Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-12-18 Bd Comm. minutesCharter Review Commission November 26, 1984 Charter Review Commission: November 16, 1984, 7:30 p.m, in the Council Chambers at the Civic Center. Chairperson Balmer presiding. Commission Present: Mintzer, Goodwin, Balmer, Matsumoto, Welt, Baldus, Davidsen, Roberts, Ringgenberg. Staff Present: Karr, Boyle, Smith. Tape Recorded: Reel 11-84, Side 2, All, 12-84, Side 1, All. Balmer declared the public hearing in session and introduced the members of the Charter Review Commission. The Commission would like public input and any amendments proposed by the Commission would be decided upon by the voters. Balmer explained that the public hearing discussion is not limited to Council districting, initiative and referendum, or campaign contributions. Moved by Davidsen, seconded by Welt, to accept correspondence from Iowa City Mayor John McDonald. Roberts stated he didn't appreciate receiving an official letter from the Mayor's office and that McDonald should have written a letter as a concerned citizen. Balmer explained that input was solicited from past and current Councilmembers. Motion passed unanimously. Karen Kubby, representing the local chapter of the Iowa Socialists Party, stated that the role of the City Manager should be changed to decentralize the power concentrated in the City Manager's position. Two ways to decentralize that power are to make the City Manager an elected position and to decrease the responsibility of the City Manager. Kubby also recommended that the initiative and referendum signatures requirement to be changed to "qualified voters or qualified electors" and that 4000 signatures be re- quired. The changes would still maintain the original intent of the charter but would make the signature requirement more feasible. In response to Baldus, Karr said that only a small percentage of signatures were disquali- fied due to illegibility. Baldus said the Commission is considering a change so that the address of the signator would not have to match the address that was attached to voter registration. Balmer said the Commission had discussed changing the responsibility for the validation of signatures but ultimately felt the validation of signatures by the City Clerk should be retained. Davidsen noted that the Commission wanted to retain "qualified" but wanted to be less stringent with matching the address. Baldus explained the Commission decided to give the City Council the discretion to require certain additional information on the petition. In response to Mintzer, Balmer said the Commission needs to discuss changing "qualified" to "eligible". Larry Baker stated that the charter should require a full and open disclosure of all campaign contributions - down to the smallest amounts. Baker noted arguments that full disclosure of campaign contributions may complicate recordkeeping and may discourage some people from making contributions. Balmer said the City is presently operating under the State Code $25 disclo- sure requirement. Baker said that a problem with the current disclosure is that a great many of the candidates list contributions under miscellaneous. Balmer said the specific dollar amount for disclosure should be decided upon by the City Council and that the Council presently has the power to enact full disclosure. Mintzer stated the charter requires that there be an ,338 ordinance regarding disclosure and there is currently is not such an ordi- nance. Mintzer said if there is a disclosure requirement, an enforcement provision needs to be added. Davidsen said that an enforcement mechanism for full disclosure is a difficult problem. In response to Baker, Matsumoto said that there are no City code provisions for disclosure violations, under state code a willful violation constitutes a serious misdemeanor, which could potentially result in removal from office, and the State Elections Commission has promulgated a set of administrative rules that define certain monetary penalties. Boyle commented on the delinquency penalty for violations under State Code, Chapter 56. Balmer said there is a problem with fitting the penalty with the crime. Roberts stated that full disclosure should provide a means for handling contributions made anonymously. Baker commented that full disclosure should include in-kind contributions. Ringgenberg inquired if there exists problems under the present law. Kubby stated she would like full disclosure including in-kind contributions and it is important for voters to decide upon the enforcement recommendations. Balmer stated that another issue is districting and whether district candi- dates should be voted on strictly by qualified electors of that district. Balmer noted that in the present system a primary election is held if more than two candidates are running for a district seat and that only qualified electors of the district vote. In the general election all qualified electors vote for district seats. Commission members need to decide if they should propose an amendment on the ballot to change the current system to allow district candidates to be voted upon only by voters in the district or to allow voters to reaffirm the present system. Davidsen reviewed the current system, stating there are seven Councilmembers: four at -large and three elected by districts. Every two years two Councilmembers are elected at -large and two Councilmembers are elected by district and every other two years two are elected at -large and one from the district. Ringgenberg said that previously a five member Council existed and when the original charter was initiated, there was public interest in enlarging the size of the Council and in assuring representation from all parts of the City. Mintzer said he received the following input from people who could not attend the public hearing: it was recommended that a ward system be used due to voter confusion and student disenfranchisement, a move toward a ward system would be progressive, and the Charter Review Commission should recommend that a ward system be voted upon and passed. Balmer explained that the original charter established the present at large/district representation system to assure representation throughout the City and that voter confusion could be resolved through clarification and education. Roberts said a problem with the present system is that a candidate could win in his own district but lose his bid for a seat on the Council in the general election. Roberts said that people within their districts should vote for their representative. Kubby said that there should be at large representation for the whole city and district seats to ensure that there are people accountable to each district. Baker stated that if the Commission considers district representation, then they should also consider district realignment. Balmer explained that districting was done on a population basis. Davidsen said the current districts are heterogeneous and that reapportionment should not become an issue. Mintzer said gerrymandering includes "busting" or "blocking". Busting splits up candidates so much that a specific group cannot elect anyone and blocking (grouping all of a specific segment of the population in the a33o district) guarantees at least one seat on the Council for that group. Davidsen said the original Charter Review Commission divided Iowa City into equal parts based on population. Baker suggested adding more district representatives and only having two or three at large representatives. Mintzer said that if a primary system is used, there should be candidates with differing viewpoints and voters should have a choice between different people. Balmer stated that a strict districting system would be too paro- chial. Roberts noted that the Charter Review Commission will determine what to put on the ballot for the electorate to decide. Balmer said language on the ballot is crucial. Balmer reminded everyone that proposed amendments to the charter will go on the ballot on the 1985 general election. Meeting Schedule and Other Information The Charter Review Commission will meet November 29, 7:30 p.m., December 1, 8:30 a.m., and December 10, 7:30 p.m. Balmer requested the Charter Review Commission and staff draft proposed language for the ballot. In response to Mintzer, Boyle stated that a memo has been prepared regarding the charter Article VI campaign contributions enforcement. The City cannot remove anyone from the Council for violation. There are provisions in the State Code that limit penalties to $100 or 30 days in jail. Boyle also prepared a draft of Article VI disclosure provisions. Karr stated she will revise drafts of the changes as discussed by the Commission. Balmer thanked the public for attending the public hearing and adjourned at the public hearing at 9:05 p.m. 4330 CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 29, 1984 Charter Review Commission: November 29, 1984, 7:35 PM in the Council Chambers at the Civic Center. Chairperson Balmer presiding. Commission present: Balmer, Goodwin, Matsumoto, Welt, Baldus, Davidsen, Roberts, Mintzer (7:43 PM). Absent: Ringgenberg Staff present: Karr, Boyle, Smith Tape recorded: Reel 12-84, Side 1, 344 -End, Side 2, All, 13-84, Side 1, 1-364. Chairperson Balmer called the meeting to order at 7:35 PM. The November 12th Charter Review Commission minutes were approved as read. Commission members commented on the lack of attendance at the public hearing. Charter Review Commission reviewed the draft of administrative changes from staff. Boyle stated he has reviewed the charter in its entirety and that he would suggest Council not act on the new clarifying language in Section 303 "However, all qualified electors..." if districting will be a ballot issue. Commission members said the clarifying language should be retained, even if districting is a ballot issue. With respect to initiative and and referendum, Baldus said there exists a problem when the address of a person signing a petition differs from that person's address on the voting rolls. Baldus suggested that a signature should not be deemed invalid merely because the qualified elector's address on the petition is different from the qualified elector's address on the current voting rolls. Also there should be an incentive for the Council to get other information for verification of signature. In response to Baldus, Boyle said a person is a qualified elector if their current address is the same as on the voter registration rolls. Balmer stated that the problem of signature validation would be alleviated by obtaining more information. Karr said there is a problem with knowing if a person has just moved or if the signature is from a different person with the same name and that presently only a name and address are ob- tained. Mintzer suggested changing "qualified" to "eligible". After discussion, Commission members agreed not to change "qualified" to "eligible". Balmer said the present validation of signatures provision should be retained and noted that if the proper number of valid signatures are not obtained, there is an opportunity to file additional signatures. Baldus said the present system is biased against people who move. Baldus suggested rewording Section 7.03.8, second sentence, to read "Each signature an the petition must be followed by the address of the person signing, the date of the signature and either their birthdate or social security number...". Boyle said that language would need to be added to Section 7.04:D so that a different address alone would not disqualify a qualified elector. Davidsen said charter definition f7 (preamble defini- tions) would need to state "except as modified by Section 7.03 and 7.04." Boyle said he would research "qualified voter" and suggest language revisions for the next meeting. Charter Review Commission November 29, 1984 Page 2 Balmer inquired about adding a provision in the charter that would allow the Charter Review Commission to make recommendations directly to the City Council. Boyle stated language could be added enabling staff recommenda- tions that the Charter Review Commission concurs with to go to the City Council. Balmer stated that the Charter Review Commission should consider if any of the proposed charter amendments are going to make the charter a better document for the citizens of Iowa City; if the Charter Review Commission proposes any amendments - he wants to be able to support those amendments; and if citizens feel strongly enough the charter can be changed by their submitting petitions. Davidsen said the Charter Review Commission was set up to review the charter and then propose changes if, in fact, those changes will make a better charter and the Charter Review Commission's role is not to give the citizens of Iowa City a chance to vote on an issue. Davidsen explained that the Council by resolution may submit a proposed amendment to the voters; Council by ordinance may amend the charter, or a petition signed by eligible electors can require an election to amend the charter. Commission members agreed that any issue put to the ballot should be simply worded. Matsumoto stated that it would not be in violation of the charter to put alternative propositions on the ballot and that it would be difficult for voters to initiate an amendment because of the problems of gathering all of the information. Matsumoto said that voters should have a chance to vote on a matter which may be of public interest. Davidsen, Balmer and Welt stated that districting should not be a ballot issue. Roberts, Goodwin, Mintzer, Baldus, and Matsumoto all felt that districting should be put on the ballot. Baldus stated that the Charter Review Commission ought to bend over backwards in the name of democracy to allow people to have a vote if the commission thinks it's a responsible position and if there is a strong body of support in favor of that position. Davidsen countered that the democratic process is available but the Charter Review Commission's responsibility is to review the charter. Regarding districting, Davidsen said she would hate to see Iowa City get involved in partisan politics. Roberts spoke in favor of the three districts electing their own representative and keeping four at -large rep- resentatives. Welt explained that the present system was established as one method to detract from the powers of a strong political machine. Baldus said if districting is adopted by the voters and it gets out of control, there is a still a means to change it. Balmer said the majority of the commission wants districting on the ballot and requested that commission members from the majority should 'develop ballot language. Commission members discussed how the issue should go on the ballot. Mintzer suggested the ballot should ask "Should each district elect their own representative to City Council?" Matsumoto suggested putting the present charter language vs. the proposed alternative on the ballot. Mintzer said that ballot language should not give special weight to the present system and the issue should be stated to make it clear what voters are choosing. Davidsen said the ballot should read "Shall Section 2.01 be changed as follows... shall Section 3.03 be changed as follows..." and put a charter in the voting booth. Welt stated that warding could have a major impact. Baldus suggested ballot language: "Do you favor a system in which each of the City s three districts nominate and elect in the City .?330 Charter Review Commission November 29, 1984 Page 3 election its own City Councilors, or the present system in which the three districts of the City nominate candidates who are subsequently elected at large in the City election," in an "A" or "B" format. Roberts suggested choices be rotated on the ballot. Matsumoto said that information is given to the voters by identifying what the present system is. Baldus said he will write suggested language and give it to Boyle for review. Davidsen said the actual text of the proposed changes should be placed in the booths so voters can read the amended text. Commission members discussed Article VI, Campaign Disclosures. In response to Mintzer, Davidsen said that enforcement, not full disclosure, seems like the difficult issue. Balmer said the Charter Review Commission should try to conclude the discussion on districting and disclosure at Saturday's meeting. Mintzer suggested that one of the four at -large Council seats be elected for only a two year term. Boyle stated that State law requires four year staggered terms. Next meeting 8:30 a.m., Saturday, December 1. Meeting adjourned at 9:10 PM. MINUTES CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 1, 1984 Charter Review Commission: December 1, 1984, 8:30 AM in the Council Chambers at the Civic Center. Chairperson Balmer presiding. COMMISSION PRESENT: Mintzer, Goodwin, Balmer, Davidsen, Matsumoto, Roberts, Ringgenberg, Welt, Baldus STAFF PRESENT: Karr, Boyle, Smith Tape recorded: Reel /13-84, Side 1, 364 -End, Side 2, All; t14-84, Side 1; 15-84, Side 1, All, Side 2, 1-115. Chairperson Balmer called the meeting to order at 8:30 AM. The minutes of the November 26, 1984 Charter Review Commission meeting were approved as read. Boyle explained a person is a qualified elector unless their registration is cancelled even if that person moves within the City limits. Cancellation of registration occurs under State Code when a person dies, registers to vote in another place, if the clerk sends notification of an elector's conviction of an infamous crime or felony, mental retardation, or when first class mail which is designated not to be forwarded and was addressed to the elector, was returned to the postal service. The State Code does not specifically cover the situa- tion if a person is a qualified elector if that person has moved and hasn't changed their registration. In response to Davidsen, Boyle said in his opinion the charter definitions section would not need to be changed. Boyle raised the concern about if a person signs a petition but does not fill in birthdate or social security number. Boyle recommended adding language to the last sentence in charter section 7.04.0: "A valid signature need not be in the identical form in which the qualified elector's name appears on the voting rolls; nor must the address be the same as shown an such rolls if either the qualified elector's birthdate or social security number is as shown on the voting rolls." The Commission generally agreed with the recommendation. Balmer stated he favors the present charter section 7.04.0 and 7.03.8 provi- sions. Balmer suggested that if changes are made, they should be simple and straightforward so as not to confuse people. Karr stated that additional information helps the problem of eliminating signatures solely an the basis of address but will require more staff time to validate the signatures and process supplemental pe. Commission members said the additional information should help ttitionshe Clerk s interpretation of signature legibility and make the Clerk's job easier. Matsumoto said the charter section 7.03.8 seems to indicate that a signature is invalid if the birthdate and social security numbers are omitted. Boyle suggested charter section 7.03.8, second sentence, read "The petition form shall provide space far signature, address, social security number and birthdate." Boyle stated the validit of si nature provision deems whether the signature is a valid signature. Karr s5gallowing." substituting charter section 7.03.8 "either" with "and one of the following." Ringgenberg suggested allowing the City Council to work it out. Baldus said to include in charter section 7.03.8 "The form shall include space for address, date of execution, social security number, birthdate and any other information the Council wants." In response to Karr, Boyle said the signature is not valid if the name and address don't match and the birthdate and social security number are omitted. ,?330 Minutes Charter Review Commission December 1, 1984 Page 2 Patt Cain, former Commission member, explained that the charge of the Charter Review Commission is to come up with recommendations to improve and fine tune the city charter. Cain said the Charter Review Commission should be committed to proposed changes. The current process is set up for people who want change, are committed to that change, and are willing to work for that change. Cain said any new proposals by the Charter Review Commission will be assumed to have the Charter Review Commission's support. If the Charter Review Commission proceeds with the districting proposals, Cain hoped that the Charter Review Commission will give its reasoning to the community and be willing to go out and justify making it an issue. In response to Roberts, Cain said the original Charter Review Commission did not have control over the format of the ballot. Matsumoto said Cain's position is reasonable but an alternative, to allow voters to choose, is a valid position also. Balmer stated that the districting proposal does not need the full endorsement of the Charter Review Commission and he doesn't endorse that proposal. Mary Neuhauser, former Maycr and Councilmember, said the Charter Review Commission is charged to make recommendations and not to say "We don't know what to do." If the Commission is not prepared to make recommendations, then it should recommend a change to the charter to abolish the commission. Neuhauser raised concerns about the districting proposal's impact on the selection of the mayor. With the districting proposal, it would be conceivable to have a mayor selected by the Council for whom two-thirds of the City did not have a chance to vote. Therefore, the mayor would not be representing the city as a whole but would be representing only one district. Matsumoto asked how important is the mayor's function other than presiding over Council meetings. Balmer explained that the Mayor represents the majority view of the Council, speaks for the Council at meetings and with legislators, and represents the City's views on state and federal levels. Matsumoto said a mayor under the proposed system would also act in that manner. Neuhauser explained that there are two reasons for having a ward system: if cities are too big or because a segregation problem where a minority feels disenfranchised. Neuhauser said the present system has worked well for Iowa City. In response to Mintzer, Charter Review Commission members stated the idea of having a popularly elected mayor has been discussed by the original Charter Review Commission. Ringgenberg said that people get plenty of choices within the charter. Ringgenberg said he could propose numerous issues to put on the ballot but Charter Review Commission members should be convinced on those issues. Matsumoto argued that there may be conditions of uncertainty that make it important for voters to have choices. Matsumoto said that the charter amend- ment provisions allow voters to put an issue on the ballot, it doesn't take into consideration the time and effort, the cost and information necessary to do so. Input was received from Ann Parton, Mel Novick, Naomi Novick, and Ann Bovjberg. Mel Novick stated that the districting proposal is not an amendment in a technical sense, the proposal will cause confusion, and that by making the proposal the Charter Review Commission is not doing its job. He said that he doesn't want the Commission to change the current form of government but if the Charter Review Commission proposes changes, Commission members should be available to the public for explanations. Novick emphasized that any amendment should improve local government and make it more responsive to citizens. Balmer a33o Minutes Charter Review Commission December 1, 1984 Page 3 said correspondence has been received from the League of Women Voters. Moved by Roberts, seconded by Ringgenberg, to accept the correspondence. Motion passed. Commission members agreed to forward preliminary recommendations to present Councilmembers, for their individual comments, prior to final discussion and formal recommendations. Balmer said that he will accept the majority vote of the Charter Review Commission but will explain to the public that the districting proposal is not a recommendation from the Charter Review Commission. The proposal is an option for the voters. Balmer said that he personally does not favor the proposal and will work to maintain the present system. Balmer said the district proposal is different and that if the majority of the Commission strongly favored an issue, it would stand behind it. Charter Review Commission discussed how the district proposal would go on the ballot. Karr noted that the current Charter Review Commission is not mandated to use the ballot form used by the original Charter Review Commission and voting is now done on a new computerized card system. Karr explained that the computerized system will need additional programming for a related two question/yes or no format. Karr reported that programming costs $75 per hour and could take weeks or months to complete. Roberts stated that he favors the districting proposal. Mintzer said that the current system causes voter confusion and disenfranchises students. Naomi Novick said that voters need to be educated about the current system. Goodwin and Roberts agreed that the new proposal will clarify the current election system. N. Novick gave a simple explanation of the current voting system. In response to Mintzer, Novick said the problem is not student disenfranchisement but rather that students just don't care to vote. Mel Novick emphasized the current district proposal is invalid as an amendment. Matsumoto said that the current proposal is an amendment and gives the voters a yes or no choice. Baldus said that proposal is trying to clarify districting for an ill-informed electorate. Balmer stated that a yes or no format should be used on the ballot. In response to Goodwin, Karr explained that the charter text referrred to in the ballot question is posted in the voting booth. Baldussuggested using the format used by the original Charter Review Commission: "Shall the present system ... be retained and shall the proposal to change be adopted." Voters must be instructed to vote on one of the two questions. Bovjberg suggested that if the Charter Review Commission is not bound by law to use par- ticular language on the ballot, the Commission can work to clarify within the yes or no format. Mintzer suggested putting the actual wording of the amendment in the voting booth. Matsumoto said the City Council should have an opportu- nity to review the districting proposal. Balmer said that a memo can be sent to the City Council requesting their individual comments. Davidsen said that the Commission will need to look at district boundaries and will need to appoint a . districting subcommittee. In reference to initiative and referendum, Karr suggested making the additional information for signature validation mandatory. Baldus said that the Clerk has the power to say on the petition form that the validation of the signature shall depend upon the Clerk's ability to verify it and that depends upon providing information. a 330 Minutes Charter Review Commission December 1, 1984 Page 4 Charter Review Commission reviewed Mintzer's July 13 recommendations regarding rho full disclosure section. Balmer recommended that final decisions be made on issues already discussed by the Commission. Goodwin, Baldus, Matsumoto, Roberts, Mintzer voted in favor of changing the present system of elected district representatives. Welt, Davidsen, Ringgenberg and Balmer were opposed to the change. Welt, Goodwin, Baldus, Matsumoto and Roberts voted in favor of the original ballot question AI proposed language. Davidsen, Mintzer, Ringgenberg and Balmer favored the modified 02 ballot question. Commission members discussed whether the Commission should become an advocate for the proposal. Balmer asked if the Commission would prefer to remain neutral rather than endorse either side of the issue. The Commission voted 8/1 (Mintzer voting "no") to remain neutral. Balmer said that it is incumbent upon each member to explain his/her own opinion regarding districting. Commission members discussed the proposed district ballot format. Davidsen noted that instructions will have to be revised because levers are no longer used in voting. Commission members discussed using an "A" or "B" format and "yes" and "no" format. Davidsen said that wording of an amendment is important. Baldus suggested that districting propothreeal (lever B district Council members be nominated and pen elected..." to provide for the hredis Balmer appointed Davidsen, Baldus, and Matsumoto to a subcommittee to draft appropriate language. The subcommittee will meet with Karr after this meeting and prepare such language. The Charter Review Commission discussed campaign contributions, full disclosure and enforcement. Balmer stated that he believes that the present charter Article inquired if there iwere nany h technical ninconsistencies between the uBalduscil can reuire more dclosre. charter and State law. Balmer stated that the charter is not inconsistent with State law. Mintzer spoke in favor of full disclosure provision. Neuhauser stated that it is apprpriate ow in-kindoservices owould wbeotreiat d decide Mintzer n stated that disclosure aan nd i estimated eacout h ouldbe made on the cost of donated services or the services themselves could be listed. Balmer stated that disclosure is required and there is a mechanism for punishment for violation. Matsumoto noted that the charter requires the Council to adopt an ordinance requiring disclosure of all contributions and in absence of such an ordinance no requirements exist requrring disclosure of all contributions. Mintzer inquired if there was a consensus by the Charter Review Commission to retain Article VI as is presently written. Matsumoto suggested amending charter section 6.02 and not requiring all contributions. Baldus said full disclosure was never the intention of the original Charter Review Commis- sion iew Commissioncharter concerned ore aboutDavidsen expe dituresthe inrcharterinal Charter sectionR6.r01. Baldus suggested deleting charter Article VI because of State law regulations. Mintzer stated that if the Council chooses to change the charter, they should X330 Minutes Charter Review Commission December 1, 1984 Page 5 not be allowed to change the charter by way of an ordinance and not change the actual charter. Mintzer said the City Council could have adopted an ordinance that states the City follows State law in terms of disclosure and contribution. Balmer said the Charter Review Commission can discuss Article VI and the districting ballot language at the December 10 meeting. Baldus said public input should be received at that meeting after Charter Review Commission members have taken a tentative position on issues. Mintzer would like the Charter Review Commission to consider Article VIII and the two year moratorium on having referendums on City ordinances at the next meeting. Baldus said the following Article VIII language could be added to read: 'The Council shall i adopt the proposed amendments according to the power in the preceding section or submit them to the voters." Meeting adjourned at 11:45. 0 07330 MINUTES IOWA CITY HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION OCTOBER 29, 1984 SENIOR CENTER GAMEROOM - 7:30 PM MEMBERS PRESENT: JORDISON, REED, GILL, FELTON, BURNSIDE, BELLE, HAWKINS FUTRELL MEMBERS ABSENT: BARCELO STAFF PRESENT: KLEIN, ALEXANDER GUESTS: DOANE, WEILBRENNER, ECKERMANN, BEARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: I NONE. RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY MANAGER OR STAFF: NONE. SUMMARY OF RELEVANT DISCUSSION: 1. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Futrell. 2. The minutes of September 24, 1984 were approved. 3. Complaints Pending: a. E/R, 8-28-8103. Alexander reported the Respondent's attorney has not been able to review and then respond to the latest conciliation agreement due to personal problems, but plans on doing so Within the next feW weeks. b. E/R, 2-27-8402. The Respondent has wanted a copy of the investigative report. Legal has advised staff that the report has to be given to the Respondent per their interpretation of the amendment to 68A.2 of the Iowa Code. c.•E/R, 2-2-8401. The team will meet on Tuesday October 30th at 5:30 pm.. d. E/S, 5-18-8404. The team has agreed on a no probable cause determination. e. C/S, 6-29-8304. The team has agreed on 'a no probable cause determination. 4. There are five cases in Legal. 5. Two cases have been closed, one : no probable cause determination, and the other was administratively closed. 6. Community Education. Klein continues to monitor and update as needed the Comnission brochures and other printed material dispersed throughout the city. of PRECEDING Q lu "U mm L;mu N I 3V") MINUTES IOWA CITY HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION OCTOBER 29, 1984 SENIOR CENTER GAMEROOM - 7:30 PM MEMBERS PRESENT: JORDISON, REED, GILL, FELTON, BURNSIDE, BELLE, HAWKINS FUTRELL MEMBERS ABSENT: BARCELO STAFF PRESENT: KLEIN, ALEXANDER GUESTS: DOANE, WEILBRENNER, ECKERMANN, BEARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: NONE. RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY MANAGER OR STAFF: NONE. SUMMARY OF RELEVANT DISCUSSION: 1. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Futrell. 2. The minutes of September 24, 1984 were approved. 3. Complaints Pending: a. E/R, 8-28-8103. Alexander reported the Respondent's attorney has not been able to review and then respond to the latest conciliation agreement due to personal problems, but plans on doing so within the next few weeks. b. E/R, 2-27-8402. The Respondent has wanted a copy of the investigative report. Legal has advised staff that the report has to be given to the Respondent per their interpretation of the amendment to 68A.2 of the Iowa Code. c. • E/R, 2-2-8401. The team will meet on Tuesday October 30th at 5:30 pm., d. E/S, 5-18-8404. The team has agreed on a no probable cause determination. e. C/S, 6-29-8304. The team has agreed on 'a no probable cause determination. 4. There are five cases in Legal. S. Two cases have been closed, one , no probable cause determination, and the other was administratively closed. 6. Community Education. Klein continues to monitor and update as needed the Commission brochures and other printed material dispersed throughout the city. i a33i 3 7. Old Business a. Awards Breakfast - The specifics were worked out, i.e, who would speak and in what order. Commissioners were apprised of who would be receiving awards: Marian Coleman - the award for an individual Sharon Doran Academy - the award for a business Karla Miller - the award to an individual representing a service organization (RVAP) Commissioners decided the other nominees that were not selected for an award would not be informed of their nomination. b. Sexual Harassment Workshop - The presenters for this workshop will be Klein and Karla Miller, to be held November 7th at the Holiday Inn from noon until 2:00 pm. Cost: $10.00 which includes lunch and materials. c. Accessibility - Eckemmann told the Commissioners about new housing complexes that did not have apartments that were accessible to the handicapped. Felton will look into that and perhaps include this information into the accessiblity survey. The Johnson County handicap group has completed their survey and Eckermann will get Felton a copy. Felton has incorporated the remarks Commissioners gave her on the 1st draft of the accessibility survey. A second draft will be forthcoming. 8. New Business a. Graffiti against Gay community - Commissioners were comfortable with the letter Klein had written regarding this issue and were also in agreement about the letter going out to the local newspapers (Letter to the Editor section) from the Commission and the City Council. b. U of I Human Rights Committee - Futrell asked the commissioners if they would be willing to encourage this committee to add the protected class sexual orientation to their policy. All commissioners were willing to do that and agreed a letter to that end be sent to the Chair of the committee. 9. Staff Report - the report was discussed. 10. The meeting adjourned at 8:50 pm Minutes taked by Phyllis Alexander aa3� MINUTES PLANNING S ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 15, 1984 - 7:30 P.M. CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Jordan, Perry, Scott, Horowitz, Courtney MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: CALL TO ORDER: Blank, Jakobsen Franklin, DeVolder APPIDV1LSU Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT INCLUDED ON THE AGENDA: There was no public discussion of any item not on the agenda. RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: None. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: Set a public hearing for December 6, 1984, on amendments to the sign regula- tions of the Zoning Ordinance. Jordan moved that the public hearing for December 6, 1984 on amendments to the sign regulations of the Zoning Ordinance be set. Perry seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. SUBDIVISION ITEMS: 1. S-8431. Discussion of an application submitted by Terrence Williams for approval of an amended preliminary and final LSRD for Melrose Lake Apartments located on Woodside Drive extended; 45 -day limitation period: 11/19/84. Scott noted that the staff was provided with a note from the developer requesting that consideration of this item be deferred and granting a waiver of the 45 -day limitation period. Franklin stated that the staff had no additional information to add. Scott asked if there was a motion to defer to the 12/6 formal meeting. Horowitz moved that consideration of an application submitted by Terrence Williams for approval of an amended preliminary and final LSRD for Melrose Lake Apartments located on Woodside Drive extended be deferred until the December 6 meeting. Jordan seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. a 332 Planning 8 Zoning L .nission November 15, 1984 Page 2 2. S-8432. Public discussion of an application submitted by R.A. McKeen for approval of a preliminary and final LSRD plan for the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Dubuque and Prentiss Streets (522-532 South Dubuque Street); 45 -day limitation period: 12/14/84. Franklin stated that the applicant had requested deferment until December 6 and possibly longer. The applicant's problem was getting the develop- ment together; indeed, abandonment of the project was possible. Horowitz asked if the development included the property which was the site of the old antique store or if the new building would replace only the existing multi -family structure? Franklin responded that both buildings were in the development plan and both would came down to be replaced by a U-shaped building which would face Prentiss Street. The building planned was to be a highrise with underground parking and one parking space per unit. Public discussion: There was no public discussion on the issue. Horowitz moved to defer the application until December 6. Jordan seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS: Ia. Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of 8/16/84. Jordan moved that the minutes of the meeting be approved. Perry seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of 9/6/84. Courtney moved that the minutes of this meeting be approved. Horowitz seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of 9/20/84. Horowitz moved that the minutes be approved with the correction on page 3, line 4, that "Horowitz went and saw" be changed to "Horowitz went to see". Perry seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Planning and Zoning Commission meeting minutes for 10/4/84. Jordan moved that the minutes be approved. Perry seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Approval of the minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on 10/18/84. Horowitz moved to approve the minutes of the meeting. Courtney seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-0-1, with Perry abstaining because he was absent from the 10-18 meeting. lb. Planning and Zoning Commission information. Scott noted the memo received from the Assistant City Attorney in connection with the Harlocke/Heeber Street rezoning regarding the question of whether access could be denied to Harlocke Street. Scott a 33Z Planning & Zoning ..,Mission November 15, 1984 Page 3 stated that the Assistant City Attorney said no. Scott also noted the receipt of the revised Iowa City bylaws, which were forwarded to the Council. Scott then asked if staff had anything to report. Franklin told Horowitz that if she were still interested in the CD block grant funding hearings, that she could speak directly to the Council. Horowitz responded that she would not pursue the matter unless the Commission wanted her to. Courtney pointed out that not all of the CCN recommendations were through yet so there were perhaps funds remaining. Franklin brought up the Home Town Dairy case. She noted that the City had lost in court on both the noise and zoning ordinance. She stated that the decision regarding the zoning ordinance rested on the changes made by the City Council in that ordinance, and the fact that those changes were not referred back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Franklin concluded that the City Council would probably decide on an appeal of the court decision soon. Horowitz asked if another noise and zoning ordinance attempt would be made with the Planning and Zoning Commission being involved? Franklin responded that no new ordinance was anticipated until an appeal action was decided or concluded. Scott asked if the City Council was duty bound to send back to the Planning and Zoning Commission any changes that it might make in the zoning ordinance if those changes were substantial. Franklin responded that she did not know. Scott noted that in the case of the dairy, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended the dairy be classified "permitted use" in the CH -1 zone and the Council went with the special exception designation. Franklin raised the question, if all changes made by the City Council had to go back to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Planning and Zoning Commission refused to change its recomnendation(s), where would the process stop. Scott noted the City Council has final arbitration rights on any dispute with the Commission. Thus, the question of referrals back to Planning & Zoning of ordiances changes is an important procedural question for the City. Franklin noted that what constituted a significant and substantive change was an issue that would probably ultimately be decided by the courts. Scott asked if an appeal through the court suspended the City's enforce- ment power? Franklin responded that she did not know. Discussion followed of the schedule of the Commission through the basketball season. IV? 33-7- Planning & Zoning mission November 15, 1984 Page 4 Jordan stated that the Urban Environment Ad Hoc Committee passed a policy statement on to the Council. This statement will come to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Jordan noted that a number of private citizens were opposed to the designation of fragile areas, especially if the areas were in their back yards. Scott stated that in his opinion this is the problem, especially if the City refuses to pay compensation. The concern is with having private property labeled environmentally fragile, without compensation being offered. Here lies the political difficulty. Jordan agreed. Franklin noted that although the designation of areas had not occurred in Iowa, in other states it had been done. In those states the courts had judged that no taking occurred unless the full use of the property was adjudicated as taken. She noted that in the cases addressed by the Committee so far, only minor property rights were potentially altered. Jordan said except for one case. Franklin explained that a mechanism being investigated by the Committee was to require an environmental impact statement on any large scale development or subdivision. There would be specifically designated zones and buildings within these zones would require a special environmental review before a building permit could be issued. As for the specific case referred to above, (a project in Manville Heights), Franklin noted that the owner could still put up a single family structure but the owner may have to, for example, undertake erosion control measures and other actions to ameliorate the impact of construction on the ravine located on his property. Jordan stated that this was his very objection. Scott reiterated that the key consideration here was a political one. For instance, in this case we have privately held property being negatively impacted without any provision for compensation. Scott hypothesized that with undeveloped land, politically there would be more options available. Franklin agreed this was very possible. Franklin pointed out that the adoption of the policy statement was being undertaken as an amendment to the Comprehensive Pian. Amending the Compre- hensive Plan was more defensible, since it ensured enough public hearings so that any action taken wouldn't be considered arbitrary and capricious. But Franklin noted that Scott was right in that the City Council must determine if the basic ideas of the policy statement are important enough to warrant regulatory restrictions. Horowitz said that an interesting outgrowth of this problem was that in other cities, property values have actually risen for land because the land had greater natural beauty when it was given an environmental concern categoriza- tion. Jordan disagreed saying it cost more to build then. Horowitz responded that the land resale value then went up. a 33•2- Planning & Zoning , .mission November 15, 1984 Page 5 Horowitz said that the City should first designate publicly owned land as environmentally sensitive and leave private land alone for the time being. Scott agreed, saying this was theway to establish a track record for areas designated as environmentally fragile. Jordan concurred. Franklin pointed out that the impetus for forming the Committee came from development on private land. Scott noted that the issue raised before the City Council was because of environmental damage with respect to private land. The question that Scott felt the City Council must first give direction to is the reality of the City's willingness to purchase private property if that becomes a requirement in carrying out this environmental policy. Franklin stated that first the Commission must deal with policy concepts, that is, if the environmental action was a good idea. She noted that there was no need to look at all the particular methods of implementation at this time. It is after the preliminary stage that the Commission will have to address the actual implementation questions, such as the purchase of land. Horowitz asked when this question would formally come before the Planning and Zoning Commission. Franklin responded that the City Council is scheduled to look at the policy statement next week. Scott said if the Commission gets it on a referral basis then the Commission would take it in order; but if the Commission got it with a priority state- ment, then the policy statement would be taken up first. Jordan concluded the discussion by noting that the policy behind the plan was a good idea but the problems will be with specific cases. Jordan moved that the meeting be adjourned. Horowitz seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:06 p.m. Minutes submitted by Steven OeVolder. Approved by. Horst Jordan ,31e ary 0? 33Z MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 10, 1984 - 7:30 P.M. CIVIC CENTER - CITY MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Jones, Nowysz, Skaugstad, Vanderwoude MEMBERS ABSENT: Blank, Duffey, Hayes GUESTS PRESENT: Pierce King, representative of the Chamber of Commerce Environmental Concerns Committee STAFF PRESENT: Moen, Johnston CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Nowysz called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12, 1984: Jones recommended that the minutes of September 12, 1984 be approved as circulated. Skaugstad seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC DISCUSSION: Pierce King of the Environmental Concerns Committee of the Chamber of Commerce stated that the Committee is reviewing the sign ordinance and has had some discussion on it. Jones asked about signs/plaques that would designate an area as a local historic district. Moen stated that a conversation with Jim Brachtel of the Traffic Engineering Division revealed that an 18 by 12 inch "Historic District" sign located right below the street sign would be the most economical. She stated this sign would cost approximately $8. A 24 by 30 inch free-standing sign would be about $75. Brown -colored signs would be available but would be more expensive. VanderWoude said that he would prefer a better looking sign. Nowysz explained to Mr. King that presently only two neighborhoods have been designated as local historic districts. She said that the north side residential and north side commercial areas are both proposed local historic districts. She thanked Mr. King for the Chamber's support. DISCUSSION OF FORMAT AND CONTENT OF NORTH SIDE VIDEOTAPE: Nowysz stated that when the videotape was produced that the Chamber of Commerce could possibly use it for promotional material for Iowa City. Moen stated that the videotape would be about 20-30 minutes in length. The personnel office has been consulted in regard to hiring a production coordi- nator, an assistant, and a narrator. a 333 Historic Preservation Commission October 10, 1984 Page 2 Moen emphasized the need to give some direction to the production coordinator but to allow some flexibility also. She stated that the videotape could identify the procedure of designating an historic district as well as demonstrate sensitive restoration projects. The tape is to be informative and to make the viewers more observant of and sensitive to historic preservation. DISCUSSION OF 1984 AWARDS PROGRAM: The Commission discussed the application form for the 1984 Historic Preserva- tion Awards Program and made recommendations as to format changes. Nowysz stated that a list had been compiled of owners of some restored structures but to give her names omitted from the list. She asked if a number of the application forms could be put out at Nagle's and possibly at the Building Inspection desk at the Civic Center. She said announcements would be put in the paper and on radio. Nowysz stated that she spoke with someone from the north side who would attend the next meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. She feels the residents need to be told when to get the ball rolling and feels it may be too late to get this done before December but that January and February seem to be more of a possibility. Moen stated that a student has indicated interest in assisting with this project and doing some legwork in getting the north side organized. Moen said that a meeting could be set up with the nucleus group for October 29 at 7:00 p.m. at the Iowa City Public Library. REVIEW HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION PROGRAM DIVISION STATEMENT: Moen explained the purpose of the Program Division Statement and asked the Commission if they had any additions or corrections to the document. Nowysz asked Moen to compare the objectives identified in this statement with the objectives of the Historic Preservation ordinance. Jones moved to approve the Historic Preservation Commission's Program Division Statement as submitted by staff. VanderWoude seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS: VanderWoude stated that the Urban Environment Ad Hoc Committee is dealing with fragile areas and fears that historic preservation considerations are getting lost. He asked Moen to brainstorm with the Urban Environment Ad Hoc staff to make certain that historic preservation gets mentioned in the policy statement which must be drafted by January 1, 1985. Skaugstad said he felt that Old Main at the Oakdale campus should be sal- vaged. Nowysz said that they would discuss salvage at the next meeting. X333 w MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 1984 - 7:30 P.M. IOWA CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY - MEETING ROOM B MEMBERS PRESENT: Duffey, Jones, Blank, Nowysz, VanderWoude, Skaugstad MEMBERS ABSENT: Hayes GUESTS PRESENT: Susan Nathan, Sally Stuart Mohney STAFF PRESENT: Moen, Devoulder ACTION TAKEN: 1. On discussion of 1984 awards programs, it was unanimously approved that: a. The application extension date be moved to December 4. b. That if expenses permitted, a staff member take as many as nine thetbestephot setoyof the the applicant'snapplicaand tioness the film and attach c. That if the budget permits, publish a display ad announcing the 1984 awards program. 2. On the review of the proposed sign ordinance, it was unanimously decided that the Commission's position be noted that it is favorably inclined toward the proposed sign ordinance, and that further discussion with respect to the ordinance permitting monument signs in RNC -20 zones be undertaken. ^ALL TO ORDER: Nowysz called the meeting to order at 7:36 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION: Sally Stuart Mohney identified a local artist named Richard Vest who draws and paints historical structures that have been torn down or renovated. The artist wants to display these works, and perhaps have them included in part of a artistididathee oilk on work for otheal sites. Ms. building's owner.Mohney wishesd to t that display t his displayhis works, and perhaps show then at the public library sometime in March. Moen pointed out that perhaps he could display his work during Preservation Week which will be held in May, 1985. Nowysz felt this idea was possible. In any event, she thought it was at least possible to discuss. In response to Nowysz's questions, Mohney noted that Vest principally draws from photos. He has painted many theaters across the country and is, therfore, not just Iowa City oriented. a 333 N Historic Preservation Commission November 14, 1984 Page 2 Mohney's telephone numbers were read into the record. Her home phone is 354-4706; her business phone is 353-3266. Nowysz thanked Mohney for her presentation. DISCUSSION OF THE 1984 AWARDS PROGRAM: Moen stated that Judy McClure, architect with the State Office of Historic Preservation, and Marlys Svendsen from Davenport have agreed to be judges at the awards program. Moen asked the Commission for suggestions of who else might be a judge. Skaugstad expressed his opinion that it would be best to have the third judge from another city as well. Nowysz agreed with Skaugstad. Moen stated that if the Commission thinks of a third ,fudge to contact her as soon as possible so she can give him or her time to consider after notification. Nowysz then asked if any entries had been received yet. In response, Moen answered there were not. Nowysz asked what publicity had been undertaken. Moen responded that the Gazette has run an article and a press release had been issued. Moreover, leFte�s inviting applicants have been sent out to 20 people. Nowysz continued that there was 17 days until the application period ends and that there was still a lack of public knowledge. Perhaps, therefore, the Commission should decide to delay the date of application closing. Nowysz asked Skaugstad why he felt people were reluctant to enter. Skaugstad noted that although the acknowledgement was important, the Commis- sion may want to consider issuing different kinds of plaques. The publicity in the paper was important to the award winners, but there seemed not to be much enthusiasm in the plaque. Nowysz responded that then perhaps they should put more into the plaque. Nowysz asked how expensive it is for an applicant to prepare for the awards competition. Skaugstad responded that it was more of a time than a money thing. They took 15 slides so it wasn't much of an expense, rather it was just the time. Moreover, the display at the library was a very positive force. Nowysz suggested that staff call the 20 persons who had received mailings and ask if they would like assistance in completing the application forms. Nowysz stated that the 1983 awards program had brought more attention to the Commission than anything that they had done to date. Skaugstad asked what the chances of getting newspaper coverage were this year. 02333 Historic Preservation Commission November 14, 1984 Page 3 Moen pointed out that only Shimek Place received pictorial publicity in the newspaper last year rather than all three winners. Moen continued that she would check with the Press -Citizen to see if all three of the 1983 winners could get newspaper coverage. Moen at this point offered a proposition that the Commission extend the date for applicants until December 4; that the Press -Citizen be contacted to see what kind of coverage it would provide; tha sf—affcaft7he 20 people who had been sent letters to see if they were displaying any interest. If no interest was shown by December 4, then the Commission at that point could consider whether to postpone the event further or cancel it altogether. Blank made the motion that the application date be extended to December 4. Skaugstad seconded. This motion carried unanimously. Skaugstad inquired as to whether anyone on the City staff could photograph the structures submitted by the applicants. Moen pointed out that with respect to the filming and processing it was a budgetary question. Jones stated that the photographing and processing services should be extended to all who call and apply and that this be advertised in the paper, at least if it's feasible budget wise. Moen stated that 7-10 photos of each property should be sufficient which would allow for photographing four properties per roll. Motion was made, if budgetarily feasible, that a staff person would take as many as nine photographs/slides per property, process the film, and attach the best photos/slides to the applications. This motion carried unanimously. Nowysz asked whether an ad asking for applications should be taken out this year. Moen responded that some advertisements were already out, such as on City buses. Blank moved that if the budget allows, that a display ad Informing the public of the 1984 awards program and asking for applicants be taken. Jones seconded the motion. The motion was carried unanimously. DISCUSSION ON THE PROPOSED NORTH SIDE RESIDENTIAL HISTORIC DISTRICT: Moen stated that meetings with the residents of the area show that they would like to establish the neighborhood as an historic district. Indeed, the residents want to include areas west of Dubuque which are zoned as high density multi -family. Moen feared the economic disincentives to rehabilitate structures in a high density multi -family residential zone, as she feels that owners will want to tear down existing structures and replace them with high density residential buildings. Also, Moen noted that the residents want to include the areas east of Gilbert Street and south of Church Street to be included in the historic area. She asked if Commission members were aware of any more dialogue at this time. Nowysz stated that public support was critical and that they can count on sororities. Vanderwoude expressed his concern that the Historic Preservation Commission's anti -development attitude. here could conflict with other City pro -development views. He stressed the need to get a consistent City position. Nowysz countered that they have the support of single-family owners here. 07.399 Historic Preservation Commission November 14, 1984 Page 4 Jones pointed out that there still seemed some confusion on what to add to the area and what not to. He stated that he would like to see a petition from the neighborhood indicating its support for whatever boundaries the Commission decides on. Nowysz pointed out that the expansions were feasible except for the area west of Dubuque which could cause more harm than good. Jones agreed that expan- sion into west Dubuque could in fact jeopardize the rest of the plan. Jones reminded representatives of the Planning 8 Zoning Commission's attitude on designating too great of an area for historic preservation. Blank agreed stating that the Planning 8 Zoning Commission had expressed that it wanted the Historic Preservation Commission to be more specific in its regulations rather than regulate broad general areas. Jones stated that was his own opinion and probably that of the Commission's to proceed with the historic expansion if the Commission gets the necessary documentation from the public. REVIEW OF PROPOSED SIGN ORDINANCE: Moen stated that the Commission tabled review of the proposed sign ordinance until it had the opportunity to review the historic elements of the ordinance in the context of the entire sign ordinance. She noted that the Planning 8 Zoning Commission had set a public hearing to discuss the ordinance on December 6th. Thus, the Commission also has the option at that time to make its position known. Jones moved to take the sign ordinance review off the table so it could be discussed by the Commission. Skaugstad seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Blank, also a member of the Planning 8 Zoning Commission, stated that the Planning b Zoning Commission had closely scrutinized the ordinance and that they were still working on it. She felt that the Historic Preservation Com- mission should thus give her any suggestions they might have. Nowysz expressed her concern about the description of a monument sign, pointing out that the ordinance permitted such a sign to be located in RNC -20 zones. She felt 'that it might not be appropriate to have a monument sign mounted within a conservation zone. Blank promised to bring it up at the Planning 8 Zoning Commission meeting. Jones made a motion that the Historic Preservation Commission is favorably inclined toward the changes made in the proposed sign ordinance and that it wished further discussion on locating monuments in RNC -20 zones. Skaugstad seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Moen stated that the suggestion was made at the last meeting and that she wanted direction as to whether it should be taken up now or if the Commission wanted to proceed more slowly. 07333 Historic Preservation Commission November 14, 1984 Page 5 Skaugstad pointed out the problem of finding storage space to house salvaged material. Moen then pointed out that the Commission could serve as a clearinghouse operation so that it would not need warehouse space. Nowysz, following the idea of a clearinghouse operation, pointed out that the Old Brick News could be used. Also,she knew of a person interested in doing is oris c earinghouse work as a private business. Blank agreed that it was better to undertake such an operation as a private business, otherwise she feared that thef would Commissioneact overloaded. a catalyst ones in thisesituation citing that it was Skaugstad pointed out that such clearinghouse operations had proved success- ful in Midwestern areas as well as in the East. Moen xt that asked putonthe Januarybagenda, ashtheeDecember agendawwould recommended it shoule oulddeal with awards. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS: Duffey pointed out a newspaper article of a farmer who had his northeast Iowa mansion demolished because he could not afford the taxes on the property. Duffey pointed out that this was unfortunate. Nathan indicated that the Johnson County Historical Society is moving forward witinsane then Cpommissionrgive consideration too possiblte the old Jnsn e future supeasked lans to port of the renova- tion project. Skaugstad made a motion to adjourn. Blank seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:03 p.m. Minutes submitted by Devoulder. X333 MINUTES HOUSING APPEALS BOARD OCTOBER 9, 1984 MEMBERS PRESENT: John Moore, Al Logan, Dane) Trevor, Fred Krause, Goldene Haendel MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Kelley Vezina, Judy Hoard, David Brown SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION AND ACTION TAKEN: Krause called the meeting to order. Moore made a motion to approve the minutes of the September 18, 1984, meeting. Logan seconded the motion. The motion carried. APPEAL OF MARIANNE VOLM - 428 SOUTH SUMMIT: Present: Marianne Volm. Inspector Hoard stated that the appeal request had not been filed within the ten day filing period. Trevor made a motion to hear the appeal. Moore seconded the motion. The motion carried. Inspector Hoard stated that there were appeals being presented from two inspections that she had conducted at the property. The first two appeals are from the licensing inspection that she conducted on June 27, 1984. The first violation being appealed was Chapter 17-5.I.(2)(a) lack of required handrail, first floor east bedroom steps to south entrance lack a handrail. Inspector Hoard stated that the property was a duplex and that the handrail violation was in the bedroom of the unit occupied by the owner. She stated that there was outside entrance into the room that went up a flight of four risers and there was no handrail serving these steps. Ms. Volm stated that she in fact was the only person using the steps and did not feel a need to install a handrail for herself. Trevor made a motion to grant a variance to Chapter 17-5.I.(2)(a) lack of required handrail. Dawson seconded the motion. The motion carried. The next violation being appealed was also Chapter 17-5.I.(2)(a) lack of required handrail, south side exterior steps to basement lack a handrail. Inspector Hoard showed a picture of the stairway to the Appeals Board members stating that there was a guardrail around the steps to the basement but there was no handrail provided. Ms. Volm stated that the door at the bottom of the steps was always kept locked and was not used by anyone, not even the people who read the utility meters. She stated that it was used solely by herself and by her son and she chose not to have a handrail there. Logan made a motion to grant a variance to Chapter 17-5.I.(2)(a) lack of required handrail as long as the property was owner -occupied. Dawson seconded the motion. The motion carried. The last violation appealed was also Chapter 17-5.1.2(a) lack of required handrail, west exterior steps to porch lack a handrail. Inspector Hoard stated that she cited this violation during a reinspection to the property on September 14, 1984. Through the use of photographs she explained to the Board that there were four risers that went to the porch that served as the entry to both the first floor and second floor dwelling unit. Ms. Volm a 3ss� Housing Appeals Board October 9, 1984 Page 2 stated that her chief objection to the installation of a handrail was that it might affect the aesthetics of the property exterior. Trevor made a motion to uphold Chapter 17-5.I.(2)(a) lack of required handrail. Logan seconded the motion. The motion carried. APPEAL OF FLORENCE ROBERTS - 1809 MUSCATINE AVENUE: Present: Florence Roberts. Inspector Vezina stated that the appeal request had not been properly filed within the ten day filing period. Moore made a motion to grant appeal rights. Logan seconded the motion. The motion carried. Inspector Vezina stated that he had conducted a licensing inspection at 1809 Muscatine Avenue on May 17, 1984. The violation being appealed was Chapter 17-S.I.(2)(9) lack of required minimum door/doorway, second floor bedroom doorway height is 6', lacking the required 6'4". Ms. Roberts stated that she had purchased the propthatethe property had in 1969 but hat tsince had been rented 9 49 or 1950. t stated been inspected previously that inspec- tion. Krause made a motion to grant a variance to Chapter 17-5.I.(2)(g) lack of required minimum door/doorway. Moore seconded the motion. The motion carried. APPEAL OF DAVID SMITH - 528 E. COLLEGE: Present: None. Inspector Hoard stated that she wished to provide information to the Appeals Board concerning the history of this property. She stated that for many years the property had been a single-family dwelling unit and had recently been sold to Mr. Smith who had initially attempted to convert it to a sorority. An appeal had been made to the Board of Adjustment who subse- quently denied the request for usage as a sorority. A permit application was issued in May of 1983 to convert the property to a rooming house. The floor plans that accompanied the building permit documented the alterations to the first and second floors into a rooming house. Subsequentlyy, the first and second floors were okayed for occupancy in June of 1983. A certificate of occupancy was not issued at that time pending the completion of additional parking and a handicapped ramp. The appeal being made to the Board at this time concerns the basement area which, according to the building permit, was to be finished but no indication as to whether it was going to be a rooming unit or dwelling unit. Inspector Hoard stated that on September 12, 1984, she received a complaint from a tenant who was in fact occupying the basement area as a dwelling unit. The violation being appealed was Chapter 17-4.A.(1) and (2) lack of valid rental permit and certificate of structure compliance. Basement area being illegally occupied without rental permit and certificate of structure compliance. Inspector Hoard continued by saying that after her inspection she had issued an intent to placard letter to the owner. She explained that in preparing for the Appeals Board meeting with Assistant City Attorney Brown, it was his feeling that the intent to placard was not the correct means of action to have taken in this particular situation as the basement area was not in such a condition as to be unsafe or unfit for habitation. Assistant City Attorney C:2 33fZ Housing Appeals Board October 9, 1984 Page 3 Brown explained to the Board that he felt the violation was properly cited and that in fact was what the Appeals Board members were making a decision on. He further stated that the City would take alternative legal action to bring the basement dwelling area into compliance with the Housing Code. Logan made a motion to uphold Chapter 17-4.A.(1) and (2) lack of valid rental permit and certificate of structure compliance. Trevor seconded the motion. The motion carried. APPEAL OF NORM THOMAS - 249 WOOLFE AVENUE: Present: None. Inspector Vezina,reported that he had conducted a licensing inspection at 249 Woolfe Avenue on September 12, 1984. The first violation being appealed was Chapter 17-5.I.(2)(a) lack of required handrail, top five steps to second floor lack a handrail. Krause made a motion to uphold Chapter 17-5.I.(2)(a) lack of required handrail. Trevor seconded the motion. The motion carried. The next violation being appealed was Chapter 17-S.N.(3) lack of required minimum room size, west bedroom second floor has 62 square feet, lacking the required minimum of 70 square feet. Inspector Vezina stated that this room was underneath a roof and that there was more actual square footage present, but according to the Housing Code he could only count that floor area that had a ceiling height of 5' or more. At the same time he also presented the third violation being appealed, that being Chapter 17-5.N.(4) lack of required 7' minimum ceiling height, west bedroom second floor has maximum ceiling height of 6'11". Inspector Vezina stated that 36 square feet of the room had a ceiling height of 6'11" and that by Code, 35 square feet must have a ceiling height of 7' or more. He stated further that at the time of the inspection a teenager occupied the room and that the property was classified as a single-family dwelling. Moore made a motion to grant a variance to both Chapter 17-5.N.(3) lack of required minimum size and Chapter 17-5.N.(4) lack of required 7' minimum ceiling height. Dawson seconded the motion. The motion carried. APPEAL OF LEO VITOSH - 522 NORTH VAN BUREN: Present: Leo and Rosemary Vitosh. Inspector Vezina stated that he had conducted a licensing inspection at 522 North Van Buren an September 19, 1984. The violations being appealed were Chapter 17-5.N.(4) lack of required 7' minimum ceiling height. Kitchen has 618" ceiling height and first floor southeast bedroom has 618" ceiling height. Mr. Vitosh stated that this was an older home and that it would be cost prohibitive to increase the ceiling height on the first floor as there was an attic and roof above these two rooms. The other violation being appealed also was Chapter 17-S.N:(4) lack of required 7' minimum ceiling height, second floor south and north bedrooms have a ceiling height of 6'5". Mr. Vitosh again stated that it would be cast prohibitive to raise the roof to comply with the Housing Code. Krause made a motion to grant a variance to all three violations of Chapter 17-5.N.(4) lack of required minimum 7' ceiling height. Trevor seconded the motion. The motion carried. a33W Housing Appeals Boar tech i/Sga$N�..I October 9, 1984 Page 4 APPEAL OF MAX NEPPEL - 1401 ROCHESTER AVENUE: Present: None. Inspector Vezina stated that the Appeals Board had heard an appeal on this property on May 8, 1984, At that time the entire basement area was being cited for not having a certificate of structure compliance and a rental permit. In the meantime, the owner who lives out of state and who is a recent owner of the property has made an application with the building division to make the basement area a legal dwelling unit. At this point Krause interrupted and said that the appeal was a late appeal and that before they proceeded that the Board needed to decide if they would in fact hear the appeal. Logan made a motion to grant appeal rights. Moore seconded the motion. The motion carried. Inspector Vezina continued by stating that the violation being appealed was Chapter 17-5.N.(4) lack of required 7' minimum ceiling height. He stated that in order for the owner to proceed with his plans to correct the natural light and natural ventilation deficiencies in the basement it was necessary for the ceiling height violations to be resolved. The three violations of Chapter 17-5.N.(4) being appealed are: basement bedroom has a ceiling height of 6'10", basement kitchen has a ceiling height of 6'11-1/2" and basement livingroom has a ceiling height of 6'11". Krause made a motion to grant a variance to Chapter 17-5.N.(4) lack of required 7' minimum ceiling height with the provision that the basement dwelling unit could not be occupied until the applicable provisions of the building code were met. Dawson seconded the motion. The motion carried. APPEAL OF CHESTER MILLER - 670-70 1/2 SOUTH GOVERNOR: Present: Chester Miller, Bob Crane. Inspector Hoard stated that she had conducted a request inspection at 670-70 1/2 South Governor on September 24, 1984. The first two violations being appealed both involved Chapter 17-7.A.(5) interior partition wall, floor, ceiling not maintained such that it may be kept clean and sanitary. At 670, east porch ceiling tile not all present and 670, east porch east wall, drywall not taped, lacks protective covering. Inspector Hoard stated that the porch was being finished and that there were several ceiling tile along the east wall that were not present and that drywall had also been installed on the east wall and had not been finished. Mr. Miller told the Board that the work had been started by a tenant and not completed and that this was a porch and there was no heat provided for it and it had existed as such for several years. Krause asked the owner if the tenant would be willing to complete the work on the ceiling and on the wall. The owner stated that he was unsure as the property was in the process of being sold and the tenant who occupied the dwelling unit may be moving. Assistant City Attorney Brown stated that regardless of who had initiated the remodeling, it was the owner's responsibility to correct it. When asked by a Board member what it may cost to complete the project, Mr. Miller stated approximately $100. Moore �733JV Housing Appeals Board October 9, 1984 Page 4 APPEAL OF MAX NEPPEL -.421 ROCHESTER AVENUE: Present: None. Inspector Vezina stated that the Appeals Board had heard an appeal on this property on May 8, 1984. At that time the entire basement area was being cited for not having a certificate of structure compliance and a rental permit. In the meantime, the owner who lives out of state and who is a recent owner of the property has made an application with the building division to make the basement area a legal dwelling unit. At this point Krause interrupted and said that the appeal was a late appeal and that before they proceeded that the Board needed to decide if they would in fact hear the appeal. Logan made a motion to grant appeal rights. Moore seconded the motion. The motion carried. Inspector Vezina continued by stating that the violation being appealed was Chapter 17-S.N.(4) lack of required 7' minimum ceiling height. He stated that in order for the owner to proceed with his plans to correct the natural light and natural ventilation deficiencies in the basement it was necessary for the ceiling height violations to be resolved. The three violations of Chapter 17-5.N.(4) being appealed are: basement bedroom has a ceiling height of 6'10•, basement kitchen has a ceiling height of 6'11-1/2" and basement livingroom has a ceiling height of 6'11". Krause made a motion to grant a variance to Chapter 17-S.N.(4) lack of required 7' minimum ceiling height with the provision that the basement dwelling unit could not be occupied until the applicable provisions of the building code were met. Dawson seconded the notion. The motion carried. APPEAL OF CHESTER MILLER - 670-70 1/2 SOUTH GOVERNOR: Present: Chester Miller, Bob Crane. Inspector Hoard stated that she had conducted a request inspection at 670-70 1/2 South Governor on September 24, 1984. The first two violations being appealed both involved Chapter 17-7.A.(5) interior partition wall, floor, ceiling not maintained such that it may be kept clean and sanitary. At 670, east porch ceiling the not all present and 670, east porch east wail, drywall not taped, lacks protective covering. Inspector Hoard stated that the porch was being finished and that there were several ceiling tile along the east wall that were not present and that drywall had also been installed on the east wall and had not been finished. Mr. Miller told the Board that the work had been started by a tenant and not completed and that this was a porch and there was no heat provided for it and it had existed as such for several years. Krause asked the owner if the tenant would be willing to complete the work on the ceiling and an the wall. The owner stated that he was unsure as the property was in the process of being sold and the tenant Who Occupied hat the yssn of unit adbeinitiated the sremodeling,ittit Attorney sBrthe ownmayecost topcompletetyhe project, Mr. Mito correct it. ller staen tedbapproxim approximately $10Board member0 Moore .7 5 35Z Housing Appeals Board October 9, 1984 Page 5 made a motion to uphold both violations of Chapter 17-7.A.(5) interior partition wall, floor, ceiling not maintained such that it may be kept clean and sanitary. Logan seconded the motion. The motion carried. The next violation being appealed was Chapter 17-7.F exterior wood surface unprotected by the elements. South and north side of house, paint peeling and east side second floor of house, paint missing and peeling. Inspector Hoard showed photographs of this violation to the Appeals Board members. At this point, Mr. Crane, who was representing the buyer of the property, stated that there had been some discussion at the time the purchase offer was made as to who would be responsible for painting the house. Mr. Miller stated that he thought the buyer had agreed to paint the house. Krause was con- cerned about the length of time the new buyer would have to correct the violation and wished that an extension be given to spring of 1985. Inspector Hoard stated that it was the policy of the Housing Inspection Division to grant an extension on peeling paint violations cited in the fall or winter to be extended to May 1st of the following year. Krause then made a motion to uphold Chapter 17-7.F. exterior wood surface unprotected from the elements. Moore 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, 670-1/2, enclosed stairway to south side entrance exposed wiring on north and south walls. Inspector Hoard through the use of photographs explained the violation cited. She stated that there was exposed wiring from a light switch at the foot of the stairway which continued on up to the light fixture near the entrance to the second floor ioltion because am electric permit artment. Mr. ilhas been ler ttaken ed h out at hat the te was imeatheealingwiringthevhada been done and it had met the electrical inspector's standards at that time. Inspector Hoard stated that she had shown a photograph of the violation to the violationof thetrical electrical inspector and Krause made a he amotiont to upholdtChapter 17-7.I. electrical system not maintained in good and safe working condition. Logan seconded the motion. The motion carried. APPEAL OF JOE KAIPO 228 BROWN Present: None. stated tha atsthea er'snarequest andtone�stimeedueappalht baereschedulingen continuedtof thwice eeAppeals Board meeting due to a lack of quorum. He stated that Mr. Kaipo had again requested a continuation of the appeal but due to the number of times the appeal hearing hcontinued, i ring by nspectorH Hoard that it would deinformed ouldbe heard ti the Octobern the meeting. Inspector Vezina stated also that Assistant City Attorney Brown had recom- mended that the appeal be heard at this time. The appeal request was not filed within the ten day filing period. Krause made a motion to grant appeal rights. Trevor seconded the motion. The motion carried. Inspector Vezina stated that he had conducted a licensing inspection at 228 Brown on May 31, 1984. As he started to explain the violations being appealed Chairperson Krause wished to uphold all of the violations as cited. a335z Housing Appeals Boa,,, October 9, 1984 Page 6 Assistant City Attorney Brown recommended that for any future appeals that the violations be presented and decided on one at a time. Krause then withdrew his recommendation and Inspector Vezina continued with his presenta- tion. The first violation being appealed was Chapter 17-5.I.(2)(a) lack of required handrail, front entry steps, south side, lack a handrail. Inspector Vezina stated that there were five steps present with six risers and that these were the main entry steps to the house. Trevor made a motion to uphold Chapter 17-5.I.(2)(a). Moore seconded the motion. The motion carried. The next violation appealed was Chapter 17-5.I.(2)(f) insufficient means of egress, third floor, bedroom, window size insufficient for secondary egress. Inspector Vezina also presented two other violations that involved the same room. They are Chapter 17-5.J.(1) lack of required natural light, third floor bedroom lacks window area for natural light, has 10.8 square feet, needs 12.4 square feet and Chapter 17-5.K.(2)(b) lack of required natural ventilation, third floor bedroom lacks window area for natural ventilation, has 3.38 square feet, needs 5.58 square feet. Inspector Vezina stated that the fire escape was out of the only window in the room and that it needed to be a minimum of 24" by 36" with a 5.7 square feet clear net opening. Inspec- tor Vezina stated to the Board that in his appeal Mr. Kaipo had requested the variance because the third floor room had been approved for occupancy a number of years ago along with the fire escape. Mr. Kaipo's appeal also stated that he was concerned with the change in appearance that enlarging the window would cause as the property was on the National Historic Register. Haendel extressed her concern about the potential for injury that might occur if, in fact, there were a fire and the occupant was not able to safely leave the third floor. Logan made a motion to uphold all three violations involv- ing the third floor bedroom which include 17-5.I.(2)(f) insufficient means of egress, Chapter 17-5.J.(1) lack of required natural light and Chapter 17-5.K.(2)(b) lack of required natural ventilation. Dawson seconded the motion. The motion carried. The next two violations being appealed were Chapter 17-5.J.(1) lack of required natural light and Chapter 17-5.K.(2)(b) lack of required natural ventilation, southeast and southwest rooms in basement used for sleeping purposes lack window area for natural light and natural ventilation as no windows are present in the rooms. Inspector Vezina stated that captain's beds had been placed in the basement and there were, in fact, no windows present. Krause made a' motion to uphold Chapter 17-5.J. lack of required natural light and Chapter 17-5.K.(2)(b) lack of required natural ventilation. Trevor seconded the motion. The motion carried. The last violation appealed was Chapter 17-5.K.(3)(a) lack of required/ adequate mechanical ventilation, first floor bathroom lacks a system of mechanical ventilation. Inspector Vezina stated that the bathroom was an interior room. Dawson made a motion to uphold Chapter 17-5.K.(3)(a) lack of required/ adequate mechanical ventilation. Moore seconded the motion. The motion carried. a 33V Housing Appeals Bo�.d October 9, 1984 Page 7 Krause adjourned ddtth1e meeting. .c - M notes prepared for Chairperson —`Krause ' MINUTES IOWA CITY HOUSING COMMISSION OCTOBER 9, 1984 MEMBERS PRESENT: Krause, Moore, Haendel, Trevor, Logan, Dawson STAFF PRESENT: Brown, Seydel, Flinn, Hencin, Barnes RECOMMENDATIONS TO STAFF: That advertisements for vacancies on Housing Commission and Housing Appeals Board include date and time meetings are regularly scheduled. 1. Meeting to Order - Meeting called to order at 9:45 a.m. by Chairperson Krause. 2. Minutes - Minutes of September 12, 1984, meeting approved as mailed on motion by Haendel, second by Moore, approved 6/0. 3. Coordinator's Report - Seydel reported rental assistance paid on 417 units October 1, 1984, for $78,328.00. At the request of Krause, Seydel explained the application process through certification and lease -up. He advised priority ranking system for placement of eligible applicants .on waiting list as follows: I. Family displaced, or about to be displaced, by government action. 2. Elderly, handicapped or disabled. 3. .Families with four or more minors. 4. The degree of substandard factors present in the existing housing of the applicant. 5. The gross rent being paid by the applicant as it relates to their Income. 6. Veteran or serviceman or family of Veteran or serviceman. 7. Residence in Iowa City. 8. Date of filing. Seydel reported authorization has been received for 14 additional units of Section 8 in th the Rental Rehabilitation Program t b Anadditional 14 unitsunareoi anticipated ipated for the next fiscal year. Public Housing - Seydel reported turnover of two units this month but onthtenve been additional sunits Publicoised Housing verbal Acquisition,roval has butbeen received no written affirmation. a33s eiiiiu IES IOWA CITY HOUSING MMISSION OCTOBER 9, 1984 PAGE 2 Danny Northrup Hearing - Seydel reported that he had been contacted by Janice Rutledge, attorney for Mr. Northrup, who advised that Mr. Northrup would be leaving the area and no longer desired housing assistance, so request for appeal should be cancelled. 4. CCN Report - Hencin reported requests have been received for $1.7 million in CDBG funding; however, only $736,000 available for allocation. He stated requests -ranged $2,400 to $279,000. Commission was advised that CCN would review requests and make recommendations to Council, who would make the final decision on allocation of funds. Congregate Housing - Krause indicated that Mary Parden had made a strong plea to retain previously allocated funds for Congregate Housing. He advised CCN agreed to leave alone until January 1, 1985, subject to review of the progress on Congregate Housing at that time. Krause advised that another Congregate Housing meeting was scheduled for noon today (10-9-84) and commended Mary Nugent on the work she had done with the Committee. 5. Housing Rehabilitation - Barnes requested low-interest loan (832 Rundell) be discussed first since persons present to answer questions. She distributed schematics of present house and proposed addition and explained work to be completed and proposed financing arrangements. Moved Dawson, seconded by Haendel that a low-interest loan be granted contingent upon financing with Iowa Housing Finance Authority be closed .within 90 days and ability of purchasers to occupy premises in interim. Approved 5/0. 1110 Franklin - Moved Krause, seconded Haendel, that loan be approved. Approved 5/0. 903 Webster - Moved Haendel, seconded by Moore, that forgivable loan be approved. Approved 5/0. 6. General Discussion - Sherri Johnson appeared on her own behalf to cite the difficulties she has encountered while waiting for housing assis- tance. Seydel explained the delay was due to the large number of applicants on the waiting list and the priority rankings. Seydel advised that Systems Unlimited has been approved for 21 units, 18 of which will receive Section 8 subsidies. He further advised that only persons who fall at or below 50 percent median income may be certified for assistance under both Public Housing and Section 8 programs. Krause advised that Janet Schlechte has resigned due to scheduling conflicts. Commissioners discussed the importance of applicants for the Housing Commission being aware of the time of meetings and the extent of responsibilities required of Commissioners. Consensus that advertisement for vacancies on the Housing Commission and Housing Appeals Board should include date and time meetings are regularly scheduled so that applicants may be aware that these meetings are scheduled during normal working hours. Krause announced that the Housing Commission is invited to meet with the City Council on Monday, October 22, 1984, at 7:45 p.m, to discuss the Shared Housing and Congregate Housing programs. '733.5 MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NOVEMBER 14, 1984 - 4:30 PM CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Fisher, Randall, Slager, Barker MEMBERS ABSENT: VanderVelde STAFF PRESENT: Boyle, Franklin, DeVolder, Boothroy CALL TO ORDER: Barker called the meeting to order at 4:35 P.M. DISCUSSION OF ENFORCEMENT OF BOARD ACTIONS: Franklin reviewed the enforcement discussions of previous Board meetings. Barker expressed his concern about the nature and extent of enforcement action by the staff. He solicited Board comments to focus their concern. He expressed his concern that he did not want to unduly burden the staff with research problems. Boothroy clarified enforcement procedures, pointing out that often the resolution of zoning enforcement cases is held up in litigation. Barker stated that the Board would like to be apprised of staff enforce- ment proceedings. He asked if there was a system of bringing variance denials to the enforcement staff so that the matter could be handled in a timely manner. Boothroy responded that zoning violations are reported by citizens or the staff and are put on record; notice is sent to the property owner of the violation. The violating party can appeal to the Board if it chooses to do so. Once a decision is given by the Board, the staff takes appropriate action. Boothroy stated that the enforcement department is instituting procedures to address the issue of enforcement and that feedback to the Board will be provided by the planning staff on a six month basis. Barker again stated this would be useful if it doesn't overburden the staff. Randall asked if the Board would be informed of the status of every case. Franklin said that the review will occur on all cases that have been before the Board during the previous six months. The staff will inform the Board of the status of each case at this time. Barker thanked Boothroy for his report. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: 1. Request by Inn Ho Shinn for an extension of the special exception for 624 S. Gilbert St. .2336 Board of Adjustment November 14, 1984 Page 2 Franklin noted a letter from Shinn's attorney requesting a two year extension on 'the special exception granted at the last meeting was included in the staff report. Franklin noted that the Board has the authority to grant an extension under Section 36-91(e)(5) of the Zoning Ordinance. Barker asked if the Board wished to have any discussion. Slager stated that she hated to see a precedent set for an extension without having given consideration of good cause. She asked if a fee would be necessary for an extension grant. Franklin responded that if the extension was granted within the six month period of the Board's decision then a fee need not be paid. Slager asked Shinn's attorney when construction was due to begin. !nn Ho Shin's attorney, David Poula, responded that it would not be possible to start construction this year or during next spring or fall. The main problem delaying construction seemed to be the current 15% interest rates. Slager responded that a one year or a six month extension would be reasonable. Poula responded that a one year extension would bring them into next fall but it all depended on the interest rates at that time. Slager responded then that all applicants would want an extension due to interest rate uncertainties. Slager noted that the Code imposed a six month limit. She felt that there should be a reason beyond the market interest rate to delay construction. Slager stated that she believed that a two year period was just too long. Slager moved on application 5E-8418 that an extension to the special exception be granted for a six month period only. Randall seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. 2. 5E-8420. Public hearing on an application submitted by Hills Bank b Trust Co, for an amended application for a special exception to permit a second monument sign in a CC -2 zone. Franklin noted that the applicant originally applied for a variance. At the last Board meeting, the option of a special exception was discovered. The motion to grant a variance was tabled and continued. Hills Bank wishes to place a second monument sign on its property to enhance its visibility to travelers on Highway 6. Normally, only one monument sign is permitted in a CC -2 zone. Also, since Hills Bank is located on a corner lot, they say that the second sign is needed for visibility. "?336 Board of Adjustment November 14, 1984 Page 3 Franklin noted that the staff concern was that it was necessary to ensure the sign was set back enough to maintain visibility on the highway. She continued that CC -2 zoning has no specific sign setback requirements. She noted that if a setback was maintained, then visibility would not be a problem for a second monument sign. Moreo- ver, in all other respects, the sign would conform to CC -2 zoning. She noted that the staff recommends approval. Public Discussion: There was no public discussion on the issue. Board Discussion: Barker asked if the Board had any questions. He noted that the staff changed its recommendation from denial for a variance to approval for a special exception. Barker asked to what extent the Board needed more details. Slager moved to grant the special exception for SE -8420, Hills Bank b Trust at 1401 Gilbert Street to permit the erection of a second monument sign on the northeast corner of the lot, as shown on the plan submitted. Randall seconded the motion. The Board unanimously voted in favor of the motion. 3. SE -8421. Public hearing on an application submitted by New Pioneer To—operative operative for a special exception to permit parking in the floodway overlay zone within 30 feet of the Ralston Creek bank. Franklin distributed photos of the site. She noted that the Coopera- tive is currently renting the property. Also, the Salvation Army, a TV repair shop and formerly a storage area for a roofing company were located in the building. The property is currently nonconforming in terms of parking compliance. Barker noted that the Cooperative is ex- panding by less than 50% of its current area so it only needs to provide seven new parking spaces. The only place these parking spaces can be located is on the floodway. The area is currently paved and used for parking, although it does not conform to the design standards for parking. Franklin summarized the staff report. She noted the specifics of the flood standards. She pointed out that the PParking would be for short - tern during the business day; it would not be residential parking, and there would be no overnight vehicular storage on the parking area. However, should the Board decide to grant the exception, the staff suggested that a warning sign of the dangers of flooding be placed on the parking lot. Franklin went on to state that a problem could exist with materials being swept downstream in times of flooding. She stated that sanitation is not a problem. She noted that the City Engineer suggested the flood waters could range anywhere from two to six feet in height and that two feet would be sufficient to move vehicles. However, no flooding of the property had occurred to date or a33 4 Board of Adjustment November 14, 1984 Page 4 at least was not reported. Any damage to vehicles caused by flooding should be covered by the vehicle's insurance. Franklin continued that alternative parking was not available on the site and that parking in nearby places such as the Recreation Center was not feasible because those parking lots are usually full. Thus, it was the staff's recom- mendation to grant the special exception on the condition that a warning sign be placed. Again, the main reason for this was the short -teen, daytime nature of the parking. Public Discussion: There was no public discussion on the issue. Board Discussion: Barker asked if the parking permit should be limited to the particular applicant, New Pioneer Cooperative. Franklin said that the special exception was just for New Pionner Cooperative. Barker felt that the Board should set forth that the permit would be only good for the particular applicant. Barker then asked if the flood hazard at the proposed site was similar to the Chauncey Swan - Civic Center lot. Franklin did not know the elevation of that lot so she couldn't make a comparison. Barker noted that the flooding at those lots would not stop at the 30 foot limit and thus there could be a flooding problem on the City - owned lots. Franklin pointed out that Mr. Glasgow, the owner of the entire property where New Pioneer Cooperative is located, was aware of the application and consented to the parking lot use. Randall moved to grant a special exception to New Pioneer Cooperative for parking within 30 feet of the Ralston Creek bank on the condition that a sign warning of flood potential be placed on the property and that the particular exception be limited only to the applicant, New Pioneer Cooperative. Slager seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. 4. SE -8422. Public hearing an an application submitted by Sandra Eskin, MT—ow—Wind School, for a special exception to permit a school for private generalized instruction in an RNC -20 zone, and special exceptions to modify the parking requirements and the front yard requirements. x336 Board of Adjustment November 14, 1984 Page 5 Franklin pointed out that Willowwind wished to move to the new South Johnson Street location for the following reasons: its proximity to the downtown and instructional facilities such as the library, and its convenient location near two bus routes which would provide access. Franklin continued that a special exception was needed since the Johnson Street property was located in an RNC -20 zoning area. Also, Willowwind wished to provide parking in the front yard. Franklin noted that currently the building was nonconforming but no parking was provided to City specifications. Also, the rear yard was 13 feet rather than the required 20 feet of the zoning ordinance. Franklin continued that 8 parking spaces would be required for the school and two apartments on the site although none were provided currently. The two apartments sharing the Johnson Street property would need four parking spaces and the school would need four. Franklin pointed out the Zoning Ordinance provision providing that if one converted a use and no parking spaces were available previously, then the new use need provide only the difference. The difference is between what was previously required, in this case six, and what is now required, in this case eight. That is, two spaces are now required. Moreover, any other spaces that can be physically provided up to the eight require- ments should be provided. Franklin pointed out that the school can provide five spaces if it is permitted to encroach upon the required front yard. Willowwind did not wish to provide any parking spaces on other parts of the lot as this would force them to take out large trees located on the lot. Franklin continued that the house was a historic structure, and is considered a key structure in the area. Franklin noted that the Historic Preservation Commission supports the school's application for the special exception. Willowwind did not want to change the appear- ance of the lot to provide parking and diminish the integrity of the historic structure. Franklin pointed out that there was a question regarding the appropri- ateness of the use: whether the specific private institution would be a detriment to the public welfare. The staff noted that there was a possibility of traffic congestion on Johnson Street due to the dropping off of children at the school. The Traffic Engineer had rejected the idea of a loading zone based on the need for parking on Johnson Street. Fisher asked whether Willowwind would have to provide more parking spaces if it violated the front yard zoning requirements. Boyle noted his position that the ordinance would require Willowwind to provide only two spaces. Randall pointed out that as he reads the ordinance, if a tree, for instance, interferes with the parking requirement, that the tree must go. Boyle agreed with Randall's interpretation. 4;� 33(0 Board of Adjustment November 14, 1984 Page 6 Franklin responded that Willowwind is saying that five spaces are reasonable and that they want to guard against destroying the yard. Randall pointed out that four parking spaces could be provided without encroaching upon the required front yard. Franklin responded that this was only a viable option if some of the Johnson Street green space was taken. Franklin submitted a copy of the larger plan which Barker put in as Exhibit A. Franklin then distributed a letter submitted by four neighbors of the property, supporting the exception for the following reasons - because of the school's concern with the integrity of the neighborhood, with Willowwind's concern for the site's historic preservation and upkeep, with its thoughtful development, and finally for the stability that the school would provide for the block. Franklin concluded that the staff recommends approval of the special exception. Public Discussion: Sandra Eskin, a board member of Willowwind School, expressed her agreement with the presentation of the staff report. She noted that Willowwind was determined to do its best to meet all of the ordinance requirements. Barker noted that Willowwind was presently in a residential district and that it had been there for 13 years. He asked Eskin if there were any problems which influenced Willowwind to decide to move out of the residential area. Eskin responded in the negative and noted that Willowwind hoped to go to another residential district for they got along well with the residents of the neighborhood. Moreover, the move was forced because of Willowwind's need for a larger facility. She cited that they have grown from 11 original students to 30 students currently. Fisher asked how the five spaces would be used. Eskin responded that they haven't thought specifically about that yet, but since the school was open only from 8 to 5 on weekdays during the times when the tenants were generally gone, then school officials would probably use the parking spaces during school hours while residents would use them at night. Fisher asked whether the problem of dropping off students would present any hazards. Eskin responded that they were a small school and readily accessible by public transportation. Indeed, only a small portion of the students were driven to class by their parents. Moreover, the Traffic Engineer had expressed his opinion to Eskin that on days when there was no parking on Willowwind's side of the street, A.334 Board of Adjustment November 14, 1984 Page 7 it would be irrelevant whether the school had a loading zone or not, and on other days, the property's driveway space, which was 20 feet wide was enough space to allow parents to drop their children off and not Interfere with the traffic flow. Randall expressed his opinion that it looked difficult to maneuver into the parking spaces as shown on Exhibit A. Eskin responded that they asked to extend parking into the front yard to allow for more maneuverability. Moreover, the parking meets the City design standards. George Swisher, a resident of the neighborhood, spoke in support of Willowwind's application. Swisher expressed his opinion that Willow - wind would be a good use for the building, that Willowwind would present a good local use for the following reasons: that Willowwind was compatible and would preserve the character of the neighborhood, Willowwind would add five new parking spaces to the neighborhood with the staff using the parking spaces during the day and the tenants using them at night, and Willowwind would not present undue noise and traffic problems or other negative uses which would harm the character of the neighborhood. Moreover, Swisher pointed out that the driveway was wide enough so that there was plenty of room for dropping off children and have service vehicles unload without disrupting the traffic flow of Johnson St. Barker at this time asked if there was any public opposition to the application. There was no opposition. Board Discussion: Randall pointed out that Howard Jones' testimonial letter introduced into the record did not mention the issue of parking spaces. Randall asked whether Jones was aware of the plan. Eskin presumed that Jones had seen the plan. Indeed, there was only one other plan that did not have the parking spaces extended as they were in Exhibit A of the present plan and she doubted that Jones had seen that plan. Barker pointed out, given Jones' description of the building, that it was probable that he had seen the current plans. Slager moved that the Board grant the special exception on application SE -8422 to Willowwind School to permit a school for generalized private instruction in an RNC -20 zone and that a special exception to reduce the number of required parking spaces from 8 to 5 be granted, and the modification of the front yard requirement on Burlington St. from 20 feet to 8 feet be granted according to the plan as shown in Exhibit A. Randall seconded the motion. The motion carried unani- mously. a33G Board of Adjustment November 14, 1984 Page 8 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION: Barker asked if the Board needed to consider procedural rules at this time. Boyle responded that such rules would be drafted and put on a later agenda. Barker moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:01 P.M. Slager seconded the motion. The motion carried. There was no further business. Minutes submitted bv,- Steve DeVolder Approved by: la \; a? 33r MINUTES COMMITTEE ON COMMUNITY NEEDS TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1984 - 3:30 P.M. IOWA CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY - MEETING ROOM B MEMBERS PRESENT: Becker, Cooper, Kubby, Laurie, Leshtz, Parden, Patrick, Smith, Williams, Logan MEMBERS ABSENT: Stimmel COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: George Strait, Ernie Zuber GUESTS PRESENT: Art Schut, John Watson, Karen Hradek, Deb Schoelerman STAFF PRESENT: Hencin, Barnes, Nugent, Moen, Stewart - Minute Taker RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: 1. The Committee on Community Needs recommends to Council that the following proposals be funded from Community Development Block Grants: (For full discussion and vote outcomes, see text.) Consolidated Services Facility (MECCA) - $100,000 Goodwill Industries Renovation - $156,210 City Park Accessibility - $35,000 Creekside NIA Sidewalk Project - $23, 200 Longfellow Playground - $2,400 Contingency Fund - $33,831 2. The Committee on Community Needs recommends to Council that although the Mi11er/Benton/ Orchard Storm Drainage project is an important item, CCN does not feel it is appropriate for CDBG funding. CALL TO ORDER: Lauria called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. Parden asked for a correction on page 4, last paragraph from the bottom, September 18, at "Parden said presently, HUD subsidies are there," to "there are not HUD subsidies." Kubby noted a correction on page 5, under Request. for Additional Funds, Item B, referring to Nelson Adult Center, delete reference to Longfellow School Playground. Motion to approve minutes of September 18 with corrections, October 2, and October 23 with no corrections passed unanimously. Moved by Becker and seconded by Kubby. PUBLIC/MEMBER/STAFF DISCUSSION: There being no public discussion, Parden asked, regarding the Orchard/Benton Street bridge, whether this was a new request. Hencin said this would be discussed under the November status reports. x337 Committee on Community Needs November 20, 1984 Page 2 UPDATE ON PROPOSALS FO 1985 CDBG FUNDING: Lauria noted- the presence of Councilman Ernie Zuber who, Lauria said, might be able to answer questions members may have regarding Council's reconnenda- tions to CCN on the projects in question. Lauria reported that Council, in its informal meeting Monday, November 19, had approved the CCN allocations per the 1985 CDBG Project Funding Requests for Housing Modifications for Low/Moderate Income, Frail/Elderly (Elderly Services Agency); Shared Housing; Housing Rehabilitation and Weatherization; North Market Square Handicapped Play Area, and Improved Handicapped Accessibility to Mark IV/Willowcreek Neighborhood Center. CCN recommendations of CDBG funds for the Miller/Orchard Neighborhood Park Acquisition; Transportation Van (Handicare), and Creekside NIA Sidewalk Project were also approved informally by Council. Lauria reported that although Council and City Manager are in strong support of the concept of the Warren's Transit Authority (WTA), Council prefers not to include this request in 1985 CDBG funding but to talk more about it and try to find a better way to handle this item. Council may ask for CCN input later on the WTA. Lauria said Council appears to be split on the funding request for Consolidated Services Facility (MECCA), but it is clear Council does not wish to fund this request at the full $100,000, preferring that CCN discuss funding MECCA at a lesser amount. Council does not want to consider the request for funds for the Community Support Service Addition (Mid -Eastern Iowa Community Mental Health Center). Council gave no reason for its position. Lauria said he asked Council, at a later date, to provide on paper some reason for its position on this item in order to facilitate communication. Council okayed funding requests for the Goodwill Industries Renovation, General Program Administration and the Contingency Fund. Council also asked that CCN consider increasing the funding of projects which were approved by CCN for less than the full amount of the request (i.e., Goodwill and Creekside). Council feels that City Park accessibility should be funded. Council requested that items including: Ralston Creek Improvements/Creekside; Longfellow Playground; Property Acquisition and Clearance; Miller/Orchard Park Development, and Consolidated Human Services Facility (United Way), be reprioritized and a budget recommended for consideration and approval by Council at its meeting this evening. The monies allocated by CCN for projects not approved by Council must, therefore, be reallocated to projects which Council prefers to see funded. The total sum to be reconsidered is $192,340, which includes the figure for the contingency fund. Lauria also stated that Council was not interested in funding projects including the Creative Arts Troupe; Minority Committee Request (Whirlpool); Ralston Creek Park; Spruce Street Storm Sewer Project, and School House Park. Becker asked for a clarification from Councilman Zuber on the Council's reasons for denying the request for the Mid -Eastern Iowa Community Mental Health Center. Zuber said it was his understanding that Council did not feel this was an appropriate way to spend the money; i.e. to fund an agency which has not received CDBG assistance in the past. Zuber said this was not a new policy. Lauria requested for the record that Council send a written communi- cation explaining this policy for future reference, and possibly for Council to reconsider this policy. Lauria said community needs change, and CCN a 337 Committee on Community Needs November 20, 1984 Page 3 operates an practically the opposite policy; that when a group comes back again and again to CCN for funding, the Committee gets tired of hearing from that group. Lauria said that if CCN decides to give MECCA the same funding allocation it had previously recommended, it should provide Council with a list of very good reasons why this was done. Zuber said Councilman Erdahl was most outspoken that funding of the Mid -Eastern Iowa Community Mental Health Center should not be done by the City, but should be done by a different level of government. Lauria then called for the Committee to reprioritize the items suggested for reconsideration by Council. Williams asked for discussion on the City Park Accessibility Project. Parden recommended allocating the full amount requested, $35,000. Kubby suggested reprioritizing the item. Patrick said some members felt that the City should take care of this item. Lauria said the City is going to do it, and they want to use CDBG funds. Williams asked whether this Committee is required to do what it is told or to make recommen- dations. Following discussion, it was agreed to include the $35,000 figure in the amount of money available for reprioritizing, making the total $221,340. The projects to be reprioritized were discussed and given the following rankings: Ralston Creek Im rovements/Creekside - Parden stated she thought this project was one which CN was go ng to postpone. Lauria said his understanding was that CCN had proposed an annual clean-up of the creekbed from contingency funds. This proposal, however, is not for that purpose. Lauria said that if the Committee wishes to do that, then an additional suggestion should be made to use contingency funds. If the proposal under discussion is funded, it will be for Phase I of III as per the original proposal. The proposal received one high ranking, and nine low for a total of 12 points. CitPark Accessibilit - Five high rankings, three medium and two low gave this pro3ect a total ot 23 points. Longfellow Playground - Patrick said as a resident of the neighborhood, she could not see a need for this proposal. Deb Schoelerman, representing the Longfellow Parent -Teachers' Association, said that their feeling was that since the playground is used heavily by pre-schoolers, equipment for the pre-schoolers is needed. Further discussion ensued on whether this project should rightfully be funded by the School Board, Parks and Recreation, City Council or some other entity. The vote was one high ranking, seven medium and two low for a total of 19 points. Property Clearanceand Ac uisition - This relates to acquisition and clear- ance o a property a ou Johnson, part of the foundation of which is obstructing the flow of Ralston Creek. Two high, two medium and six low rankings gave this 16 total points. a3-37 Committee on Community Needs November 20, 1984 Page 4 Miller/Orchard Park Development - Lauria said the feeling on the Council's part was that this was probably premature. Two members were in favor of a high priority for this project and eight in favor of a low one and the total was 14 points. Later, following other discussion, one vote was changed from high to low, bringing the total down to 12. Consolidated Human Services Facility (United Way) - Lauria said that there was some sentiment on the Council to do this project, but also significant opposition to doing it right now, without a study. The proposal received two medium priority votes and eight low for 12 total points. Consolidated Services Facility (MECCA) - Becker asked if the funding were reduced frau the proposed 1100,000, what the effect would be on the project. Art Schut Director of MECCA stated there would be serious problems with being able to do it at all. State funds received by MECCA are restricted from being used for building, property or equipment. State money and client income are restricted by the Code of Iowa from being used for anything but direct client treatment, and the use of those funds must be documented. This leaves only the City and County as possible funding sources for this project. Schut said residents of Iowa City make up the largest group of users of MECCA services. The County is being asked for $200,000 of the 1620,000 total needed for this project and CDBG funds in the amount of 1100,000 are requested from CCN. Kubby stated that she feels this is an important project for CCN to support with the amount CCN originally recommended. She continued that this recommendation is based an the general policy of the Council not to fund operating costs, and that historically CDBG funds have been used for capital expenditures. Becker pointed out that there is also the contingency that MECCA must cane up with the rest of the funding by September in order to receive the CDBG money. With eight members giving this item a high rank, two voting medium and none low, MECCA received a total of 25 points. Lauria said the Committee might want to request some information from Council at a later date concerning the use of the 5% liquor tax on a ane -time -only basis for substance abuse. Goodwill Industries Renovation - Application by Goodwill to finance a portion of Phase I of a three-phase facility improvement program with COBG funds received six high priority votes, one medium rank and two low, with Becker abstaining, for a total of 23.3 points. Creekside NIA Sidewalk Pro'ect - Funding of this project would facilitate s ewa cons ruct on on Seventh Avenue Court and repair and construction of sidewalks on Muscatine Avenue. Twenty total points were recorded on the basis of three high rankings, four medium and three low. Following voting on priority ranking of the projects, discussion and voting proceeded on amounts to be allocated to the various projects. MECCA - Moved by Kubby and seconded by Becker that CCN recommend funding -in TF'e7ull 1100,000 amount requested. Eight for, two against. Motion passed. Goodwill - Moved by Smith and seconded by Williams that this project be funded7n the original amount recommended by CCN (1100,000) and with the same contingency as originally stated relating to the status of the Congregate a 337 Committee on Community Needs November 20, 1984 Page 5 eiveseen votesnginP favor and two and 85aga n against allocation tBeckerroabstainingoduen tore o cconflict vof interest. Motion passed. City Park - Moved by Logan and seconded by Parden that this project be given fu funding at $35,000. In response to a question from Smith, Lauria said his understanding is that if CCN does not vote to fund, the Council may allocate that money anyway. Becker asked where the $35,000 figure had came from. Hencin said it is based on an estimate from the Finance Department and includes materials and supplies only. Four votes were recorded in favor and four against. Smith abstained for the reason that she doesn't feel her vote means anything in view of the Council's position. Logan also abstained. Lauria having voted in favor, the tie could not be broken, but Lauria stated that motion carried. that areocaiee Sar etaissprojectedThe vote wasith n8 -2e in favor. Motion passed. '200 be Longfellow - Moved by Leshtz and seconded by Williams to fund at $2,400. Motion passed on an 8-2 vote. Pro ert Ac uisition and Clearance - Motioof _n made by Parden and seconded by Becker to fund suggesting insinst the tead aputtingesome of the money 32,520. yfromkthisaproposal proposal, sugg into the contingency fund so that later a proposal could be created for ongoing cleanup. Becker spoke in favor of the proposal, stating she wishes to eliminate blight on the city and feels this money would be well spent in this manner. Having received only two votes in favor, while eight voted against the proposal, the motion failed. Miller/Orchard Park'Oevelopment - Kubby moved this project be funded with the ntingency for hat the r ab obtained but that it could be done next year. -Co Lauria suggested at this point, since discussion indicated no interest in voting on the remaining proposals, that he would entertain a motion for some amount for Ralston clean up and any funds not allocated following that motion be assigned to a contingency fund. Smith moved to increase funding to to CGoodwill an ongregate Housing imoney. tional $ SKubby 'seconded. and to rel Theemotionthe opassed on relating to with Becker abstaining. Lauria stated the preceding recommendations left a remainder of $33,831 to be d by th to ake the Contingency Fund. The motion Patrick seconded Lami uriacalledformnt aumotion to request staff to look into what it would cost to do this sort of clean up of Ralston Creek. Kubby so moved and Patrick seconded. The vote was unanimous in favor of the motion. Lauria stated that in consideration of the Committee having recommended the same allocation for MECCA, arguments should be provided Council as to the commitee's Conmitteenth t 1)m this islauria highproceeed topriority forenca suulate t this there is X337 Committee on Community Needs November 20, 1984 Page 6 demonstrated need; 2) there are no capital funds available and MECCA is also seeking $200,000 from the County for this project; 3) Iowa City residents comprised: 95.8% of recipients of prevention services of MECCA; 74.1% of residential services; and 81% of outpatient services in FY83. It was also pointed out that, in the past, CCN has funded projects which have been for special housing purposes such as Hillcrest Family Services, the Emergency Housing Project and the Domestic Violence Project, all of which met special housing needs that could not be met through other funding sources. This project does have a strong housing component and is not just an office building for an agency. Committee members also noted that it is proposed that this facility will increase service to women by providing residential care which is not currently offered. An additional argument is that the City receives liquor tax revenue and should be willing to pay a dividend on that intone. Kubby added that one of the objections to the Women's Transit Authority project was that it serves only women, while this project will provide services to both genders. REVIEW AND DISCUSS OF PROJECTS NOT RECOMMENDED BY CCN: Tabled until next meeting. ASSIGNMENTS FOR OUARTERLY REPORTING: The following assignments for quarterly reports were made: December and March: Nelson Adult Center Renovation - Becker Accessibility Guide - Smith Miller/Orchard Parkland Acquisition - Cooper Shared Housing Program - Patrick January and April: Congregate Housing - Parden Housing Rehabilitation and Weatherization - Kubby Kirkwood Circle Drainage and Surfacing - Williams Creekside Alley Repair - Stimmel NOVEMBER STATUS REPORTS: HumanServices A encies - Leshtz referred to the memo to the Committee. Les tz sa t at a tho ugh it is unclear what the link is between CCN and the United Way agencies, there was value in the Committee sending a representa- tive to hearings of their funding process. This helps keep the CCN in touch with those agencies and may help to guide the CCN in evaluating requests for funding from them. Leshtz said the funding process is a long one and requested an additional member of CCN to volunteer to attend some of the meetings in case Leshtz was unable to attend. Patrick volunteered. Benton/Orchard Storm Drainage - Moen referred to a memo from Rick Fosse and a supplementary one from herself. The Engineering Division, Moen said, has determined the cost of the project at $763,000. This would be a four-phase ,7337 Committee an Community Needs November 20, 1984 Page 7 project. Phases II and I4 appear to be the most critical. Phase II was estimated to cost ;164,000 of which it is anticipated ;135,000 will be requested of CCN from CDBG funds to undertake this project, according to the latest proposed Capital Improvements Plan, Moen said. In response to a question from Lauria, Hencin explained that each division is required to identify suggested sources of funding, but Council makes the final decision. Moen said the balance of ;29,000 for that phase of the project would come from operating revenue funds. Moen said the Committee may anticipate getting a request for this project. Phase IV, Moen said, comes in at ;178,000. Engineering proposes to fund ;108,000 of that amount from general obligation bonds with the balance of ;70,000 to come from CDBG funds. Phases I and III were not included in the Capital Improvements Plan which covers the period from 1986 to 1990. Lauria said his recollection was that CCN thought the City should look into this but that the Comnittee didn't think it was appropriate for CDBG funds. Following discussion, Kubby moved and Patrick seconded that CCN recommend to Council that although this is an important item, the Committee does not consider it appropriate for CDBG funding and that when it comes time to fund it, that funding be found elsewhere. The motion passed on nine votes in favor, one against. Rental Rehabilitation - Barnes reported that Council had approved the program as cCH hadrecommended. Two public meetings were held November 7. Four sexpectedto applications abe requestedifor rentalmore rehab foreFY85, An additional ;70,000 i NEW BUSINESS: Launne Milkman. ved rseconded by BeckertheCommitteedation from Cad pt the N to acommendation as read by Smith read. andMotion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned by general consensus at 5:08 p.m. .,? 337