HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-11-20 CorrespondenceGoodwill Industries0l: SOUTHEAST IOWA
1410 FIRST AVENUE/ P.O. BOX 1696, IOWA CITY, IOWA 52244.1696
PHONE (319) 337.4158
1200 ILTH AVENUE S.W., CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA 524042506
PHONE (3191 36501135
November 1, 1984 Q 6
1 1984
The Non. John McDonald, Mayor
Members of City Council MARIAN K. KARR
City of Iowa city
Civic Center CITY CLERK (3)
410 E. Washington St.
Iowa City, IA. 52240
Dear Mayor McDonald and Council Members:
We are most appreciative of the opportunity to apply for 1985 CDBG funds
and feel fortunate in receiving a high enough priority rating by the
Committee on Community Needs to have been recommended for partial fund-
ing of our project.
In summary, our Iowa City building, which was completed in 1968, badly
needs major repairs, upgrading and renovation. Early this year the Good-
will board approved a master plan for facility improvements in Iowa City
based on recommendations that resulted from a thorough study by board
and staff in consultation with an architect. The master plan calls for
a three phase project that totals $600,000. Our request to CCN was for
$279,420 for Phase N1 of the master plan. The project is described in
some detail in the material you have received.
As a result of conversations with CCN members and City staff it became
clear that the number and size of requests for CDBG funds would make
full funding of Phase H1 improbable. We subsequently revised our re-
quest to $156,210 for "part a." of Phase 1, a new insulated roof and
improved heating and ventilation system -- our highest priorities.
CCN is recommending $100,000 toward the $156,210 needed to complete Phase
Nl.a. It is our understanding that the balance of the funds needed are
contingent on the status of the congregate housing project. If the housing
project is not approved for 1985, funds previously committed by CCN would
be released and made available for our Phase l.a. If the housing project
does begin, some or all of the original $100,000, subject to approval of
CCN and the Council, could be used to complete other parts of the Goodwill
plan that are independent of the roof and mechanical work. Examples are
the outside work in Phase Nl.b., fire exit and other safety related work
in Phase Nl.c., portions of Phase N2, and architect/engineer work for all
of Phase H1 and N2.
Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions about our plan,
npt.�
OUR BUSINIiSS WORKS. SO PEOPLE CAN.
, i?/Y
OF
PRECEDING
DOCUMENT
r
Goodwill Industries OF SOUTHEAST IOWA
1.110 FIRST AVENUE 111.0. BOX 1696, IOWA CITY. IOWA 52244.1696
PHONE 13191 337.4158
1200 16TI-I AVENUE S.W., CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA 52404-2506
PHONE (319) 365-01135
November 1, 1984
The Hon. John McDonald, Mayor
Members of City Council
City of Iowa City
Civic Center
410 E. Washington St.
Iowa City, IA. 52240
Dear Mayor McDonald and Council Members:
�oiIM
"'nV 1 1984
MARIAN K. KARR
CITY CLERK (3)
We are most appreciative of the opportunity to apply for 1985 CDBG funds
and feel fortunate in receiving a high enough priority rating by the
Committee on Community Needs to have been recommended for partial fund-
ing of our project.
In summary, our Iowa City building, which was completed in 1968, badly
needs major repairs, upgrading and renovation. Early this year the Good-
will board approved a master plan for facility improvements in Iowa City
based on recommendations that resulted from a thorough study by board
and staff in consultation with an architect. The Toaster plan calls for
a three phase project that totals $600,000. Our request to CCN was for
$279,420 for Phase #1 of the master plan. The project is described in
some detail in the material you have received.
As a result of conversations with CCN members and City staff it became
clear that the number and size of requests for CDBG funds would make
full funding of Phase #1 improbable. We subsequently revised our re-
quest to $156,210 for "part a." of Phase 1, a new insulated roof and
improved heating and ventilation system -- our highest priorities.
CCN is recommending $100,000 toward the $156,210 needed to complete Phase
#l.a. It is our understanding that the balance of the funds needed are
contingent on the status of the congregate housing project. If the housing
project is not approved for 1985, funds previously committed by CCN would
be released and made available for our Phase l.a. If the housing project
does begin, some or all of the original $100,000, subject to approval of
CCN and the Council, could be used to complete other parts of the Goodwill
plan that are independent of the roof and mechanical work. Examples are
the outside work in Phase #1.b., fire exit and other safety related work
in Phase #l.c., portions of Phase #2, and architect/engineer work for all
of Phase #1 and #2.
Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions about our plan,
i
L�:e\• 9
OUR BUSINESS WORKS. SU I'10111 CAN.
aiY9
Page 2
Hon. John McDonald, Mayor
in general or particular. You are most welcome to visit our facilities
and review the architect's preliminary plans in more detail.
Sincerely,
I I KM GLa cxY (A�
Thomas Zenge, Chairman
Iowa City Program Committee
CITY &
ow/
CIVIC CENTER 410 E. WASHINGTON ST. IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
October 30, 1984
Mayor John McDonald
Members of the City Council
Civic Center
410 E. Washington St.
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Dear Mr. McDonald and Members of the City Council:
CITY
(319) 356-5000
In response to your concern about the granting of a special exception
modifying the 20 foot front yard requirement for the property at 5
Sturgis Corner Drive, I would like to clarify the conditions and reasons
for the Board's action.
As you know, the Zoning Ordinance provides [Section 36-91(g)(2)] that
the Board may grant a special exception which is "...in accordance with
the general regulations of the zone in which the property is located and
with the specific standards contained therein..." and which meets the
general standards of the Zoning Ordinance. Those general standards
require that the proposed exception will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare, or injurious
to the use and property values of other property in the immediate
vicinity. In addition the proposed exception must not impede orderly
development of surrounding properties, must have adequate utilities,
access and drainage, and must not create traffic hazards or congestion.
If the applicant meets all of the required standards, the City Attorney
has advised us that the Board must grant the special exception.
With regard to the property at 5 Sturgis Corner, the Board looked very
carefully at how the granting of the special exception to reduce the
front yard would affect the visibility for cars turning from Sturgis
Corner Drive onto Riverside Drive. The Board determined that both the
first and second car would have adequate visibility when stopped at this
intersection and that there would be no traffic safety problems. The
Board further noted that the Zoning Ordinance restricts the construction
of buildings but not the placement of trees or parking in the front
yard, and that cars could be parked in the required front yard if the
special exception were not granted. Thus vehicles parked in strategic
spots of the required front yard could block visibility for cars exiting
Sturgis Corner Drive, whereas the proposed building did not.
ai 9p
Mayor and City Council
October 29, 1984
Page 2
The Board also considered the relation of the proposed structure to the
neighboring McDonald's and Ground Round restaurants, and found that
there would be no significant deviation in setbacks. The evidence
showed that Riverside Drive is wider at the property in question than
further north, and that the Iowa Department of Transportation has no
plans for further widening of this section of Riverside Drive. Based
upon that undisputed evidence, and the determination that there would be
no traffic safety problems, there was no basis for denying the applica-
tion and the Board granted the special exception.
Like the Council, the Board is concerned about the effect of special
exceptions for front yard requirements and has discussed this matter at
some length. Members suggest that one solution might be to permit a
special exception for modifying the front yard requirements up to a
maximum percentage of the yard (e.g. 20%), thus ensuring retention of a
reasonable front yard.
Y u sincer ly,
Sc tt Barker, Chairperson
Board of Adjustment
mn/sp
0�/9p
10W/-� CITY
CITY 071-
CIVIC CENTER 410 E. WASHINGTON ST. IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 (319)356-500D
November 14, 1984
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
Civic Center
410 E. Washington St.
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Dear Mayor McDonald and Council Members:
The Board of Adjustment sees itself as a body who can provide relief from the
Zoning Ordinance in those cases where circumstances are such that relief is
appropriate. This may happen through a variance or a special exception and in
both cases the Board may impose certain conditions on the use of the property. We
are very concerned that these conditions be carried out since they are imposed to
ensure that the variance or exception granted is not detrimental to surrounding
properties. In many cases, we would not grant the action requested if the
conditions could not be met.
Similarly, when we deny an application and require strict compliance with the
ordinance, we feel it is very important that the requirements of the code be met.
v
We encourage the City Council to consider these concerns when reviewing priorities
and evaluating budgets for the next fiscal year. The enforcement of the City's
codes - the Housing Code, the Building Code, and the Zoning Ordinance - is a
detailed and time-consuming task. Sufficient personnel to carry out this task in a
timely and efficient manner are essential. In order to maintain the effectiveness
of the Board and of other bodies such as the Housing Commission, the Planning and
Zoning Commission, and the Council itself, we hope that allocations to support the
enforcement of our work and your work will be made.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Sn ,
i
Scott Barker, Chairman
Board of Adjustment
f cc: Neal Berlin, City Manager
Douglas Boothroy, Director, Housing & Inspection Services
Robert Jansen, City Attorney
F Don Schmeiser, Director, Department of Planning &
Program Development
bj3/14
a / 91
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. SE -8408. The application submitted by John Roffman for a special exception
Co 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
rr(��dJ right-of-way.
��Pf1D)L. 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
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. SE -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.
aaoi
Iowa City Board of Adjust .it
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,
j therefore, be contrary to public interest. Knight pointed out that the
l 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.
CFisher 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-
�(t��l U Gelman stated that under the new ordinance one criteria for granting a
49 special exception was impact on the health, safety, and welfare of the
sttc�' public and that the major problem according to staff was visibility. These
y�4c .^f�, concerns were in regards to the intersection of Sturgis Corner Drive and
p�y9v Riverside Drive and any impediment to visibility at that location. He
�ao�
Iowa City Board of AdjuV- nt
May 9, 1984 V��6tiG�
Page 3
�f
distributed photographs to the Board taken from the stop sign. He ex-
plained that the photographs demonstrated that there was no blockage to
kick 5 visibility for a car waiting at the stop sign. He agreed that there may be
�Y4e� 1 a visibility problem from several cars back of the stop sign, but at that
�L I 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 walk
and plantings. He stated that what is actually ten feet away ff om the
right-of-way was the overhang of the building. The buildin its 1 would
be 15 feet from the highway. Ac4+%yl c / 'S of'
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 Trunmel 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.
I
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
baa/
Iowa City Board of Adjus`ment
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
on 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 17 foot jog in their property line.
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_pocch
would provide less obstruction to vision than a require rees. Knight
' reepplied—tWa-t since thus was a corner tot,, 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
PO V,90 ee 'necessary to protect the public interest.
1r. Gelman stated that they could modify the original application and the
'applicant could build within those constraints.
I 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.
.4,70/
Iowa City Board of Adjur�-•ent
Mey 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:
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
j 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 an 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:
o?aa/
Iowa City Board of Adjus—tnt
May 9, 1984
Page 6
A. The 35' drive expansion be eliminated.
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.
Ms. 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.
1
'?a 0/
Iowa City Board of Adjut '4nt
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 SE -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
i
a a o/
CITY CSF IOW/-\ CITY
CNIC CENTER 410 E. WASHNGTON ST. IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 (319) 356-5000
NOTICE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF IOWA CITY
IS CONSIDERING APPOINTMENTS
TO THE FOLLOWING COMMISSION:
RESOURCES CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Three vacancies - Three-year terms
January 1, 1985 - January 1, 1988
The duties of members of the Resources Conserva-
tion Commission include serving as an advisory
body to the City Council of Iowa City. They
shall reserach, review, and recommend policies,
rules, regulations, ordinances, and budgets re-
lating to matters of energy and resource conser-
vation and provide recommendations and reports
to the City Council on the activities of the Com-
mission. The Commission shall exercise broad
responsibility for development of resource con-
servation policies and shall pay special atten-
tion to long-range planning and programming. The
Commission shall, for the public welfare, make
recommendations on energy matters. These recom-
mendations may relate to local governmental and
quasi -public agencies, private residences and
investment properties, and office, commercial
and industrial properties.
Iowa City appointed members of boards and commis-
sions must be qualified voters of the City of Iowa
City. The persons appointed to this Commission
shall be, by training, education, experience, or
demonstrated interest, knowledgeable in matters
pertaining to energy use and conservation.
These appointments will be made at the November 20,
1984, meeting of the City Council at 7:30 P.M. in
the Council Chambers. The actual terms will begin
January 1, 1985. Persons interested in being
considered for these positions should contact the
City Clerk, Civic Center, 410 East Washington.
Application forms are available from the Clerk's
office upon request.
as oez
November 20, 1984
RESOURCES CONSERVATION MM. - Three vacancies - three year terms 1/1/85 to 1/1/88
Phil Nychay
818 S. Summit Street
Robert Singerman
1176 Hotz
(presently serving unexpired term 5/8/84 to
1/1/85)
(presently serving term 1/1/82 to 1/1/85)
a�oz
jj,
l'1A
Ity of Iowa City,-
MEMORANDUM
ity-MEMORANDUM
Date: November 14, 1984
To: John McDonald, Mayor
From: Bob Singerman, Chairman, Resources Conservation Commission
I would like to resign my position on the RCC, to be effective upon my
possible appointment to fill the unexpired term currently being advertised.
Thank you.
bdw3/1
a'Z60
November 6, 1984
RESOURCES OONSERVATION CONN. - one vacancy - imexpirreedtteenn 11/6/84 to 1/1/86
D
c.,
- CITY OF IOWA CITY -
ADVISORY BOARD/COMMISSION APPLICATION FORM
Individuals serving on Boards/Commissions play an important role in advising the
Council on matters of interest to our community and its future. Applicants must reside
in Iowa City.
The City Council announces Advisory Board/Commission vacancies 90 days prior to the
date the appointment will be made. This period provides for a 30 -day advertising period
and a 60 -day training period for new members. The training period allows new members to
become familiar with the responsibilities and duties of the advisory board/commission
before becoming a full voting member.
After a vacancy has been announced and the 30 -day advertising period has expired, the
Council reviews all applications during the informal work session. The appointment is
announced at the next formal Council meeting. Appointees serve as unpaid volunteers.
Council prefers that all applications must be submitted to the City Clerk no later
than one week prior to the announced appointment date. PLEASE USE A BLACK INK PEN.
THIS APPLICATION I,5 A PUBLIC DOCUMENT AND AS SUCH CAN BE REPRODUCED AND DISTRIBUTED FOR
THE PUBLIC. THIS APPLICATION WILL BE CONSIDERED FOR 3 MONTHS ONLY.
ADVISORY BOARD/COMMISSION NAME ��escNtcet C����. , lomt� c; , TERM
NAME �.l ��cV,d./ HOME ADDRESS5
Is your home addre s (listed above) within the corporate limits of Iowa City? ?
OCCUPATION Sl,a..��a«.���«�,. Ar�. EMPLOYER V�, a.-;�y ri Z'
PHONE NUMBERS: HOME 327_;— BUSINESm9wom '9q7-5q5!5-
EXPERIENCE
c7.,RSSEXPERIENCE AND/OR ACCT-IIV-I•TIES WHICH YOU FEEL QUALITY YOU FOR THIS POSITION: T
1 am curt( CocnM,sriOh 1Y1 mhr.r. 1
`` 1 \\
dl �y- 4M -Ra�c
WHAT IS YOUR PRESENT KNOWLEDGE OF THIS ADVISORY
WHAT CONTRIBUTIONS DO YOU FEEL YOU CAN MAKE TO THIS %SORY BOARD (OR STATE REASON
FOR APPLYING)? �csc,. c� ! ,�',. N �i,�e�, n t�� .-a.,..« I A —zk\-v -
Cn M0
Specific attention should be directed to possible conflict of interest as defined in
Chapters 362.6, 403A.22 of the Code of Iowa. Should you be uncertain whether or nota
potential conflict of interest exists, contact the Legal Dept. Will yourtave collict
of interest? _YES X NO IIGC
If you are not selected, do you want to be notified? RYES _NO U
This application will be kept on file for 3 months. .)CT 3 0 1984
February 19$�AN
K. 'NC'TY CLERK SRR
x203
Individuals serving on Boards/Commissions play an important role in advising the
Council on matters of interest to our community and its future. Applicants must reside
in Iowa City.
The City Council announces Advisory Board/Commission vacancies 90 days prior to the
date the appointment will be made. This period provides for a 30 -day advertising period
and a 60 -day training period for new members. The training period allows new members to
become familiar with the responsibilities and duties of the advisory board/commission
before becoming a full voting member.
After a vacancy has been announced and the 30 -day advertising period has expired, the
Council reviews all applications during the informal work session. The appointment is
announced at the next formal Council meeting. Appointees serve as unpaid volunteers.
Council prefers that all applications must be submitted to the City Clerk no later
than one week prior to the announced appointment date. PLEASE USE A BLACK INK PEN.
THIS APPLICATION IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT AND AS SUCH CAN BE REPRODUCED AND DISTRIBUTED FOR
THE P{UBBLIC. THIS APPLICATION WILL BE CONSIDERED FOR 3 MONTHS ONLY.
NAME IKo%rr� Sino rwt�n ADDRESS
OCCUPATION v r,EMPLOYER ) c� 7-C)kki
PHONE NUMBERS: RESIDENCE j5A- BUSINESS 356- 1340
TERM: ._ _ l o ! �e-wH • 7Jry b io 'TC a 1 `86
FWPFRTFNr..F AND/OR ACTIVITIES WHICH YOU FEEL QUALIFY YOU FOR THIS POSITION: L1 V e
WHAT IS YOUR PRESENT KNOWLEDGE OF THIS ADVISORY BOARD? KA`r,.( j�C c—
. -5i c 4e rn n :?\/ ear .on o ( P r S. - - "" ��
WHAT CONTRIBUTIONS DO YOU FEEL YOU CAN MAKE TO THIS ADVISORY BOARD (OR STATE -REASON.
FOR APPLYING)? yam L `, a (yNel 1 t- 'u�pr
�S �1. ( CI\! l 'T S'P
c� CrMC I )7 Z^In 10A:+:: I�Y �-F1..9 L:
Specific attention should be directed to possible conflict of interest as defined in
Chapters 362.6, 403A.22 of the Code of Iowa. Should you be uncertain whether or not a.
potential conflict of interest exists, contact the Legal Dept. Will you have a conflict
of interest? _YES �NO I
a D LRS
If you are not selected, do you want to be notified? YES _N�
1 1984
This application will be kept on file for 3 months. May 1962
MARIAN K. KARR
CITY CLERK (3)
�Aty of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: November 20, 1984
To: City Council Members
From: Mickey Lauria, Chairperson, Committee on Community Needs
Re: Reallocation of 1985 CDBG Funds
On October 24, 1984, the City Council received the Committee on Community
Needs' project recommendation for 1985 Community Development Block Grant
funding. Per Council's request, on November 20, 1984, CCN reviewed this
recommendation and is requesting the Council to consider the following
reallocation of those funds:
Ranking
Project
Fundin
1.*
Consolidated Services Facility (MECCA)
$100,000
2,
Goodwill Industries Renovation
156,210
3.
City Park Accessibility
35,000
4,
Creekside NIA Sidewalk Project
23,200
5.
Longfellow Playground
2,400
6,
Property Acquisition and Clearance
7a.
Consolidated Human Services Facility
(United Way)
7b.
Ralston Creek Improvements - Creekside
7c.
Miller/Orchard Park Development
Contingency (Ralston Creek Clean-up)
33,831
*CCN's rationale for funding:
1. Initially a high CCN priority
2. State funds received by MECCA may not be used for capital expenditures.
MECCA is requesting approximately $200,000 from Johnson County.
3. MECCA serves primarily Iowa City residents:
95.8% served in Prevention Services
..74.1% served in Residential Services
81.0% served in Outpatient Treatment
4. Consistent with funding of special housing programs.
5. Would expand Residential Services to include women.
bdw2/1
X02/ o
0�-
t�
0�
PROJEC
A.
PROJECTS RI
PONDING I
1.
Housing HN
Lar/Muderal
Elderly (E
AgencYE
2.
Shared Hous
3.
Housing Reh
and Weather
4.
Horth Harke
IWndlcapped
5.
Improved Har
Accasslhtlll
Wlllowcreek
Center
07
PBOJE
6. Miller/On
Mod Park
7. Consolidai
Facility I
B. Transports
(xandiare
9. low City
Transit Au
0. Creekside
Project
:.J
1041"
Alp,
MWECi
Il.
Aa"ItyiS1
IOWA COMM
Heal to Cent+
12.
Goodwill Inc
f3
Renovation
13.
General Prog
Addntttratl
I{.
Contingency
r
J
P9039C'
8.
PROJECTS NO1
FOR FI IIDIIB
15.
Ralston Cry
Creetslde
IS.
City Part
17.
Longfellow
18.
Property Ac
Clearance
19.
Nlllar/Orth
Developee0
20.
Consolidate
Services F
way)
CLQ
21.
tre
22.
His
M
23.
IAT
24.
SDri
So
25.
SCM
i
PAOJEV
• Miller/Orchari
Neighborhood I
Acquisition
4City Park Acu
, Project
11fy COWAUIlty SUP{
Addition (Mid•
Coamunity Menl
Center)
.'Consolidated k
Services Facil
Nay)
Consolidated S
Facility (MECC
AMOUN
PROJECT I RTED
Creative Arts Troupe S.22,279
-Creekside NIA Sidewalk.
j
COMMENTS (3) (2) (1
Project
(90,010 r
29,920),
nt
Goodwill Industries
$279,420
Renovation
Neighborhood -Residents'
request. Project is part of an original
Housing Modifications for
$ 2,500
Low/Moderate Income
Improvements.
Frail Elderly (Elderly
Funding for Phase I of a three phase -
facility Improvement program is
Services Agency)
requested. 3 2 4
Housing Rehabilitation
$180,000
and Neatheriyation
10 0 0
modifications to the hares of the frail
elderly.Income
Improved Handicapped
$ 3,500
Accessibility to $lark IV/
Neighborhood Improvement Areas. 9 1 0Income
1Mllowcreek Neighborhood
This request is forfunds to make theNarklV/NlllowCreek
Center
Center accessible to 7 2 1•
1985 CDBG FUNDING REQUESTS
10/23/84
BENEFIT
j
COMMENTS (3) (2) (1
Low/Mad. Income4meFa,y
This request is for assistance to develop
a mprehensive Fine Arts Program for • 0 5 5
nt
.pfullyddisabledtIndividduuals.JLow
IncomeCreekside
Neighborhood -Residents'
request. Project is part of an original
3 year plan for neighborhood 4 3 3
'
Improvements.
Incase (100%)
ped (100%)
Funding for Phase I of a three phase -
facility Improvement program is
requested. 3 2 4
Income (100s)
(IOD%)
The funds requested are to be used to
provide minor structural repairs and
10 0 0
modifications to the hares of the frail
elderly.Income
(100%)
Continuation of a program in all
Neighborhood Improvement Areas. 9 1 0Income
(95%)
This request is forfunds to make theNarklV/NlllowCreek
Center accessible to 7 2 1•
handicapped persons.
2
FINAL
TOTAL PROJECT
POINTS RANK
15 14B
21 B
18.9 10
30 18
29 2B
26 4
PROJE
lora City MAr
Authority
Longfellow PI
Equipment
Mlller/Orchai
Development
Minority Con
Request
North Market
Handicapped P
Property Acqu
Clearance
Ralston Creek
Creekslde
PROJECT
Ralston Creek P
1
School House As
Shared Housing
Spruce Street SI
Sewer Project
Transportation V
(Hlandluro)
General Program
Administration
TOTAL REQUES
TOTAL AVAILA
0