Drive. The original application was to con- struct a two-story building which would contain a laundromat and retail space. A total of 56 parking spaces would be required to serve those uses. The applicant has changed this proposal by eliminating the second floor of the building. Therefore, the parking requirement will be reduced to 52 spaces. Knight reviewed the provisions of the ordinance which authorize the Board of Adjustment to grant a special exception for the modification of the yard requirements. X096 ■ Iowa City Board of Adjustment May 9, 1984 Page 2 Knight referred to the highway plan attached to the staff report which showed the relative locations of both the structure proposed by this applicant and that of the proposed Ground Round restaurant. He pointed out that at its closest point, the Ground Round will remain approximately 28 feet behind the back of the curb of Riverside Drive. The building proposed on Lot 1 of Sturgis Corner addition would be approximately ten feet behind the back of the curb on Riverside Drive. Knight stated that granting the proposed exception would be contrary to both the public interest and the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. The purpose of requiring a setback from the street is to provide adequate visibility, and to lessen congestion along streets. In this case, because of the odd angle at which Sturgis Corner Drive intersects Riverside Drive and the complex traffic patterns, visability is of particular concern. The result of granting the special exception would be to have a building set only ten feet behind the back curb for Riverside Drive. This would impair visibility for those vehicles turning from Sturgis Corner Drive onto Riverside Drive and would, therefore, be contrary to public interest. Knight pointed out that the applicant stated on his application that the exception will not be detri- mental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare. Staff disagrees. Knight concluded that it was the staff's recommendation that the special exception requested to allow the construction of a new building in the required front yard along Riverside Drive be denied. Fisher questioned why this was a front yard requirement and not a rear yard requirement. Knight explained that there is a front yard requirement along two frontages since this is a corner lot. Public Discussion: Mr. Tom Gelman of 1018 Rider Street, legal counsel for the applicant, stated that the reason the applicant is requesting a special exception is due to the new ordinance. Because of the definition of "street" in the old ordinance the Riverside Drive frontage would not be considered a front yard. Under the new ordinance there is a new definition of street and this property is required two 20 -foot setbacks. He presented to the Board a revised plot plan of the site showing the changes made as described by staff. He stated that there was no problem with parking. The major problem is in obtaining the maximum use of property under the current ordinance. Knight pointed out that the reason previously had nothing to do with the was because the old Zoning Ordinance cial zones. Under the provisions of adopted in December, 1983, a 20 foot erty. a 20 -foot setback was not required definition of a street. Rather, it did not require a setback in commer- the new zoning ordinance which was setback was required for this prop - Gelman stated that under the new ordinance one criteria for granting a special exception was impact on the health, safety, and welfare of the public and that themajorproblem according to staff was visibility. These concerns were andaany impediment intersection visoibilitytat9ithatorlocatDion a aHe WON Iowa City Board of Adjustment May 9, 1984 Page 3 distributed photographs to the Board taken from the stop sign. He ex- plained that the photographs demonstrated that there was no blockage to visibility for a car waiting at the stop sign. He agreed that there may be a visibility problem from several cars back of the stop sign, but at that point he did not feel that it mattered. Gelman distributed other photo- graphs of buildings in that area which were located six to ten feet away from the curb. The proposed building would be put on a lot line ten feet from the right-of-way. The proposed plan would allow room for a walkway and plantings. He stated that what is actually ten feet away from the right-of-way was the overhang of the building. The building itself would be 15 feet from the highway. Mr. John Roffman stated that the building would be located 150 feet from the intersection. He stated that they had eliminated the second story and tried to coordinate the design of this building with surrounding buildings. Mr. Gelman stated that he would like to have only one front yard setback. Mr. Kevin Hanick of 730 Muscatine Avenue, the local realtor for Mr. Roffman's building, stated that the back of the building would face Riverside Drive. All the access would be from Sturgis Drive. He felt that this was an outstanding design and was in favor of the applicant's request. Mr. Merle Trummel of 314 West Benton stated that the speed limit on that street was 30 miles per hour, however, the average traffic flowed at about 35-45 miles per hour in actual speed. He was concerned with safety. He stated that he was at that intersection around noon today. During that time 10-15 cars turned left. The traffic must cross the northbound -southbound lane. He stated there was a great deal of waiting there now. He felt that although the lead car may have a line of vision, the other cars would not. He felt this may have an adverse effect on the intersection. His other concerns were that the development would be conspicuous. He felt the aesthetics were nice now. Board Discussion Fisher questioned Mr. Roffman as to when the property was purchased. Mr. Roffman stated that the purchase would be finalized when this problem was worked out. Southgate Development was the current owner. Mr. Roffman stated that under the new ordinance they could park cars in the setback area which would be more unsightly and cause equal visibility problems. Slager questioned staff whether it was true he could have parking in the 20 foot front yard area. Knight stated that he could park to the lot line on Riverside Drive. Mr. Roffman stated that the shape of his lot resulted in unusual circumstances and nearly made this lot unusable. Knight noted that a previous plot plan for this area had been approved although the use proposed had fallen through for other reasons. He felt this indicated that the lot could be used in compliance with the ordinance. VanderVelde stated concern that vehicles coming to the corner of Riverside Drive and Sturgis Corner Drive would not have adequate visibility. She also observed that the proposed building would obscure the Riverside Drive I Iowa City Board of Adjustment May 9, 1984 Page 4 and Sturgis Corner Drive intersection for northbound traffic on Riverside Drive. She felt that the reason for two setbacks on corner lots was to insure adequate visibility from both directions. Slager remarked that those drivers who are familiar with the area slow down as they approach the light at the corner of Riverside Drive and Highway 6. She also observed that most people travelling west on Highway 6 would turn an Sturgis Corner Drive at its intersection with Highway 6 on the south side of Sturgis Corner Addition, rather than turning onto Riverside Drive and then onto Sturgis Corner Drive. Knight stated that if the Board felt the applicant had adequately demon- strated that there would be no problem with the public safety issue, the Board should proceed with this application. Slager stated that she would have no difficulty approving this request since cars can be parked up to the lot line according to the ordinance. VanderVelde stated that even if vehicles were parked to the lot line trucks could still see above the cars. Randall questioned what decision was made in regards to the Ground Round case. Knight stated that a special exception had been granted to modify the front yard to three feet at the closest point. However, the impact of this was different because of the 11 foot jog in their property linea Mr. Glenn Siders of 325 E. Washington Street, an employee of Southgate and Miles Development stated that the tree ordinance would mandate that trees be planted in that area. He felt that the building overhang of the porch would provide less obstruction to vision than the required trees: Knight replied that since this was a corner lot, trees were only required at a ratio of one tree per 60 feet of lot frontage. He did not feel that one and one-half inch trees spaced 40 to 60 feet apart were equivalent to a porch support. Mr. Gelman stated that they could compromise one front yard requirement if they could have relief on the Sturgis Corner Drive requirement. Gelman proposed that the building be shifted five feet to the east to provide a six foot setback on Riverside Drive, and a 15 -foot setback on Sturgis Corner Drive. Fisher stated that a new building plot plan would need to be submitted. Knight stated that the decision could be based on the dimen- sions the Board wanted to allow. Mr. Trunmel stated that this was a public discussion and he did not feel the public had been notified regarding the compromise. Fisher stated that the Board could modify the application to impose conditions they felt were necessary to protect the public interest. Mr. Gelman stated that they could modify the original application and the applicant could build within those constraints. Knight stated that if some setback were provided along Riverside Drive it would greatly improve the situation. Staff's concerns primarily regarded visibility, and any increase in setback would help . He noted that it was up to the Board to determine whether six feet was adequate. m' Iowa City Board of Adjustment May 9, 1984 Page 5 Randall moved to approve the application submitted by John Roffman for a special exception to modify the 20 foot front yard requirement for property located at 5 Sturgis Corner Drive as follows: 1. The building may extend no closer than six feet to the Riverside Drive right-of-way. 2. The building may extend no closer than 15 feet to the Sturgis Corner Drive right-of-way. The motion was seconded by Slager and approved unanimously. 2. SE -8409. Public hearing on an application submitted by Southland Corpora- tion for a special exception to permit the establishment of an auto oriented use at 820 First Avenue. Franklin stated that the owners of the 7 -Eleven Store, at 820 First Avenue, wished to install self-service gasoline pumps in front of the existing store. The store was considered to be an auto and truck oriented use, due to the fact that it is a convenience store with a floor area of less than 4,000 square feet. The addition of gas pumps would be the establishment of a new auto and truck oriented use - a filling station, and requires a special exception. There are no specific standards for auto and truck oriented uses. The uses surrounding the 7 -Eleven store are mainly retail commercial, with the exception of a car wash (an auto and truck oriented use) to the north, and a mobile home park to the east. The car wash to the north was established prior to adoption of the Zoning Ordi- nance. The proposed gas pumps would be located on the west side of the lot. There is currently a single curb cut to the 7 -Eleven site and a drive to the car wash which is shared with 7 -Eleven patrons. Southland Corpora- tion is negotiating an agreement with the owners of the car wash for mutual use of the drive. This will ensure two means of access to the 7 -Eleven property. The drive to the 7 -Eleven site is shown as 35 feet on the plot plan submitted; 24 feet is the maximum allowable drive. The proposed use must comply with the parking requirements without diminishing compliance for the store. One stacking space for each island of pumps plus one parking space for each four pumps, will be necessary. The plot plan submitted shows the requisite number of spaces with 11 in the rear of the building and five in the front of the store. The canopy over the gas pump shown on the plot plan has been eliminated. Franklin stated that it had been brought -to the attention of the staff that the plot plan submitted differed from the plot plan on file for construction of the 7 -Eleven store. The placement of the building on the lot differed in terms of the distance between the building and the rear lot line; the variation meant that the 11 spaces to the rear of the store would not meet current design standards. She reiterated that sufficient parking for the store must be maintained. Staff recommended that the special exception requested by Southland Corporation to install self-service gas pumps and establish another auto and truck oriented use at 820 First Avenue, be approved based on the finding that establishment of this use will not adversely impact surround- ing properties, nor defeat the intent of the CC -2 zoning. The following conditions were recommended: WIP Iowa City Board of Adjustment May 9, 1984 Page 6 A. The 35' drive expansion be eliminated. B. Provision be made to ensure that the required parking for the store was retained and signage be provided indicating parking in the rear of the lot. Public Discussion: Mr. Robert Gipson sated that if an agreement regarding the drive from the car wash could not be reached they would not install the pumps. It was suggested that additional land to the rear of the store could be acquired or an easement attained and put into the final agreement since the owner of the car wash and the land to the rear was the same. Mr. Peter Sorenson of 306 Fleetwood Road in Cedar Rapids stated that this store had been in operation for eight or nine years. Currently there was no gas available east of Gilbert Street 24 hours per day. He felt that there was a demand for this. He did not feel there were any traffic hazards. He had a petition of 400 signatures of residents in that area that would like to see gas put in the store. Slager suggested that the item be deferred to the May 23, 1984, meeting since there were so many unknowns. Mr. Jim Miller of 2205 Aber Avenue, Iowa City, stated concerns with approving this application with conditions. He had seen several building projects where things were done to make the numbers work, but the actual conditions were not met. He had concerns with feasibility and safety. He felt that there may be hidden hazards if an approval was made with condi- tions at this time. He stated that his company was in the process of building a 24-hour gas facility one-half block away from that location. Mr. Greg Apel and Mr. Jim Miller questioned if the plot plan was approved, and the land leased, how it would affect Mr. Paulson's parking requirements. Franklin stated that Mr. Paulson's parking would not be affected. Mr. 'John Moreland stated that he had constructed many convenience stores. He had seldom seen anyone park behind a store and walk around to use the front of the store. These were quick stop, convenience stores, and the congestion would be out in the front. Franklin stated that this was the reason the signage had been requested by the staff. Mr. Gipson stated that they operated many convenience stores and find that 90'. of the customers leave their car at the island at the gas pump; not many people pull up to a parking space after getting gas and then come in. He did not feel there was anything to create a hazard. Hs. Katie Heacock, of 601 Indian Lookout in Iowa City, stated that she was an employee at this convenience store and she very seldom saw the parking spaces filled. She did not see any problems with parking. She felt that the opposition was based on competition, and not concerns for safety or hazards in the area. Iowa City Board of Adjustment May 9, 1984 Page 7 Board Discussion: Fisher questioned why the five spaces out front were adequate for the store, but 11 spaces would be required for the pumps. Franklin stated that 13 spaces were required for the store and three for the pumps. She speculated that the store parking did not comply with the design standards when it was established under the old ordinance. Under the new ordinance there would be 6 required parking spaces for the three pumps and the convenience store. In establishing a new use under the ordinance, the use must comply with parking if possible. Slager stated that she would like to defer this item. She would like a chance to see the final plot plan and have open discussion. She did not feel that the Board could set up contingencies to cover this many vari- ables. Randall moved to defer 5E-8409 to the May 23, 1984, meeting. The motion was seconded by Slager. The motion carried unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS: Slager requested another copy of the bylaws and procedural rules. Randall moved to adjourn at 6:40 p.m. The motion was seconded by Slager. The minutes were taken by Colleen McCormick. Peter Fisher, Temporary Chairperson. Doug Boothroy, Secretary 1096 MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 23, 1984 - 4:30 P.M. CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Fisher, Randall, Slager, VanderVelde MEMBERS ABSENT: Barker STAFF PRESENT: Boyle, Franklin, Frantz, Johnston CALL TO ORDER: VanderVelde called the meeting to order at 4:38 p.m. Randall moved that VanderVelde be acting chairperson. Fisher seconded. The motion carried. VARIANCES: V-8404. Public hearing on an application submitted by Mercy Facilities nT corporated for a variance to the provisions of Section 36-58(e)(2) regarding screening of off-street parking areas. Franklin stated that the new planting plan had not been submitted. She stated that the applicant wishes to defer this until the June 13th meeting. Fisher moved that this item be deferred. Randall seconded the motion. The motion carried. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: SE -8409. Public hearing on an application submitted by Southland Corpora- tion for a special exception to permit the enlargement of an auto oriented use at 820 First Avenue. Franklin stated that this item was deferred from the Board's last meeting to allow for the resolution of some questions about parking. Franklin stated that she had pulled the plot plan which was dated March 24, 1975 from the City's building permit files. The building permit was issued based on this plot plan. There are 24 parking spaces shown on the plot plan, which is more than was required at that time and more than is required now. The parking spaces comply with the size required now but not with the aisle and drive standards as we now have them. The owner had the right to retain the spaces as outlined on the plan because a permit was issued for the store with this parking layout. On the plan there are seven spaces behind the store on the east boundary of the lot, two spaces along the store on the south side, eight spaces in front, and four spaces on either side of the drive as you enter the lot. The gas pump island will omit four spaces just to the north of the drive and this would leave 20 spaces total. The store is required to have only 13 spaces. Three additional spaces, that comply with current standards for space size and the drive and aisle dimensions, are needed for the gas pump use. A 22 foot wide aisle is required for two-way traffic. Southland Corporation proposes to retain six spaces in the rear, one being eliminated due to the telephone pole. The two spaces along the store on the south side would be 1646 Board of Adjustment May 23, 1984 Page 2 retained, five spaces in front will be retained with two spaces eliminated to allow enough space between the gas pump island and the parking space to comply with current standards. Staff recommended approval of this exception and the following conditions: That all spaces be striped and that signage(not to exceed four square feet) be provided in the front of the store to show that there is parking in the rear, and that a scale drawing showing the store on the lot with the traffic island and the agreed upon parking layout be submitted. Randall asked if the six spaces in the rear are on the 7 -Eleven property and if they needed an easement. Franklin stated that the spaces are on 7 -Eleven property and on the original plot plan. Slager asked if egress to the north was required or was it only for the customers' convenience; Franklin stated that egress to the north was not required. Fisher asked if the front parking spaces would be angled or straight on. Franklin stated they would be straight on and not angled. Public discussion Peter Sorrenson, group supervisor for 7 -Eleven stores, stated he had nothing to add but would abide by the layout presented and obtain the north access agreement. He felt it would help their business and aid the car wash also. There was no public discussion in opposition to the special exception. Board Discussion: Slager questioned how this can be passed with a scaled drawing request since there is no longer any more City involvement. She asked if they are required to have a building permit. Franklin stated no and pointed out that the xerox of the building permit plan with the new parking layout would be in the City file. VanderVelde asked Mr. Sorrenson if he had any objections to the conditions of a revised scaled drawing. Sorrenson stated he had none and that the Fire Department has the final say on placement of the tank. VanderVelde questioned if handicapped parking spaces must be provided. Franklin stated that under today's code they would be required to have handicapped spaces, but this special exception is for the use of the gas pump and not the store and the store is using the spaces that were granted under the 1975 permit. Mr. Sorrenson said there was a space specifically marked for handicapped use. Slager moved that special exception item SE -8409 submitted by Southland Corporation for a special exception to permit the enlargement of an auto oriented use at 820 First Avenue be approved with the following condi- tions: 1) that all parking spaces be striped and any compact spaces loK Board of Adjustmen.. May 23, 1984 Page 3 (that is 8' x 15') be marked as such; 2) that there be a sign, not to exceed four (4) square feet, provided near the front of the building indi- cating that parking is provided in the rear; 3) that a revised plot plan, drawn to scale, with the new agreed parking spaces be made available to the City staff. Randall seconded the motion. The motion passed unani- mously. SE -8410. Public hearing on an application submitted by Ed Jones for a special exception to permit multi -family residential uses in a CI -1 zone at 1425 North Dodge Street. Franklin stated that 12 multi -family units were proposed to be constructed above the Jones Plumbing 8 Heating offices at 1425 North Dodge Street. This property is zoned intensive commercial and dwellings are only permitted as a special exception. She addressed those criteria which the staff report commented on. This development is in the "moratorium area" and the moratorium is to be lifted in May of 1985. The staff feels that this development does not meet the first criterium of the special exception review regarding the public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare because of the develop- ment's location and the fact that it would incrementally add to the downstream sewage problem. A maximum of 22 multi -family units would be permitted on this lot given the gross acreage alone but no estimation of buildable units is made which includes parking requirements. The staff recommended in the report that the special exception requested for 1425 North Dodge Street be denied pending resolution of the downstream sewer capacity problems and revision of the plan to show compliance with the zoning requirements. Franklin pointed out that the applicant had been able to revise the plot plan to show substantial compliance with the requirements. VanderVelde questioned how long the building had been there. Franklin stated the building had been there since the 1930s with various commercial and manufacturing uses. Fisher questioned if a 12-plex is consistent with the comprehensive plan for the area. Franklin stated that a 12-plex was not consistent nor was a commercial use. Public discussion Ed Jones stated that the property was originally zoned C-2 and multi -family was permitted by right in that zone and if he had applied for the permit in December, it couldn't have been denied because that was an acceptable use in that area at that time. He feels the sewage problem could be more intense with any of the permitted uses in a CI -1 zone than with a multi -family use. VanderVelde questioned why he did not apply for a permit in December. 1696 ■ E Board of Adjustment May 23, 1984 Page 4 Mr. Jones said they were working on the plans and the financing. He said they were not aware that multi -family would be a problem in a CI -1 zone and were told that it wouldn't be. The moratorium is for unplatted land and this property wouldn't fall under that criteria. Randall questioned Jones' reaction to the staff concerns about the sewer problems downstream. Mr. Jones stated there were several commercial uses he could use now that he wouldn't need approval for and he felt this would be more detrimental to the sewer problems downstream. i Franklin pointed out that the issuance of a building permit for a permit- ted use left no discretion to the City if all ordinances were complied with, but that a special exception required an evaluation of the proposal in the context of the special exception criteria stated in the Municipal Code. VanderVelde questioned Mr. Jones about what special harm it would cause him if he waited until May of 1985. Mr. Jones said that it probably would involve financing again and maybe higher interest rates. Charles Ruppert, who owns property next to 1425 Dodge Street and across the road, would like to see something built on the Jones property. Mr. Gordon Bauman of 1126 North Dodge, stated he is concerned with the access to the unit. Dust and chuckholes are a problem on Dodge Street Court which is currently a 17 foot lane. He feels this is a single-family dwelling area. Oscar Graham of 1130 Conklin Lane is concerned about the safety of the children. He stated he can live with commercial but feels this should be a single-family residential area. He is also concerned with a potential noise problem. Madeleine Macindoe of 1124 Conklin stated she originally bought her house because it was a quiet area and she also feels that is why others did. She stated that both Conklin Lane and Dodge Street Court are gravel and single lane roads. If access was provided on these streets, dust would be a large problem and because the roads are single lane two cars coming at the same time would need to pull onto someone's property in order to get by. Elaine Dockery of 1110 Conklin is concerned about safety for the children. She stated she also likes the area because it is quiet. She stated she would lose part of her land for improvement of the road if this were permitted. Franklin passed out a plot plan of the proposed development. She ex- plained that the access proposed would be off Highway 1/Dodge Street and not Dodge Street Court. 1'n C Board of Adjustment May 23, 1984 Page 5 Fisher questioned if at a later time access could be provided through the RS -8 or the Dodge Street Court portion to Dodge Street. Franklin said it could ha en. being used for parking and some storageShe s oftvehied tclee the RS -8 is presently VanderVelde questioned if Dodge Street Court were widened, would Mrs. i Dockery lose more land or is her land in the right-of-way. Franklin stated that she couldn't say without checking. if it is not within the right-of-way now and if more land was not acquired for the street, then she wouldn't lose any land. But, if the street were upgraded and made a local street, she could lose some land since the standards are a 50 foot right-of-way with 28 feet of paving curb -to -curb; this would be acquired through an arm's length transaction or condemnation. Franklin stated that the plot plan meets the minimum requirements as far as screening, and the necessary parking and necessary tree regulations. The Board has the power to impose other conditions if they feel that what is provided is not compatible with the other uses in the zone. Board Discussion: Randall stated he could not understand what will happen in May to solve the sewer problems and allow the lifting of the moratorium that was not happening now. Franklin said that the City Council is presently in the process of retaining a consultant to design a sewer system that would be an appropri- ate solution to both the collection and the treatment problems. Randall said that the system won't be built by May. He cannot understand why development is detrimental now and not in May. He asked if the staff would be concerned with the sewers if this application were in May. Franklin stated that in May the moratorium would no longer be a formal City Council policy. She pointed out that the staff recommendation was based on the criteria for special exceptions regarding a detriment to the general welfare and the adequacy of utilities for the proposed project and not on the moratorium policy per se. Slager said the sewer issue is a problem for her since the moratorium is now in effect. Vande would r dlie ketotseedthat she thepeoplewas exitrontoeDodgetStreeteCourtoratherarea. She than onto Dodge Street. Mr. Jones stated that he would be concerned if access were to Dodge Street Court because of the safety to the children. He stated that the prime problem with Dodge Street would be at around 8:00 a.m. and again at 4:30 p.m. 1096 Board of Adjustment May 23, 1984 Page 6 i Randall agreed with the traffic concerns and sympathized with the neigh- bors regarding the traffic and the noise. He also sympathized with Mr. Jones. The Board has a responsibility to protect the neighbors, he said. Fisher questioned if the screening is because of the 12-plex or is Mr. Jones in violation now. Franklin stated he is non-conforming now and that the tree regulations and screening are only required if he changes the use by more than 50 percent. i Fisher asked to hear from some of the neighbors regarding the screening. i Mr. Ruppert stated that screening was not a problem with him. Mr. Bauman feels that an apartment complex should not be put in a single -family area. j Madeleine Macindoe said that the screening would not affect the chainlink j fence that they see now. i Randall questioned how high the addition would be. Franklin said the addition would be two floors on top of the existing building. VanderVelde questioned if there were any problems with the airport overlay zone regarding this project. Franklin responded that there were not. Mr. Graham was concerned with the noise that might be produced from the stereos of the people who will move into the units. Fisher feels that the applicant has not proven that the project wouldn't be detrimental to the surrounding properties. Slager said that since the moratorium is in effect now, she cannot get past that issue. i VanderVelde stated she agrees with Slager. Randall explained to the people in the audience that when they make a motion that the motions are always made in the positive. Randall moved that item SE-8410, an application submitted by Ed Jones for a special exception to permit multi-family residential uses in the CI-i zone at 1425 North Oodge Street, be approved. Fisher seconded the motion. The motion failed by a vote of 0-4. VanderVelde explained to Mr. Jones that he had a right to appeal this adverse decision in district court within 30 days if he so chooses. SE-8411. Public hearing on an application submitted by Tom Alberhasky to modify the yard requirements at 624 Madison Street. los Board of Adjustmer.^ May 23, 1984 Page 7 Franklin passed out pictures of Mr. Alberhasky's property. She stated that this is a dead-end street. The property is in a CI -1 zone and a 20 foot front yard is required. Alberhasky wishes to build a building leaving a four foot front yard. I VanderVelde questioned if his was the last building on the street. Franklin stated yes and that there were no visibility problems antici- pated. j VanderVelde questioned if the off-street parking requirements would be complied with. Franklin stated yes. Franklin said that Mr. Alberhasky has asked that the Board grant an -i extension of a period of time when the building must be constructed. He would like an additional two year period over the six month period. VanderVelde asked the reason for the request for the extension. Mr. Alberhasky stated he must draw up plans and get rid of a building; this is summer now and he will run into a problem with winter. Randall asked Mr. Boyle if two years was excessive and if there was a precedent. Boyle stated there wasn't a precedent. Fisher questioned what it takes to establish a use as defined by the Code. Boyle responded that obtaining a building permit was sufficient. Frantz said that once a person picks up a building permit, he has another six months before he needs to start building. I, Randall asked if Alberhasky was given a year extension, would that give him two years. Frantz stated it would. I VanderVelde moved that an application submitted by Tom Alberhasky to modify the yard requirements at 624 Madison Street be granted and that the order of the Board be extended for an additional six months. Randall seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 4-0. VanderVelde explained to Mr. Alberhasky that he has one year to obtain a building permit and then six months to start building. OTHER BUSINESS: VanderVelde requested that the staff draft some sort of statement regard- ing the purposes of front yard setbacks. The Board next discussed the fees that were charged for special exceptions and variances. IoW Board of Adjustment= May 23, 1984 Page 8 Franklin said that the fees charged for filing a variance is now $75 and the fees charged for filing a special exception is $200. Franklin also stated that the appeal for the issuance of a building permit fee is $150. She stated that with a variance there is the question of hardship. With a special exception there is not the question of hardship. VanderVelde felt the fees charged might be too high in the case of a special exception. VanderVelde stated that this should be recommended to the City Council to consider changing the fees charged. Slager stated that she wants to talk about member absences. Boyle said he feels several of the rules need to be revised, that they need to be more informative and explain to applicants that the burden of proof is on the applicant. Franklin asked when they should meet to discuss this. It was decided that the Board would meet on June 20 at 4:00 p.m. to discuss the rules, fees, and attendance. Franklin stated she will try to get the City Manager's Conference Room which she feels is more conducive to discussion. Boyle said he will have some suggestions for rules revisionbut not a draft at that time. Randall moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:35 p.m. VanderVelde seconded the motion. There was no further business. Minutes submitted by Jean Johnston. Approved by: Lea VanderVelde, Acting Chair Accepted by: Douglas W. oothroy, ecretary MINUTES SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION MAY 9, 1984 SENIOR CENTER CONFERENCE ROOM COMMISSION PRESENT: C. Browne, M. Clover, B. Coen, H. Fox, B. Jackson (3:35 PM), M. Kattchee (3:30 PM), G. Scott STAFF PRESENT: B. Meisel, J. Smith RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL Margaret Clover reviewed the recommended changes in the Senior Center bylaws and ordinances (Bylaws, Article 2, Sections 1 and 2, Article 5, Section 4, Article 6, Section l; Ordinance 79-2947, Article, 5, Section 25-60, 61, 64). Coen moved, Fox seconded, to adopt the changes. Motion carried unanimously (7 yes, 0 no). Commission members recommended changes in the contractual agreements with AARP, Adult Day Program, SEATS, Congregate Meal Program, and Elderly Services j Agency be accepted by the City Council. CALL TO ORDER/MINUTES Margaret Clover called the meeting to order at 3:00 PM. The minutes of the April 1984 meeting were approved as read. PUBLIC DISCUSSION Two Council of Elders representatives, Kathleen Norris and Ruth Wagner, will attend the Governor's conference on aging, May 21-23. Clover noted that the Senior Center received thank you letters from Institute of Business Designers, Ora Crites and the Internal Revenue Service. IBD and IRS expressed their appreciation for the use of the Senior Center and Ora Crites thanked the Commission for sending her to the Governor's regional conference on volunteerism in Ottumwa. SPACE APPLICATION Commission members reviewed the space application submitted by Robert Welsh requesting congregate meal food storage space. Meisel stated there will not be any storage space available due to pending space use proposals and the Senior Center could not meet the USDA food storage requirements. Meisel said she has received suggestions from an architect regarding better space utilization and shelving in the kitchen. Due to problems in the scullery with slippery wet greasy floors, the Senior Center has agreed to purchase rubber floor mats for the area. Bids are now being received. Commission members agreed that any available space should be available for use by people at the Senior Center and the Senior Center was not designed for use as a warehouse. The Commission also stated that any space currently being used for storage should be emptied. Fox moved, Scott seconded, to deny the space application and request any items stored on the second floor by congregate meals be removed. The motion passed (5 yes, 0 no, 1 abstention, 1 absence). 10-7 JORM MICROLAB SERIES MT•8 PRECEDING. DOCUMENT MINUTES SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION MAY 9, 1984 SENIOR CENTER CONFERENCE ROOM COMMISSION PRESENT: C. Browne, M. Clover, B. Coen, H. Fox, B. Jackson (3:35 PM), M. Kattchee (3:30 PM), G. Scott STAFF PRESENT: B. Meisel, J. Smith RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL Margaret Clover reviewed the recommended changes in the Senior Center bylaws and ordinances (Bylaws, Article 2, Sections 1 and 2, Article 5, Section 4, Article 6, Section 1; Ordinance 19-2947, Article, 5, Section 25-60, 61, 64). Coen moved, Fox seconded, to adopt the changes. Motion carried unanimously (7 yes, 0 no). Commission members recommended changes in the contractual agreements with AARP, Adult Day Program, SEATS, Congregate Meal Program, and Elderly Services Agency be accepted by the City Council. CALL TO ORDER/MINUTES I Margaret Clover called the meeting to order at 3:00 PM. The minutes of the April 1984 meeting were approved as read. PUBLIC DISCUSSION Two Council of Elders representatives, Kathleen Norris and Ruth Wagner, will attend the Governor's conference on aging, May 21-23. Clover noted that the Senior Center received thank you letters from Institute of Business Designers, Ora Crites and the Internal Revenue Service. IBD and IRS expressed their appreciation for the use of the Senior Center and Ora Crites thanked the Commission for sending her to the Governor's regional conference on volunteerism in Ottumwa. SPACE APPLICATION Commission members reviewed the space application submitted by Robert Welsh requesting congregate meal food storage space. Meisel stated there will not be any storage space available due to pending space use proposals and the Senior Center could not meet the USDA food storage requirements. Meisel said she has received suggestions from an architect regarding better space utilization and shelving in the kitchen. Due to problems in the scullery with slippery wet greasy floors, the Senior Center has agreed to purchase rubber floor mats for the area. Bids are now being received. Commission members agreed that any available space should be available for use by people at the Senior Center and the Senior Center was not designed for use as a warehouse. The Commission also stated that any space currently being used for storage should be emptied. Fox moved, Scott seconded, to deny the space application and request any items stored on the second floor by congregate meals be removed. The motion passed (5 yes, 0 no, 1 abstention, 1 absence). 07 Senior Center Con....ssion May 9, 1984 Page 2 CHANGES IN SENIOR CENTER BYLAWS AND ORDINANCES Margaret Clover reviewed the recommended changes in the Senior Center bylaws and ordinances (Bylaws, Article 2, Sections 1 and 2, Article 5, Section 4, Article 6, Section. 1; Ordinance 79-2947, Article 5, Section 25-60, 61, 64). Coen moved, Fox seconded, to adopt the changes. Motion carried unanimously (7 yes, 0 no). The recommended changes will be forwarded to the City Council. CENTER OUTREACH SURVEY Bette Meisel reviewed results of the community survey done by members of the panhellenic organization. Commission members had received a summary of the questions answered in the survey. Volunteers surveyed sample Iowa City neighborhoods about the Senior Center and distributed information on services and activities at the Senior Center. The survey will be done again in the fall. CHANGES IN THE SENIOR CENTER/AGENCY CONTRACTS Staff and Commission members discussed changes in the contractual agreements with AARP, Adult Day Program, SEATS, Congregate meal program, and Elderly Services Agency. Kattchee moved, Brown seconded, to accept the changes as discussed and stated .in the agency contract change packet (handed out at the meeting). Motion carried unanimously (7 yes, 0 no). The lease of space agreement will be sent to the Department of Human Services, CAHHSA, Heritage Legal Counseling, HACAP, DISC, WPS and hearing screening. Contracts will be sent to the legal department for review. SENIOR CENTER UPDATE Commission briefly reviewed the Senior Center third quarter FY84 report. Meisel received two responses from letters sent to members of the Senior Center Commission and Council of Elders requesting ideas for the Senior Center gift list. Suggestions included purchasing a router, expanding parking, and purchasing safety mats for the kitchen. A cover letter and the Senior Center evaluation will be sent to the City Council. Meisel said that recent Human Rights Commission minutes stated concerns raised by Matt Eckerman about being trapped on the Senior Center second floor when a fire alarm went off. Meisel has contacted the Human Rights Commission and asked to be contacted when matters like this arise. Meisel also reviewed the fire procedure to assure that each floor and room is checked when a fire alarm goes off. Meisel stated that Lori Benz will be returning from her leave of absence on July 30. Pat Ducey will be terminating his position at the Senior Center July 20. 1Oq % Senior Center Com„ ssion May 9, 1984 Page 3 Meisel explained why the Senior Center Program Specialist position was placed in the AFSCME bargaining unit. Eight City of Iowa City employees, including the Senior Center Program Specialist, were placed into the bargaining unit and three positions were removed from AFSCME. To be an administrative employee you must 1) supervisor bargaining unit employees, 2) be in a position to hire, fire, discipline, process grievances, and set salaries, and 3) have access to confidential information which is used for bargaining purposes. The City felt these conditions were not within the Program Specialist's job duties. Commission members reviewed the Program Special- ist's job description and unique characteristics of the position. Also, the Commission raised concerns about not being consulted about the position change. Jackson moved, seconded by Fox, to write a letter to Neal Berlin objecting to the change, requesting a meeting for an explanation, and requesting a reconsideration of the position change. Copies of the letter will also be sent to the City Council. The motion passed unanimously (7 yes, 0 no). COUNCIL OF ELDERS REPORT i Ruth Wagner introduced Kathleen Norris, the Council of Elders Chairperson. Wagner reported on Council of Elders activities. The Older Americans' Day Fair plans are finalized, several Council of Elders members and the chorus are attending the Governor's conference on aging, and the PEO organization is donating a coffee urn, tea kettle and cutlery to the Senior Center. The Council of Elders asked for suggestions from the Senior Center Commission regarding fund raising activities. Bette Meisel stated that the Senior Center budget doesn't have funds allocated for programming and activities. Commission members discussed fund raising, using the Senior Center gift fund account, having a separate COE account and budgeting funds through the Senior Center budget. The Commission emphasized that any fund raising project should be reviewed by the Commission. Meisel stated there is not. enough staff time available presently to assist with fund raising activities. OPEN DISCUSSION Meisel reported that the public address system is being installed. A temporary system will be used for the Older Americans' Day Program. Meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m. /097 V 11 MINUTES SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION MAY 11, 1984 SENIOR CENTER CONFERENCE ROOM COMMISSION PRESENT: C. Brown, M. Clover, B. Coen, H. Fox, B. Jackson (3:40 p.m.), G. Scott COMMISSION ABSENT: M. Kattchee SENIOR CENTER STAFF PRESENT: B. Meisel, J. Smith CITY STAFF PRESENT: Neal Berlin CALL TO ORDER: Bill Coen called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. ADMINISTRATIVE POSITION REVIEW: Bill Coen stated concerns about placing the Senior Center Program Specialist position into the AFSCME bargaining unit without consulting the Senior Center Commission. Heal Berlin stated that he is supportive of the Senior Center and receptive to input from the Senior Center Commission, but very upset with Bette Meisel's role in this particular matter. Berlin explained that to be effective as a City Manager, information from department heads need to be received in a timely manner, once decisions are made - they need to be carried out, and it is his and staff's responsibility to solve problems. Berlin noted that Meisel had had earlier conversations with him and the Human Relations Department regarding the position change. The position reclassification is irrevocable because of City Council instructions, negotiations with the union in good faith and the Public Employee Relations Board's involvement. Berlin explained the position could become adminstrative if the responsibilities of that position changed sufficiently. PERB will announce a public hearing giving the individual employee involved with the position change an opportunity to file objections. It would be Meisel's responsibility to work with the Human Relations Department on the reclassification. Meisel explained that she had not fully understood all of her administrative options. She had earlier contacted the Human Relations Deparment about the position change, then the City Manager and finally the Senior Center Commis- sion. She did not realize that she should have contacted the City Manager and Commission much earlier about her concerns. PERE will announce a public hearing giving the individual employee involved with the position change an opportunity to file objections. The Commission discussed the Program Specialist's job description and stated that they believe it is a supervisory position. Concerns were stated that the position change would cause a change in the job duties and responsibilities, would be damaging to the program, and would affect the ongoing request for another Senior Center staff person. The Commission asked if they could appear with Benz before the PERE Board in support of the position as an administrative one. Berlin will request a legal opinion from the City Attorney as to whether that action is permissible under the "fair labor law." Also, he suggested the Commission and staff review past job classification materials for the Program Specialist's position. Meeting adjourned at 4:25 p.m. RE I MINUTES DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE THURSDAY, MAY 31, 1984 CITY MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Wockenfuss, Seiberling, Haupert, Alexander, Summerwill ME14BERS ABSENT: Amert, Eckholt, Lafore, Wegman, Sinek ; GUESTS PRESENT: Jim Maynard, Emily Rubright, Jim Clark, Joe Holland STAFF PRESENT: Hauer, Franklin, McCormick RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: 1. The Design Review Committee recommends to City Council the approval of the design for an apartment building at 404 South Dubuque Street (IRB request). i 2. The Design Review Committee recommends to City Council the approval of the Blackhawk Mini -Park design concept as presented, subject to any safety recommendations the staff feels are appropriate. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Seiberling called the meeting to order at 4:10 p.m. MINUTES OF MAY 9, 1984: Approval of the minutes of May 9, 1984 were deferred to the next meeting I for lack of a quorum. i REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 404 SOUTH DUBUQUE STREET (IRB REQUEST): Holland, representing the developer, submitted limestone samples and photographs of proposed quoin designs for the Committee's review. He stated that some alterations had been made on the building plans to improve the design of the building, including additional detail on the windows and keystone designs, a brick belt around the base of the build- ing, additional scrollwork on the balcony, and a elevator lift which may be located on the side (Dubuque Street) entrance. He stated the basic concept of this building was similar to the Gilbert Street apartments by the Mansion, but this building would have additional interior and exterior improvements and is more faithful to the era's design features. Seiberling asked whether the air conditioner grills could be painted to blend into the color scheme of the building. Clark stated that air conditioner grills have a tendency to dull after a year and would blend better. Seiberling questioned whether more plainly decorated entrance doors could be used which would better match the overall design. Clark replied that these doors lead to the elevators; if the doors were plain, they would show damage, such as wheelchair -caused bumps and nicks very easily. Design Review Comm...-ee May 31, 1984 Page 2 Wockenfuss stated concerns over the interior doors. He felt there were too many, and block entrances to other rooms. Clark replied he would re -review each door's location to insure they were installed in the most logical and usable manner. Alexander asked if the more -authentic tin brackets could be used. Clark replied he was going to use wood because it was easier to obtain but he was going to watch the maintenance expenses and if the wood proved costly in the long -run, he would give serious consideration to the tin. There was some discussion about the reasons for window placement. Clark indicated the window placement was determined by the interior layout of the individual apartments and the stairwells. Alexander asked the Design Review Committee to recommend to City Council the approval of the design for 404 South Dubuque Street. The Committee endorsed this recommendation and noted, with pleasure, the attention to historical detail by the developer. BLACKHAWK MINI -PARK: Haupert stated that he, Eckholt and Maynard had met to discuss the concerns expressed by the City which included: 1) the narrow width of the ingress and egress to the west entrance of the park; 2) the potential security problem of the space next to the Paul -Helen building; 3) the provision of access for the handicapped to the stage; 4) the service building; 5) congestion and seating arrangements in the south portion of the area; and 6) double -timbering for seats along Washington and Dubuque streets. ' Maynard presented a revised plan showing a wider entrance to Dubuque Street, an enlarged southern portion with a ramp to the stage, a smaller service building, modified seating areas and gates on the area between the Paul -Helen Building and the park. He suggested the possibility of a fence along the east boundary. Franklin stated staff had concerns that the 4 foot wide space between the park's planters and the Paul -Helen Building could be a potentially dangerous area. However, she felt a high fence to secure that area would be a severe solution. Seiberling stated that planting (such as a thorn -bearing tree) could be used and would be more effective and less expensive. Maynard stated the stage area was 30 inches above grade. A ramp to the stage was relocated to an entrance on Washington Street by the Paul -Helen Building and ran to the stage area. The table design had been changed to free-standing tables with wheelchair access on one side. The benches were cantilevered from the planters and designed to seat an increased number of people. Franklin stated there were two concepts which were the basis of the design discussion - that the mini -park area should be a continuation of City Plaza, or the park should be a separate space apart from City Plaza and Id98 Design Review Commiticee May 31, 1984 Page 3 that the staff would like the Committee's opinion of which concept should determine the design. The Committee's consensus was that this area should remain a smaller, more intimate area than City Plaza and not be subject to the pedestrian activity of the rest of the Plaza. The area was seen as a place to go to and not necessarily as another place to pass through. Wockenfuss commended Haupert for an excellent job of incorporating all of the ideas while still maintaining the concept and feeling of the original Maynard design plan. Franklin said the current timetable for the project was to begin construc- tion late this summer. Work has begun on identifying funding sources with the City budget. The next step is to have the revised plan reviewed by City staff and then taken to the City Council for approval of a design concept. Haupert asked the Committee to recommend to City Council the approval of the Blackhawk Mini -Park design plans as presented, subject to any safety recommendations the staff feels are appropriate; the Committee concurred. OTHER BUSINESS Hauer gave a short summary of the May 24 Hotel Steering Committee meeting on signage for the Holiday Inn. Amert has been designated to work on alternative sign designs with the Holiday Inn staff. Hauer asked the Committee to submit any ideas they had on signage for the Holiday Inn to her. Seiberling noted the Minneapolis Holiday Inn by the airport had brushed metal signage. Hauer noted the issue of newspaper vending machines had become a priority item on the City Council agenda list. The Committee indicated it wished to be contacted when this item was discussed by Council. Seiberling asked staff to check if the plantings by the new library were being done in compliance with the plantings' plan. The meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m. Minutes taken by Colleen McCormick. 1692 0