Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-04-26 Bd Comm. minutesMINUTES RESOURCES CONSERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 1, 1983 7:30 PM CIVIC CENTER - LAW LIBRARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Singerman, Gartland, Sheehan, Levy, Cox MEMBERS ABSENT: Howe, McPeak STAFF PRESENT: Webb APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of the meeting of February 15, 1983, were approved by consensus as presented. IOWA -ILLINOIS FRANCHISE RENEWAL: Discussion continued on the conservation strategy opportunities identified from the February 15 meeting, centering on constraints and feasibilities of each. Some strategy goals and categories were identified. Staff was requested to assemble the ideas of the discussion thus far, and distribute in a packet to C.-mmissioners well in advance of the next meeting. OTHER BUSINESS: The election of officers was postponed until full attendance. The next meeting of the Resources Conservation Commission will be held on March 29, 1983, in the Civic Center Law Library. Minutes prepared by: Richard Webb, Energy Coordinator 1 MICROFILMED BY L 11. -1- ..,_,`. JORIVI�"�'MICR�C"A CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOIYES I. . T MINUTES RESOURCES CONSERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 29, 1983 7:30 PM CIVIC CENTER - LAW LIBRARY MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Singerman, Sheehan, Gartland, Levy, Cox McPeak, Howe Webb The minutes of the meeting of March 1, 1983, were approved by consensus as corrected. ELECTION OF OFFICERS: It was moved by Sheehan, seconded by Levy that Singerman be elected Chair. Motion carried. It was moved by Gartland, seconded by Levy that Sheehan be elected Vice -Chair. Motion carried. It was moved by Sheehan, seconded by Levy that Gartland be elected Secretary. Motion carried. C.A.R.G. COMMUNITY ENERGY STUDY DISCUSSION: Singerman reviewed the project proposal received from C.A.R.G, on March 7th, and discussion followed. Concern was offered that the proposal and resulting product would duplicate much of the recent work done by the R.C.C. and not address what is foreseen as the community needs or be an examination of post -franchise programs/opportunities. Singerman indicated that he would discuss R.C.C.'s concerns and interests with Dale Helling - Assistant City Manager. -IOWA-ILLINOIS GAS AND ELECTRIC FRANCHISE RENEWAL: Discussion continued on the conservation strategy opportunities identified from previous meetings. In attempting to prioritize them for franchise committee consideration the Commission realized that they were not aware of successes/failures with each in other geographic areas. This was identified as something appropriate to approach C.A.R.G. with. Cox will combine the higher priority strategies with existing narrative and an introductory discussion for the next meeting. OTHER BUSINESS: A letter of resignation was received from Henry Howe and was received with regrets. Staff was instructed to initiate the appropriate processes for filling the vacancy. The next meeting of the Resources Conservation Commission will be held on April 12, 1983, in the Civic Center, Engineer's Conference Room. Tom Gartland - Secretary Minutes prepared by: Richard Webb, Energy Coordinator i I4ILROFI LtdED BY r 1' J0RM--"MICR6LA0'— -� CEDAR RAPIDS • DES 1401NES ,.M J MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 12, 1983 4:45 PM CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Vanderhoef, VanderVelde, Slager, Barker MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Knight, Siders, Boyle, Behrman FINAL ACTION TAKEN: V-8233. The application submitted by Iowa -Illinois Gas & Electric Company for a special exception to the Zoning Ordinance to permit the applicant to construct a 161,000'volt electric transmission line along the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad right-of-way between Gilbert Street and Sycamore Street was approved with the stipulation that the construction of the poles do not obstruct drainage in the ditch along the railroad. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: VanderVelde called the meeting to order. Knight called the roll. VARIANCE ITEMS: V-8228. Public hearing on an application submitted by Kenneth Stults for an —.. appeal ofa zoning interpretation made by the Zoning Code Interpretation Panel regarding an existing deck. Knight stated that the applicant had found a means of complying with the Code with no further action by the Board. Knight asked Boyle if it would be appropriate for the Board to dismiss this application. Boyle replied affirmatively. It was suggested that this item be deferred since the applicant had indicated that he would drop the application. Moved by Barker and seconded by Vanderhoef to defer this item until the next meeting,. The motion carried unanimously. VanderVelde outlined the procedure to be followed by the Board of Adjustment. V-8233. Public hearing of an application submitted by Iowa -Illinois Gas and Electric Company for a special exception to the zoning ordinance to permit the applicant to construct a 161,000 volt electric transmission line along the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad right-of-way between Gilbert Street and Sycamore Street. Boyle commented that it was up to the Board to decide how to proceed in this matter. Boyle stated that there had been a request that witnesses be sworn in and that cross examination be allowed. VanderVelde asked Boyle to summarize the contents of his memo dated January 7, 1983. Boyle complied with this request. Boyle stated that it was up to the Board to accept or reject testimony that does not relate to the matter and the Board could rule regarding the relevancy, etc. of evidence. 141CRUILMED BY 1. _DORM- -MICR46L A9'- - 1 CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES ED r J Board of Adjustment January 12, 1983 Page 2 Robert Haack, 206 E. Second Street, Davenport, Iowa, attorney for Iowa -Illinois Gas and Electric Company, stated that he was not prepared to cross examine witnesses and had not anticipated any need for that. Haack urged that the Board adhere to their usual procedure. VanderVelde asked Haack if he had received a copy of the request by the attorney for the Iowa City Ratepayers Association and Haack replied affirmatively. Roger Colton, attorney for the Iowa City Ratepayers Association, stated that their position remained the same. Colton stated that as a quasi judicial body, the Board of Adjustment is mandated to allow cross examination and this not a discretionary matter for the Board. Barker stated that this was not a decision the Board should make and suggested that the Board follow legal counsel's recommendation. Boyle reaffirmed that the recommendation was to allow cross examination and have witnesses sworn in. Slager wondered how the proceedings would be controlled. Boyle commented that it was up to the Chairperson to conduct the meeting and up to the parties, represented by attorneys, to object if they feel certain evidence should not be given. Vanderhoef stated that it was out of line for the Board to restrict commentary from the floor. Slager commented that this would rule out the neighbors from giving their opinions. Boyle pointed out that he was not suggesting that the hearing be conducted as a trial. However, the Court will look at the evidence used by the Board and only competent evidence should be allowed. 'VanderVelde asked if the Board could compel witnesses. Boyle stated that the Board had the right to swear and compel attendance of witnesses but had no discovery process. Boyle stated that the Board had the right to compel a witness to answer. Barker asked if the Board was empowered to correct the cross examination in the form of written questions. Boyle stated that would not be required but the Board may limit cross examination. Barker asked what physical arrangements should be made. Boyle stated that as long as everyone can be heard the attorneys could stand at the side of the podium and the witnesses at the podium. Colton recommended that the Board take their lead from a recent hearing held by the Iowa Commerce Commission. Fulton stated that the hearing had been bifercated into two parts with a public comments period for "non -expert comments" and the company and expert witnesses in rigorous cross-examination. Colton stated that he wished to enter in appearances on behalf of the Ratepayers Association. Haack commented that most of the hearings they had attended were in line with the written procedures received from the Board. Haack stated that he did not intend to discuss rates as that was beyond the scope of this hearing and not relevant in their opinoin. Haack stated he had no objection to the Board swearing in witnesses and conducting cross-examination. Slager moved that the Board of Adjustment accept the legal advice to have this meeting conducted with the swearing in of witnesses and the allowance of cross examination. Vanderhoef seconded the motion. Barker stated that he felt the Board had to accept the recommendation of their legal counsell; for that reason alone he planned to vote in the affirmative on the motion. Barker stated that he was personally opposed to what that would do to the Board and its procedures. The motion carried unanimously. VanderVelde reminded the public that this was a "lay board proceeding" and not a court of law. VanderVelde asked Boyle how the swearing in would be conducted. Boyle suggested that the swearing in be conducted by either the chair or the Jr� - 14ICROFILI4ED BY J I 1 -JORM MIC R(JCAEi CEDAR RAVIDS • DES 401 .4 E5 TiT J Board of Adjustment January 12, 1983 Page 3 vice -chair asking each witness to "swear to tell the truth, the whole truth so help you God." Boyle suggested that the biforcation suggested by Colton might be appropriate. Boyle commented that he had received an additional memo from Colton this afternoon and the question was in preparation. The request was for discovery prior to cross examination. Boyle stated that neither the statute nor the ordinance allowed discovery before the Board and the request for a "opportunity to look at the other sides evidence prior to the hearing" was resolved when Boyle commented the Board had no right to discovery. Boyle stated that the applicant is required only to sustain his position. Knight stated that all items on file were a matter of public record and the applicants were not obligated to file any items prior to the hearing by the Board. Boyle agreed that this was the case. Knight reviewed the staff report stating that, the applicant, Iowa-Illinios Gas and Electric Company is requesting a special exception to permit the installation of a 161,000 volt electric transmission line along the south right- of-way line of the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad. An exception is required under Section 8.10.28.H.2 of the zoning ordinance, which states that one of the Board's powers is to permit, as an exception, "use of premises for public utility and railroad purposes." Chapter 414.7 of the Iowa Code states that the "...Board of Adjustment may, in appropriate cases and subject to appropriate conditions and safeguards, make special exceptions to the terms of the ordinances in harmony with its general purpose and intent and in accordance with general or specific rules therein contained." Iowa -Illinois Gas and Electric Company is franchised by the City, and given the right "...to acquire, construct erect, maintain, and operate in the City an electric light and power system, including the right to erect, install, and maintain the necessary poles, lines, wires, transmission lines, conduits and other appliances necessary for the tranmission and distribution of electric energy along, under and upon the streets, avenues, alleys, bridges, viaducts, and public places in the City." Because the proposed location of the tranmission line is the CRI&P Railroad right-of-way, it is not in any public place where it would be expressly permitted. Therefore, a special exception is required. Also, comments should be noted that the franchise language gives Iowa -Illinois the right to construct "necessary" tranmission lines only. Knight stated that before permitting any exception, the Board should determine that the transmission line is necessary as provided in the franchise and that granting the exception will be in "harmony" with the "general purpose and intent" of the zoning ordinance. Therefore, the following considerations should be established: 1. That the proposed tranmission line is necessary for providing service to the City of Iowa City; 2. That granting a special exception will not permit any use of the land which would be in conflict with the uses permitted in the RIB and R2 zones under the terms of this ordinance; 3. That it will not unreasonably dimish or impair established property values within the surrounding area; and 4. That it will not in any other respect impair the general provisions of the police power, i.e, public health, safety, morals or general welfare of the inhabitants of the City. r-. 1 14ICROFILI4ED BY �1 -DORM MIC R(t1CA B"- _t CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES I� i I Board of Adjustment January 12, 1983 Page 4 Previously, Iowa City was supplied with electric power by three 69,000 volt lines. Because of increases in demand, the Iowa City load has become such that an increase in capacity to 161,000 volts is necessary. Iowa -Illinois has been in the process of making changes towards reaching this objective for the last year. The proposed transmission line is part of an overall plan toward reaching that objective. Knight commented that electrical transmission lines are not inherently incompatible with residential uses since they are necessary for the provision of electrical service; however, they would not be complimentary either. The'proposed tranmisssion line would be 80 feet to 100 feet high, with six lines strung on 23 poles most of which would be wooden. Because 'the proposed transmission line would be located adjacent to the existing operational railroad, consideration of its impacts on surrounding one and two family dwellings should be directed toward how the transmission lines impact would differ from those of the railroad. First, because of its height, it is apparent that the visual impact created would be more far reaching than those of the railroad. Other possible effects which could be disruptive to the residential properties include noise to crackling and radio/TV interference. Iowa -Illinois has stated that crackling would not occur in normal weather conditions and that the lines should not interfere with radio and television reception. Assuming this information is correct, it appeared that the main impact would be visual. It is very difficult to measure the effect of such impacts on property values. A further consideration regarding the impact of the transmission line is what alternative route would be selected if the special exception were denied (assuming that the line is necessary). Because a franchise grants Iowa -Illinois the right to use public right-of-way for installation of transmission lines, the logical alternative would be to place the proposed line along a public street, probably Kirkwood Avenue. In such a location, it appears that the visual impacts created by the transmission line would effect a greater number of residential properties than does the present location because the route is more circuitous. In addition, installation of a transmission line along Kirkwood Avenue will probably result in extensive pruning or removal of some trees which would magnify the visual impact of the lines. One other alternative which alleviates many concerns would be to place the line underground. It is not known what limitations exist which may preclude this alternative. Municipalities are granted police powers to permit them to adopt ordinances which protect the public health, safety, morals and general welfare. In the case in question, consideration should be given to whether granting a special exception would be contrary to any prong of the police power. Two prongs which may be applicable in this power are the public health and safety. Parts of this area have had a perennial drainage problem for.a number of years due to the location of drainage ditch on the CRI&P Railroad right-of-way. Since it appears that at least part of the proposed transmission line poles will be located in or near this ditch, it is possible that this problem may be exacerbated. The applicant should, therefore, be required to avoid creating drainage problems in the installation of their poles. The State Code states that the Board may require "appropriate conditions and safeguards" prior to granting the requested exception. It would therefore be within the Board's power to further address the drainage problems as part of their decision. Concern regarding public safety should also be considered, i.e, any life or personal injury that arises from the existence of the transmission lines. The most obvious potential for injury arises from the possibility of downed lines. Because the transmission lines will be located inside the railroad right-of-way concerns in this area are mitigated to a great extent. Another concern which the Board may want to i i 11ICRDFILIdCD BY 1. —"DORM--MICRE/LA13 CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOVES J Board of Adjustment January 12, 1983 Page 5 investigate is the possibility that any one of the poles could fall on private property and in so doing create substantial property damage or personal injury. Knight stated that overall, this location appears to be more desirable than other possible alternative routes along the street because it is more isolated from public access. In summary, why it is apparent that visual impacts will occur due to the existence of the transmission lines, it appears that the proposed location offers the best alternative route in terms of mitigating these impacts. This assumes that the transmission line is indeed necessary to provide adequate electrical service to the residents of Iowa City and that it must be constructed above ground. In order to further mitigate potential impacts which may arise to the construction of the line, the Board should consider placing appropriate conditions and safeguards upon the applicant in the form of requirements. A primary area of concern which should be dealt with is that of drainage. The staff recommends that if it is shown that the line is necessary, the special exception be approved and that additional safeguards and conditions which may mitigate impacts to the residential properties in the area be required. Barker asked whether the applicants would require a variance should they choose to place their transmission lines down a street. Knight stated that they would not. Knight stated that alternative routes had been discussed in the information the Board received from the Iowa -Illinois Gas & Electric Company. Knight also noted that he had a discussion with the Public Works Director who had stated he was opposed to locating the poles in the ditch because of concern about drainage. VanderVelde asked Knight to further elaborate on the drainage issue. Knight stated that a ditch runs for almost the entire length of the route and there had been consistent problems keeping the ditch clear. The neighbors have repetively asked the City and the railroad company to place storm sewer pipes along this ditch and both the City Council and the railroad have been unwilling to do so.' Staff's main concern is that the poles stay out of the ditch so as not to further block the flow of water. Barker asked if the staff had formed an opinion of whether or not the transmission lines were necessary. Knight stated that he did not attempt to make such a finding in the staff report and had merely restated what the applicants had told him. Knight stated that there was no one on the staff who had expertise to deal with that question. Slager asked if the staff had addressed the height of the poles. Knight referred to Boyle's memo. Slager asked if the height of the poles was in violation of the zoning ordinance. Boyle stated that the Board did have the authority to grant a special exemption for heights exceeding 35 feet. Slager asked if the applicant required poles higher than 35 feet. Knight stated that the Board should ask Iowa -Illinois Gas & Electric Company why the lines need to be so high. Knight stated that it was his guess that the height was relative to the amount of power generated by the lines. Slager asked whether or not the location of transmission lines on the street would still require an exemption for the height. Boyle stated that the applicant has the right to build the necessary lines and it was not up to the Board to judge if the height was appropriate. Knight stated that it was the perspective of the City staff that streets were "unzoned". Slager asked if this should be a question the Board addresses. Knight stated that legal counsel has indicated that the Board can grant the exemption even given the height question; if the Board feels uncomfortable with whether or not this is in accord with the 1 li i MICROFILMED BY 1- JORM--MICR#LA9- -� CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOVIES ' A J I. r Board of Adjustment January 12, 1983 Page 6 I zoning ordinance, that can be dealt with when considering the general intent of the ordinance. Slager asked if there were other impacts of the height besides the visual impact. Knight stated that there might be a safety issue should the beneftransmission lsnline ole fall. Siders stated ttoaddresstheheightissueasSectilon8.10.22.Ba2nex mpthn8height limitations did not specifically mention utility poles. Boyle commented that height was one facet of the necessity question that the applicant should address. Colton asked if he may be allowed to ask the staff questions. VanderVelde urged that he be brief. The following questions were addressed by Colton to Knight: I Colton asked if Knight was familiar with the December 9 staff report and Knight replied affirmatively. Colton referred to page 2, asking if Knight still felt that the Board should determine if the lines were necessary and Knight replied affirmatively. Colton stated that the staff had formed no opinion regarding that necessity and Knight stated that this was the case. Colton verified that ' Knight had informed the Board of Adjustment that the information on necessity was a rearticulation of information provided by Iowa -Illinois and Knight indicated that this was the case. Colton asked if the increase in demand had been an independent conclusion. Knight stated that it had not been- Iowa - Illinois Gas and Electric Company had informed him of this. Colton asked if the company had supplied to the City any demand forecast for the City of Iowa City to Justify the need for this line and Knight replied in the negative. Colton asked if the application, since filed, had included any estimates of the cost of these lines and Knight stated they had not. Colton asked if Knight knew the price tag of the installed cost of these lines and Knight stated no. VanderVelde commented that some of these questions would be more appropriately addressed to the company rather than the staff. Colton stated that he at the dcision of the oard must bepbasedted that on substantilaltevidence ofnrecord.thIt was necessary to delineate what is and is not a matter of record. Colton stated that he wished to find out what the City had available to it. VanderVelde stated that presumably what is in the record will be what is presented tonight and suggested Colton question the company on these issues. Colton asked Knight if he would agree that the City and the staff had no documentary evidence or information before it upon which to determine if the need for this line existed or not. Knight stated that was correct. Robert Haack, attorney for Iowa-Illinios Gas and Electric Company, stated that the company regretted picking this route for this line and apologized for the imposition. Haack stated that this location was more consistent with the intent of the ordinance. Two company representatives were present to address the question of location and need. Haack stated that his company has the obligation to supply and fulfill the demand for the City of Iowa City and it was their comanyresponsibility tothe do Boardatthis time. Barkercommented that neelthat he would like he Board to review the material and recess and then let the public review the material. Robert Ardells, superintendent of the electric system design of the Iowa - Illinois Gas and Electric Company, was sworn in. Ardells read from a written prepared statement (see attached). i MICROFILMED BY � JORIV-MICR46LA9* 1 Li CEDAR RAPIDS • DES'MOINES • L� Board of Adjustment January 12, 1983 Page 7 Slager asked the purpose of the substation discussed. Ardells explained that at each one of these substation locations, there was a transfer of voltage from the local to the distribution voltage. Slager asked if this was a transferrance of either 161,000 volts to 13,000 volt or 69,000 volts to 13,000 volt distribution lines. Ardells stated that this was the case. Ardells stated that there were a small amount of gas powered turbine capacity substations which were provided for the transmission system should there be a black out. Ardells stated that Iowa City has both historically and currently a higher load growth stating that there had been an increase in 1952 from 22,400 kilowatts to 118,500 kilowatts in 1982. This is an increase of 8.7% per year; an increase in peak load. VanderVelde asked if this was a 1982 estimate or an actual figure. Ardells stated that the 8.7% versus the 6% increase was for the entire service area in Iowa. Ardells stated that the recently announced enrollments and the downtown development had created an annual rate increase of 3.4%. This reflects conservation efforts and the usage in Iowa City was expected to reach 200 megawatt load by the 1990's. Ardells stated that the University of Iowa has generators that serve their load in excess of the scheduled load, Iowa -Illinois Gas and Electric Company must service them otherwise. Ardells stated that the Iowa City district load'lost power on February 2, 1977, which resulted in a total outage and that all loads from Section E had had an outage on July 26, 1978. These outages provide a benchmark by which the customer can place his own worth on reliability. Between 1980 and 1988, the plan proposes that 69,000 volt distribution lines be rebuilt to 161,000 volts electric transmission lines to increase by 250% by utilizing the same right-of-way as the railroad. Ardells stated that the Company would reduce its cost by deferring the conversion of substation E from 1984 to 1987. Ardells stated that the cost of the facilities was an economic factor and the construction of the proposed lines would be to provide adequate service at the lowest possible cost during, before and after conversion of lines to the 161,000 volts. After conversion, these lines would be capable of servicing Iowa City loads to the mid -1990's. If not constructed, the reliability of service will be poor while converting existing circuits from 69 to 161 kilovolts. A single outage due to any cause will cause customer'outage; the average duration of the outage may vary from 8 to 20 hours depending on the type of outage. During various circuit conversions, the combined loads of the substations will be reduced. This includes all of Iowa City east of Governor Street and includes an industrial area. Ardells stated that the implementation of the overall plan of converting the supply circuits from Hills to Iowa City from 69 kilovolts to 161 kilovolts would result in increased capacity and improve reliability for Iowa City customers. This conversion to a higher supply voltage also minimizes the number of transmission 'line rights-of-way and land purchases required for source locations. The reduced cost, increased capacity, increased reliability and utilization of a minimum amount of land are all benefits to Iowa City customers. Colton addressed the following questions to Ardells. Colton asked if Ardells was yes. Colton asked if he apologized, stating that t testimony earlier and he f information. Colton urged the grounds that it was not the City. This constitutes stated that he was now aske reading from a written document and Ardells replied may have a copy and Ardells stated yes. Knight its evidence had been submitted along with other ad been aware there were two different places of hat the Board move that the testimony be struck on provided to the Iowa City Ratepayers association by by operation of law a surprise testimony. Colton to respond on a moment's notice to this testimony. M, T f� j MICROFILMED BY 1_ "-JORM "MICR6L"AB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOVIES !� L - Board of Adjustment January 12, 1983 Page 8 VanderVelde stated that the Board had no procedure to strike any information from the record and could only take in information as relevant. VanderVelde stated that she realized this was a technical question and stated that if there were difficulties with the surprise nature of the testimony, the Board could defer until Colton felt he had adequate time to review the material. Haack stated that the applicant would object to a deferral as this item had been prolonged for two months. VanderVelde stated that the Board would try to conclude the hearing but part of the function of the Board was to make sure everyone had the right to take part. Colton -stated that the company was proposing to spend a "whole bunch of money" and it was his desire to make an independent appraisal of whether or not the lines were necessary. Colton asked Ardells if this project was part of an overall plan to provir'e electricity to Iowa City and asked when this was first proposed to be evaluated. Ardells stated that this line had been asked for six months ago on the 1983 budget. Colton asked if, prior to six months ago, the company had not contemplated upgrading the lines and asked when this project had been first incorporated in the budget. Colton observed that it was not true that the company had not contemplated upgrading the lines prior to six months ago. Ardells stated that this had been contemplated in 1979 or 1980. Ardells indicated that the company had long range project planning but did not construct anything until it was required. Due to their studies this item appeared in a 1983 budget. Colton asked if someone within the company monitors the growth rate and perceives a problem which would be eliminated or addressed by the 161 kilovolt line. He also wondered if there was a lag between the appearance of the problem and the making of a decision. Ardells stated that that was not the procedure followed; only those items to be funded in the following years or items extremely well documented to the "nth degree" were placed in the budget. Ardells recommended that even looking ahead five years, it was impossible to know what the situation would be. Colton asked if Ardells was an engineer and Ardells replied affirmatively. Colton asked if its was fair to assume that he did not participate in the forecast of demand. Ardells stated that that was untrue. There was an overall projection that each one of the individual substations and all loads must fit into and which depends on the individual area. Colton asked if Ardells personally participated in these projections. Ardells stated that he approved the forecast which met the projected needs. Colton asked Ardells to outline his forecasting methodology. Ardells commented that he would talk about the substation's projected needs, cheek industrial and commercial needs and look for new sources of demand upcoming in the next one or two years. Colton asked Ardells to outline how he was forecasting the load. Ardells stated that he first went to the industrial engineering people and asked them to supply him with their projection of load of industrial and commercial growth and needs. He then takes that load and overall projection made by forecasting groups and sums them up for each substation. They must come out equal and he allocates the loads in the best fashion possible. Ardells stated that he had to know the loads fairly precisely. Colton commented that this was not a model but this was done on an ad hoc basis. Ardells stated that this was true for the five year projection. Colton asked when the cost of this line was determined and Ardells replied it was done later. Colton asked if the company had done any economic analysis of the benefits concurrent with the liability of the line. Ardells stated that they had, an analysis had been done for each of v I-0ICROE ILIIED BY 1" -DORM MICR6LAB- - 1.....� CEDAR RAPIDS DES 1101RES I 40 J r: i Board of Adjustment January 12, 1983 Page 9 the budget items based on a cost analysis benefit relationship. Colton asked if that applied only to these lines and Ardells replied that the company did not have anything in the budget that does not need to be constructed. Colton asked how that referred to the Louisa generating station. Ardells stated that that was not an issue here and asked the people of Iowa City to make their own determination of reliability. Colton asked if it was worth $1 million to eliminate 20 minute outages. Ardells stated that that would depend on the customer, who could be an industrial one. Colton again remarked that the company had made no economic analysis and Ardells stated that this was the most economic plan of all alternative plans to increase the reliability of Iowa City. Haack suggested that the public be allowed to speak. Barker asked how long Ardells had been an engineer with the company. Ardells replied that he had been with Iowa -Illinois since 1949. Barker asked for how i since 1954. long Ardells had been involved with the same type projects and Ardells replied since 1954 and Ardellsrker replied epliedd if dthat heells waswasmilBarkertasked aifiArdellsCty an�lived ein Iowa City and Ardells replied that he lived in Davenport. Barker asked if for other Ardells was responsible r cities, A de jI stating that he was responsible for the Quad Cities,�Iowa 1City andreied�Fort�Dodge areas. Ardells stated that he has been in his present job since 1979 and prior j to that, had been a planning engineer. Barker asked with Iowa City or did the company just"gif Ardells was familiar get him out of the office to talk to the i Board. Ardells stated that he was very familiar with Iowa City. Barker asked if there was any question in Ardells' mind that these lines were needed. Ardells stated that there was no question of the necessity of these lines if the company was going to provide reliable service to Iowa City residents. The following questions were addressed by VanderVelde to Ardells: VanderVelde commented that the plan was to make all three lines 161,000 volts rather than 69,000 volts and asked why the link -ups between substations D and E were necessary and if this was a temporary or a permanent necessity. Ardells stated that that would depend -on whether one was talking about reliability, cost I or both. These lines were needed during the conversion phase (two years) and the line would allow the company to delay building a transformer right there for three years. This would mean that the company would not have to convert until 1987• If we do not have the added lines, Ardells stated that the added cost would come earlier by converting the substations. VanderVelde asked if the plan was first to convert lines two or three and them 0 and E. Ardells stated that the whole loop would be done in the next phase and it this would be done for reliability. Further, Ardells stated that economically been olostreducandethistwaseones of ttheumajorld fsubstationsthe ersiinothe area. After the Substation 161,000 kilowatt line this would not be as important; however, rif maintained at 69,000 kilowatts, that circuit would have to be made mandator asked if there were any alternatives and wondered why the liy, VanderVelde nk-up could not reliability p occur south plus Iowa City. Ardells stated that there would be a problem with the problem of double circuiting which would destroy statistics are showing reliability. Given the same costs, one can limit reliability to the present and substation was located here that Outages tothe line increasing. and A dellslstated that the I substation needs to be where the load is and it would be a 2'- million facility. r 1p0 0 i MICRO(ILMED BY -DORM MICR6LA6- - _I CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES Board of Adjustment January 12, 1983 Page 10 Barker commented that it was not economic to transfer power except at high voltage. Slager asked if the decision that an increase was necessary was based on the existing mode. Ardells stated that the company wanted to supply reliable service and could not with any two of the circuits on outage. VanderVelde pointed out that the company had only lost power two times in the last five years. Ardells stated that that was correct but that many customers would think that was terrible. Slager stated that she could see that but was trying to understand the necessity to keep up reliability. Ardells stated that the company perceived that the customers wanted continued reliability. They perceive they should maintain reliability and there is a point where they cannot do that any longer and have to do something. Slager stated that the company had projected a 3.4% growth rate. Ardells stated that the company preferred not to spend the money but had perceived the necessity. Vanderhoef asked what this conversion would due to the lines. Ardells stated that the lines were mismatched; some were good for 100 and some were good for 88 as there were different time frames in which they were built. Ardells stated that the company was in the situation where they could not supply what they would like to supply and they could not meet Iowa City's load projected for the next summer. Haack asked if the company anticipated that the number of outages would be fewer, the same or increased based on their projections. Ardells stated that at the 161,000 kilowatt level, there was no way the company could lose two circuits or lose anything in the business area. Ardells stated that the company wished to improve reliability and have lost Iowa City due to that problem. Ardells stated that he hoped the company would not get into a bottleneck of double circuit construction as they did not have the type of reliability that the company could have had with a different route. Ardells stated that the company was trying to get as reliable as possible. Haack asked if the company expected that the number of outages would increase or not and Colton objected to this as speculation. VanderVelde ruled that it was not purely speculation. Ardells stated that the company had to operate on the basis that it would lose its next worst circuit in the system. VanderVelde asked if the company expected more outages with the line. Ardells stated that at 69,000 kilovolts outages would be expected and load would have to drop. VanderVelde asked when the company would hit that level. Ardells stated that the company was there now; this summer they will not be able to supply that load. Slager asked if that was true with heating and Ardells stated that problems occurred in hot summers more than cold winters. The meeting recessed at 6:35 and reconvened at 6:50. Francis Callahan, 3302 Middle Road, Davenport, Iowa, was sworn in. Callahan stated that he was the superintendent for constructional design division for Iowa -Illinois and had done design work on the proposed lines. Callahan read from a prepared statement "see attached." Callahan addressed the question of the height and submitted a sketch of the poles and original material. Callahan stated that close proximity to one of the street overpasses (either Summit or Dodge Street) necessitated higher poles than would normally be required. VanderVelde asked if these would be in excess of 100 feet. Callahan stated that 100 feet would be the maximum height. Callahan depicted the locations of the poles on an aerial photo and discussed the location of the transmission lines and alternate locations. Callahan stated that on the railroad, some trees would have to be removed and trimmed but this would be relatively minor as it was also adjacent to the right-of-way. JI 111CROFIEMED BY 1" -JORM MICROLAB- CEDAR RAPIDS - DES MOINES M J Board of Adjustment January 12, 1983 Page 11 Haack asked Callahan for comments on the cost of the proposed lines. Callahan stated that the lines were to cost $497,000. VanderVelde asked why the lines had to be so high. Callahan explained that clearances had to be maintained and this was set forth in the National Electric Safety Code; normally one did not need to go that high were it not for some of the overpasses along the route. VanderVelde asked if the height would be that great for overpasses only. Callahan stated that would be the case and there would be a gradual increase and decrease in the height of the lines. VanderVelde asked why the lines could not be placed underground. Callahan stated that the lines could be put underground but that this would not be a satisfactory operating arrangement. At this voltage, cable systems are steel pipes filled with insulated oil. The oil has to be kept under nitrogen pressure to ensure that no moisture will enter the pipe. There is a cost difference; underground lines are four to five times more costly and an estimate had been made on a route up Benton Street to substation E. This route would cost $2,109,000. VanderVelde asked how long this route would be and Callahan indicated that it would be 8,356 feet and that this route was 1.17 miles. VanderVelde commented that this should cost less if on the railroad right-of-way. Callahan stated that in some areas, the railroad tracks were elevated and would make extensive trenching difficult and expensive along the right-of-way. The most feasible route would be more expensive than this due to steep embankments. Other routes would be along and across active city streets. Callahan stated that he had estimated the cost of two underground routes; one extended from substation E to D and because there is not space at substation D, they are negotiating the purchase of two other sites. The other alternative route went from substation E to possible property closer to Gilbert Street. Callahan stated that this route was 8,300 feet long and would have to be built on active streets and would create traffic problems. The more direct route going up Kirkwood Street was not considered due to the disruption of traffic that would be created and the maintenance. Underground lines are more difficult to repair. Callahan stated that the line as described was 8,356 feet long and would cost $2,237,000. The route to the possible other transformer site would cost $2,109,000. Callahan stated that in addition to excessive cost, there are more diffculties in operating an underground system at this voltage, although there is one downtown at 69,000 kilovolts. Slager asked Callahan to address the ditch problems. Callahan stated that he did not quite understand what the problem had been but did understand there would not be a pole near substation E in the ditch. Callahan stated that he was unaware of the problem but could assure that the company would build overhead transmission lines without effecting drainage. Vanderhoef asked how far one could be from the high lines before experiencing radio and TV interference problems. Callahan stated that a well-functioning line will not cause interference; however, a weak station could be affected but not a strong local station. VanderVelde commented that there were no strong local stations in Iowa City. Callahan stated that the stations from Waterloo and Cedar Rapids should be strong enough and when interference exists, malfunctions cause it and can be corrected. Knight asked if it was a function of the amount of voltage. Callahan stated that interference was a function of escaping electrons on the equipment. VanderVelde asked if there was an expert to address the health and safety issues. Callahan stated that he referred -to the National Electric Safety Code which sets forth standards and safety factors to be maintained. VanderVelde asked the effects of the transmission lines on people's health. Callahan stated that there was no known effect of transmission lines on a person's health. The Code addresses that when it specifies distances 1 , 1 141CROFILMED BY 1 '"DORM MICROLA13 CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES lI Gzr ,. 4. J Board of Adjustment January 12, 1983 Page 12 to maintain for energized wires. Callahan stated that he was not prepared to address that issue but was aware of some reports studying the effect of higher voltage on animals. There was no conclusive evidence that health was affected by electricity. VanderVelde asked what the noise effect would be. Callahan stated that there should be no audible noise and that if some existed it was due to a malfunction which could be rectified. The following questions were addressed by Colton to Callahan: Colton asked if it was true that Callahan did not consider non-structural alternatives to this but took the forecast as designed. Callahan stated that this was true. Colton asked if there had been a removal of the trees along the railroad right-of-way and if Callahan was aware of that. Callahan indicated that he was. Colton asked if this had been done on behalf of Iowa -Illinois. Callahan stated that it had been done on their behalf and this was prior to the knowledge of the necessity for a special exemption. Callahan further stated that one property owner had asked that the tree be removed right away. Haack stated that the company had no further witnesses. Boyle pointed out that relative to the safety code, the franchise code also set forth in Section 14.3 that the franchise conformed to the national electric engineering code. The floor was opened for public discussion. Ingeborg Solbrig, 1126 Pine Street, stated that she was close to both the proposed and alternative lines. Referring to the alternative line proposed, Solbrig commented that the shade trees existing were very important for both aesthetic and energy considerations. Solbrig stated that she would hate to see the shade trees removed. With regard to the proposed line, Solbrig stated that the ditch created a terrible water problem in the basement and hoped that these points would be included in any deliberation of the Board. Solbrig also expressed concern for the value of property and present problems. Susan Horowitz, 1129 Kirkwood, spoke in opposition to granting a special exemption. Horowitz stated that she feared that the view of the transmission lines would be ugly and would detract from the property value. Horowitz stated she personally felt that the increased capacity was not needed but if so, the company was constructing 1960 equipment for the needs of the year 2000. Horowitz questioned the use of Highway 6 to Kirkwood and asked if Iowa -Illinois was using ideas from its sister facilities. Horowitz asked if the Planning Department of Iowa City had searched for these solutions. Horowitz stated that she was not anti -project as she was a stockholder in the company, but looked for useful collaboration between energy agencies. Horowitz stated that she hoped these ugly lines could be avoided and questioned the statement that the lines would not affect TV and radio transmission. Horowitz also asked what would happen when the railroad trains passed. Larry Perkins, 345 Magowan Avenue, spoke of the drainage problem. Perkins stated that he recognized the poles would not be in the middle of the ditch but proposed a compromise. Perkins stated that someone had dumped a truckload of cement in the ditch and there was water coming out of the Dodge Street bridge and exiting off the railroad because of that. Perkins asked if the company could jackhammer the cement out to allow the free flow of water. Perkins stated that he was neither for nor against the granting of the permit. Perkins stated that he had tried to find out where the original railroad right-of-way was and 1 r MICROFILMED BY 1. JORM MICR61-AB 1 CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES I G64 J ..1 Board of Adjustment January 12, 1983 Page 13 requested that the City not be assessed for finding out the true line of the railroad right of way. Perkins wondered if Iowa -Illinois could post bonds to insure that any TV and radio loss would be compensated. Sharon Shapcott, 1105 Spruce Street, stated that she lived near the drainage problem. Shapcott presented a letter that had been signed at the Board meeting and commented that she had been unable to receive information on this project from'the City staff. Shapcott stated that she was in opposition to the granting of the special exemption and presented a letter with 23 signature of neighbors not wishing the lines to be placed near their homes. Shapcott addressed the aesthetics and drainage problems, stating that Iowa -Illinois has regraded the right-of-way but the drainage problems are the same if not worse. If the line goes in, there should be an attempt to solve the water problem prior to that as there was a definite health hazard. James Whitsitt, 809 Page, questioned the height of existing poles on the railroad right-of-way. Whitsitt stated that there were lines running adjacent to the track and Callahan explained that this was part of the railroad circuit and that those poles were 30 feet maximum. Whitsitt asked if the location of the lines in the right-of-way would affect future response to the drainage problem. Haack indicated that he did not think that would be the case. Whitsitt stated that he was relaxed in his opposition but the poles would still be an aesthetic blemish to his view. Whitsitt stated that he did not wish to pass these lines to another location, but realized that granting this exception did not prohibit future lines. Banilow stated that it was the company's right to place lines along public roads. Boyle stated that it had been the City's position historically that it has no right to control the placement of lines along public roads. Whitsitt then stated that he would like the record to show that he is in opposition. Dave Mellecker, 838 Walnut, questioned the evidence of two outages as necessitating these lines for the reliability of service. Mellecker also expressed concern over the visual impact of these lines. Shapcott asked if Iowa -Illinois was aware that derailments occur along these tracks. Callahan stated that he was not aware of derailments but stated that this would probably be due to improper care of the tracks. Callahan stated that he would look for the railroads being upgraded and stated that the company had transmission lines along many railroad rights-of-way. Callahan admitted the hazards of railroad derailments to the lines. VanderVelde asked if there were any contingency plans if a derailment would cause a pole to strike the house. Callahan stated that if a railroad car derailed and rain into the pole, the pole could break. When cars hit, the poles are usually held by the wire. However, a railroad derailment could conceivably cause damage, but if the wires touch one another, the lines would be energized. David Whiting, 922 Walnut, spoke in opposition on the basis of aesthetics and potential devaluation of property. Whiting also asked who would pay for this improvement. Haack stated that the rate payers on the system would pay. Whiting stated that as a group, the customers of Iowa -Illinois pay for this product. Haack stated that this might. be different if it was an unusual request, like underground lines. Whiting asked if there would be an equal rate of increase to all payers and Haack indicated that he was unsure. Whiting asked if there were contingency plans to compensate the landowners for devaluation of their property. Haack stated that this was not usually done. Whiting asked if i MICROFILMED BY I 1-- -JORM-MICR6LA6` -� CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES I G60 J Board of Adjustment January 12, 1983 Page 14 it was correct to assume that there would be TV and radio interference. Haack stated that TV is FM and FM would not be bothered by this line. AM might be if one lived very close to the line, but would normally not be affected. Whiting asked where the 100 foot right-of-way was located and Callaghan replied that it was north of the main line. James Schwab, 1027 Sheridan, referring to the outages and the question of relibility, asked how the two outages were caused and how that tied in with the necessity for new lines. Ardells stated that the outage that took all of Iowa City was caused by aline on the maintenance business fault at Hills and other lines were taken. Substation E and simultaneous outages occurred during a storm. Ardells stated that the company has had a large number of double circuit outages in bad weather. Schwab commented that only one of those two outages was relevant to the question of reliability. Eileen Fisher, 1211 Ginter, stated that in 1962 to 1982, there had been an increase in load. Fisher questioned the increase from 1981 to 1982 or since 1979. Ardells stated that between 1977 and 1982, there had been a 3% increase per year. Fisher asked if there had been an increase from 1981 to 1982. Ardells stated that the load had hit a new peak and there had been a 1.3% increase last year, and that a new peak had been reached last summer. Carolyn Bickford, 1116 Spruce St., questioned why alternative N1 could not cut across at Marcy instead of Gilbert Street. Callahan explained that the other line serving substation E occupies Sycamore Street from Highway 6 to the substation and it was a question of reliability. Callahan stated that double circuiting should be avoided as lightning or an automobile could take out both lines at the same instant. Bickford wondered why lines could not be placed on each side of the street. Callahan explained that planners were not crazy about that as lightning could take out both or either side of the street simultaneously. Tom Doling, 1120 Spruce Street, stated that his major concern was the water ! problem and would be opposed to the exemption if putting the poles there would exacerbate that problem. Paul Millice, 1112 Spruce, commented that the same property owners would have to i bear both the rail -road in the their back yard and now new poles as well. Millice stated that he accepted the railroad but did not feel that he was being given i much of a choice with regard to these lines. Millice stated that the addition of these lines would be a danger to his family and the poles were not in harmony with his neighborhood. Millice commented that he had recently added a porch and now he would have a nice view of these ugly poles. Millice stated that he was bothered by the threats of poor reliability as they were akin to threats to cut off electrical service if there were no poles. Solbrig commented again that she was opposed to both the proposed route and the alternative plans. Solbrig asked if the property taxes would go down. The meeting recessed at 8:03 PM and reconvened at 8:11 PM. Callahan expressed the wish to correct the record. Callahan stated that he had referred to the poles in the range of 80 to 100 feet; however, there was one 1 f 141CROFILIIED BY - 1 11" -JORM--MICRbLAB- r% CEDAR RAPIDS • DES 1401NES -J Board of Adjustment January 12, 1983 Page 15 steel pole at Gilbert Street which is 115 feet tall and there are two other 120 foot poles in the area of Spruce Street. VanderVelde commented that this was roughly 11 stories. Colton stated that he had a few comments to make and when asked by VanderVelde if he wished to be sworn in, Colton replied that would not be necessary. Colton stated that the idea was whether or not this Board has the authority to grant a special exemption. The City staff says there is no problem. The ratepayers association reiterates that it feels that the zoning ordinance prohibits this exemption and referred to Section 8.10.22.6 where types of uses which could exceed 35 feet were listed. Among those listed was the same type of structure as utility poles. Colton stated that "Expresso unus est exclusio ulteriors" - the expression of one thing implies the exclusion of its alternative. Colton stated that when a legislative body lists certain things and not others, this shows an intent to exclude them. This happens in this case as utility poles are not there, this should then evidence the intent that utility poles should not be excluded from the height requirement. , Colton stated that he would call two witnesses and that it was his belief that the key question is the need for the line. If there is no need, all other issues fail. If there is a need, then the Board needs to work out the other problems. The ratepayers association witnesses will discuss some tests to determine need in other transmission line cases and this was not their first. Colton stated that there were three aspects of need: 1) to determine the absolute demonstration of need -the company has chosen the line of reliability and has cited two instances of lack of reliability and outages. 2) the economic need - this assumes the reliability problem but the costs are too great -eliminating outages of three hours and 20 minutes at the cost of $500,000 is not worth the money, and 3) whether there is a need for a structural solution; even assuming the reliability problem. If there is an increase in demand, the company can build facilities or use other alternatives. Colton suggested that the company try not to increase demand so much and search for nonstructural alternatives to meeting the demand. Colton stated that the ratepayers would get the same result without spending a lot of money. Dr. Michael F. Sheehan, 823 Clark Street, stated that he was an economist at the University of Iowa and was present as an economist and not in the capacity of a University of Iowa professor. Sheehan addressed the necessity issue and spoke of the franchise which also specified the lines which must be necessary. Sheehan stated that the form for adjudication was different here than if the lines were to be located on a public street. When the City grants a franchise, the City does not give up its police power. The City maintains the right to pass ordinances to control transmission lines notwithstanding the franchise. Addressing economizing costs, Sheehan referred to the 3 hour outage problem from the Hills substation as 20 minutes in 5 years which was unfortunate but an economic problem. Sheehan stated that at some point, it was no longer economical to attain greater reliability. Sheehan questioned whether this reliability was worthwhile in terms of cost. The company has said virtually nothing to that and has not balanced the cost of outages against the cost of increasing the reliability. Sheehan stated that it was difficult for the ratepayers association to get that information and when asked how costs had been balanced, had been told that each individual has to make their own assessment of cost. This did not happen as the company determined to build the line and assumed what those costs were to the customers of each of those outages. The Board of Adjustment January 12, 1983 Page 16 company must have made some determination of cost and its curious that they did not present them. The reliability must have some quantifiable value. Sheehan suggested that the cost is not such a problem for the company since they are not paying the cost. As ratepayers, there must be some price at which reliability is not worth the cost. As the price of electricity goes up, the demand will go down; there is an increase in price in forecasts. How does the company forecast its price and demand. Is that included and has not been presented with the forecast. Sheehan stated that it was important to notice that other sorts of projects, such as conservation, had not received favorable attention. Only engineering alternatives have been presented and Sheehan questioned why. Sheehan stated that this issue revolved around the question of forecasting. The public has heard the increases over years but the company has not been too good with those forecasts. Sheehan commented that the ratepayers association had recently participated in a case... Haack objected to the reference to other generating stations. Colton stated that a point had been made earlier that evidentiary objections would not be entertained by the Board. Colton stated that the forecast results were relevant and that a capital facility was based on the demand forecast. Colton stated that the company's demand forecasts had been erroneous or worse. The company has not provided its methodology and has traditionally been unable to demonstrate need. Sheehan stated that the issue rests with forecasting credibility and referred to his prepared testimony (see attached). Sheehan stated that the company has consistently overforecast for the years between 1973-74 and 1979. Since 1979, the demand growth has been closer to zero and the demand nationwide has turned down. The company has had a bad record on projections and every year has had to reduce their estimates of "low growth". In 1980, the company projected a growth of 33%, in 1982, 50%. This means that the company's estimation of its own growth was not up to "snuff'. There is no real basic information on, how forecasting works and the company's forecasts are disastrous and have led Iowa in excess capacity. Sheehan stated that in the Iowa -Illinois rate case last year they had urged that the company explore reasonable forecasting methods. With regard to alternatives, Sheehan stated that the project was not necessary if there was a cheaper way to do it as well. Sheehan referred to Table C in his testimony which listed cost comparisons. Sheehan stated that electricity (coal or nuclear) are substantially more expensive than residential installation and asked if those had been considered. Sheehan suggested that 1) the company has a great incentive not to look at other "ways out" and 2) the company has a great problem with excess capacity on the system. If it encouraged conservation, it would have more excess capacity. Sheehan argued that therefore, the company had a financial incentive not. to seriously consider cheaper ways other than electricity. Sheehan urged the Board to be particularly careful to require proof that they have seriously looked into it. The question is whether or not it is cheapest or best to reduce demand growth throughout Iowa City or to build a capital intensive line system. Sheehan stated that we have not been supplied with the information pursuant to our requests. The economic question was that of balancing cost. What is the probability that 20 minutes outages in 5 years vs. the derailment of trains. Sheehan commented that the company was saying "trust me" and the ratepayers association was saying "we say, we pay, we want to worry" 1 141CROFILIIED BY i 11' -.DORM-MICROCAB- I CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOMES j ' I J r J i Board of Adjustment '� J January 12, 1983 Page 17 There were no questions from the Board. Skip Laitner, 111 State Avenue, Ames, Iowa, was sworn in. Laitner referred to his prepared testimony (see attached). Laitner stated that he would further like to incorporate some of the economic items heard at this evening's meeting. Laitner stated that the issue of necessity was a major one and the price tag was $497,000, which was not the only cost associated. Laitner stated in addition there were construction costs, interest, taxes, stockholders, and he estimated that 24% of that fixed 'cost for each of those 30 years would cost $120,000 a year over time, leaving the total cost of the project in excess of $3.5 million. Laitner stated that this was the context in which the Board had to judge necessity. Laitner spoke of a need to establish principles, stating that there were three tests which should be applied to determine whether such a project can be found "necessary": a). is there a specific demand for service which requires the construction of a transmission line; b) if so, are there alternatives which might satisfy such demand in an economically superior fashion; c) finally, are there other economic considerations which support a determination of necessity? Laitner stated that there has been no showing of an added demand for electrical service in the Iowa -Illinois service area, and that they would like to see the forecasting methodology outlining the variables used to arrive at the demand. Laitner contrasted the 2.4% vs. the 3.4% increase, stating that we have an indicator that suggests that demand is down. Laitner stated that the public knows that price will increase to be followed by a decrease in demand. Assuming the methodology of the company is correct, there would be a 3 to 3.5% per year increase. Laitner urged that the company look at alternatives. Does this need to be electrically provided? Or perhaps, could we provide it through solar, etc? Laitner commented that the demand is not for electricity but for the service it provides. Laitner referred to Northern States Power Company in Minnesota which has done this and has given a rebate to people who use more efficient' appliances rather than build and maintain new facilities. Laitner stated that Northern States Power Company has found this to be cheaper. VanderVelde asked 'how stockholders would profit from a rebate. Laitner explained. Colton stated that there were legal mechanisms in that rate based company expenditures on conservation programs was allowed. Haack stated that this discussion was speculative and should not be allowed as it irrelevant. VanderVelde asked if these alternatives were legal in Iowa. Colton replied that the Commerce Commission has determined that Iowa -Illinois has not used adequate forecasting procedures in developing Guthrie County's substation. However, the Commerce Commission has not yet considered what Laitner has proposed. Laitner stated that these suggestions were accruing savings for the entire system. Laitner noted that there are economic alternatives that are non- structural that must be considered. Laitner corrected figures on pages 7 and 8 of his prepared testimony: line 20 correct to $497,000; page 8, line 3 correct to $1.2 million; line 10 correct to $1,2 million. Russell Karkowsky, Box 174, Solon, questioned whether conservation was used in Iowa. Laitner stated that it was used in Johnson County by the Linn County Ratepayers Association and was not an esoteric approach. Schwab spoke again, stating that in view of the trends in other states, as relating to rate basing, did Laitner see as the obstacle primarily opposition by the Commerce Commission or failure by the company to put that concept before them. Laitner stated that the problem was that the company viewed itself as the supplier of electricity instead of service. Laitner stated that the fault lies l MICROFILMED BY 1_ JORM -M1c F16L0.9_. CEDAR RAPIDS - DES MOINES i J f,. Board of Adjustment January 12, 1983 Page 18 r within the company and the way in which it perceives itself. Sheehan stated that Suny California Edison practices conservation techniques Haack objected. Laitner stated that Suny California Edison also offers rebates on the gas side. VanderVelde stated that these alternatives did not exist in Iowa. Colton stated that, if this line were outside the city, this proceeding would be held before the Iowa Commerce Commission. However, it is this Board which must decide whether the transmission line is necessary or not. Colton questioned whether the company had, in light of the Ratepayers Association evidence, demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence that the line is necessary. Boyle asked if the Commerce Commission had promulgated Chapter 476.2 of the Iowa Code regarding the use of conservation strategies. Colton stated that the Iowa Commerce Commission has stated that "shall implement conservation programs which are cost effective..." and has made this mandatory. Colton stated that there was a loan program and currently a case was before the Supreme Court on this issue. The meeting recessed at 9:10 p.m. and reconvened at 9:15. Haack called Karl Schaver, 817 -16th Street, Bettendorf, Iowa, vide -president of energy and supply department. Schaver was sworn in. Schaver stated that he had no prepared statements but :wished to clarify a few comments. Schaver assured the Board that the company does do a great deal of work to come up with the most economic solutions and they did not want to spend money as used to be the case. Schaver stated that this project in Iowa City has been deferred several times and was needed this year as part of the long-range plan. Schaver explained that this project was a link and the only germane part of an overall load growth. He noted that conservation and a cool summer had contributed to the less than expected increases. However, the hospital expansion, the communications building and the new law building would make the load growth of three percent per year an -average. Schaver urged that the Board look at the company's record since 1950. In regard to the health effects of transmission lines, Schaver stated that many studies have been made. The higher voltage, the higher those presumed effects. These studies have not detected any effects and there was no discernable effects ascribable to the 161,000 volt line. Schaver referred to increased liability of any three substations in a line if lines connecting all of them were taken out by a storm. Schaver remarked that if the number of links were reduced there would be more outages in number and they would be more severe than the two mentioned. VanderVelde asked if the plans called for construction in the winter. Schaver stated that they did as the loads were lower in the winter. VanderVelde questioned the risks involved. Schaver urged that the Board look at the company's history, stating that he could not assign a particular number of outages to any area nor the length of any outage during the two-year construction period. VanderVelde asked if this was a temporary alternative. Schaver stated that, in a way, this is the most optium short-term number of uses to get the job done. With regard to aesthetics, Schaver stated that the company had tried to find the shortest line affecting the least number of customers. Yes, there would be a negative effect, but Schaver felt that fewer people would be affected. Schaver observed that this was an industrial area and the railroad along there made the railroad right-of-way a preferred routing. With regard to the value of property, Schaver pointed out that there were few cases where a farm was sold for less money after the lines were built. He stated that there were very few homes where there would be a reduction of the values of those J i MICROFILMED BY �- --DORM MICR6LAB -� CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES J Board of Adjustment January 12, 1983 Page 19 homes. VanderVelde asked if there was any evidence to support this statement. Schaver stated that there are many studies to verify that point. VanderVelde asked if, this was shown not to be the case, would the company make, up the difference. Schaver questioned howthat could be done. VanderVelde stated that if shown after the fact, say in five years, would the company be willing to compensate the property owner for reduced property values. Schaver stated that that would be a legal question. With regard to the cost of outages, Schaver stated that it was one dollar per killowat hour; 24% was high but 20% was a more realistic figure over the 24 hour period. Schaver stated that the value, while intangible, had been taken into account. With regard toweatherization and cost effectiveness, Schaver stated that most of his customers used gas and the effect had not been very successful here. Schaver stated that the company does have a number of conservation programs intact. They are taking advantage of conservation programs but a lot depends on the location. With regard to the testimony regarding the cost of transmission lines, Schaver stated that it was akin to saying that the real cost of a $60,000 home with a 15 percent mortage ws $200,000. Schaver observed that the only connection with this project and the overall power forecast was that the company has had to increase its capacity to bring power into Iowa City from Hills. The company measures from the flow from each substation. Schaver stated that he "redlines" these projects all the time and stated that the company did not have the opportunity to say "let's try conservation" in the next three to four years; they need those loads now. Schaver commented that perhaps conservation would work in the future. VanderVelde asked from where increased demand was projected. From the residences? University? Industry? VanderVelde asked for numbers, wondering which part of the 3.14 percent increase was the University or re 'd Schaver stated that the company did not break down its demand sinethat lfashion but looked at each individual project. For example, the Hawkeye stadium triggered the need for this project to begin two and a half years ago. VanderVelde questioned whether one option was to get industry or the University to take on its own generating facility. Schaver stated that this was not economical. VanderVelde stated that the Company's justification for the lines was justification for the lines was only concerned with reliability and a backup generator. Schaver stated that those options are in all likelihood more expensive than this project. There was also a question of lead time before they were in service. Schaver questioned where the forecast of 81 percent and its related figures were derived. Sheehan stated that it should only read between 60 and 70 percent. Schaver questioned the 45 to 48 percent figures for 1983 referred to by Sheehan. Colton stated that those figures assume that the Louisa generating station was on—line in October. Vanderhoef asked if the company has kept track of "switch overs." Schaver stated that the company gets a printout and that these are a regular occurrence. Ardells stated that for double circuiting, the company has had occasions of two circuits being out simultaneously due to storms. Over the last ten years there have been one and a half outages per year. A fourth outage of every outage circuit will have a fourth outage every year. Vanderhoef questioned the probability of these outages when the lines were changed from 60,000 to 161,000 kilowatts. Ardells stated he did not know. Vanderhoef asked for a history and Ardells stated that there were one and a half outages per circuit segment per year; five to seven and a half a year or one switch o ver every month. 1 ; i Id ICRDFILMED BY 1. _'JORM-MICR6LA9 CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOVIES W1 J Board of Adjustment January 12, 1983 Page 20 Vanderhoef noted that Ardells had stated that it was more economical to build this connector because the same transformer could be used during the construction process. If they didn't have this connection, there would be additional costs. Schaver verified that the company would have to build a double circuit which would cost more whether it was temporary or otherwise than doing this project. Vanderhoef asked if the company would accept that risk. Ardells stated that there would be a $5 million premium if the company had to convert the substations earlier and this would be a higher premium than underground lines. Vanderhoef asked what it would cost if this project was not built. Schaver answered that it would cost $5 million compared to $500,000. Laitner stated that the $5 million compared to $3.6 million. Vanderhoef commented that the alternative was more expensive. Nancy Sheehan, 823 Clark Street, questioned whether or not part of the work included in the $5 million figure had to be done anyway. Ardells stated that the total cost of the alternative was roughly $5 million and using the present project was less than $3 million. This assumes that everything that's going to be done over time will be done. Sheehan stated that it would be another burden placed on the neighbors because they currently lived near the railroad tracks. The trees which currently act as a buffer from the railroad, if cut, would create increased noise from the railroad. Schaver concluded that this would be true but this route would affect less numbers. Sheehan disagreed, stating that the effect will be different if the lines were placed somewhere where there were no trees. Karkowsky asked to what the peak load in the summertime could be attributed. Schaver replied air conditioners. Karkowsky stated that Schaver had indicated that conservation doesn't save electricity but gas. Schaver stated that he was saying that the conservation was not affected to the same extent. In our service area, most of our heating and hot water is by gas. This would not have the same effect that many oil burners have. Sheehan stated that small generators were not just for backup but to be added to another system to produce electricity and wondered if this had been considered by the company. Sheehan asked Schaver if the company had done a study on the dollar per ki11owat cost of outages. Schaver stated that the company had not done anything so obvious as the cost would rack up quickly. Sheehan asked if this project would still be worth it if it cost $10 million rather than $5 million. Schaver stated that the company could not afford it and stated that at some point there is a trade-off and the issue would have to go to the ratepayers. Sheehan asked for copies of the methodology for forecast for individual substations. Schaver stated that the company did not read the meters but they know when they're overloaded and when new projects are being constructed. Sheehan asked if this was based on a feeling and not study, stating that this a phenomoenological approach to forecasting. Schaver stated that for the next two years, the company did not do anything fancy but merely looked at developments and construction versus population growth. Schaver stated that the company did not have to project ten years into the future. Sheehan commented that this was a risk not for one year but rather a lifetime of investments. Schaver stated that the worst thing for the company was to put in a new line one year too soon. Sheehan asked if the company has done that. Schaver stated that this projection is next year and that the company had a five year capital expansion plan. Sheehan commented that incremental planning was done but not comprehensive planning. Schaver stated that comprehensive planning was done. Sheehan asked for a copy of their formal report. Sheehan asked if there was a large number of minimal outages. Schaver stated that there were not. Ardells stated that there were general statistics r MICROFILMED BY l JORMMICF;1 LA13 1 T CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES I J Board of Adjustment January 12, 1983 Page 21 for a line but that the company could not come up with a statistical base and use generalized ones. Andrew Isserman, 9 Caroline Court, stated that he was present as a planning professor. Isserman asked Schaver how many customers Iowa -Illinois had. Schaver replied that in 1982, there were 223,000 customers on gas generators, 174,000 on other and 155,000 residential customers. Isserman asked if there was a $2 million difference between the two projects. Schaver stated that half the project is done and there was a need to finish the project in the most economical fashion. Isserman asked Schaver to count the number of trees down in the middle of town as being worth a $5,000 difference to the residents. Isserman questioned whether the $1.5 million difference would be for the good of Iowa City and that perhaps they should request this alternative. Isserman asked what was causing the anticipated excess demand. The Hawkeye Carver pavillion benefits all persons of the state as do the hospitals and the increase in University students also benefits the entire state. Isserman suggested that power lines through the back yards was not the way to go but rather the underground most expensive route could have its costs shared with the state so that the middle of Iowa City would not be sacrificed. Schaver stated that that had done that with the urban renewal project. Barker moved that the meeting adjourn and continue at another time. The motion died for lack of a second. Colton stated that he was still concerned about whether the Board has real solid evidence, stating that they had posed interrogatories to the company asking for this evidence and did not receive it. Colton asked that the Board rule on this or direct the company to answer the interrogatories. VanderVelde stated that the City's attorney had advised the Board that they had no authority to compel any kind of discovery and denied Colton's request. Colton then stated that the Ratepayers Association wished to let their engineer respond to the written presentation of the Iowa -Illinois Gas & Electric Company and asked the Board to give them that opportunity. VanderVelde polled the Board. Slager stated that she would like to proceed with the Board's discussion. Patricia McGee, 730 Walnut, questioned how much of the increased cost would be for her use and expressed concern and resentment at paying the "University's light bill." Schaver stated that there would be no special assessment. McGee questioned whether she should budget another one-third or one-half toward her utilities bill. Schaver stated that for a project of such a small size there would be little affect. McGee commented that the utility bills have increased considerably. VanderVelde stated that the Board was not the tribunal to discuss that issue. Schaver stated that there might be an increase of perhaps 60 cents per year per customer, but it was difficult to say. Colton stated that he could advise this person on this problem. Moved by Stager that the Board grant a special exception as required by Section 8.10.28.H.2 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit construction and installation of a 161,000 vote transmission line which will run approximately from Gilbert Street to Spruce Street along the south right-of-way line of the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad. Vanderhoef seconded the motion. Vanderhoef moved a friendly amendment, stating that this exemption should stipulate that the construction of the poles do not obstruct the drainiage in the, ditch along the railroad. Slager seconded the amended motion. —____ ___—_ _ l nlCRorIL14ED BY r 1- JORM-MICR6L A8' i CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES F i� Board of Adjustment January 12, 1983 Page 22 VanderVelde suggested that the Board first decide whether or not the lines were necessary. VanderVelde stated that the most important aspect of this connection is during the years of upgrading the lines from 69,000 to 161,000 volts when the community risks certain outages. VanderVelde questioned whether or not the company would be asking for the special exemption if they were not reconstructing the lines and if it would still be cost effective. Ardells stated that economically, this project is still cost effective. Once done, reliability will not be as important. This will also defer conversion at one substation indefinitely which would cost money and reliability. VanderVelde asked if there would be a problem if reliability was not an issue. Ardells stated that the project would still be considered on an economic basis. VanderVelde stated that the risks of outages existed no matter how the lines were strung. If strung along Highway 6 with a double circuit, VanderVelde asked the probability of an outage during three years. Ardells stated that the company could not afford to do that. VanderVelde asked why the company could not go down eight blocks and out of the city. Ardells stated that that would not parallel that circuit. Knight observed that all the alternatives still run to the substation. VanderVelde asked how much cost and increased advantage in reliability would result. Ardells stated that he did not have the figures but it would be expensive to construct a 161 kilowatt terminal. Slager stated that the substation D terminal could be changed. Ardells stated that it would not be changed but would rather they would drop in the transformer. VanderVeld remarked that she was concerned at the tremendous cost borne by the people along the railroad. VanderVelde commented that it might be worth one dollar a day not to see a 10 or 11 story high pole in your yard. Ardells asked the Board to consider the other people who would see double circuiting outages. Slager asked if residences were affected along the Highway 6 Bypass. VanderVelde asked how far south of Iowa City the company would have to go to avoid residences. Knight stated that several miles south of Highway 6 were still scattered residences. It was also a fairly dense in residences several miles to the south. Vanderhoef stated that the major problem was the height of the poles and asked how high the poles would be if the alternative route was used. Callahan stated that the poles would then be between 75 and 80 feet tall. The reason the poles are so tall along the railroad was due to the overpasses and the elevation. The rough terrain down the city street, similar to Benton Street, warranted a 75 to 80 foot tall pole. Knight stated that the poles would be sitting down in an area 20 feet below grade of the railroad. Callahan commented that persons could not tell much difference between 100 to 80 feet poles. VanderVelde stated that she was unsure whether or not necessity had been proved, and that she was not sure that the risk could not be met by the people turning off the power on their air conditioners. Both Vanderhoef and Barker commented that people did not do that. Slager stated that there were two sides to the necessity issue brought up; Iowa - Illinois said that the lines were necessary but they haven't satisfied the ratepayers with figures. Slager stated that she sees the immediacy of the need with discussion of the load in outages and one must try to balance these issues. VanderVelde observed that she would be less concerned if the company could make some amelioration available to persons whose view becomes poor due to the lines. Haack noted that the utilities could not discriminate in that manner. Barker suggested that the tower be painted brown to resemble trees, commenting that the advantage to tall poles is that one did not see the top. Vanderhoef stated that he saw where the lines would be necessary, both economically and functionally. VanderVelde stated that she hated to see 11 story lines go through the city. Vanderhoef reminded VanderVelde that the question was of necessity. VanderVelde stated that the Board had no numbers on the probability and the risks involved I14ICROFILIIED BY 1.I -JOR M -MIC ROLAB'� L % CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MINES I � Board of Adjustment r January 12, 1983 Page 23 if the project was not completed. Vanderhoef asked if VanderVelde could interpret such figures if she had them and VanderVeld answered affirmatively. Vanderhoef stated that he could not and must rely on expert testimony. Vanderhoef asked what the 118.5 load meant and was told it referred to peak load. In terms of overload, Vanderhoef asked what this meant. Ardells stated that this meant 88 megawatts. Vanderhoef stated that 88 megawatts was not enough to carry that load where 118.5 was needed. As far as forecasting, Vanderhoef asked how closely the utilities were regulated. Vanderhoef stated that companies often have to overstate their needs at an upper level. If, however, they stated them at a lower level and a more immediate need, the employees would lose their jobs if these figures were not accurate. Vanderhoef stated that there were different types of forecasting. The weather forecaster in Cedar Rapids forecasts the weather in the area more accurately than could a Florida weatherman forecast Mid -West weather. Vandervelde stated that she would be more comfortable if she saw the evidence the forecast was based on. Vanderhoef questioned who was willing to cut the demand until they have to due to increased costs. Vandervelde stated that many people would be willing. Vanderhoef commented that the majority of persons living here do not care about demand until they have to pay too much money. Vanderhoef stated that people would not respond to conservation programs. VanderVelde pointed out the effects of the recession on costs, stating that ;when people are hit in the pocketbooks they conserve. Slager asked if VanderVelde was bothered by the lack of figures. Vanderhoef asked what VanderVelde required. VanderVelde stated that she required reliability figures since the purpose of the transmission lines was based on reliability. VanderVelde commented that random happenings due to nature could not be prevented but questioned whether or not Iowa City would have any more outages without these transmission lines. VanderVelde stated that there must be a balance against.the certainty of the presence of the poles and the expected probability of these projected outages. VanderVelde further stated that she believed the poles would devalue the surrounding property. Vanderhoef asked if the Benton Street transmission poles devalued the property. Barker stated that they did not as development had occurred there. Barker further stated that power lines increased the value of the property as it caused and allowed increased activity. VanderVelde commented that the Board would not see the conversion of single family homes to nine-plexes in this area and that these transmission poles would not produce development. Slager stated that she did not agree that these poles could cause property devaluation. VanderVelde commented that if one had a choice between houses exactly alike but for the poles in front, one would chose the house without the poles. Slager stated that one must look at this as equal properties at an equal price. VanderVelde stated that it was almost a given that the construction of a quasi -industrial usage would devalue the price of the property. Slager stated that one could take either side as there was no factual proof on the issue of devaluation. Barker commented that this project would call for a pole every "football field" and there would be one unlucky house out of thirty. VanderVelde stated that everyone would see the lines. Barker remarked they would only see the lines if they looked up. Slager agreed that there were not facts for necessity. Slager stated that the Board has received testimony under oath and this was not his commentary. Slager observed that this company was saying under oath that these lines were necessary. ` 141CROFILMED BY D 1 ORM-MIC R41CAB- CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES I Board of Adjustment '` I January 12, 1983 Page 24 Barker remarked that these guys are electricians and they want to put in a "jumper wire." The other guys (the Ratepayers Association) are treating this project as if Iowa -Illinois wanted to build a generating station in the middle of the city. There is some evidence that Iowa -Illinois' gueses have not been too hot and one must watch that. However, this is a major policy decision and is not tied as much to necessity as it is to reliability. If the company did not think that was a concern they wouldn't be here. Barker stated that the company was looking at the station and saying that the lights will go out next summer if it is hot. Maybe not if its cool but... Barker stated that he was prepared to support the motion. 'Knight referred to page two of the staff report, stating that the Board should also consider that granting a special exception will not permit any use of the land which would be in conflict with the uses permitted in the RIB and R2 zones under the terms of the ordinance. Knight commented that the lines were not necessarily incompatible but nor were they complimentary and the question of impact should be considered. i VanderVelde asked how high the power poles along Benton Street were and was told between 75 and 80 feet. VanderVelde then stated that these new poles would be the tallest ones in the City and was told that was correct. Slager stated that she was not bothered by the height of the pole. Vanderhoef stated that that was the only part of the project that bothered him. VanderVelde stated that she would prefer that all power cables be underground and stated that this is a residential area and should not even have a railroad and that perhaps the City should look at phasing out the railroad. However, once the power lines were there this becomes a quasi -industrial area. Slager disagreed stating that that was not the issue before the Board. Slager stated that, on the premise that this project is necessary, the alternative before her was the best. VanderVelde asked the company what they would do if the Board denied the exception. Haack stated that the Kirkwood route would then be the least expensive cost. Barker commented that that would be a shame. Vanderhoef stated that this was the least expensive project. VanderVelde stated that the industries using the additional electricity should be allowed to get their own generator and let them take that risk; why should the risk be on the residential neighborhood. Slager stated ' that she has discussed the cost of burned out compressors due to power outages and that there were many appliance problems; the cost to a residential area is larger than what has been presented. Boyle referred to Section 14.8F of the City Code, stating that the company is obligated to furnish in reasonable quantities and are required to provide electricity. VanderVelde questioned whether or not a backup generator could be required. VanderVelde questioned ' whether it was a better option to go down the railroad rather than the street. Slager reminded VanderVelde that testimony had been given under oath with regard to this matter. VanderVelde commented that, when testimony is just an opinion, oath makes little difference. Slager stated that the Board had also heard that reading the transformer output and input has proven the necessity for this project. VanderVelde stated that she felt that people who are overloading the system should take the risk of the system going down and Slager disagreed. Slager stated that there was not enough protection for what was needed to prevent serious possibilities. VanderVelde stated that, if this was a line that could service a new area, she would agree there was a need; however, since this was just a need for a backup it may not be worth it to the people whose land will be effected. Slager stated that these issues had to be balanced. Vanderhoef commented that economically, this line was cheaper but the issue came down to aesthetics. VanderVelde stated that one primary concern should be land use matters and these were major power lines that were not the same as those running down the street. Bickford commented again about the two foot ditch in the back yard stating that the lines just a mile south would be less noticeable. GAP. MICROFILMED BY .._1 J -, ,• JORM-MICR6LAB_ L % I CEDAR RAPIDS •DES t401RE5 ! Board of Adjustment January 12, 1983 Page 25 David Perret, 932 Oakcrest, Apt. C, stated that one of the major questions was whether or, not the Board could make an exemption for a use not mentioned in the zoning ordinance. Perret stated that the ordinance did not talk about this type of pole very specifically and urged that the Board consider this seriously. With regard to the question of necessity, Perret asked if hardship had been shown. Perret urged that the Board vote no. Slager stated that legal counsel had advised the Board that they do have the Power to grant a special exemption. Boyle stated that the Code "expressly authorizes granting special exemptions for public utilities." Perret stated that height limits may be exempted in Section 8.10.22.82 for certain uses but not specifically for utility poles. Perret stated that if the Board was telling the company that they did not need these lines based on need, then the company could assume that the Board is saying that they do not need to come back with another route. Shafford stated that if the Board said no to need they should say no to the project as there was no other satisfactory way to overcome that deficiency. VanderVelde again expressed the wish.that the Board have figures on outages and the probability of outages. Colton stated that the Board should say no to need based on this record. With regard to -the impact of expert testimony under oath, Colton stated that testimony, even if expert, is not substantial evidence on which to base a decision. Substantial evidence is a key issue. Colton stated that expert witness without figures is opinion testimony and the Supreme Court would not accept it. With regard to the reliability issue, Ardells stated that if an outage occurred without putting on these new lines, the area east of Governor Street would face an outage of eight to 20 hours. VanderVelde asked if that was the expectation. Ardells stated that he would not propose anything of this kind if he didn't feel that the matter was so serious; an outage is very serious. VanderVelde asked what industries were in that area. Vanderhoef stated that among the industries in the area were Sheller -Globe, Procter & Gamble and Owen's Brush. Ardells asserted that the probability that an outage would -happen is high. Colton commented that that testimony was self-serving. Barker called for the question and Slager seconded the motion. The Board permitted Isserman to speak. Isserman stated that necessity was not just a question of preventing outages but the question was whether it was necessary to put the power in this location. From a planning point of view this was a mixed area which could develop either way in the future. Balanced against all other alternatives should be the fact that Iowa City does not need to bear these costs by themselves. The question is are these poles necessary in that location. Isserman stated that this was not a good place and suggested that Iowa City residents would rather pay more to have an alternative location chosen. The motion to call the question passed unanimously. The amended motion to grant the special exception as required by Section 8.10.28.H.2 of the zoning Ordinance to permit construction, installation of a 161,060 volt transmission line which would run approximately from Gilbert Street to Spruce Street along the south right-of-way of the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad was approved with the stipulation that the construction of the poles not obstruct the drainage into the ditch along the railroad. The motion carried three to one; VanderVelde voted no. Barker noted for the record that the Board had selected VanderVelde chair this meeting. The consideration of the minutes of November 10, December 8 and December 9, 1982, were deferred. 1 i nlcROEILRED BY 1-.-JORM--MICR6LAO' -� CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOVIES �.� J Board of Adjustment January 12, 1983 Page 26 The next meeting was tentatively set for January 26, 1983. The meeting adjourned at 11:21 p.m. Taken by: Submitted Approved b MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FEBRUARY 16, 1983 4:45 P.M. CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Fisher, Vanderhoef, VanderVelde, Slager, Barker MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Knight, Milkman, Boyle, Siders, Kucharzak, Behrman FINAL ACTION TAKEN: 1. V-8301. The application submitted by East Iowa Development Corpora- tion for a variance to Section 8.10.24B of the Zoning Ordinance to convert property at 922 East College Street to a sorority housing 30 persons was denied. 2. V-8304. The application submitted by Casey Mahon for an appeal of the issuance of a building permit for construction at 365 Ellis Street was denied. 3. The Board of Adjustment adopted an amendment to their procedural rules as follows: Part 3. Hearing, paragraph A: "Board of Adjustment hearings are generally held at the Civic Center Council Chambers and shall be opened to the public. As a rule the Board will not begin deliberation of any item of business after having been in session for a period of three (3) hours and will adjourn after a period of four and one-half (4's) hours in session. Any remaining items of business pending a decision of the Board shall be deferred to a subsequent meeting. This rule may be waived by a majority vote of those members of the Board present." SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: VanderVelde called the meeting to order. Knight called the roll. Election of Chairperson Vanderhoef moved that VanderVelde be made chairman. VanderVelde declined. Slager moved that Barker be named chair. Vanderhoef seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Barker requested that VanderVelde act as temporary chair for this meeting as he had a sore throat. Consideration of an Amendment to the Board of Adjustment Procedural Rules VanderVelde explained the proposed amendments to the procedural rules. Barker asked if these rules were within the Board's power to adopt. Boyle stated that it was the legal staff's opinion that the rule regarding the length of the hearing was a legal rule, should the Board wish to adopt it. 1 MICROFILMED BY L."' -"DORM "MICR#LAB- % CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES i Board of Adjust It February 16, 1983 Page 2 Slager moved that the proposed amendment to Part 3. Hearing, paragraph A be adopted as follows: Board of Adjustment hearings are generally held at the Civic Center Council Chambers and shall be opened to the public. As a rule the Board will not begin deliberation of any new item of business after having been in session for a period of three (3) hours and will adjourn after a period of four and one-half (41s) hours in session. Any remaining items of business pending a decision of the Board shall be deferred to a subsequent meeting. This rule may be waived by a majority vote of those members of the Board present." Barker seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Slager moved that proposed amendments to Part 5, paragraphs A, B, C and D be adopted as drafted. Barker seconded the motion. Fisher suggested that the words "of law" be inserted after the words "conclusions" in paragraph B. Fisher asked Boyle if this was a satifactory way of recording the Board's decisions. Boyle answered affirmatively. Slager questioned how the decisions would be written. Boyle stated that it was important that the Board of Adjustment review its official written decisions and that using the minutes of the meeting was one appropriate way to accomplish that. Boyle stated that it would be necessary to make findings of fact and set forth these findings in the minutes. Siders stated that item C referred to a copy of the approved minutes, pointing out that the issuance of a permit cannot be granted until a decision has been filed. Siders i commented that it might be a month until a permit could be issued after the Board had reached a decision. VanderVelde expressed a preference of having a member of the legal staff draft the formal decision. Boyle stated that under the present circumstances, this would be impossible. Slager mentioned cases where the city staff has written up the decisions of the Board. Boyle stated that this could be further discussed. Slager suggested that this proposed amendment be deferred until it could be discussed more thoroughly and Fisher agreed. Slager moved to table the motion and Vanderhoef seconded. The motion ? carried unanimously. VARIANCE ITEMS: I i Boyle stated that there was a request for deferral in item V-8303. I j V-8303. Public hearing on an application submitted by Casey Mahon for an appeal of the issuance of a building permit for construction at 204 McLean Street. William C. Lucas, 22 East Court, representing John Nolan, holder of the building permit, requested that the Board defer this item until the next regularly scheduled meeting. Lucas stated that Mr. Nolan was ill and unable to attend the hearing. Lucas further stated that certain plans and specifications had been received by his client and they would like the opportunity to review them. Lucas asked that this item be placed first on the agenda of the next meeting. VanderVelde asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of the request for deferral. There was no further comment. VanderVelde asked if anyone would like to speak against the motion to defer and no one responded. r 141CROFILIIED BY 1 11- DORM L -"MICR<i/CAB'- -� CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES I r I I Board of Adjust It February 16, 1981 Page 3 Slager moved that item V-8303 be deferred until the next meeting. Vanderhoef seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. V-8301. Public hearing on an application submitted by East Iowa Development Corporation for a variance to Section 8.10.248 of the Zoning Ordinance to convert property at 922 East College Street to a sorority housing 30 persons. Siders corrected the address of the property owner to read 528 East College. Milkman stated that the applicants are requesting that the floor area for 3,000 square feet of lot size be increased to approximately 1,500 square feet to permit a maximum of 30 persons to reside in this dwelling. According to Section 8.10.24.8 of the Zoning Code, a minimum of 3,000 square feet of lot area must be provided for each 330 square feet of total floor area in the rooming house in an R3 zone. According to the Zoning Code Interpretation Panel's interpretation of this section, this does not mean that only 677 square feet of the floor area in the building could be used for a rooming house, but rather the 677 square feet will determine the number of persons permitted to reside in the rooming house. This number is determined by the provisions of Chapter 17 (Housing) of the Code of Ordinance=_. Although at present no plot plan has been filed and no detailed analysis of the house plan is available, it is clear that even under "ideal" conditions a maximum of only 16 persons could be housed in the 677 square feet of floor area. (This number is calculated by using the minimum amount of floor area, 40 square feet, required per person in a rooming house.) Milkman described the zoning of the surrounding area in the College Hill area and reviewed the recent downzoning history. Milkman stated that the property at 528 E. College is currently classified as a single-family dwelling. Milkman pointed out that the request was complicated by the fact that both the Zoning Code and the Housing Code were involved. She further explained that the building permit has not yet been denied because no plot plan or detailed plan has been submitted due to the economic costs of preparing a plan prior to a decision by the Board of Adjustment. VanderVelde requested that Milkman explain the density of development allowed in the R3, R3A and RNC -20 zone. Milkman explained, stating that the applicants wished to double the permitted density. Milkman commented that the intent of the downzoning was to prevent the continuing increase in density. However, one of the problems with the R3 zone was that although sorority houses are -a permitted use, a very large lot would be required in order to comply with the density requirements of the zone. Milkman argued that conversion of 528 E. College to a sorority housing more than the number of persons permitted by the R3 zone would directly increase the density of the neighborhood and have adverse effects, in terms of additional traffic and noise, on surrounding properties. Granting of this variance would in effect rezone this property to RX Milkman stated that the applicants claim hardship in terms of a severe economic loss if they are unable to convert this property to use as a sorority house. However, the applicants purchased the property during the moratorium and petitioned against its downzoning during the period of the J i 141CROFILMED BY JORM-MICR(JLA9- , CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES J Board of Adjus' It February 16, 19bs Page 4 moratorium. They were, therefore, aware downzoned. The property can be converted to house. Unnecessary hardship is therefore staff's recommendation that the variance Zoning Ordinance not be granted. that the property might be two duplex units or a rooming not indicated and it is the to Section 8.10.24.8 of the David A. Smith, 1908 Mississippi Boulevard, Bettendorf, spoke in favor of granting this variance request. Smith stressed that the property in question was an existing structure that was not being expanded but rather renovated. Smith pointed out that one of the points in the moratorium was to reduce demolition of existing buildings and their replacement with new construction. Smith argued that the downzoning of this property from R3A to R3 constituted spot rezoning as it did not in effect change the existing or surrounding area. .Smith stated that the property was zoned to allow sorority uses but it was not feasible due to Section 8.10.24.8. Smith further asserted that because of the property's close proximity to College Hill Park, which has zero density, the variance would not affect the overall density as much as it would for a house in the middle of the block. Smith explained that this would be a predominately Jewish sorority and it was desirable to have it in close proximity to the synagogue. During purchase negotiations, the applicants were aware of the moratorium but had determined that sorority uses were allowed. Smith stated that because of this fact, he was under the impression that this property could be converted to a sorority house. Smith suggested that sororities and fraternities be considered as alternatives to University housing and not categorized with public housing and rooming houses. He emphasized the fact that he would be renovating an historic building and not demolishing it and replacing it with new construction. Smith stated that he did not expect a traffic problem, as only four persons currently have cars in this sorority. Smith questioned how he could expect a reasonable return on his investment, since the "return on a duplex or rooming house would not justify any kind of investment in renovation. VanderVelde pointed out that, as petitioner, the applicant must provide evidence that they could not receive reasonable return on their property. Smith stated that he would need $1,850 per month to meet the amortization payments over a period of five years on the property. He argued that a rooming house or a duplex would not yield that much money. Fisher asked if the $1,850 was a mortgate payment. Smith stated that it was a contract payment and a downpayment was not included in that figure. In addition, between $50-$60,000 was needed for renovation. A good portion of this money would be used to bring the wiring and plumbing of the house to Code. Fisher commented that the property could be resold to someone else. Smith argued that the property value was less as zoned at R3 than it was zoned at R3A because of the reduction in permitted density. Fisher asked if what Smith had paid was based on the value of the property as zoned R3A and Smith replied affirmatively. Slager asked when the property had been purchased. Smith indicated that he had signed a binding contract on October 8, 1982. VanderVelde asked if this was after the adoption of the R3A zone. Milkman commented that it was before the adoption but during the moratorium. IMICROFILMED BY 1' "DORM -MIC R4 L AB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES I ff W11 , , Board of Adjust It February 16, 1983 Page 5 I Marcia Roggow, 304 E. Burlington Street, spoke in favor of granting the variance. Roggow stated that the offer to purchase was written subject to two conditions: signing a contract with the sorority, and verification that a sorority would be allowed at that location. Roggow emphasized that this contract had not been entered into haphazardly. She stated that the conditions had been withdrawn because the sorority had signed a binding contract and because the City had verified that a sorority would be allowed in this zone. Roggow stated that the applicant was under the impression that they were clear to withdraw the contingencies and purchase the property. One week later, a new section of the code adopted in 1981 was pointed out to them. That particular section of the code (Section 8.10.24.8) caused the applicant to be unable to convert the building in question into a sorority. j Roggow pointed out that a standard dormitory room allows 70 square feet including the bed, closet and sink. In most sororities, 70 square feet is a lot of space. Roggow stated that 40 square feet would be allowed per iperson which would result in 100 square feet of living area. VanderVelde asked if that was the amount of floor area dedicated to bedroom space. Roggow answered that 2,000 square feet or so would be allowed for bedroom space. Roggow stated that the sororities were unique living situations and should r be in a different category from rooming houses. She explained that the Cfigures used to derive floor space for a rooming house were derived from surveys in Cedar Rapids, Des Moines and Waterloo but not Iowa City. The uniqueness of this case lay in its close proximity to campus. Roggow stated that she did not foresee a parking problem because of the location of the site. VanderVelde asked if there would be any attempt to limit the ownership of cars. Roggow stated that something could be written into the lease. Roggow again pointed out that the applicant would have to pay $1,837 per month over a five year amortization, and argued that she did not know of a duplex bringing in more than $550 per month. Roggow stated that the amount of renovation planned would increase the tax value and benefit the neighborhood, whereas, if this was to be just a rooming house, it would merely be brought up to code. Roggow stated that Smith has restored other properties to their original beauty. Roggow pointed out that the j University of Iowa was anticipating an enrollment of 33,000 persons and the number of pledges to sororities have grown significantly since the dormitories are crowded. Nine other sorority houses are in the moratorium area and cannot add to their building. Roggow claimed that this created a hardship on all sororities. Roggow stated that, if students were forced in large masses to the outer extremities of the city, this would in turn force those people to drive downtown and to seek parking close to the inner city. Roggow stated that Smith would provide off-street parking and asked that the variance be granted. VanderVelde commented that, while 70 square feet per student was provided in the dormitories, Smiths sorority would provide only 66 square feet per student. i - r 141CROFIL14ED BY 1 JORM -MICR6LAB- ' LCEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES 1 Board of Adjus nt February 16, 1989 Page 6 Milkman stated that a letter had been received from Lorna L. Mathes, P.O. ` Box 1422, Iowa City, in support of this variance. Tracey Schmidt, vice-president of the Sigma Delta Tau sorority, spoke in favor of granting a variance. Schmidt stated that the sorority residents would be willing to limit the number of cars allowed and urged that the variance be granted, as a sorority needs a house to exist. Dorothy Moeller, 623 E. College, spoke in opposition to the variance. Moeller stated that she has lived in the area since 1946 and was one of a group of many neighbors who have been working very hard to control density and preserve the historic character of the neighborhood. These efforts ended with the downzoning in December. Moeller stated that the downzoning represents three years of citizen input and serious efforts over an extended period of time within the governmental framework by the neighbors. Moeller stated that increasing densities threatened the integrity of the community and resulted in a loss of green space, an increase in traffic, an increase in noise and an increase in competition for on -street parking. Moeller suggested that the construction of the i hotel/department store parcel would add to these parking problems. Moeller noted that the neighbors' effort had resulted in a recommendation by the Planning & Zoning Commission as well as the City Council for a downzoning. Although the final downzoning was a compromise between the ideal comprehensive plan and the existing development, the neighbors could live with that happily. Moeller urged that the variance be denied. Margaret Nowysz, 1025 River, stated that she was an investor in the College Hill neighborhood and was interested sted in a good real esti, a investment and investment in structures with integrity. Nowysz stated that apparently the East Iowa Development Corporation and the sorority were interested in the same thing. Nowysz stated that the sorority would be an asset to the neighborhood only if it were considered an appropriate structure. Nowysz was confident that the property could sell for a substantial profit as similar structures had sold for a greater price. She expressed the opinion that decreased values were caused by neglect and high density. Nowysz opposed the rezoning to R3A and urged that the variance request be denied. Sherman Paul, 903 E. College, spoke in opposition to the variance. Paul j stated that the comprehensive plan dated May 30, 1978, showed a density of 8 to 16 dwelling units per acre. The current zoning allows 14.5 dwelling ' units per acre which is within the comprehensive plan's recommendation. The variance would have the effect of a rezoning to permit 44 dwelling units per acre and would be contrary to the comprehensive plan. Donald MacFarlane, 943 Iowa, stated that this was the wrong sort of house to house 30 people. MacFarland asked if the effect of rezoning this property to R3A would allow demolition. Milkman explained that this was not a rezoning but a variance to current zoning. Milkman stated that the effect of granting a variance would increase the density to R3A. MacFarlane expressed concern that the property could be demolished. Knight stated that this was a specific request for a specific action and it would not allow demolition. MacFarlane asked that the variance be denied. r MICROFILMED BY L ` 1_ JORM IDS DES I O CEDAR RAPIDS DES MIYES I � i A i � Board of Adjust .It February 16, 1983 Page 7 George McCormick, 230 E. Fairchild, described the parking situation in the area. McCormick stated that it would be impossible to get a guarantee from the residents not to own cars and there was not enough space on the lot to provide adequate parking. McCormick cited parking problems from both the residents and the visitors as the reasons for his opposition to the variance. McCormick questioned what would happen if the sorority went off campus in the future and wondered if the variance would run with the land. George Swisher, 805 E. Washington, pointed out that it was not just 30 residents with no parking spaces that created parking problems, but visitors with cars as well. Swisher questioned how any restrictions on car ownership would work. Swisher commented that speculative ventures are often subject to hardship. Swisher recommended the denial of the variance. I Jeff Cox, 112 S. Dodge Street, pointed out that the Planning & Zoning iCommission and the City Council had by unanimous vote acted to downzone the area. Cox stated that this neighborhood cannot continue to absorb more people and more cars. Cox urged that the variance be denied. Letters were received in opposition to the variance from Byron and Kay Burford, 113 S. Johnson, and Paul Papa", 613 E. College Street. A letter was also received from Mrs. Olive Farr, E. E. College Street, in opposition to the variance. i Smith addressed the issues raised by the neighbors. He stated that the code, provides for the number of parking spaces per square feet. Ten spaces would be required although this would not be a restriction as far as how many cars could be owned by the residents. However, Smith pointed out that a rooming house with 16 people could possibly create even a higher number of cars than that created by "related persons" in the sorority. VanderVelde questioned the use of the term "related." Smith explained that sororities and fraternities considered themselves to be a "family type of situation" and car sharing was expected. Smith further stated that a variance would only last as long as the use was in existence. Boyle stated that the variance was attached to the property I itself and would run with the land. Under the Code, a sorority is considered a rooming use; if another use that was not allowed in the zone was proposed, then the variance wouldn't apply. With regard to the comment on speculative ventures, Smith stated that one would expect to at le-ast come out even or show a profit for a venture. Smith stated that his company was not a non-profit company. He explained that his company had tried hard to research this venture and was not trying to take advantage of any person or any group. Smith argued that he was trying to accommodate the sorority and the sorority needed to own a house to remain viable. Smith pointed out that some rooming houses are in dilapidated condition and do not enhance the neighborhood; this may be the applicant's only alternative should the request for a variance be denied. In referring to the floor plans, Boyle asked if the applicant was aware that each dwelling room required individual access without going through another room. Smith stated that he was aware of this fact and pointed out L.-i MICROFILMED BY - , ,-, •`` 11" _-JORM._.-MIC R�fLAB... ._i CEDAR RAPIDS DES t401nES I I Board of Adjus' It February 16, 190,E Page 8 that the renovation plans would try to maintain the structure as it exists as much as possible, Boyle asked if Smith had appeared before the City Council regarding these issues. Smith stated that he had, prior to the adoption of the moratorium, and requested that this property be excluded from the downzoning. Boyle asked if Smith had discussed with the City Council his earlier discussions with the City staff. Smith stated that he had, expressing a preference not to bring that up at this time. Boyle asked if it was true that the City Council had stated that they did not feel the City staff had been misleading. Smith stated that was the case. Boyle asked if Smith had entered into a contract and waived the conditions prior to that time. Smith answered affirmatively, stating that he had had a number of signed leases at that time. Milkman asked if a copy of the plan was available. Smith stated that a detailed plan had not been prepared because problems had been encountered. VanderVelde asked where the proposed parking would be located. Smith said that this would be located on the east side and a drive through from Johnson to College Street would be provided. VanderVelde questioned if the parking in the corner would be in compliance with the front yard setback. Smith stated that the parking would be on the east side of the house. Siders stated that he has not yet seen the plot plan but parking in the front yard would be prohibited. The placement of parking in the side yard or the rear yard parking would be allowed. Boyle stated that it was clear that the side yard to the east was considered a front yard. Siders stated that parking would be allowed between the street side and the building but not in the required front yard. Larry Baker, 521 S. Dodge, questioned the possible setting of a precedent if a variance was granted. Baker stated that this process could be continued piecemeal and would constitue spot zoning. Baker asked how the Board viewed its precedent setting power. Emily Rubight, 828 E. Washington, of the Alpha Chi Omega sorority, stated that she was sympathetic with the neighborhood but would like to see the Greek system enlarged. Rubight argued that this could not happen unless suitable housing was found. If this property is judged suitable, she would like to see it used as a sorority rather than another use. Rubight argued that this would be a high grade use of the land as money would be invested to keep it in excellent condition. The Greek houses provided much more than the State Code required and more sorority houses were needed on campus. There were not many places suitable for sororities and Rubight did not consider a sorority as an unkind use to the neighborhood. VanderVelde stated that the area was now zoned to allow 16 persons and wondered if it was possible to have a sorority for that many members. Smith stated that it was possible but it might take many more people to cover the cost of the renovation. Knight commented that actions of the Board in granting variances are not precedent setting but viewed on a cast -by -case basis. Boyle reaffirmed this fact. i 1 , a MICROFILI4ED BY r I JORM --MIC R;LAB' CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES I 6t)0 J - j 1 Board of Adjus' it February 16, 19aa Page 9 Vanderhoef asked if the City has addressed the Greek system as other than a rooming house or a dorm. Boyle stated that there was no distinction from the city's standpoint between a sorority, fraternity or a rooming house. Vanderhoef asked if there was aiiy tendency to rethink that classification and Boyle stated that he was not aware of any such possibility. Fisher stated that it was not clear that there was a hardship established by comparing the rent per month to the amortization over a period of five years; surely the applicant does not expect to pay off his investment over five years. Fisher suggested that any hardship was self-inflicted, as the applicant purchased a property that they knew was soon to be downzoned. i Boyle pointed out that self-inflicted hardship does not qualify under the standards of the ordinance or the state code; undue hardship must be shown. Slager moved that a variance be granted to Section 8.10.24.8 of the Zoning Ordinance to covert the property at 528 East College Street to a sorority housing 30 persons. Vanderhoef seconded the motion. Slager stated that she was in sympathy with the sororities' and fraternities' problem but felt that granting a variance would not be carrying out the intent of the ordinance or the intent of the downzoning. Slager stated that she would like to see sororities and fraternities located elsewhere but agreed that the rules governing the number of persons allowed to be housed in a sorority would, in this case, require an unreasonable amount of land. Vanderhoef asked if the City staff would care to comment on where fraternities and sororities could go to solve this problem. Boyle stated that they could raise this issue with the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission. Knight stated that the land area problems had been specifically raised in regard to the R3 zone; there were not many areas zoned R3 left in Iowa City. VanderVelde stated that she was more concerned because of the recent rezoning which signified intent of the City -Council in acting to downzone the property to RNC -20. VanderVelde stated that this was the type of issue which should be raised in a legislative process and the Board should not change the results of that process. The motion failed unanimously. i I The meeting recessed at 6:26 and reconvened at 6:35 p.m. V-8302. Public hearing on an application submitted by J. Patrick White for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance to permit occupancy of the main structure at 523-525 West Benton Street as a multi -family three -unit dwelling. ' Knight stated that the applicant is requesting the Board's consideration of one of the following alternatives: 1) "... that an exception be granted to permit occupancy of the main structure on the subject property as a multi -family three -unit dwelling." or 2) that "an exception be granted to allow submission of a PAD (planned area development) on this Gcr 00 141CROFILIIED BY I ` 1 f JORM' MIC ROL,40- CEDAR RAPIDS DES I401NE5 i I .� Board of Adjust,. .t February 16, 1983 Page 10 parcel which is less than two acres in size for the purpose of requesting City Council approval of retention of the existing structure as a multi- family use of up to four units." Although the applicant uses the word "exception," the Iowa City Zoninc Ordinance does not provide for granting an exception of this nature. Instead, a variance would have to be granted to permit dither of the above alternatives. For the first alternative, a variance to Section 8.10.21.D.6 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding nonconforming uses is needed. For alternative two, a variance to Section 8.10.20 of the Zoning Ordiannce regarding the planned area development minimum size requirement of two acres is necessary. Knight stated that this property was under two acres. Knight explained that the applicant claims that "...the building is not designed nor readily adaptable as a single family dwelling." It existed and remains constructed as a three-family dwelling with each of three floor levels built to accommodate a separate family unit. However, City records indicate that in early 1967, the use of 525 West Benton Street was converted to a duplex. Knight stated that use as a multiple unit permits a greater return on the property, however, not being able to obtain the highest return on a property does not constitute hardship. In fact, the structure has been put to a use which appears to have provided a satisfactory return since 1978. Knight further explained that the reclassification of this use to a conforming use occurred not as a result of its conversion to a conventional single family dwelling, but rather because of its use for the Headstart Program. The circumstances are therefore unique to some extent. Although a variance would result in the use of the property as a multiple dwelling, it would not alter the exterior appearance of the structure. Therefore the visual impact would probably be minimal. However, occupancy of this structure by renters would certainly alter the type of impact this property has on. the neighborhood environment. Whether this would result in a devaluation of the surrounding properties cannot be determined at this time. However, potential exists for this property to have a disruptive influence on a neighborhood if used as a multiple dwelling. Knight argued that a showing of hardship cannot be made. Further, because the owners of the property decided first to discontinue use as a multiple and then as a duplex on their own accord, any hardship claimed due to an inability to use the property as a multiple dwelling is self-imposed. In addition, issuance of a variance to permit either alternative would be contrary to the spirit of the ordinance. In the case of the first alternative, it is the intent of the ordinance to eliminate nonconforming uses over time. By permitting a non -conforming use to reestablish after a six year period (for the duplex) the Board would be acting contrary to that intent. The intent of the Planned Area Development provisions of the Zoning Ordinance are to permit innovative development which permit a more efficient use of a large scale site by permitting greater flexiblity in the terms of the zoning ordinance. This process is controlled by a plan review process involving the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. The suggested use of a planned area development on the site in question is an attempt to circumvent the use requirements of an R1B zone by using the PAD process to approve a zone which is already developed. This is clearly contrary to the intent of this procedure. Staff r'- 1 MICROFILMED BY _7 1- -DORM--MICRbLAB_- CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES J r - Board of Adjust ,t February 16, 19bz Page 11 recommends that the variance to Section 8.10.21.0.6 to permit alternative one and the variance to Section 8.10.20 to permit alternative two as requested by the applicant be denied. Knight pointed out that educational uses are allowed in the R1B zone. J. Patrick White, 330 South Clinton, applicant of record and attorney for Hoffman -Waters Realtors stated that the present owner has contracted to sell this parcel to Walter J. Foley of Iowa City subject to his ability to use the property as a multi -family dwelling. White stated that his choice of the term "exception" was by design as the main argument was uniqueness of this particular situation. White stated that it was his feeling that the term exception was more accurate as he was not seeking to change setback requirements or parking requirements. VanderVelde asked if the applicant was requesting a use variance. White stated he was unsure of the meaning of that term, commenting that he wanted the authority to use the structure as a three-family unit. VanderVelde stated that the Board could not grant an exception unless it was specifically legislated and in this case, a use variance was being requested. White stated that the property in question vias platted in 1937 and the ownership created a multiple -lot situation. Since 1946, ownership has been maintained of Lots 38, 39 and a fraction of Lot 37 and all of Lot 40. White stated that this would allow for four units if the present structure were demolished based on the lot size requirements in the R1B zone. White stated that the intent was to utilize the existing structure with a separate unit on each floor. Classification of the property has been at least at the level of a duplex or more and the city in 1966 had permitted one or two rooming units in addition`to the duplex classification. This probably brought about this configuration. White stated that it was important to consider the nature of a change of ownership and the conforming change in use. The current owner inherited the property, renting to the HACAP Head Start program. White pointed out that the rate of return from this non-profit making program was not competitive with the single family dwelling of this land size. The uniqueness of the property was due to what has occurred over the 45 years since the property was platted. White argued that this property's existence on Benton Street was an anomaly and stated that the neighborhood was not clearly a single family residential area. Within close proximity are multifamily dwellings. White stated that use of the property as a non -conforming - multi -family dwelling was not against the intent of the ordinance becuase it was a unique property in a unique situation. White asserted that it was logical to allow the property to revert back to this use; if it is the city's position that this was a duplex, that is acceptable but it is more logical to allow it to revert back to a three -unit dwelling. White explained his reasons for the unusual proposal about the PAD, stating that if there were any reservations about the Board's authority to grant a use variance, the applicants wished to offer a way to present any plans to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. White stated that alternative two of the application was another method of 1 MICROFIL14ED BY 1"-JORM--MICROLAB" CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOIYES J Board of Adjust. ,t February 16, 1983 Page ,12 facilitating the allowance of- a non -conforming use. However, White expressed a preference for granting the variance based on uniqueness. Larry Waters, 330 South Clinton Street, spoke in favor of granting the variance. Waters stated that his realty company was listing the property which had been rented for $540 a month to HACAP. Waters pointed out that this was not a reasonable return on the property but Mr. Patterson, owner of the property; had rented it as a civic responsibility to the HACAP program. HACAP had notified that they were terminating the lease last summer and that had triggered the situation at hand. Waters pointed out that this property was difficult to sell because it was not designed for a single family residence. Waters stated that he has tried to market it as a single family and now has a buyer who is interested in purchasing the property if it can be used as a multi -family dwelling. I I VanderVelde asked if a floor plan was available. Waters stated that he j did not have one to submit. Waters explained that the property had originally been built as a nursing home and then converted to a four-plex. In 1967, a bad rental year, the property owner at that time (Gibson) had not wished to bring the building up to code. He had, therefore, agreed to reduce it to a duplex classification. VanderVelde asked at what price this property would sell as a single family dwelling. Waters stated that no offers had been made but he would expect between a $30,000 to $40,000 difference in price between a single family and a multi -family residence. Barker asked if this building had been used previously as a nursing home. Waters stated that Gibson had reported that it had. Barker asked if it has been used as a four-plex and Waters stated that this was the case. Barker asked for how long it had been used as a four-plex. Waters stated that until 1967 it was used as a four-plex. In 1975 it was rented to HACAP. Kenneth Cooper, 600 West Benton Street, spoke in opposition to the variance. Cooper cited problems with parking cars as his reason for the opposition. Cooper stated that problems existed now with HACAP cars backing out of the driveway as well as parking problems. Cooper explained that he lived at his property for 23 years and stated that he was worried that his property would be devalued if 'the variance was granted. Although Cooper agreed that multi -family units were located to the west of the area, he expressed the concern that noise problems would result if this property was rented to students. Cooper commented that he believed that the persons at this property had been parking illegally in their front yard for many years. Cooper submitted a petition from over 44 residents of the area of ressethe concernthat oheoand his tneighbor�s wouldhbevdriveneoutarianc.Cofptheooer oneighborhood by the problem created by a multi -family residence in a single family residence zone. Ruth Baker, 515 West Benton, spoke in opposition to the variance. Baker Pointed out that a case for hardship had not been made. Baker stated that the property had a single car driveway and that no parking was allowed on C BI- r i 141CROFILI4ED BY JORM MICR6LA8_-_ -� CEDAR RAPIDS • DES'MOINES 1 / II I Board of Adjus; It r February 16, 1983 Page 13 Benton Street. Baker argued that parking problems would be created by the granting of this variance. Sadie S. May, 612 West Benton, spoke in opposition to this variance. May stated that she had lived at her property since 1958 and her home was her single most important material investment. May commented that she had seen the area become more complex due to more apartments and the increased traffic. May pointed out that the westward surmount and the eastward decline on Benton Street was very dangerous especially in times of rain and snow. May urged that the Board not add to the traffic problems and parking problems in the neighborhood and requested denial of the variance. Joan Tucker, 1022 Hudson, expressed support for their neighbors in their ...__ ._ opposition to this variance, commenting that she would like to keep the single family character of the neighborhood. I Merle Trummel, 314 West Beonton, stated that he had resided in the area since 1950. Trummel stated that the area consisted of relatively modest housing and was a very nice neighborhood. Trummel stated that the area was relatively stable although it has been necessary to attend Planning and Zoning Commission meetings as there was a tendancy to divert this area to other uses. Trummel stated that this variance was requested for an area surrounded entirely by single family zoning and requested that the variance be denied. Trummel argued that he did not feel that it met the requirements of a variance and it would change the nature of the single family neighborhood. Donna Launspach, 701 Miller Avenue, spoke in opposition to the variance, j stating she would like to keep the single family residences. Launspach expressed concern about multifamily parking on Miller Street as no parking was allowed on Benton Street. White stated that he took no issue with the sentiments expressed and suggested that the requested variance might potentially improve the traffic and parking problems in the area. White stated that nothing new was being created, merely the variance was to request to revert back to a previous use. White commented that the photographs provided by staff were not representative of the lot size behind the main structure as there were i sufficient amount of open space where off-street parking could be provided. Vanderhoef moved that a variance be granted to Section 8.10.21.D.6. to permit use of the main structure as a multiple three -unit dwelling. Slager seconded the motion. Slager asked if the other structure on the tract was occupied by HACAP and Waters replied that it was rented as a single family dwelling. Barker stated that he was pursuaded by the prior character of use to find uniqueness in the conversion. Barker stated that it was a unique situation if the prior owner converted the property for use as a school. This is an important human function and Barker stated he would like to see that property owner kept from being penalized from performing that civic duty. I MICROFILMED BY - 11_ - JORM--MICR6L-A B % CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES •l 1 i J Board of Adjust it ' February 16, 1983 Page 14 Fisher asked'if it was within the Board's power to grant a variance to a duplex status rather than it's immediately prior use. Barker stated that the duplex status was not in compliance but the Board could consider any action. A duplex would still be nonconforming in this area. Siders stated that, to consider a duplex would also require the same test of hardship. VanderVelde asked how these buildings were situated on the lots. VanderVelde commented that, if Lot 40 was actually open, then a building could be built on Lot 40 without a variance. Siders stated that he had no plot plan for this property. Slager commented that the Board had no evidence to know if parking could be provided. White stated that Lot 40 was presently vacant and large enough to have a _ .. house without problems with the Zoning Ordinance. VanderVelde asked if the option was to use the existing structure with a variance or to sell off Lot 40 and build a single-family home. Fisher commented that granting a variance would not preclude buiilding a single-family residence on Lot 40. White stated that it was his view that a variance would preclude such an action. Boyle stated that the Board could condition the variance upon no further use of Lot 40 and that would be binding on subsequent purchasers of the lot. Barker agreed, stating that the Board was being asked to grant a specific request for that tract of land. White stated that the main building covers parts of Lots 38 and 39. However, a slightly different configuration would allow two other single family dwellings. Slager asked if there was a house on the south side of Lot 40 and was told that it was vacant. Slager questioned how much space was available between the buildings to the edge of Lot 40. White explained. Siders stated that a house could probably be built on Lot 40 since the property was probably subdivided prior to the ordinance adoption which made it a nonconforming lot of record. Fisher asked if it was the owner's intention to build parking in the rear of the building. White stated that it was their intention and the Board could condition the approval of the variance on providing off-street parking. VanderVelde asked if the building permits could indeed be issued for non- conforming lots of record. Boyle stated that he thought building a single-family house would be allowed. White stated that Lot 37 was 25 feet wide and the total frontage from the corner to the lot line was 125 feet. VanderVelde asked if the Board could defer this item until more specific facts regarding the description of the lot and the floor plan of the house could be submitted. VanderVelde commented that the neighbors might wish to consider the alternative to granting a variance. Siders cited Section 8.10.355.8 defining a nonconforming lot, stating that this is a nonconforming lot relevant to the width requirement. Siders further cited Section B.10.21.C,i, regarding nonconforming lots of 6 Pf • rte- _—�–_. ... .- � l 14ICROFILIIED BY —• - 11.9 1 _ L ` ' CORM MIC R1LA1 ' % LEDAR RAPIDS DES'MOINES i / ! \ I \r Board of Adjust. .t February 16, 1983 Page 15 records and stated that issuance of a building permit would be allowed and the property owner would have to adhere to the applicable requirements but a single family structure could be built. Boyle cited Section 8.10.21.C.i(3), stating that the applicant could not build a single family dwelling because all the land was under one ownership. Vanderhoef stated they could replot the property. Siders stated that in an R1B zone 60 feet buildable width was required but only 35 feet of frontage was required. VanderVelde asked if this property could be replatted. Boyle stated that it could be replatted via the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. Barker commented that he felt they could replot the property without the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation. White stated that the applicant could convey lot 40 by adding the requisite amount of property to the other lot, but that was not their intent. Boyle commented that the applicant could not sell off property necessary for the present use. Vanderhoef asked Cooper if the variance would be objectionable to the neighbors if parking problems were solved for this property. Cooper stated that he still had a problem with a mulLi-family usage in a single family zone. Trummel questioned if this property could be enlarged if the variance was granted. Cooper questioned whether there was enough room to build two houses. Barker suggested that the Board request the site plans and other specifics and defer this item until its next meeting. White agreed that a request to defer action to allow the submission of, specific plot plans, a proposed parking scheme and a set of floor plans would be acceptable. VanderVelde asked for a legal opinion on the ability of the applicants to use this property by selling off a portion of it and what the nonconforming lot of record situation is. Barker moved to table the motion and Vanderhoef seconded it. The motion carried unanimously. Vanderhoef moved that this item be deferred until a meeting scheduled for March 2 at 4:45 PM. Slager seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. i Barker moved to waive the new rule of the Board not to hear any new item of business after having been in session for a period of three hours. Vanderhoef seconded the motion. I i Angela Ryan, 122 S. Linn, attorney for Casey Mahon, expressed the hope that item V-8304 would be heard tonight. John Cruise, 19 Forest Glen, attorney for Mike Furman, also urged that the Board continue this item. The motion carried 4-1; VanderVelde abstained. VanderVelde stated that during the course of the public hearing the Board would consider only the building permit issues and not any rezoning iissues. I 69S 11ICROFILVED BY 1.l . . 'DORM 'MIC RO[:'![e"` ' CEDAR RAPIDS • DES 1401:lES ! 71 i Board of Adjust �It February 16, 19bs Page 16 The meeting recessed at 7:50 PM and reconvened at 7:59 PM. V-8304. Public hearing on an application submitted by Casey Mahon for an appeal. of the issuance of a building permit for construction at 365 Ellis Street. Slager excused herself from the hearing due to a conflict of interest. Knight reviewed the staff report, stating that a new plot plan for parking had been submitted and that currently the foundation and a half -floor was in place at the property. Boyle asked Dick Frantz, Building Inspector, to come forward and respond to questions. The following questions were directed by Boyle to Frantz: 1. Please state your name and address - Dick Frantz, Building Inspector, Riverside, Iowa. 2. By whom are you employed? - By the City of Iowa City for the past five years, 3. Please describe your job - I am a building inspector. 4. Please explain what that entails - As a building inspector I am a plan checker. 5. Does this involve plans which are involved with building permits - Yes. 6. Please review this process. What are the specific types of permits with which you are involved - I am involved with all residential and some commercial building permits. . 7. Please describe these tasks in a general fashion - I review blueprints, plot plans, legal descriptions, and other documents. 8. Does this review include looking for compliance with the Building Code - Yes. 9. Does this review involve looking for compliance with the Zoning Code - Yes. 10. Specifically, what is looked for - I check the zone and the type of structure that is going into that zone. If the zone is in compliance with the use, I look at setbacks, density, the tree ordinance regulations, parking requirements, handicap accessibility, height and restrictions on the building and floodplain applicability. 11. Did you review the building plans for the permit submitted for 365 Ellis Street - Yes. 12. When did this take' place - I received the plans on January 7, 1983 and within 2 to 3 days I started my review. I finished my review on January 11, 1983. 13. Did you find these building plans to be in compliance - Basically, yes, other than a few minor alterations I discussed with the contractor. 14. Did you review these building plans as related to handicap regulations - Yes. 15. In what way - In cases of six or more units, handicapped accessibility is required. r-. l � Id ICROFILMED BY / 1.. _JORM MtC Rd CA B �I r i [ CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES / Board of Adjust it February 16, 1983 Page 17 16. Did these plans indicate handicapped accessibility - Handicapped accessibility was not on the plans but I made the contractor aware of this. 17. Did you review parking - Yes. 18. Did these building plans comply with the zoning ordinance - Yes. 19. Did you consider whether screening was required along the rear line of the property - Yes. 20. Was screening required - No. 21. Is this shown on the plot plan - No, I considered the requirements for screening along parking spaces #8 and #15; this was considered but not required. 22. Is screening shown along the rear line - No, it is not on the plan. 23. But it is not required? - No, it is not. 24. Did you consider screening requirements for parking spaces #2, #16, #17, #18 - Screening was considered but #2 was not in that position when I reviewed the plan. Screening is not required for parking spaces #16, #17 and #18. 25. Is there adequate space for parallel parking for spaces #16, #17 and #18 for parking and exiting those spaces - Yes. 26. How much space is shown - 10 feet. 27. Is the driveway to parking spaces #16 through #18 considered to be an aisle -or a drive - To the north of #16, #17, #18, I call it an aisle. 28. Why is this an aisle and not a drive - Because it is adjacent to the parking places. 29. Do the building plans comply with all requirements for which your department is responsible - Yes. 30. Did you sign this permit - Yes. 31. Did you issue this permit - No. 32. Did you consult with other members of your department - Yes. I consulted with Siders and Kucharzak. Boyle directed the following questions to Glenn Siders, Senior Building Inspector: 1. What is contained in this folder - This is the property file for 365 Ellis Street. 2. Please state your name and address and occupation - I am Glenn Siders, I live in North Liberty and I am the Senior Building Inspector. 3. Do you enforce the zoning code - Yes. 4. With regard to the parking requirements, did you review the plot plan - Yes. 5. Do they comply with the zoning ordinance - Yes. 6. Do the parallel parking spaces allow adequate ingress and egress - Yes. 7. There is a 10 foot driveway along the side. Is 10 feet adequate for parallel parked cars to get in and out of parking spaces - Yes. 8. Is there a minimum standard - No, not for Iowa City. 9. How do you determine if this is adequate - I have always determined the minimum of 10 feet to be adequate. This is like a drive and drives have a minimum standard of 10 feet. 10. Would you please describe how you interpreted screening and the question of public view - Public view is interpreted as the view from the street. 6 1 i / i j MICRoEILMED BY I L" '"JOR11i1-MIC R6LA B- --,� i CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES , .J Board of Adjust it r February 16, 1983 Page 18 11. Is this a consistent interpretation during your tenure in office - Yes. Boyle stated that he had conferred with both attornies and had asked them if they wished to swear witnesses. Both Ryan and Cruise indicated that they waived this requirement. Casey Mahon, 226 McLean, stated that she has owned a single family house since May, 1977. On Sunday, January 23 at 3:00 PM, the demolition of the structure began. Mahon stated that the next morning she was advised that no demolition permit had been obtained. Mahon commented that the single family home demolished had sold in excess of $90,000. Two live oaks had been removed and there was excavation of the site. On Tuesday, January 25, the frames for concrete footings were in the ground and no building permit had yet been granted. Late Tuesday, January 25 in the afternoon, a building permit was granted. Mahon stated that she examined the building permit on January 26 and had reviewed it with her attorney and engineer and had filed an appeal on Friday, January 28. A stop work order was issued then. Mahon stated that on February 2, the City Council had set a public hearing for downzoning. Mahon stated that work has continued on the building; at the time of her appeal only a few feet of concrete were in the ground. Mahon stated she was unsure why work has continued. Mahon stated that her concern was that this building permit as granted is in violation of the existing ordinance in that 18 parking spaces are required for 12 units. The building permit has 18 spaces but it is physically impossible for cars to gain ingress and egress to those spaces in the configuration shown. Mahon expressed concern about the construction of an overly large apartment complex on a too-small lot. Mahon cited traffic problems, children's safety and accident incidents as the reasons far her concern. VanderVelde asked what remedy was being sought. Mahon stated that revocation of the building permit was being sought. VanderVelde asked the legal consequences of such action. Boyle stated that, if the building permit was issued illegally, the building must be torn down or adapted to comply with whatever the requirements are. r I Jim Shive, Shive-Hattery, Engineer, expressed concern that three different site plans had been filed so far. Shive stated that he had seen the last two plans. Shive stated that he assumed the first one did not include any screening for parking spot #2 and assumed that the site plan was modified by somebody by adding screening to the west side.. Shive stated that after the objections were filed, a third revision in the packet was created. Shive expressed confusion at so many revisions. Siders stated that the plot plan being viewed at present was the plot plan in effect at the time the building permit was issued. That is the plot plan that is being appealed. The other plot plan in the packet is a matter of public record but not the one that is being appealed. Shive stated that the City required screening as part of the original permit along the entire west end north of parking spaces #8, #15 and east of #18. Shive stated that his approach would be to look at the problems I 1 - I_ MICROFILMED BY II 1 JORM--MICR/C4B - L % CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES I .-1 Board of Adjust t February 16, 1983 Page 19 with the layout and advise his clients to put screening on the north side of spaces #16, #17 and #18. Shive pointed out that handicapped access has to be provided for the living unit and they were told that the northwest corner of the building next to parking space #2, would provide this handicapped access. Shive commented that this would not work. Shive reviewed the physical access in and out of the parking lot, stating that it was typical to require a guardrail between parking spaces and the building. Such a rail would normally protrude 12 to 18 inches into the parking spaces and the incursion of merely one inch would render the parking requirements unacceptable. Shive argued that an existing curb encroached 6 inches into the driveway easement rendering a previous 10 _...,_ foot driveway into an 8p foot driveway. Shive referred to the third revision, stating that parking space #8 had been moved to the north and j was now adjacent to the property line. There is an easement over the north five feet for driveway purposes for the neighbor to the north; parking space 8 is comprised of 40% of the area in the easement to be used by the neighbor and this owner. Shive argued that parking space #8 could not be used because the neighbor would be allowed to use 5 feet of that spot. Shive questioned the practicality of getting automobiles in and out of parking space #9, stating that you cannot get out of parking space #9 if parking space #10 is occupied to its limits. Shive stated that this space appears on paper.but in reality could not be used. Shive submitted a sketch on a second site plan which addressed itself to the turning radius of cars. Shive discussed the turning radius of compact and standard cars pointing out that it would be impossible to get in and out of parking space #9 on the revised plan. Shive stated that various housing and residential areas in the city are currently precluded from further development due to sewer problems. Shive questioned whether this part of the city could tolerate additional densities in the sewer when other parts of the city could not. Shive submitted photographs of similar projects in the city which demonstrated the type of guardrail that encroaches into the driveway. The photographs submitted were of 521 S. Johnson Street and 632 S. Dodge. Shive stated that cars parked too tightly in parking spaces create snow removal problems as well as other problems. Fisher asked if Shive was certain that the easement extended over the back of the lot and Shive replied affirmatively. Angela Ryan, attorney for Mahon, addressed the comments that no standards existed for parking lots. Ryan stated than an important standard did exist: to provide ingress and egress of cars. Particularly with regard to parking space #9, Ryan asked the Board to envision how to get a car in and out of that space without going over the property line. Ryan argued that the intent was to have 18 real parking spaces provided on a site. Configuration on paper is not enough as these parking spaces must work. Ryan pointed out that spaces #1 and #2 were against a tree. With regard to the screening issue, Ryan stated that the parking spaces #16, #17 and #18 are in the public view from Ellis Street. Ryan argued that screening provisions did apply to these spaces. ate MICROFILMED BY � 11" -JORM-'-MICR6LAB- CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES I} r Board of Adjust It February 16, 1983 Page 20 1 Harriet Stevens, 440 Magowan, spoke on behalf of the appeal. Stevens argued that safety of children was at issue here as over 400 children per week attend classes at St. Thomas More Church. Stevens argued that increased traffic would serve as a safety hazard. I Jim Lindberg, 225 Richards, spoke on behalf of the appeal. Lindberg stated that the problem was created by crowding an excessively large apartment onto a small lot. Lindberg stated that this neighborhood has accommodated parking problems and an increased density problem. Lindberg asked about requirements for a dumpster or a trash facility, wondering where it would be placed. __. John Staley, 314 Beldon Avenue, spoke in favor of the appeal. Staley stated that there were numerous parking problems in the area. Staley questioned whether or not an emergency vehicle could gain access down the istreet, arguing that from a safety standpoint, permitting this structure as planned would be unwise. Letters in support of the appeal were received from Catherine Johnson, 242 Ferson Avenue; Yvonne McCabe, 237 Ferson; Dr. and Mrs. John Maxwell, 301 River and Sonia Ettinger, 230 Magowan. John Cruise, attorney for Mike Furman the builder, stated that his client had initiated the project and the land was zoned for the use as planned. VanderVelde asked on what day the permit had been issued. Cruise stated that the permit had been issued on January 25, 1983. Cruise stated that the building permit was in the works for a long time. The initial application had been filed on January 7, 1983 and the applicant had done everything to meet the City's requirements. Cruise commented that the building department believes that it issued a legal permit and that other City departments have found nothing in violation of the Code when reviewing this. Cruise directed the following questions to Glenn Siders: 1. You have heard statements made regarding the accessibility of parking. Does this plan meet the City requirements - Yes, in my interpretation it does. 2. Have you examined the driveway easement and does it terminate at some point - Yes, I have examined the driveway easement and yes, it j terminates at the garage to the north. 3. Isn't i•t true that parking space #8 is not on land on which the neighbor has an easement - That is correct. 4. What screening is required - Screening is required directly east of parking space #18. 5. Is this screening being provided - Yes. The City has only required screening at the east end of parking space #18. The notation says that it will be in compliance with Section 8.10.25C. The applicant is providing screening on four parts of the lot. 6. Isn't it true that before an occupancy certificate is issued, the screening must be in place - yes. i 8d `-, ! MICROFILMED BY 11- --DORM---MICR(SLAB- - 1 'j CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES r � i Board of Adjust t February 16, 1983 Page 21 7. Is is normal for changes to be made to the plot plan - yes. 8. If the parking plan was rearranged could this be done - yes. 9. However, that wouldn't be necessary in this case - that's correct. 10. The situation with regard to handicapped access - is there handicapped access to the unit itself - yes. 11. Does it meet handicapped accessibility requirements - yes it meets the code requirements. i 12. How many times did you visit the site? Personally I seldom visited the site. My field inspector does. 13. If your field inspector finds something that is not working out what is the procedure - the field inspector issues a notice of inspection ! indicating the problem. If a survey or something else is not right, he contacts the builder and brings it to his attention. j 14. Is the builder allowed to remedy that problem - yes. 15. Has this project been treated any differently - no, although there have been more frequent visits to the job site. Cruise directed some questions to Bruce Knight: 1 1. Did you investigate the issuance of this permit - yes. I 2. Did you find any violations - this plan meets the code requirements given the interpretations stated. 3. Is the Zoning Code applied to all permits equally - yes. VanderVelde asked Knight's opinion as to whether this plan meets the requirements, particularly whether or not all spaces are usable. VanderVelde asked Knight's opinion regarding the difficulty of entering parking space N9. Knight referred to the interpretation of an aisle issued by Neal Berlin dated January 17, 1983. Knight stated that the standards for aisle width set by that interpretation were being met. Given the drawings, it was difficult to assess the problems of entering parking space N9. Knight stated that, in the staff's investigation, the staff concentrated strictly on the current zoning requirements. Knight pointed out that handicapped accessibility was part of the building requirements and not under the purview of the Board of Adjustment. Siders reiterated that handicapped accessibility was not a zoning matter. VanderVelde asked for a legal opinion, asking if this board had jurisdiction under the "eras of a building inspector." Boyle stated that handicapped accessibility was enforced by the state labor board and enforceability was not a matter of the Iowa City building inspector and therefore not within the jurisdiction 60019 I MICROF IL14ED BY l -JORM -MICRbLA B'��� CEDAR RAPIDS DES MO IVES h r � Board of Adjust t February 15, 19ba Page 22 of the Board. VanderVelde questioned whether the Board could revoke the permit if no handicapped access had been provided. Boyle stated that they could not. Mike Furman, 2305 Cae Drive, builder for the property, stated that he bought the property in early November 1982. He started working on the plans for the 12-plex in December. Furman stated that he was in contact with the city building inspectors and also in contact with them simultaneously concerning the Nolan property at 204 McLean Street. Furman stated that it was his intention to build the structure in February and March but, when the Nolan situation erupted, Furman was hurried forward with his plan. Furman stated that he had taken great pains with his plan and had consulted with Cruse, Siders and Boyle every day since January 7. Furman argued that his building permit had been issued under the most intensive scruitiny that he can remember in ten years. Furman commented that, especially after the Nolan situation, he had added screening to preclude the inevitable appeal. Furman argued that he owned property zoned R3A and while it will eventually be downzoned RNC -20, he had made every effort to meet the existing code requirements. Furman commented that this was a situation of trying to meet "moving rules" and urged that the Board of Adjustment uphold his building permit. VanderVelde asked when the. building permit had been received. Furman stated that he had applied for a building permit on January 7 and had obtained a building permit at 4:04 p.m. on January 25. VanderVelde asked when Furman had started to build. Furman stated that he started building at 4:05 p.m. on January 25. VanderVelde asked if Furman had obtained a building permit. Furman stated that he had a building permit when he had demolished the home on Monday at 11:00 a.m. on January 24. Furman stated that the previous owner, Jay Stein had sold the salvage rights to persons who had until noon of Monday, January 24, to take what they wanted of the house. Furman distinguished this from demolishing the house on January 24. VanderVelde asked if salvage rights constituted demolition. Siders stated that they did not. VanderVelde questioned the meaning of salvage rights and Furman explained that this meant that windows, stoves, etc. could be removed from the premises. Fisher questioned the difference between demolition and salvage rights and Siders agreed with Furman's interpretation. Fisher commented that the salvage rights had started on January 20 and wondered what the house looked like on Monday, January 21. Furman commented that it had no floor nor windows. VanderVelde asked when Furman had learned of the appeal and Furman stated that he had learned of the appeal on either January 29 or February 1 and a stop work order had been issued on Friday, January 28. Siders affirmed that the stop work order had been posted at 2:53 p.m. on an oak tree at the property on January 28. VanderVelde asked if any further work had been done since that date. Furman stated that he had received written permission to continue some work. Siders stated that written permission had been given on February 9, 1983, to continue work to protect the work in place. VanderVelde asked what this entailed and Furman stated that a fir deck had been placed over the work. Fisher asked if basement walls had been added. Furman stated that an eight foot section left out in the front had been finished in order to deck the work. 1 MICROFILMED BY JORM--'MICROLA13 CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOIRES r I rr J Board of Adjus•, .1t February 16, 1983 Page 23 VanderVelde asked what plans were being made for garbage disposal. Furman stated that the space west of parking space #16 might be the most logical space for a dumpster. Fisher asked where handicapped access existed. Furman stated that it would be out the front door as corresponding to February 1's revised plans. VanderVelde asked how snow removal would be handled and Furman explained that snow would be pushed down to the other side of parking spot #12. Siders pointed out that handicapped access, snow removal and space for a dumpster are not regulated by the Zoning Code and therefore not in the jurisdiction of the Board. Vandervelde stated that the Board had to decide to what extent the letter of the law requires usable parking spaces and these questions have to be asked. Eleanor Johnson, 336 Beldon Avenue, asked if demolition of a garage on the property constituted demolition. Siders stated that it did but that this was regulated by the Building Code. Furman admitted that he had demolished the garage. Cruise pointed out that demolition was not at issue here. Stefan Loening, 307 Beldon Avenue, stated that he had visited the site on January 30 and the site had been prepared for construction' but no concrete had been poured at that time. Loening stated that concrete had been poured at a later date. Siders asked if it would be helpful to the Board for him to read the history of the building. VanderVelde pointed out that the Board had now met for four and one-half hours and pursuant to its rules it must adjourn unless a majority vote of those members of the Board present voted to waive that rule. Barker commented that he would not support a motion unless it stated a specific period of time in which the meeting would end. Vanderhoef moved that the hearing rule be waived until 10:00 p.m. Barker seconded the motion. VanderVelde stated that this issue was complex and she suggested abiding by the rule as she was not sure the Board could reach a just decision in the time left. VanderVelde pointed out that this matter would be heard again under item V-8303. Cruise stated that undue hardship had been imposed on his client since the appeal was filed and urged that this discussion be concluded as soon as possible. Cruise stated that there had been vandalism to.the site and the property was not fully protected. The motion carried three to one; VanderVelde voted no. Barker asked Siders to review the work order. Siders complied with this request. Siders stated that he had made a setback inspection on January 27 and had watched the builder pour the concrete wall, contrary to Loening's comments. Ryan asked Siders if the plans showed an exterior entry from the handicapped unit, Siders stated that at the northwest corner of the f i IIICROPILIdED BY 1" `JORM - MICR46LAIEBS CEDAR RAPIDS DES 1.101 ' MM -J Board of Adjus. .It February 16, 1983 Page 24 building a patio -type entry was shown. Siders stated that he had drawn parking stall #2 on the plan because a large existing evergreen was where parking space #2 has originally existed. Siders stated that he did not want the evergreen to infringe on the stall and Furman had agreed that parking space #2 could be placed adjacent to #15. Siders stated that parking space #2 could be moved to the west to be in line with parking space #15. Fisher commented that .stall #2 was now back in front of the tree. Siders stated that this was correct as Furman had moved it. In the revised plans, the handicapped accessibility is achieved to the east of the structure and not to the parking lot. Shive referred to his photocopy of the first site plan, commenting that the yellow indicated the location of screening. Siders stated that the only screening required by the city was to the east end of stall #18; the rest of the screening was provided at the discretion of the builder. Shive stated that the routine changing of site plans was not his experience particularly where every square inch of property is essential as it pertain to code compliance. Shive referred to the staff report for item V-8304 on page two, paragraph three, "it is the staff's interpretation that functionally these three parking spaces could be Part of the larger parking area to the west and would not, therefore, be exempted from Section 8.10.25C if they were determined to be in the 'public view'." Shive argued that this opened up the issue of screening. Shive further commented that it was not his position that building begins when the first concrete hits the ground. Knight explained the purpose of the section referred to by Shive stating that it was the number of parking spaces that was the issue (three rather than four). Siders stated that it -is true that when a site is excavated, one can assume there would be a building. But the issuance of a permit is not required until the structure is being constructed. Siders pointed out that anyone can dig a hole. George Thompson, 410 Beldon Avenue, asked if it was customary for the city inspector to make revisions on building plans. Siders stated that it was, stating that when he informed Furman of the problem he received permission to draw on the plans. Thompson asked how long Siders had known about the provisions for more parking requirements and design standards. Siders stated that he was obligated to enforce the Zoning Code and the Building Code and not regulations in progress. Thompson mentioned the problem of snow removal on River Street. Thompson claimed that' Furman poured the footings on the demolition permit. Siders stated that that was incorrect as he had made an on-site inspection. Thompson took exception to Furman's construction plans. Barker moved that the building permit issued to Mike Furman for the property at 365 Ellis Street as set out in item V-8304 be revoked. Vanderhoef seconded the motion. Vanderhoef commented that this was not a "real neat" plan but he was convinced that Furman had complied with the letter of the Code. The problem was that the Board was being asked to go against the letter of the code in revoking the permit. G 00 _ J MICRonu4ED BY 1.1 -,, JOR MMIC ROLAB- CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES Board of Adjust. .t February 25, 1983 Page 25 Fisher asked for a legal interpretation as to which plot plan to review. Boyle stated that the first plot plan was to be reviewed. Fisher asked if any amendments after the appeal was filed were relevant. Boyle stated that they are relevant but the first plan is the one upon which the permit was issued and which is being appealed. VanderVelde asked what standard existed for the revocation of the permit. Boyle referred to the interpretation of "public view" stating that the Board could determine if that was the correct interpretation of the Code. VanderVelde pointed out that there was no criteria for this.appeal as this was not a variance or special exception. Boyle asked the Board to decide if the interpretation rendered by the building insepctor was reasonable and if the'parking layout was in compliance and in fact accessible. Ryan agreed with Boyle's interpretation saying that the issue was whether this permit was issued properly. Ryan suggested that the Board review the building plans and if they complied, then the building permit should stand. If not, the permit should be revoked. VanderVelde stated that three issues had been raised and it was the legal opinion that handicapped accessibility or lack of accessibility was not grounds for compliance with the issuance of the building permit. Boyle referred to Section 8.10.28H-1 of the powers of the Board to interpret this chapter. Boyle stated that the powers of the Board are limited to the interpretation of Chapter 8. VanderVelde asked what the Iowa State Code Chapter 414 empowered the Board to do in this case. Boyle cited Section 414.12 of the Iowa Code and reviewed the Board's powers. VanderVelde reaffirmed that it was Boyle's interpretation that whether or not this plan conforms with state regulations providing handicapped accessibility cannot be a basis for the Board of Adjustment's decision. Boyle reaffirmed that this was not a matter over which the Board had jurisdiction. VanderVelde stated that the next issue was that of the aisles and driveway and the accessibility to the parking. VanderVelde stated that this was a troublesome case because she believes the plans comply with the letter of the law but she is unsure there is compliance with the spirit of the law. VanderVelde asked what the Board's powers were in making sure the spaces provided were usable. VanderVelde stated that, if the Board were to decide solely on the basis of the letter of law, they would have no reason not to believe that Furman has complied with the letter of the law. VanderVelde stated that she was not sure that this speaks to the purpose and the intent of the law. The builder should provide 18 usable spaces. As far as space for dumpsters and snow removal, VanderVelde commented that there might be a problem because the law does not specifically address those issues. But it is not in the public interest to have 18 cars parked in this configuration. Fisher questioned, in the absence of standards, the law of accessibility and asked who prepared the parking area dimensions on the last page of the handout. Knight explained that the Planning and Zoning Commission had 141LR0(ILMED 9Y 1, -'JORM-MICR6L:A13 1 1 CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES i I G a r J) Board of Adjust t February 16, 1983 Page 26 r-^ drafted design parking standards which have been recommended for adoption to the City Council. Knight pointed out that this was not law at present. Fisher mentioned that the new dimensions would require a 22 foot aisle. Knight stated that a 16 foot minimum aisle width was currently required and prior to the issuance of a building permit no specific standards existed. Fisher asked why a 22 foot aisle is not a reasonable standard now when interpreting accessibility. Knight explained that a 22 foot aisle is ideally what the City would like to see but the question is whether or not the spaces are accessible - no other standard existed at the time the permit was issued. Siders stated that a 22 foot aisle width is ideal adjacent to a 19 foot stall. Knight agreed that the parking design standards would reduce parking space length requirement from 20 to 19 feet; this plan provided a 16 foot aisle with two 20 foot stalls. Vanderhoef stated that there was no question why this Plan was moved ahead rapidly, commenting that Furman wanted to comply with the law and yet still do what he wanted to do. Vanderhoef questioned how the Board should I deal with the spirit of the law. Sally Staley, 314 Beldon Avenue, stated that she lived behind an apartment building that provided ample parking, turnaround and courteous distances. Staley stated that her concern was that a narrow lot that previously contained a single family dwelling should not contain the largest apartment building on the street. Staley said that this would create even more parking problems. Staley stated that a usable and accessible parking facility should be required. VanderVelde commented that it would have been more "neighborly" if more spaces had been provided. Mahon stated that the letter of the law requires eighteen accessible. parking spaces. Mahon argued that testimony from the engineer had been heard that parking space #9 was not usable. Mike Kucharzak, Building Official, stated that space #9 is accessible to a compact car. Kucharzak stated that he had to render decisions constantly on the spirit and the letter of the law. Kucharzak stated that he had petitioned for a change six months ago but further stated that, if he could determine that one car could make that turn then he could not deny a building permit. Kucharzak commented that he has seen 90 degree parking work on a much narrower aisle and referred to the parking situation at the Credit Union. Kucharzak stated that he appreciated both the builder's and the neighbors' concerns and assured them that he had looked carefully at the building plans. Barker moved that the question be called and Vanderhoef seconded the motion. Fisher stated that he was not ready to vote as the screening issue had not yet been discussed. The call for the question failed one to three; Vanderhoef voted yes. Fisher questioned the interpretation of public view. Siders explained that public view meant from,the street in front of the lot for which the MICRO f ILMED BY l.. -JORM "MIC R;LA B CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES ' I VAWI---7-j r JI � / J Board of Adjust t February 16, 1983 Page 27 permit has been issued: Siders explained the purpose for this interpre- tation. Fisher commented that that seemed to be a narrow interpretation of public view. VanderVelde agreed, saying that she would like to see a broader interpretation of public view to include adjacent property, I especially as the back of this building could be seen from McLean Street. Siders questioned how the interpretation of public view could be broadened without completely enclosing the property. l Fisher asked Knight if he agreed with Shive's analysis of the turning radius. Knight stated that he assumed they were correct but questioned whether or not the City could require that a car make only "one swing" into the parking space. Siders stated that he could not render a decision on Shive's analysis. VanderVelde asked if it was the staff's interpretation that Berlin's memo was in effect at the time of the issuance of the permit. Siders stated that the memo was dated January 17 but filed on January 19 which was prior to the issuance of the permit. The minimum width of an aisle was determined to be 16 feet for 90 degree parking. VanderVelde referred to the memo stating that Berlin had used the term "designed to permit ingress or egress from a vehicle to or from the parking space." VanderVelde stated that she was not sure these plans t satisfied that statement. Siders pointed out that these plans met the minium standards of 16 feet. VanderVelde asked what the consequences would be if the building permit was revoked. Cruise stated that he was not prepared to answer that question at this time. Vanderhoef questioned whether it would be legal to post any sign permitting subcompacts only in space #9. Siders stated that it would be legal -to post any sign and in addition, the builder would not be required to stripe the lot. Fisher asked if Siders permitted a city alley to act as an aisle in reviewing a building permit. Siders stated that that was not permissible. Fisher asked if a driveway could be counted as an aisle. Siders stated that that was permissible. Fisher asked if that was permissible even when the driveway was on part of another property. Siders stated that it was provided there was proof that an easement existed. The motion to grant the appeal failed two to two; Vanderhoef and Barker voted no. VanderVelde explained that the rules of the Board required three affirma- tive votes in order to grant a variance, exception or appeal. Since only two affirmative votes were cast, the building permit is not revoked. Knight stated that another meeting in addition to one on March 2 would need to be scheduled. to AP r 141CROFILMED BY I l JORM--MICR46CAB' -i LCEDAR RAPIDS • DES M014ES a MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 2, 1983 4:45 PM CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Fisher, Vanderhoef, Barker, Slager, VanderVelde MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Knight, Boyle, Siders, Kucharzak, Behrman FINAL ACTION TAKEN: 1. V-8302. The application submitted by J. Patrick White for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance to permit occupancy of the main structure at 523-525 W. Benton Street as a multi -family (3 unit) dwelling was denied. 2. V-8303. The application submitted by Casey Mahon appealing the issuance of a building permit for construction of a multi -family building at 204 McLean Street was upheld. The Board of Adjustment revoked the building permit issued for 204 McLean Street. 3. The Board of Adjustment adopted formal decisions regarding: V-8232; V- 8234; V-8235; V-8236; V-8301; V-8304 as amended. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: The meeting was called to order by Barker at 5:04 PM due to the late arrival of VanderVelde. Barker. outlined the procedure to be followed by the Board of Adjustment. Knight called the roll. i VARIANCE ITEMS: V-8302: Continuation of public hearing on an application submitted by J. Patrick White for a variance to the zoning ordinance to permit occupany of the main structure at 523-525 W. Benton Street as a multifamily (3 unit) dwelling. Barker stated that this item had been deferred to permit the submission of additional information including a plot plan and a floor plan of the building. J. Patrick White, applicant, stated that he had requested a deferral to allow the submission of added material which included a site plan and a floor plan of the building. White stated that the site plan had been prepared by MMS Consultants and that Mr. Larry Waters had prepared the floor plans. In addition to these items, a proposed parking configuration had been submitted as part of the site plan which showed six parking spaces. The location, as proposed, is 10 feet north of Lot 40; however, these spaces are shown for the purpose of configuration only and do not necessarily represent the final location. White stated that the Board has authority to restrict development of Lot 40 if the variance is granted. Slager questioned what some of the area shown on the floor plan represented and Waters explained. Fisher asked why there were two kitchens noted on the first MICROF ILI4ED 1BY -ORM "-MICR46LA9 CEDAR RAPIDS DES MMES l Board of Adjustment March 2, 1983 Page 2 i floor. Waters stated that originally this building was divided into four units and there were a kitchen and a bathroom for each of the two units which had comprised the main floor. Waters noted that the applicant was not asking for four units now. Slager asked if each level represented one unit. Waters explained that although the applicant had requested three units the floor plan indicates four units would be possible. One kitchen would have to be removed and one could assume that the first, second and basement floors will be used for one unit each. Fisher asked'Waters to describe the efforts made to sell this property as a single family home. Larry Waters, 1538 Rochester Avenue, explained that this property had been listed in May 1982 for $99,000. An offer had been received on October 11, 1982, subject to permission being granted to use the property as a three-plex. No purchase offers had been received for this property as a single family home. Fisher asked if the property had been listed at the same price for that entire period. Waters indicated that it had and no offers had been made. Barker questioned the reason for this. Waters pointed out that conversion of the property back to a single family dwelling would be very expensive. Barker asked if it would be economically feasible to convert this property back to a single family use. Waters stated that it would be a great hardship as the property has three separate services and furnace. Waters stated that the property in question had a difficult floor plan. Barker asked if Waters believed that this was why there had been no offers for the purchase of the property as a single family use. Waters replied yes. VanderVelde questioned the proposed use by the potential buyer. Walter Foley, R.R. 5, stated that he had become interested in the property because he had a married daughter who was planning to move to Iowa City. Foley stated that he also had four younger children and it seemed reasonable to him to make a nice apartment for his children out of this property. Foley spoke of the safety features of the property, commenting that the house had three meters, five entrances and exits, four baths and four kitchens. Foley noted that the lot is large enough to support adequate off-street parking. Foley expressed his intention to provide parking spaces for his children. Foley questioned any other use than multi -family for a house that has 19 rooms, six exits, four kitchens and four bathrooms. VanderVelde questioned whether a variance was needed if all the occupants were to be of the same family. Siders explained the definition of family. Foley clarified the fact the only one apartment would be for a married daughter and her husband but that the other apartments would not necessarily be leased by his children. Barker had several questions regarding the diagram, room size and the layout. Waters explained. J. Merle Trummel, 314 W. Benton Street, spoke in opposition to the variance. Trummel pointed out the excessive price which the dwelling was listed at, stating that he would not expect any single family dwelling in that area to command that price. Trummel emphasized the fact that this was a modest neighborhood and the only way to expect $99,000 was for a multi -family dwelling. Trummel asserted that that figure was not, therefore, reasonable. f006 nlcwrILMED BY 11 -JORM MIC R46L A9 _1 CEDAR RAPIDS DES 1401YES i Board of Adjustment !� March 2, 1983 Page 3 Bruce Baker, 515 W. Benton Street, questioned whether there would be room on the lot for another residence. Boyle stated that he had responded to that question in his memo dated March 2, 1983. He explained that Lot 40 is not presently buildable, but could me made so. He further noted that the Board has the power to impose appropriate conditions and safeguards if a variance is granted. Boyle pointed out that the south line of the proposed parking lot is 10 feet from the north property ofnLotf38oand039 1 ndsthehconceivable 37that couldObeeadded to i Lot 40 to make it a conforming lot and it could then be sold to a third party as a buildable lot. Patr cia liott, 76 Miler Avenue this �sale; Elwould thOs be la temporary orsto permanentichange. Barker explainedvariance would only) that an authorized use attaches to the property and stays with the land. Knight stated that the variance would in essence, permit this property to revert to a non -conforming status again. The. non -conforming uses would be permitted to continue until the use changed and the property again became conforming. Phil Launspach, 701 Miller Avenue, asked how many bedrooms were in the new plan and the number of people who would reside on the property. Barker stated that the request is to allow three living units in the main structure, in addition to the apartment presently located over the garage. The Board was considering this request, and if granted, there would have to be interior changes to create the three units. Barker stated that he was uncertain what those changes would be as each unit would be subject to the Housing Code. Barker stated that it would, therefore, be difficult to give a precise number of residents at this time. Launspach asked how many unrelated people could reside in one unit. Siders explained that at the maximum, three people could live per unit. However, since this was an RIB zone, the units may be limited to two unrelated people. Siders further pointed out that a family could consist of any number of people related, living in one unit or two non -related persons. Launspach stated that the floor plan looked as if there were seven bedrooms on the first floor. He expressed a concern that if these were three two-bedroom j units with four persons in each unit, 12 to 16 people plus the other unit over the garage could reside in this single family residence. Launspach stated that he had purchased his property because it was in a residential area and stated that he was disturbed at the possibility of 16 people living at this property. Launspach urged that the Board try to keep this property as a daycare center or revert it back to a single family dwelling use. Launspach pointed out that, according to the Comprehensive Plan, this area was designated as single family. Sadie May, 612 W. Benton Street, spoke in opposition to the varaince, stating that common sense would tell one that no one would purchase this property as a single-family house. May commented that the purchaser would rent the property and not live there. Kenneth Cooper, 600 W. Benton Street, spoke in opposition to the variance, stating that there would probably be between four to five persons living in each unit. Cooper expressed concern about the noise increase in the area as well as danger to school children due to traffic. Cooper stated that he was afraid he would have to call the police every five minutes due to noise disturbances. W1 1 i 111CROEILIdED BY 1" JORM-MICROLAB- J CEDAR RAPIDS DES'MOINES � ' Board of Adjustment March 2, 1983 Page 4 VanderVelde asked how many finished baths were in the dwelling. Waters explained that one bathroom had been remodeled to accommodate HACAP children with two stools and two lavatories. The other three bathrooms were intact with a shower and a bath. VanderVelde asked for an estimate of the cost to remodel these three units. Waters stated that the dwelling could be used in its present state but there would be a loss of privacy. He noted, however that major remodeling would not be required. VanderVelde asked if there was an estimate for the remodeling of the property to single family. Waters stated that he had no estimate. VanderVelde asked for clarification of the fact that only the daugher will reside in one of the units. Foley stated that he had thought thought that his daughter, her husband and their son would live in one apartment. VanderVelde stated the opinion that that would make the property a conforming use. White stated that if the Board granted the variance and the property was subsequently occupied by three of the owner's children that would not make it a conforming use by virtue of its day-to-day occupancy. Boyle remarked that the request was for three units; and that only one would be lived in by a family member and the other two by a non -family members. White pointed out that the application for a variance does not insure occupancy only by family. VanderVelde requested clarification of what hardship was being claimed. White stated that the issue was two -fold; the current owner has converted his property to provide for a quasi -public interest (daycare center). HACAP had terminated its contract and had left the owner in the hardship situation of beino unable to use the property in conformance with the ordinance. VanderVelde asked if hardship was based on the owner not being able to operate his property as a non -conforming use. White stated that the educational use had been conforming. VanderVelde again questioned the nature of the hardship. White stated that the hardship lay in the fact that a single family use was not viable for this structure when HACAP vacates the premises, the conforming use must be replaced by another conforming use. Because this is not economically feasible; a hardship exists. VanderVelde asked for an estimate of the cost to remodel this property to make it conforming. White pointed out that, aside from the remodeling expenses, this property will not sell as a single family dwelling. White emphasized that the pending purchase offer for .$92,000 was contingent on use as a multiple dwelling. VanderVelde stated that she did not see how the Board could find hardship because there was no way to appraise how difficult it would be to sell the property as a single-family use at a price comparable to the other single family homes in the neighborhood. White pointed out that no one has chosen to submit an offer at any price in 10 months. With regard to the density question, White stated that the Board had heard the worst case. White noted that there was sufficient frontage to create a single family unit on the back of this property and the same maximum density would apply. White asserted that density was not the important factor. He pointed out the advantage to the neighbors in that traffic would decrease if this became a multi -family dwelling as opposed to the traffic created by the daycare center. White stated that parking problems would also be improved considerably and would further encumber the other lots. VanderVelde asked why the applicant required three dwelling units rather than two. White stated that this had been designed as a three unit complex, although it had subsequently been converted to two dwelling units with two rooming units. White stated that there would be problems with rooming units. VanderVelde asked whether this property had not originally been built as a nursing home. Waters stated that it had and had then been converted to a three unit residential building, and then four units. White emphasized that this was a unique situation. l f0 i IIICROFIL14ED BY 1_ - JORM "MICR6LA13 CEDAR RAPIDS • DES Id01YES I !� Board of Adjustment March 2, 1983 Page 5 Cooper stated that the buyer was buying this property for his daughter so hardship could not be the case. Foley stated that he had not bought anything yet and that the owner of the property had had only one offer, his. The hardship was on the present owner who gave up his apartment use for HACAP and now must seek another use. Elliott asked if the current owner had investigated other conforming situations such as a private preschool. Waters stated that the current owner lived in Louisianna and had rented his property to HACAP for $549 a month. He stated that he was unsure as to whether or not the property owner wished to give that type of benefit to a private situation. Barker asked if a private preschool had been approached for renting the property at a higher price, stating that the neighbors did not mind the children there. Barker further wondered what would happen to the surrounding neighbors who would now have a multi -dwelling next door. Barker asked if the property had been listed as a multi -family dwelling. Waters stated that the property had been advertised and he did not know how to further entice people into this situation. Waters stated that part of his job was appraising properties and commented that one could not prove that putting an apartment house in a single family residential area would devalue the I surrounding property. Fisher asked at how much lower a privde this property would sell for as a single family. Waters stated that it would sell at $30,000-$40,000 less plus remodeling costs. Fisher asked how Waters had arrived at a $30,000-$40;000 reduction in price if this property was sold as a single family home. Waters stated that this was not a $92,000 neighborhood and the tendency would be for property to revert to the prices of other homes in the neighborhood. VanderVelde asked the prices of the other homes in the area. Waters stated that this was a $50,000-$75,000 neighborhood. Launspach questioned the plot plan, and asked if there was a possibility for three units in the main building, one unit in the attached garage and then another residence to the rear of the structure. Barker stated that White had asserted that this was possible. Even if the property was used for a single family residence, it would be possible to put that many units on that corner. Barker emphasized that the Board had not heard of plans to do that but that Boyle had stated that the possibility exists and White agreed. Knight stated that Lot 40 was included in the request and the Board could restrict it from being sold. Fisher asked if the Board could limit occupancy. Boyle stated that that would be controlled by the Housing Code and was not within the purview of the Board. May asked if Waters had sought other sources for preschools interested in the property. May commented that when a property is not moving, property owners seem to be able to rezone for convenience. May asked how much money had been invested by the owner in the property and what the intent of the potential owner was for the next five years. Waters stated that the house had been assessed at $101,350 by the City. Fisher stated that he was convinced of the uniqueness of the situation but had a problem with the demonstration of hardship. He commented that if serious attempts had been made to sell the property as a single family, why had the property not been listed at a reasonable price. There was a question of whether or not that constituted hardship. Fisher commented that if the Board denied the I 141CROFILnED BY I l.. —DORM -MIC Rli1L-,4 Fi- .l CEDAR RAPIDS DES td01YE5 W J i Board of Adjustment �- March 2, 1983 Page 6 variance at this time, the applicant may be before the Board again within a year , or two. Vanderhoef moved that the Board grant a variance to Section 8.10.21.8.6 to permit the use of the main structure as a multiple three unit dwelling on Lots 37, 38, 39 and 40 with south of the structure as shown roughly in the plot plans as submitted by the the provision of a hard surface parking lot built to the applicant. Slager seconded the motion. Siders commented that if at least one stall was currently provided for the dwelling unit above the garage, then the six additional parking spaces shown on the plot plan would be sufficient. White addressed the language of the motion, stating that it was by design that Lot 40 was included in the application. Assuming that the Board wished to encumber Lot 40, they would need to do so in the motion. White noted that this motion did not address the concerns of any additional building occurring on Lot 40• White explained that it was implicit in the applicant's request that they be precluded from building an additional dwellin this property was considered as one parcel, th y would sbeuprohibi that if erecting another structure on the parcel. Otherwise, the property owner prohibited be forced to subdivide. White stated that single lot conveyance of a 10 foot strip would not require a subdivision and it would be legally possible to reach the same result along the east. White suggested that the motion be modified so as to not necessarily restrict the applicants to that location of parking spaces when they may be more logically placed elsewhere. Vanderhoef withdrew the motion and Slager withdrew her second. Slager stated that she sympathized with the applicant and saw the hardship but was not in favor of granting the variance Without more restrictions. Slager commented that she did not wish to be too restrictive with the parking, but there were not enough restrictions for the homeowners to feel comfortable that there would not be four residents per unit and only six•parking space's. Siders commented that the Board should be cautious about restricting the number of persons per unit. Siders stated that there was no provision to abe llow roomers in the zoning ordinance and suggested that the applicant seek a ruling from the Zoning Code Interpretation Panel Barke r rstated that dtto he Board could not impose a limitation on the number of residents. White asserted that the Board could impose parking space requirements on a contingency basis; if a roomer is living in a unit, that would trigger a parking requirement. He noted that density is related to parking so the Board can restrict the variance contingent on adequate parking •. Vanderhoef asked what uses the present zone allowed. Siders explained that according to Section 8.10.17, single family residences, public parks, etc. were allowed. Launspach asked if the applicant could demolish the existing building and build multiple family dwellings. Barker stated that he did not believe that the applicant would be allowed to rebuild this property with a multi -family dwelling in an R1 zone. Boyle drafted the following motion: That the Board of Adjustment grant a variance to Section 8.10.21.0.6 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow three dwelling units in the main structure located on the west 25 feet of Lot 37 and Lots 38-39-40, subject to the following conditions: that parking be provided in accordance with the requirements of the Zoning C is soode, and that if any portion of the said tract ld, this variance shall become void, i r j .ICROFI.MED RY ; 'JORM--MICRbLA13 h L % CEDAR RAPIDS • DES t•1011ES Board of Adjustment March 2, 1983 Page 7 It was moved by'VanderVelde and seconded by Vanderhoef. Boyle stated that the Board had a right to impose parking conditions but had no right to impose conditions greater than that allowed in the zoning ordinance. This meant that only one and one-half parking spaces could be required per dwelling unit. Siders stated that the motion had referenced the nonconforming use section which had other provisions which stated that if the current dwelling was raised or damaged by fire, it could not be rebuilt. Vanderhoef commented that, should this Board choose not to grant this variance, the house would still be a problem in the neighborhood and urged the neighbors to help find a use which would be conforming. Launspach asked why the basement could not be rented or why this property could not be rented as a duplex. Barker stated that there was a problem with hardship but suggested there was a possibility that the property could be sold a single family if the price was reduced and one lot was sold off. Barker stated that prior to its use by HACAP, the owner had had an existing nonconforming use as a multiple unit dwelling. The owner had attempted to be useful to the community and had rented this property at substantially below its market value; in thus doing, the owner had accidentally given up its multiple unit status. Barker pointed out that HACAP was leaving the property and if the property owner could not use this property as a multiple dwelling unit, then he suffered hardship. Lansfor commented that it was not a hardship to "underrent" the units, then why should a hardship exist to "undersell". VanderVelde suggested that the Board make some statement of the findings of fact and conclusions of law and discuss each criteria. Fisher stated that the new procedures required the Board to enter into the record its findings of fact and asked how that would be done. Barker stated that each member could state into the record his comments and the staff would glean those items from the minutes and present them to the Board for review. Barker stated that he did not know if there was a need to formally stipulate the findings of fact. VanderVelde stated that she had no problem with the uniqueness of the property; it was unusual when it was built and is still unusual. With regard to public interest, VanderVelde stated that this was the first incursion into a single family neighborhood. However, VanderVelde stated that the basic problem was the hardship and was uncertain about the demonstration of hardship. No remodeling plans have been presented and in this case, there was no way of knowing why three units were necessary rather than two units. VanderVelde stated that she wished there had been figures available in comparison of remodeling and sales costs. Barker questioned the difficulty of finding requisite hardship. VanderVelde stated that as far as a nonconforming use, this property was protected while in that use, but the intent of the ordinance was to bring properties back into conformity. Slager agreed, stating that the hardship in this case was that it was a rental prior to the owner performing a community service by renting to HACAP. Stager stated that the property owner had lost his multi -family status performing this service. Slager agreed that the issue was that the variance was contrary to the public interest and did not see how the Board could impose enough restrictions with parking as they could not restrict the number of people. Slager stated that this application was severely contrary to the public interest and commented on the ambiguity of the plan submitted. Vanderhoef agreed. Fisher stated that there may be hardship present but it had not been convincingly demonstrated. REVII LUM 1 i i I4ICROFILMED BY '�_�,`••... 1" __JORM "MIC CEDAR RAPIDS • DES 1401`![5 �4 I _ T i J I 1 I 1 Board of Adjustment March 2, 1983 Page 8 The motion failed 4-1; Barker voted yes. The meeting recessed at 6:26 PM and reconvened at 6:38 PM. , V-8303. Public hearing on an application building submitted by Case 9 Permit for construction at 204y Mahon for an appeal Barker announced that Sla McLean Street. due to a conflict of ger was excusing herself from the hearing for both interest. Barker stated that, with the on this item circulatingaa partie opnd with the consent of Iowa consent of counsel names and address paper on which he asked the audlienceetol counsel, St and whether the he was -- - - being revoked for 204 Y were in support note either their incorporated into the record. Barker Barker statedport of the buildin that these names would permit way affect the right of an emphasized that this emphasized the Y member of the public to comment on cods ewould in no favor of meaning of the wording on the Pad which stated " building 8303 meanin Knight item V- i g Permit and the building that one was in favor of the appeal in 9 permit s revocation. PPeal of the Knight presented the staff report statin permit had been issued for the propert a that, on Januar of an 11 -unit a Y at 204 McLean Y 12, 1983, a building buildingPartment building. The plot plan which was or the tedswithtthe i aisles Permit aPPgllFro-on shb wed an 18 space parkin access bein g lot with 10.5 foot { property. On January 13 1983, Casen alley right-of-way located Adjustment appealing the issuance of Mahon filed an a north of the The applicant requested the buildin that building application to the Board of allegedly in violation 9 permit be revoked ebecausermit r its McLean a SPecifically,the a °f several state' and Its issuance was PPlicant listed points in the attachedPal code Knight stated that the first prOV1S70ns, petition. for compliance with issue raised was re Knight noted that h the Iowa State Building earning the statement of review 414 of the State Code Powers of the Board ofAdjustment energy efficiency standards. Ordinances are limited to 1981' and Section 8 Justment as granted by Chapter this issue is questions re 10 28 of the Iowa City Code of not within the Board's regard' the zoning ordinance. The second issue area of review. Therefore, is providing access and thzoninfactsue regarding the alley is pr Knight stated does not in relyty exiichst the parking area ravine, Knight other that although a right-of-wayY exist as an approved been obtained to open is provided to the existed, it isare, in act a in the sense that pen the alley. Knight explained that a this was and no aeZo���1on has Knight stated that thess mss be legal to the required off-street developer g issue be obtainedufrombthe Cpermission to o department had issued an o Parking. pen the alley and that that Pinion that the whether or not the alle Y Council. All questions raised in the appeal ria must the time that the Cit Y could, in fact, be open should actually be dealt with�at Y Council considers the request to open the alley, The next issue stated was that there was insufficient space to park 17 or in the configuration presented; further, that construction of spaces is impossible because the rear 18 cars This issue relates to whether or not theralle of the 1. or 18 parking the topography g be lot is, in fact At the of the lot would be chap ed be ase lit would have to be failed. same time, presumablyIf improved, the rear portion of the applicant's lot would have VOE i i MICROFILMED BY "JORM--MICR#LAI3 ..i CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MDI:ES , � I Board of Adjustment March 2, 1983 Page 9 to be filled as well. Knight noted that this was an additional issue which could not really be answered until the City Council had dealt with the issue of giving permission to the developer to improve that alley. Another question raised along the same line was whether or not adequate fire protection could be provided to the 11 -unit apartment building. The Fire Chief has indicated that access for fire protection would be primarily provided by McLean Street since that is where the fire hydrant is located. The alley (assuming it was open) would be used only secondarily for fire trucks since it would be difficult to get out of once entered. Knight stated that the other question remaining is whether or not there is adequate space to provide the required parking spaces "in the configuration shown." This issue calls to question the design of the parking area. At the time the permit was issued, no standards existed regarding parking area design. Subsequently, on January 19, 1983, an interpretation was filed with the City Clerk by Neal Berlin, City Manager, regarding the design width of an aisle. As stated in this interpretation "...aisles for 90 degree angle parking should not in any instance be less than 16 feet in width for parking spaces 20 feet in length." In addition, the Planning and Zoning Commission has recently forwarded to the City Council a set of proposed design standards. If the interpretation or the proposed design standards were applied to the subject parking area, it would be necessary to revise the design of the parking area. Knight pointed out that both these standards had been developed after the issuance of the building permit. The final zoning question relates to the screening requirements for parking areas. Knight referred to Section 8.10.25.0 which stated that "in the R district... where four or more contiguous off-street parking spaces are located, adequate screening of vehicles sufficient to obscure sight of vehicles from public view shall be designed, planted or constructed and maintained...". The issue is what is public view. Knight explained that staff has consistently in the past interpreted public view to be only that view from a public street right-of-way, not including alley right-of-ways. In fact, if that interpretation was maintained, screening would not be required in this case. He mentioned that the Board had addressed the issue of public view in three previous cases, two of which were in 1977 and one in 1982. In the first two of those cases, screening was required along the alley; screening was not required along the alley in the third of these cases. Knight stated that clearly the Board has not established a consistent pattern regarding the interpretation of public view and it appeared that the Board in reviewing these cases did so on a case by case basis and was not trying to make a precedential interpretation. Knight noted that the applicant was requesting that the building permit be revoked. With regard to the Board's power along this line, Knight observed that the State Code states that the Board may in conformity with the provisions of Chapter 414.3, "...reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, or may modify the order, requirement, decision, or determination appealed from, and may make such order, requirement, decision or determination as ought to be made, and to that end shall have all the powers of the officer from whom the appeal is taken." Knight stated that it was therefore clear that the Board had a great deal of discretion in determining what action is appropriate in this case. 141CROFILI41D BY 1. JORM 'MICROLAB_ l CEDAR RAPIDS - DES MOINES J Board of Adjustment March 2, 1983 Page 10 Casey Mahon was sworn by Barker to testify to the truth. Casey Mahon, 226 McLean, stated that she lived two houses to the west of the property in question. Mahon stated that her house was located in the single family zoning neighborhood and the house of her neighbor, Maureen Keough, was also in a single family zone area. Mahon stated that Keough's home and side yard immedately abuts those parking spaces to the west. Mahon commented that the alley depicted on the plot plan was in reality, a very deep ravine which provides drainage to the existing homes. She observed that no provision had been made, as far as she could determine, for this issue. Mahon expressed concern at the parking configuration because it was her opinion that as a minimal standard an individual should actually be able to park in the places provided. She did not feel that was possible in this case. The next witness was sworn in by Barker. Jim Shive, consulting engineer with Shive-Hattery, P.O. Box 1050, stated that his firm served as city engineers for approximately 15 Iowa communities that are not large enough to have permanent staff. In that capacity, Shive noted that his staff performed the engineering function, the planning function and the building inspector function. Shive submitted his resume. Barker asked that the record reflect that he is marking a document presented to him by Shive as Applicant's Exhibit Number 1. Shive referred to the parking arrangement, and took issue with the statement in the staff report which stated that no standards for, parking existed at the time of this application. Shive stated that it was his opinion that standards do exist and did exist in the City Code, Section 8.10.3, paragraph 60, which in part says, "parking spaces shall be designed to permit ingress and egress of the vehicles without moving any other vehicle parked adjacent to the parking space." Shive stated that that constituted a standard. Further, Shive stated that it was the applicant's opinion that if parking spots 16, 17 and 18 were occupied, it would be impossible to get in or out of the remaining 14 spaces with either a standard sized or compact car. Shive emphasized that it was not merely impractical but impossible. Shive presented a plot plan of the proposed development which showed the turning radius for a standard size car and a compact car as it related to the usability of the basic parking spaces. Shive reviewed this exhibit, stating that if parking spaces 16, 17 and 18 are filled, it would be impossible to get in or out of the remaining spaces with either a standard or compact car. Shive stated that even if the site was flat as a table top, there would be only 15 usable spots at best. Barker marked the document presented as Applicant's Exhibit 2. Shive stated that the next item he would like to address had to do with filling the public alley in order to. make this site usable. Shive stated that the applicable sections of the City Code were as follows: Section 31.4 requires the City ordinance to permit constructon on the public alley; Section 31.8 and 31.9 require the grade of the alley to be set forth by ordinance; Section 31,26 requires the protection of adjacent property by providing adequate support and Section 31.45 provided that any fill on a public place requires a permit. Barker questioned Shive's interpretation of Section 31.45, asking if he was suggesting that there was an excavation being filled here. Shive stated that there would have to be an excavation involved in filling the alley in order to put in storm sewer. Shive then referred to a blowup from the City topography maps that show the area in question. This topography map was used as a reference to what currently exists on the property. Shive stated that in order for the a i 141CRDEILMED BY 1_ --DORM -MICR41LAB'- CEDAR RAPIDS - DES MINES �� Board of Adjustment March 2, 1983 Page 11 parking lot to be located on the northerly portion of the property, the developer would have to do one of two things; either fill in the alley extensively and the surrounding area, or build retaining walls along the edge of this property as well as along the edges of the alley. Shive demonstrated the area which the developer would have to fill on the topographic map and how it would affect the neighboring properties. He stated that in order for the filling to take place, the developer would have to get an easement and permission to fill on Lot 3, Lot 4, Lot 5, Lot 6, Lot 12 and Lot 14 (the property in question is Lot 13). Shive stated that the area which would have to be filled was around 16-20 feet in height and this is what the developer would have to do with the adjacent property in order to accomplish physical access into his site and usability of the north portion of the lot for parking. Shive explained that if the developer did not do that, he would have to construct a retaining wall along his property and the alley property and along the property of his neighbor to the west. Shive noted that, since either one of these alternatives is expensive and cumbersome, the solution of this question should be part of the basic building permit application and should be solved. Barker asked the height of the vertical drop from the southerly portion of the area to be filed to the northerly portion. Shive answered that the vertical drop was approximately 14 feet. Barker asked the height of the vertical drop on the westerly end of the property in question and Shive replied that it was approximately 10 feet. Barker stated that this exhibit with the overlay would be marked as Applicant's Exhibit 3. Knight presented some slides of the property to assist the Board in gaining a visual image of the lot in question. Shive stated that with regard to the problem of filling the alley, it was his judgment that there should be major input by the City Engineer as to the practicalities of opening and using the alley. The City Engineer would have to respond to the four sections sited in establishing a recommended grade on the alley and also determine whether or not fill and how much fill was practical, as well as the consideration of drainage. Shive stated that the City Engineer would also have to be involved in determining whether dr not retaining walls were practical solutions and what their affect would be on the other properties impacted by providing access to this particular parcel. Shive stated that filling of Lot 13 would require approximately 2,800 square feet of the lot, in order to use it in the fashion in which the applicant has shown. That, in turn, would require fill to be placed over 4,700 square feet of the neighbor's property and alley property not owned or controlled by the present developer. Shive emphasized that in addition to filling 2,800 square feet of his own property, the developer would have to fill an additional 4,700 square feet of property owned by others. William Lucas, 22 E. Court Street, attorney for Mr. John Nolan, requested permission to address several questions to Shive. The following questions were addressed by Lucas to Shive: Lucas asked Shive whether or not it was true that the alley was opened at both ends of this project at Beldon Avenue and on Grove Street. Shive answered that the private alley is open at the west end on Beldon Street but was unsure whether or not it was open at the east end. Lucas asked if there was access onto Grove Street from the fraternities in the area, and Shive stated that he did not know. A member of the public stated that there was no access. Lucas stated that an open street existed right next to St. Thomas More Church and questioned if that was not part of the right of way being discussed. Again, Shive stated that he did not know whether or not the alley was open at the east end. Lucas questioned i141CROFILIIED BY 1 'DORM -MIC R6LA B'- l ICEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOI'ES i I I CO a 0 T f r J Board of Adjustment March 2, 1983 Page 12 11—• whether or not the north end of the alley fronting on Grove Street opened into Grove Street and Shive stated that he did not know whether or not that was public alley. Knight stated that there was a City street which did dead end at the ravine, in essence, serving one fraternity and the church property. Lucas asked if that was at St. Thomas More Church and Knight replied affirmatively. Lucas asked if that was part of the platted alley in Manville Heights. Knight stated that it was his belief that was a street. Making reference to a map, Knight stated that the section to which Lucas was referring was in actuality a City street right-of-way. Barker requested that Knight mark the open portions of the street or alley on the map. Lucas asked Shive whether he knew if there was an ordinance passed establishing the grade of that right-of-way as it fronts on Beldon Avenue. Shive stated that he was unaware of any ordinance being passed that establishes the grade as it pertains to that property. Lucas asked if that right-of-way that fronted on Beldon Avenue was used by anyone as access. Shive stated that it was used as access for a couple of properties at the west end. Lucas asked whether those properties were single family or multi -family. Shive stated that it was his belief that one access was to a garage and was unsure of any other access served. A speaker from the audience stated that one access served a private home. Lucas asked if Shive knew what type of use that garage served. Shive indicated that he did not. Lucas noted that the alley served an apartment complex. Shive observed that it served a garage and stated that he did not know whether or not the apartment complex was on the same property as it was on a different lot and he was unsure of ownership. Lucas asked the material from which the alley or right-of-way was composed. Shive stated that the west end of Beldon Avenue was composed of gravel and pieces of oil and seal coat. Lucas asked when that was constructed and Shive stated he did not know. Lucas asked if City permission has been granted to construct that and Shive stated he was unsure. Lucas asked if the ravine always ended where it presently ends, to the west or if it at one time extended further on to the west. Shive stated that he knew nothing for a fact other than the observations he was making on the city aerial topography map and they are not as precise as pertaining to the improved alley. Lucas asked Shive his basis of design for the graded or paved areas on the exhibit proposed and submitted today. Shive stated that the basis of design was approximately a 6% grade within the parking lot itself. Lucas asked the basis of design for the alley and for the right-of-way. Shive stated that the grade of the alley was that necessary to serve a point which would be at a 6% grade down from the building area which was figured as the maximum slope that would be practical to have in a parking area such as this. Lucas asked whether Shive would agree that, if adequate retaining walls were built, the construction of that alley would be feasible as access to the parking. Shive stated that it would not be practical but neither would it be impossible. Lucas asked if Shive was aware at whose expense the developer proposed to undertake that improvement and Shive stated that he did not know. With regard to the parking on that lot, Lucas asked Shive, if the parking would be adequate if the middle spaces were taken out of that parking lot, spaces 16, 17 and 18. Shive stated that if the three spaces, 16, 17 and 18, were taken out there would be 15 usable parking spaces at best. Lucas asked if that referred to the lot in the configuration as shown and Shive replied affirmatively. Lucas asked Shive how many parking spaces were required under the Code of Ordinances for an 11-plex unit and Shive answered that 1's spaces were required per housing unit. Lucas asked how many that would be in total and Shive replied 11 times 1's. Lucas indicated he had no more questions. i MICROFILPIED Bi 1" JORM "-MICR6L_AI3- CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES G �P J Board of Adjustment March 2, 1983 Page 13 Angela Ryan, 122 South Linn, attorney for the applicant, directed several questions to Knight: Ryan asked Knight if he was familiar with the City records with regard to this alley in question and Knight replied affirmatively. Ryan stated that on the exhibit presented Knight had marked areas in red. Ryan asked if, from Knight's review of City records, the City Council has authorized the opening of the area that has not been marked in red which is presently a ravine. Knight stated that to his knowledge there has been no authorization to use the area which is unopened at this time. Ryan asked Knight if he had any knowledge with regard to whether construction easements have been obtained from any of the abutting property owners and Knight stated that he had no idea. Ryan asked if Knight had any knowledge of whether grade had been established by ordinance for the area that had not been marked in red on that platted alley and Knight stated that he did not know of any grade being established. Ryan asked if Knight had standards with regard to the appropriate slope or grade that should exist on the parking lot. Knight stated that there were no standards on a parking lot and to his knowledge any grade requirements were for city streets only. Knight stated that there was a 12% maximum grade requirement for public streets, but in terms of design for parking areas there were no code requirements to his knowledge for slope, either minimum or maximum. Ryan asked if Knight had had an opportunity to examine applicant's exhibit three which depicted the topography of the area and Knight stated that he had seen it as presented. Ryan asked Knight his occupation and Knight replied that he was a planner for the City. Ryan asked if it was Knight's opinion as a planner that it would be necessary to place some fill on a portion of that parking area before it would be usable as a parking area. Knight stated that that would be more of an engineering question although• it appeared from what he had seen of the topography that that might be necessary. Knight stated, however, that that would be outside his area of expertise. The following person was sworn in. Maureen Keough, 216 McLean, spoke in support of revoking the building permit. Keough expressed the concern that the unit at 204 McLean Street would downgrade the area because there was not enough parking. Keough further stated that in order for the developer to build, he would have to trespass on her property. Keough stated that she has given no easement in the past nor did she intend to. Keough stated that Father Sparks, of St. Thomas Moore Church, had assured her that he also would give no easement which would render any possibility of entering the property off Grove Street. Keough expressed the concern that if the ravine was filled, there would be drainage problems and the same would apply if retaining walls were built. Susan Hancher, 127 Grove Street, was sworn in. Hancher stated that her property extended to the edge of the ravine and she had no intention to give an easement to anyone. Hancher expressed the concern that beautiful trees in the area would have to be cut down and the ravine filled. Hancher spoke in favor of revoking the building permit. Linda McHard, 2800 Sterling Drive, was sworn in, McHard stated that she supported Hancher's statements and expressed concern about the environment. McHard urged that the Board try to save what little open space was left and put out a plea to big business and money making profiteering to put a stop to this. J MICROFILMED BY 1- JORM-MICR6LA6' --� CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES i KIM LU UIIA J 1 i Board of Adjustment March 2, 1983 Page 13 Angela Ryan, 122 South Linn, attorney for the applicant, directed several questions to Knight: Ryan asked Knight if he was familiar with the City records with regard to this alley in question and Knight replied affirmatively. Ryan stated that on the exhibit presented Knight had marked areas in red. Ryan asked if, from Knight's review of City records, the City Council has authorized the opening of the area that has not been marked in red which is presently a ravine. Knight stated that to his knowledge there has been no authorization to use the area which is unopened at this time. Ryan asked Knight if he had any knowledge with regard to whether construction easements have been obtained from any of the abutting property owners and Knight stated that he had no idea. Ryan asked if Knight had any knowledge of whether grade had been established by ordinance for the area that had not been marked in red on that platted alley and Knight stated that he did not know of any grade being established. Ryan asked if Knight had standards with regard to the appropriate slope or grade that should exist on the parking lot. Knight stated that there were no standards on a parking lot and to his knowledge any grade requirements were for city streets only. Knight stated that there was a 12% maximum grade requirement for public streets, but in terms of design for parking areas there were no code requirements to his knowledge for slope, either minimum or maximum. Ryan asked if Knight had had an opportunity to examine applicant's exhibit three which depicted the topography of the area and Knight stated that he had seen it as presented. Ryan asked Knight his occupation and Knight replied that he was a planner for the City. Ryan asked if it was Knight's opinion as a planner that it would be necessary to place some fill on a portion of that parking area before it would be usable as a parking area. Knight stated that that would be more of an engineering question although• it appeared from what he had seen of the topography that that might be necessary. Knight stated, however, that that would be outside his area of expertise. The following person was sworn in. Maureen Keough, 216 McLean, spoke in support of revoking the building permit. Keough expressed the concern that the unit at 204 McLean Street would downgrade the area because there was not enough parking. Keough further stated that in order for the developer to build, he would have to trespass on her property. Keough stated that she has given no easement in the past nor did she intend to. Keough stated that Father Sparks, of St. Thomas Moore Church, had assured her that he also would give no easement which would render any possibility of entering the property off Grove Street. Keough expressed the concern that if the ravine was filled, there would be drainage problems and the same would apply if retaining walls were built. Susan Hancher, 127 Grove Street, was sworn in. Hancher stated that her property extended to the edge of the ravine and she had no intention to give an easement to anyone. Hancher expressed the concern that beautiful trees in the area would have to be cut down and the ravine filled. Hancher spoke in favor of revoking the building permit. Linda McHard, 2800 Sterling Drive, was sworn in, McHard stated that she supported Hancher's statements and expressed concern about the environment. McHard urged that the Board try to save what little open space was left and put out a plea to big business and money making profiteering to put a stop to this. J MICROFILMED BY 1- JORM-MICR6LA6' --� CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES i KIM LU UIIA J Board of Adjustment March 2, 1983 Page 14 Larry Baker, 521 South Dodge, was sworn in. Baker spoke to the issue of adeqauate access to parking and supplied the background to Berlin's interpretation. Baker stated that a similar problem had occurred in September of 1982 at 632 South Dodge Street and the Zoning Code Interpretation Panel decision had been requested. However, a final decision had not been made until January 19, 1983. Baker stated that this was an issue which could have been resolved earlier. Baker addressed the following questions to Mike Kucharzak, building official: Baker asked Kucharzak when the Zoning Code Interpretation Panel had first discussed this issue. Kucharzak was sworn in. Kucharzak stated that he was unsure of when the Zoning Code Interpretation Panel had first discussed this issue. Baker asked Kucharzak to summarize the issue. Kucharzak stated that the Zoning Code Interpretation Panel had met and discussed whether or not the Zoning Ordinance contained any minimum requirements for aisle width. It was the finding of the Interpretation Panel that the Code did not specify minimum aisle width. Baker asked how a decision was reached on the ten foot dimension since the Code did not specify minimum aisle width. Kucharzak stated that the Panel did not decide on the 10 foot dimension. Baker asked how the City was justified issuing permits at any dimension and without some specific guidelines. Kucharzak stated that it was the belief at the time the InterpretationPanel concluded that, since no aisle width dimension was mentioned in the Code, there was a dimension requirement for a driveway at ten feet. He had used the ten foot dimension as a guide in reviewing plans for aisle width but had no authority to impose a ten foot aisle width. Baker asked Kucharzak if he was at all bothered by the fact that the Zoning Code said the drive should not'be used as aisles and that perhaps the dimension would not be applicable to an aisle. Kucharzak stated that he was not bothered by that. Baker asked Kucharzak to name the other members of the Zoning Code Interpretation Panel. Kucharzak stated that the panel was composed of the City Attorney and the Director of Planning and Program Development. Baker asked if a legal opinion had been sought about whether or not the City could impose a dimension of ten feet. Kucharzak stated that a legal opinion had not been sought but the Panel had discussed at length what the Code permitted and what the options were. Kucharzak stated that the Board had recommended that a change be made in the Zoning Ordinance. Baker asked Boyle if the legal staff was satisfied with the 16 foot interpretation made by Neal Berlin and whether or not it would stand up in court. Boyle stated that it was his opinion that it would stand up in court. Baker asked if it would have been justifiable three months earlier and Boyle stated that he had no way of knowing the answer to that. Baker asked Kucharzak if, assuming he could start from scratch and write his own zoning code, what would be the dimension of an aisle width. Kucharzak stated that, as a hypothetical question, he did not have a hypothetical answer. Kucharzak suggested that there has been an ordinance amendment prepared dealing with parking requirements aisle widths and driveway widths .,pd that that was before the Council at the present time. Kucharzak stated that the easiest type of Code enforcement is one that gives him specific requirements as it does with the dimensions provided for parking spaces. Baker asked if Kucharzak felt he had interpreted the Code by chosing ten feet aisle widths. Kucharzak stated that the City has chosen to use as a guide the Code specific language that a driveway has to be ten feet. Baker asked if Kucharzak felt that 16 foot minimum requirement was a fair width and an improvement over the ten foot width. Kucharzak stated that he could only suggest that that was what the City Manager had concluded would be the Code standard following the issuance of his interpretation on some date later than the issuance of the i MICROFILMED BY DORM 1.MIC ROLA E3 CEDAR RAPIDS • DCS MOINES ar 1000 J Board of Adjustment March 2, 1983 Page 15 building permit. Kucharzak stated that the only issue for this Board was what was the aisle width in effect at the time that this building permit was issued. Kucharzak testified that there was no aisle width at the time this building permit was issued. Baker asked if, in Kucharzak's discussions with the Zoning Code Interpretation Panel, any alterantive widths had been suggested or discussed. Barker stated that he wished to terminate this discussion as the same questions were being asked and no new information was forthcoming. Baker stated that his point was that he had brought up the issue in September and there had been a question since that time about the minimum width for an aisle that could have been resolved but was not resolved until January. That figure seems to be agreeable to everyone in the City staff and Baker suggested to the Board of - Adjustment that that figure could have been arrived at sooner and was, in fact, a more viable figure than the ten foot aisle that has been used before. John Menniger, 130 Ferson Avenue, was sworn in. Menniger drew the Board's attention to certain parts of the Comprehensive Plan which seem to provide general guidelines that could be applied in this case to justify restricting the development proposed. Menniger referred to the section of the Comprehensive Plan on environment on page 45, section A, stating that "fragile environmental features" seemed relevant to the present case. Pearson argued that the ravine behind the property on McLean can fairly be described as a steep wooded slope and as such is a natural feature which is an asset to Iowa City. The Comprehensive Plan states that "conservation of natural areas was viewed as the highest priority item by citizens responding to the 'people's guide and survey,' 85 percent responding. 73% of those stating that conservation of natural areas should be funded were also willing to pay for existing services in order to fund such projects." Menniger stated that the Comprehensive Plan identifies certain environmental goals and objectives on page 48. In conclusion, Menniger stated that the ravine behind the property on McLean is a fragile environmental area which abounds with wildlife and as such should be preserved. The citizens not only expect this to be done, they're willing to pay extra to ensure that it's done. Menniger stated that luckily, there seems to be no reason to pay in this case as the City already owns the ravine in the sense that it is now platted as an alley right-of-way. Menniger stated that there were many kinds of buildings which would not require altering the ravine from its natural state and suggested that the Board of Adjustment disallow the present permit and insist instead on development that guarantees the preservation of the associated fragile environmental area. Lesle Hurlburt, 436 Beldon Avenue, was sworn in. With regard to the surface of the alley, Hurlburt stated that the alley was rock and he had paid for it. As to the east end, Hurlburt stated that it was his understanding that this alley had never been opened. Hurlburt stated that if the developer did go through the alley, the city would have to extend the sewer or the waterway where it comes down through the street and would have to get permission to do that. Lucas asked if Hurlburt had placed rock on the right-of-way and Hurlburt indicated that he had placed rock on the right-of-way as it came off Beldon Street. Lucas asked if Hurlburt had obtained City Council permission to do that. Hurlburt stated that the City Council had given him permission and they had hauled the rock and he had paid for it. George Thompson, 410 Beldon Avenue, was sworn in. Thompson spoke of some drainage problems due to persons dumping debris in the ravine. Thompson stated that the alley used to end at a four stall garage that did not have any doors on it. Thompson stated that a person could not build a complex the size of that J� 1 1 i i IIICROFILMEO BY 1. -DORM- -MICR46LAB _ CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES f Board of Adjustment March 2, 1983 Page 16 proposed off of the alley because there is a ravine and the alley is not there. Thompson expressed concern at increased traffic at the entrance of the alley. Barbara Stay, 131 Grove Street, spoke about the functions of the ravine. She stated that, as a professional biologist, the ravine was very necessary to this part of the area as it provided for water run-off in such a way that it doesn't wash soil into the Iowa River. In addition, the ravine provides coolness in the summertime so one does not have to expend so much energy in air conditioning. She stated that most importantly, the ravine provides a sound barrier as most of the area to the south of the neighborhood was heavily populated. In addition, the ravine provides a refuge for wildlife and is ecologically important. Tom Keough, 216 McLean Street, was sworn in. Keough addressed an issue of who the apartments were supposed to benefit, observing that they were supposed to benefit him, the college student. Keough commented that apartments did not necessarily have to be located there and if they were, they would be very expensive. Keough suggested that the placement of apartments at this location would cause the loss of a ravine which was a very important part of his younger life. Keough addressed the drainage problems as well. Keough stated that the Board would be depriving future generations of the educational benefits of the ravine by allowing the construction of apartments that no one could afford. Keough stated that the benefits would, therefore, be outweighed by the harm. The meeting recessed at 7:52 p.m. and reconvened at 8:03 p.m. Barker stated for the record that the legal pad circulated at the beginning of the hearing had been returned and there were two pages of signatures that would be made part of the record. Barker asked Boyle to advise the Board which of the issues presented in the appeal were before the Board properly and available to be decided upon by the Board at this time. Boyle stated that it was his opinion that the specific issues before the Board were the accessibility of the parking spaces behind the building, and the question of whether or not the parking lot needs to be screened from the alley which is platted. Boyle further stated that it was his opinion that it was not the Board's function to determine whether the alley will be open; that is the function of the City Council. Barker asked if he understood correctly that in deciding the question of whether to revoke the building permit, the Board has the authority to make that decision based upon the screening or planting issue and/or the issue of accessibility to the specific parking spaces shown on the plat. Boyle replied affirmatively, stating that he also felt it would be appropriate for the Board, if it determined that it wishes to suspend the building permit, to condition that upon permission of the City Council to open the alley. Boyle stated that the Board could affirm the building official's action subject to the opening of the alley by consent of the City Council. VanderVelde questioned what effect that would have. Boyle reminded the Board that their decisions were good for six months and it would obviously require the builder to seek permission to open the alley. If the developer decided to build on the property, he would certainly be doing so at his own risk if the City Council did not open the alley. Boyle stated that there would be no access to those parking spaces if the alley was not opened. Barker asked if Boyle was suggesting that one permissible matter in which the Board could act was by saying the building permit should be revoked if the alley isn't opened and Boyle replied affirmatively. Barker commented that that seemed a round about way of using the alley issues which Boyle had advised was not before the Board. Boyle stated that the specific issue of whether or not the alley can be opened is not before the Board. The question before the Board is access and I_ MICROFILMED BY 1 --JORM MIC R6OINQ 1 CEDAR RAPIDS DES Id014ES J Board of Adjustment March 2, 1983 Page 17 1` the building permit could be affirmed subject to receipt of consent from the City Council to open the alley. Boyle stated that it was his opinion that there wfacts as no access unlgss the alley was opened and stated that he assumed that the determineowthat tthe alleythe BCould be satisfaction. ope ed,oBoylef the stated�thatty ohecwouIdwere then believe the building permit was in fact properly issued. The building inspector does not rely on anything except the application as filed and does not do a field inspection. When an alley is shown on the plat, the building inspector relies upon that; the builder takes the risk that the alley, in fact, was not open. Barker asked if the Board could hypothetically vote on the question that the building permit be revoked unless access is established and Boyle stated that they could. Fisher asked for the section of the City Code which referred to the accessibility of a parking lot through an alley. Boyle stated that there was no specific reference to accessbility through an alley; the question is in the definition of a parking space. Fisher stated that even if all the parking spaces could be egressed and ingressed, the question remained of getting into the parking lot. Fisher asked if that was addressed in the Code.Boyle stated that it was not specifically addressed except in the sense that the parking spaces have to be accessible in order to comply with the zoning ordinance. Fisher then asked why it was not appropriate for the Board to consider whether or not the parking lot was accessible and asked if Boyle felt accessibility and egress and ingress, and getting to the parking lot was all one issue. Boyle stated there were two issues on accessibility; one was the accessibility to the parking lot itself and the other was the question of whether or not the parking spaces shown in the lot were, in fact, accessible. Fisher stated that Boyle was saying the first issue was not grounds for revoking the permit. Boyle stated that it should not be revoked on that basis alone if the developer could obtain the consent of the City Council. Knight pointed out -that there is a zoning issue and whether or not the parking area as a whole is accessible by the alley-, but it is not before the Board whether or not the alley can or should be opened, whether it's physically possi questible to be opened or whether it should be opened is a on which the City Council should deal with. Ryan stated that it was her understanding of the Code that at the time the building permit was issued the property owner should be in compliance at that time. Ryan stated that it seemed to her that the review of the Board of Adjustment should be whether or not this building permit was rightfully issued in that the time it was issued whether or not access existed to the parking area. All of the parties seemed to be in agreement that there is indeed not an open area at this point. Ry determian stated that the appropriate action to take would be to ne whether or not this building permit was rightfully issued with access available to the parking area; if access does not exist then it would seem that the permit should be revoked as not being in compliance with the City ordinance. If the property owner then chooses to go to the City Council and obtain the at Permitted. That permiten h would hen relate toatheime a g grade that has been established Ryan by the City and the property owner would be dealing with the facts as they exist. stated waste If this aisoaecase of twhere he tlhe property nownercernwcontas ilnueseatihis own riskmor begins at his own risk to build the apartment, the City Council would be hard pressed to say "you're not having an 11 unit apartment house and we're not going to give you a parking lot, it will just sit there vacant." Ryan stated that that d it would be an economic waste. A better approach would be unreasonable an 1 MICROIILIIED BY 1. DORM"MICR6LAO -� CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES I /� Board of Adjustment March 2, 1983 Page 18 would be first to open the alley and then get a permit that complies with the regulations as they now exist. Lucas asked Boyle if it was true that at this point the property owner had a vested right of access to that right-of-way under Iowa law. Boyle stated that that was not the case in his opinion. Lucas referred to the Stom vs. City of Council Bluffs decision. Boyle stated that he did not think the property owner had a vested right to use that alley. Lucas stated that he agreed with Boyle that the Board of Adjustment does not have jurisdiction over whether that alley should be open but stated that there have been no court cases which have dealt specifically with the issue of when a dedicated right-of-way should be opened. Lucas stated that he didn't think that that was in itself was reason to sustain the appeal and thereby revoke the permit. In addition, Lucas satted that discussing the motion in terms of "this permit stands revoked until such time as the developer shows that the alley can be open" is stating the issue in the wrong way. Lucas argued that if the applicant cannot demonstrate that the building permit should be revoked either because of the screening or the 'parking configuration, the decision of this Board should be that the building permit be approved and it is contingent upon the property owner being able to obtain permission to open that alley. Boyle stated that the Board's suggested motion for discussion was stated in that way because the Board of Adjustment always states things in the affirmative in favor of the applicant. Lucas asked if Boyle was saying that the motion before' the Board would be to revoke the permit and both Boyle and Barker stated that that was correct. Lucas stated that as he understood it, the discussion was that the permit would be revoked subject to approval of opening the alley. Lucas questioned by what grounds the building permit would be revoked. Lucas stated that the Board could consider only the configuration of the parking lot and the screening and if they determine that the appeal to the parking lot configuration and the screening is without merit, then the motion before the Board would be whether or not to sustain the appeal. Barker stated that the motion before the Board would be whether or not to grant the relief requested, specifically, should the building permit be revoked. John Nolen, 22 E. Court Street, property owner of the lot in question, was sworn in. Nolen addressed the care and treatment of the environment and specifically, the reference to the trees. Nolen referred to his past efforts in tree planting in Aspen, Colorado, the Coralville Reservoir and Iowa City. Nolen stated that he sincerely respected the environment and guaranteed to this Board that that policy as far as he was concerned would not change. For the record, Nolen guaranteed to the Board that he had no intention of trespassing on anyone's property if it was necessary to open and use the alley. Nolen further guaranteed that he would not knowingly change any water course or in any way exacerbate any erosion. Nolen agreed that the ravine was important, stating that he would do everything he could to minimize the impact. Nolen stated that he felt that in cooperating with the reasonable engineering requirements of the City, he could do that. Nolen stated that there would be a minimum amount of fill required which would, to some extent, extend onto the south side of the ravine in the area between the east end of the alley not open and the northwest corner of the property. Nolen stated that the rest of the ravine would be left intact or unchanged as much as possible. Nolen submitted a map that was marked 141LROrIL14ED BY 1. -JORM- .AA CR;LA13 I CEDAR RA I' DES MO1�IE5 C 1 6 Off J Board of Adjustment r March 2, 1983 Page 19 in green depicting the area of R3A zoning. Nolen stated that this area had R3A zoning for about 20 years and it is entirely an R3A zoned use except for seven properties in the northwest corner including his own. Nolen emphasized the fact that the property was not purchased as any kind of reaction to downzoning and was not being developed in any kind of reaction to the forthcoming downzoning. Nolen stated that he had purchased the property in 1967 and has rented it since that time. Nolen emphasized the fact that this was not a "fly-by-night or eleventh hour attempt" at development. Nolen stated that there had been a good faith effort on his part to comply with the zoning laws and all the laws that apply. On the other side of that coin, Nolen stated that he had in good faith relied on the zoning laws that have been in effect there for longer than many of __...... the protestors have been in Iowa City. Ryan addressed the following questions to Nolen: Ryan asked Nolen if he was planning to put fill in the back of the parking area and Nolen replied affirmatively. Ryan asked how much fill had been calculated. Nolen said it had been calculated in terms of rough estimation, stating that if there was not enough fill involved with the grading of the property to the natural terrain at sidewalk elevation there was other fill available. Ryan asked if the largest change in grade that Nolen would be making had been calculated, asking what the greatest change in elevation would be made for the parking area. Nolen stated that the greatest change in elevation for the parking area would be eight feet or less of fill. Nolen stated that that would be at the extreme end where it begins to drop off. With regard to the east and west boundaries of the property, Ryan asked if the parking spaces would go right to the edge of the property line. Nolen stated that there would be ample accommodation for the kind of screening that would still accommodate the parking. Ryan asked if Nolen was testifying that there will be some fill where parking spaces 6, 7 and 8 would be located on the proposed design. Nolen stated that there would. Ryan asked how Nolen proposed to handle the change in grade that would exist from'the edge of the property to the Newman property at the property line. Nolen stated that there would probably be some type of retaining wall two or three feet at the south end that would be positive and a similar configuration at the north end that would be negative. Ryan questioned how, if the parking spaces go exactly to the property line, Nolen proposed to put in that retaining wall without going on the adjoining property. Nolen stated that he certainly had no intent to build anything on anyone else's property. Ryan asked if Nolen would need a construction easement to go on the adjoining property to build a retaining wall exactly at the property line. Nolen stated that the way the question had been phrased would certainly require a construction easement; however-, Nolen stated that he did not propose to build any retaining wall on anybody else's property. Ryan questioned whether or not Nolen would have to go on the property for the construction period. Nolen stated that he assumed that one could encroach on the parking for two or three or four inches. Ryan asked if Nolen had calculated how deep the retaining wall would be and Nolen replied it would be something like six inches. Ryan asked if it would be fair to say that the parking spaces would in actuality not go exactly to the property line but would be inset somewhat to make space for that retaining wall. Nolen stated that that would be the case, but a bumper could go over the retaining wall in most cases. Ryan asked if Nolen was going to be changing the elevation with relationship to parking spaces 13, 14 and 15 and the I abutting property there. Nolen stated that on the east side, he thought there was no change needed. On the every north end there would be some requirement for II a retaining wall but that retaining wall would not need to encroach on the 6 �Y i 141EROE ILIdED DY J - JORM -MICR6LAB 1 -1 ! CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES i L-. �' I Board of Adjustment March 2, 1983 Page 20 parking. Ryan asked if Nolen's plat showed that the parking spaces weren't exactly to the property line and Nolen stated that the plat did indeed show that. Ryan asked if Nolen planned to follow the plan when he built the parking configuration. Nolen stated that as far as he knew he would. Nolen stated that if the retaining wall goes from the parking surface down then one would not need to encroach on the space available for the car. Ryan asked if Nolen was going to have to work from the St. Thomas More property in order to construct a retaining wall right on his property line and Nolen stated that he did not think that would be the case. Nolen stated that one way to construct the retaining wall was to pour the wall, tip it up -and fill behind it. Ryan asked how Nolen proposed to construct the alley. Nolen stated that there were plans and specifications to a limited extent. Nolen stated that he took exception to Mr. Shive stating that there would need to be excavation. Nolen stated that you did not need to excavate and as a matter of fact, it was a good idea not to excavate below where the water is flowing. Nolen stated that if you put your conduit for water in a lower spot then you need not excavate, you need only fill over the conduit. Ryan referred to applicant's Exhibit 3, asking if Nolen agreed that, if he raised the level of the alley and raised the level of his property, there was going to be a low spot on the Keough property. Nolan stated that he agreed with that comment. Ryan asked how Nolen proposed to deal with the drainage on this portion of the Keough property. Nolen stated that one could put a tube on the natural water course; however, he would prefer- to accommodate whatever reasonable request Mrs. Keough had. If she wants that graded up to the rest of her lot, that would be satisfactory. Ryan asked what Nolen's present proposal with regard to the portion. of the alley shown as green abutting the Keough property. Nolen stated that he would propose that area to conform to the alley that comes within about j 25 feet and planned nothing different from what everyone else had at the present time. Ryan asked if Nolen agreed that there would be a change in grade from this new alley surface to the abutting properties which are marked on the exhibit as lots 3, 4 and 14. Nolen stated that he did not understand the question, commenting that if it meant whether he proposed to change the grade of any Property owner abutting the area, the answer is not without their permission. If they give no permission, then the answer is no. Ryan asked how Nolen planned to handle possible erosion from the edge of the alley if he built up the middle of the alley and if no change was made on the abutting properties. Nolen suggested that one method was by retaining walls and another method was by bringing everything up to conform with the grade of the alley as had been done at the east end of the alley north and south by lots 1, 2, 3, 16, 15 and 14. Ryan asked if Nolen had at this time received permission from the City to do any work inside the alley from the City Council. Nolen stated that he has not asked for it so the answer is no. Nolen stated that he anticipated that the City Council would not be unreasonable in its dealings on this matter and would handle it with the same even-handed manner or give the same equal protection they give everyone else. Ryan asked what Nolen intended to use for the proposed surface on the area of the alley that would be extended. Nolen stated that he would meet whatever the reasonable engineering requirements were of the City staff. The same applied to his intent with regard to the surfaces that he was going to put in the alley. Ryan asked if the City had made any requirement of Nolen with regard to the surface of the alley to this point. Nolen stated that, prior to the protest being filed, he had been told that the City staff persons had physically visited the site and had viewed this as they would any other building problem without alarm, and that the general reaction was that there was no problem that couldn't be resolved by competent means. Nolen stated that this still is a normal development just like countless number of other alleys and streets in town which have been filled and there weren't any insurmountable problems. (1' 1 i 141CRDf ILMED BY 1" -JORM--MICR4LAE3_I CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOME5 W Board of Adjustment March 2, 1983 Page 21 VanderVelde asked if Nolen knew for a fact that the City was there inspecting the property before the building permit was issued. Nolen stated that it was his belief that that was the case. VanderVelde asked who were the members of the City staff that performed this inspection. Nolen referred that question to Mike Furman. Furman stated that he had looked over the site with Don Stalkfleet, a field inspector. Furman stated that he had talked to Frank Farmer of the City on three separate occasions. Farmer had looked over the site. Furman stated that Farmer had indicated that if Furman met the requirements, they would establish a grade. Furman stated that he had talked to Farmer on three different occasions prior to the issuance of the permit. Furman was sworn in by Barker to testify to the truth at this point and swore that all his responses given up to this point were subject to the same oath. VanderVelde asked if Furman knew as a matter of his own knowledge whether either of these gentlemen were involved with the issuance of the building permit before the building permit was granted. Furman stated that he did not know this for a fact. Furman stated that the building inspector knew that he had spoken to Farmer. Furman stated that he had told the building inspector that the engineer had said, "Okay, if 1 will do this and this, it's fine." Furman stated than it was not until after the neighborhood had appealed the permit that further questions had arisen over the particular decision as to whether or not the alley could be improved. He observed that after the appeal had been filed, Frank Farmer had told Furman that he had to apply to the City Council for permission to open the alley. VanderVelde asked Furman if he had ever asked one of the members of the building inspection staff to visit the site before processing the application for the building permit and Furman replied in the negative. VanderVelde asked Siders if he.had inspected the site and Siders replied negatively. Barker stated that the record should reflect that the last response was from the City building official Glenn Siders. Siders was sworn in. Nolen asked Siders if it was unusual that he had not inspected the property. Siders stated that the building inspectors very seldom inspected the property prior to the issuance of the permit. Hanson questioned the process by which Nolen had attempted to buy four feet of church land so he could enter the parking lot from the east side. Nolen explained that negotiations that had been done by Furman with Father Sparks of St. Thomas More. Nolen stated that he had numerous negotiations in process and still agreed with that kind of approach. However, Nolen noted that the specific purpose of negotiating with the church for additional land is to prevent the building permit from going from 12 units to 11 units with a storage area. That reduction is due to the fact that there is insufficient square footage in lot 13 to support 12 units; the additional four feet off the east would have given that additional square footage required. The unit has been modified accordingly from a 12 unit building to 11 units because the parish council overruled Father Sparks of his decision to sell that east four feet. Hanson stated that it was his understanding that the church council had wanted to review a building permit prior to selling four feet of their property. That had been the time at which the building permit was taken out. Nolen disagreed, stating that it was his belief that it was taken out for the same reason the protestors were here today, that it was a political decision because a lot of people didn't want the apartment. Hanson stated that that was correct, the church did not want to sell Nolen four feet of land to build an apartment building. i MICROFILMED BY 1 `JORm-rAICR6LA9- 1 CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES J Board of Adjustment March 2, 1983 Page 22 Lucas stated that the real issue was whether or not the applicant could show by substantial evidence that this building permit was illegally issued. Lucas referred to a memorandum of law submitted to the Board of Adjustment's file that spells out his client's position in regard to all of these issues. With regard to screening, Lucas agreed that, as the staff pointed out, there is a lack of consistency in the Board of Adjustment's decisions regarding screening off the alley. The most recent decision was that a public view from an alley did not require screening and the plot plat plan does not show screening. If the Board of Adjustment decides that screening should be put in here and is appropriate, Lucas stated that due to "Mr. Nolen's love of trees" he will provide for the screening of at the parking lot. Whether or not it's required, Lucas stated that Nolen was probably going to provide screening. With regard to parking, Lucas stated that the building permit had been -issued upon the parking configuration shown and this assumes that there's a presumption of regularity and validity to any act of a City official. Therefore, we feel it is the burden of the applicant to show by substantial evidence that this parking configuration is unobtainable. Lucas pointed out that there was similar parking configurations in Iowa City at 620 S. Dodge and 409 S. Dodge with comparable aisles. Lucas commented that whether or not it would be a physical impossibility to place the car there as Shive had testified was unknown, stating that he very rarely saw a car that was 20 feet long. Lucas commented that the longest car he had Fuuk was 18 feet long and that had been driven by Mr. Nolen. In addition, Lucas pointed out that there were no standards in existence at the time this building permit was issued on January 12 and further, the City was taking the position at that time that a ten foot parking aisles was sufficient in their view because of the lack of definition within the Code of Ordinances of the City of Iowa City. Lucas stated that his client felt that the imposition of these expost facto memorandums which are not even ordinances now pursuant to Iowa Code Chapter 414 would raise very serious legal questions about equal protection by the law.. Lucas cited to the Board the case of Jersild vs. Sarcone, 263 Iowa 288, a 1967 Iowa case dealing with setback. Lucas stated that in that case, the issue before the court was whether or not the proposed building complied with the setback regulations. It was argued that the setback regulations as obtained in the Code of Ordinances were unclear and ambiguous as the Iowa City regulations are here. The court had ruled in that case that, when a zoning regulation is ambiguous and unclear, it must be strictly construed against the free use of property. Lucas stated that Nolen has in good faith attempted to comply with the parking configuration regulations as they then existed or did not exist, as the case may be. He did so on the basis of a plot plan which had previously been approved at other locations in the City of Iowa City. Lucas stated that he did not feel that the applicants have sustained their burden of proof to show by substantial evidence that in fact this parking configuration is unattainable. However, should the Board decide that this parking configuration lacked something, Nolen has informed him that he is willing to submit a modification of that plot plan removing the parking spaces 16 and 17 and locating them in a garage in the building, in the area which is now planned for storage space. Lucas stated that there would then be a 21 foot parking aisle which is five feet more than the regulations as proposed by the City. With regard to this alley, with right-of-way providing access to the parking lot, Lucas stated that he agreed with Boyle that it was outside the Board's jurisdiction and technical expertise as to whether this alley should be opened. There was nothing in the record showing that this alley, if opened, would not 1 i 141CROFIL74ED BY 1. JORM-'MICR6LAB CEDAR RAPIDS DES '401YES 4,10 J Board of Adjustment March 2, 1983 Page 23 comply with the applicable zoning regulations of the City of Iowa City. Lucas Pointed out a loophole in the Zoning Code that required off-street parking but did not require access to it; Lucas agreed that there must be access to off- street parking, but this loophole is peculiar. Lucas stated that, from their research, it was his opinion that Nolen had a vested right of access to that alley and the City cannot deny access. Lucas referred to the case of Stone vs. the City of Council Bluffs. Lucas pointed out that the alley is open at both ends and is used for access for single-family residents and similar type family dwellings; the grade has been established there if not by ordinance then by usage. Lucas stated that Nolen proposed to do as others had done which was to improve the alley so that they could get access. Lucas emphasized the fact that Nolen felt he had a right to that access. Lucas urged that the Board deny the present appeal pending the opening of that alley. Barker asked Lucas for the citation on the case that was not currently in the Board's files. Lucas cited 260 Iowa 288, 1967. Hanson disagreed with Lucas's statement that the alley was open at both ends, stating that it is only open on Beldon and there was no alley open on the east end. Lucas stated that he had been referring to the north end that fronts on Grove Street which is platted as an alley but is now named as a street and opened and providing access to certain areas. Mahon stated that the alley had been vacated at the east end by the City to St. Thomas More according to the records she had consulted in the early 1960's. Mahon indicated the portion of the alley to which she referred. Moved by Vanderhoef that the permit be revoked. Seconded by VanderVelde. Vanderhoef emphasized the amount of discretion the Board had in determining what actions were appropriate in this case. Vanderhoef wondered if the motion on the floor would make any difference as far as discretion. Barker stated that the motion could be withdrawn; however, discussion could continue withdrawing the motion as to whether or not any conditions should be withoutched to atta it. Barker stated that Boyle had advised the Board that there were two issues properly before them; the first being the accessibility of parking spaces and the screening or planting issue. Barker stated that the Board has been advised by counsel for the developer, that the developer would consider eliminating two of the parking spaces. Barker asked if that would solve the accessibility problem. Lucas pointed out that two spaces would not be eliminated but rather relocated. Barker stated that the developer planned to relocate two of the property spaces into a garage on the building. The question remaining before the Board is whether or not the applicant can physically get to the rear of his lot by the alley. Barker asked if Boyle -was suggesting that that was not within the purview of the Board. Boyle stated that he did not think that was quite correct, stating that he had suggested that the question of whether the alley could be opened was not properly before the Board. The question which was before the Board, is whether the parking space or parking area is not accessible as presently located and if it could become accessible if the alley were opened. The accessibility of the entire parking lot is a question for this Board as well as the accessibility of individual parking spaces. Barker asked if it was Boyle's position that the Board could either revoke or not revoke the permit and condition that on access being provided to the parking lot. Boyle indicated that was correct. i i 111CRO(ILME0 BY 1 'DORM"MIC ROLAB' LEDAR RAf'I DS DES 1101`1E5 G0 J Board of Adjustment March 2, 1983 Page 24 It was noted that the facts as presented would suggest that in its present state the parking spaces are not accessible from the street. VanderVelde asked if Nolen had any evidence to suggest that the parking spaces are presently accessible from the street with the alley in its current state. Nolen as Nolen stated that there were two parked if VanderVelde meant from the street through the alley and VanderVelde replied yes. ts to the answer, and explained that you could probably drive down but would have a tough time of getting back out. In addition, Nolen stated that he believed that every property owner has a legal right of access to the designated right-of-way. VanderVelde stated that her question was not about the legal right but was in reference to the physical characteristics of the alley right-of-way at present. With regard to the alley right-of-way between Grove and McLean streets, Nolen stated that there was access to the public through the alley for everything but ordinary vehicles and that it would be impractical to try and drive across there now. VanderVelde suggested that the Board make that a finding of fact. VanderVelde stated that based on that information she believed that the Board needed to revoke the building permit. VanderVelde explained that it seemed to point in the direction of revoking the permit because they could not get to the rear of their property access without some further City action. VanderVelde stated that whether they had a legal right to open the right-of-way was a legal question beyond the Board's decision-making powers, noting that Boyle had advised the Board that it was is his opinion that must be granted by the City. Boyle observed that he had said that the right to open the alley is a power of the City Council and other access as Nolen described is available. Nolen asked Boyle. whether or not he could refer the Board to a specific case on that legal point from the Supreme Court of Iowa. Boyle stated that he did not have a case which was the exact factual situation as it existed here but referred to the Tott case. Nolen stated that the Tott'case had found that a plaintiff or applicant does not have the right to an injunction mandating the City to open an alley up to the expense. Boyle stated that he believed the Tott case said that the City is not required to allow anyone to open an alley without consent bf the City Council. Nolen asked if the Supreme Court has specifically spoken to the issue of requiring the City to expend its own funds to open the alley. Boyle stated that that has probably been implied but was not a specific issue that he had read in the case. Nolen asked if the Stone case specifically limited the Tott case to that effect and Boyle stated that it was his opinion that it did not. Boyle stated that the Stone case was factually different than the Tott case and the Present case. Nolen referred to page 526 of the 189Northwest Reporter, 2d. and quoted from that page stating that "it is limited to a determination of rights when a property owner by mandamus action seeks to compel, the city to open and pave public street." Nolen asked if counsel for the City would agree that that applies equally to a public right-of-way. Boyle stated that streets and alleys are treated in the same manner. Barker asked Nolen if he could complete this project without the alley. Nolen stated that if Barker meant would he have access to the parking lot without the alley the answer was no. Nolen asserted that the project required alley access. Barker rationalized that Nolen's presence here tonight was due to one set of problems with the building permit, in addition separate problems have to be figured out such as a way to use the alley. Nolen agreed that that was a separate problem but felt it was no different from any one of the myriad of other problems in developing any project. Nolen stated his intent to comply with any access requirement. 111CRUILMED BY l_ _DORM MICR6LAG_ CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINE15 I r� I ,J J V I \y ' I Board of Adjustment March 2, 1983 Page 25 Barker observed that the issue of whether the parking is accessible is before the Board. Barker noted that the applicant was suggesting that the developer may not be able to get to his parking but that the Board did not know that for sure. Barker stated that the developer was saying, "I have a right to fill it and I have a right to make it so I can get there." Then the applicant said, "No, you can't do that. It's a physical impossibility." The developer has said, "Well, I think I can do it." VanderVelde stated that she did not see this as a question of whether the alley can be opened, but rather as a question of fact for the Board to decide. It is a present state of fact that access is not available. Vanderhoef asked Boyle whether great pains have been taken in this case to comply with the letter of the law. Boyle stated that the Board could assume that there had not been any evidence that the City review process had not been done in a normal manner. Vanderhoef remarked that the permit was in total compliance and the issue before the Board was a question of access. VanderVelde disagreed, stating that the regular procedure by the City was not to make a site visit. The building inspector acted on all the information that he had available to him at that point but he did not have available to him the fact that there was a 14 foot drop in the alley. Barker pointed out that the building inspector had had available to him the representation of the City Engineer who had seen the site and had discussed the matter with Furman and had determined that the problems could be overcome. Boyle asked the Commission to speak to that statement: Boyle explained that City Engineer Frank Farmer could not be present tonight but that an affidavit had been given by Farmer concerning his discussions with Furman. One of the points made in the affidavit was that Farmer told Furman that anytime he wanted to do that (fill in the 'site) he had to have the consent of the neighbors. Boyle furnished copies of Farmer's affidavit. (Barker read the affidavit into the record --see attached.) - Lucas pointed out that Farmer had told Furman that he was going to have to obtain consent because filling would be required on the other people's properties. Nolen has demonstrated tonight that retaining walls were going to be supplied and fill was not going to be used as contemplated by Shive. In addition, Lucas commented that the affidavit showed that in fact the City took more pains with this permit than they usually do. Furman stated that he would like to note the distinction between getting the permission of the neighbors and getting the permission of the neighbors if he planned to fill on their lots. Thompson argued that it was not the case that the City spent more time with this building permit than others since all this discussion took place after the building permit had been issued. Mahon stated that at least one issue remained unresolved and that that was that the configuration of the parking as shown in this building permit is not within the City Code, regardless of the alley issues. Nolen had indicated his intent to put a garage in his building but that is a material alteration of his building permit, which has a real effect, because at this time there is a moratorium in effect in Manville Heights on the issuance of any more building permits. Mahon stated that she would regard any change in the building permit as approved by the City of this nature to be a material change and not within the power of the Board to approve in light of the pending moratorium. 141CROFIL1BY -JORM 1.MIA13CEDAR RAPIDS4ES 'I / i Board of Adjustment March 2, 1983 Page 26 Boyle commented that the moratorium prohibits the issuance of new building permits in this particular area. Barker asked if in Boyle's opinion that limited or restricted in any extent the power of the Board in hearing this matter. VanderVelde asked if the moratorium extended to amending building permits. Boyle explained that there are no formal amendments procedures per se. The building inspector is allowed to approve changes as brought in by contractors from time to time. There is no procedure for amending building permits. Lucas pointed out that the Board had all the powers of the building inspector under 414.13 and could modify anything. Fisher asked Boyle how he would advise Kucharzak, if Kucharzak had asked him prior to the issuance of a permit about the issue of the alley and Boyle informed him that the alley could not be opened without City Council approval. Fisher asked how Boyle would advise Kucharzak with regard to issuing a permit; would he advise him not to issue it until City Council approval was obtained, or would he advise him to issue it with a warning to the applicant. Boyle stated he was unsure of what advice he would have given him. Considering the fact that at the time this permit was issued, the moratorium was not in effect and action had not commenced, Boyle stated that he may have advised Kucharzak to issue a conditional permit based on opening the alley. Boyle noted that this was speculation to some extent. Fisher asked if the City issued building permits conditional upon City Council action. Siders stated no. Fisher asked Kucharzak whether or not he would have issued the building permit if he had known City Council permission was required to open this alley and that the applicant did not have access to the parking lot at the time he was applying for the permit. Kucharzak stated that he would not have done any more than rely on the City Engineer and pointed out that his staff had suggested that Furman discuss his alley questions with the City Engineer. Kucharzak stated that the staff had reviewed the permit application based on the ordinances which are the responsibility of inspectors to enforce and not an engineering question. Fisher asked if Kucharzak would normally have issued a building permit if one could not establish access to the parking space and if Kucharzak had issued this permit because he had thought access was a matter of right. Kucharzak stated that he had been assured that this was going to be a usable alley and a usable parking lot before the certificate of occupancy would have been issued, which is at the end of the process and not the beginning. Lucas asked by whom Kucharzak was assured. Kucharzak stated that he had been assured by Glenn Siders. Barker reminded the Board that the question was whether or not this building permit should be revoked. The applicant stated that the building permit should be revoked for a variety of reasons and legal counsel has said that the Board has accessbility and screening as permissible reasons that they can use to vote in the affirmative on the motion and revoke the permit. Vanderhoef stated that the Board should not be concerned about screening as it was only required as viewed from the street. VanderVelde asked if it was not also required from a public alley. Barker stated that he was also not worried about screening. Vanderhoef stated that the big issue was accessibility. VanderVelde asked about the issue of retaining walls and Vanderhoef stated that that was part of access. VanderVelde observed that minimal access would be halfway down the lot and that some retaining wall would have to be placed inside the property line at 204 McLean Street. VanderVelde asked if that was 1� i M111O11011 BY 1_ -JORINMIC R4/LA CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES I MI J Board of Adjustment March 2, 1983 Page 27 considered in the issuance of the building permit. Fisher stated that that was relevant to the parking configuration issue because a retaining wall is a significant intrusion into the parking spaces. Fisher noted, however, that in his opinion that was a moot issue because parking spaces 16 and 17 could not be considered valid parking spaces. Fisher remarked that although the ordinance as written then did not have an aisle width standard; that does not mean it has no standard at all. Rather, the standard is that parking spaces shall permit ingress and egress of the vehicle without moving any other vehicle. Fisher expressed that he was persuaded there were not 17 parking spaces that could be occupied simultaneously; there were in fact only 15. Fisher stated that that was his basis for revoking the permit. Vanderhoef pointed out that if the City allows adjustments to be made to building permits after they are issued then Nolen could put those two spaces underneath the building as suggested which would make the parking lot comply with the Zoning Ordinance. Barker asked if Vanderhoef was suggesting that as a possible condition. Vanderhoef stated that if the property owners have the right to adjust the design of the parking area after the permit was issued, he could not see revoking the permit for that reason because they've already solved the problem. Vanderhoef stated that the problem remaining was with access, stating he did not see how one could build retaining walls in an alley of that size. The members discussed this matter. Ryan stated that she did not think there would be any testimony with regard to where the garage doors would be if two parking spaces were put inside that building and how it would relate to the parking configuration. Ryan suggested that there would be an access problem with putting the garage door where the present access door is. Furman stated that the storage unit would be moved in the front so one could drive in right off the street and that an overhead door could be provided. Barker reminded the members that a motion was on the floor. VanderVelde asked that the motion be read. Behrman read the motion "Moved by Vanderhoef that the permit be revoked and seconded by VanderVelde." Barker reminded the Board that they had just pasesd the four and one-half hour mark and indicated that he would entertain a motion to suspend the rule and go on to some specific period of time. Vanderhoef moved that the Board's procedural rules be suspended regarding adjournment until 10:00 p.m. Fisher seconded the motion. The motion carried, unanimously. Vanderhoef commented that a simple revoking of the permit would disallow any new permits to be issued because the moratorium is in effect. Boyle stated that revocation would obviously not permit the construction of this 11 unit structure. However, the moratorium would only last for 60 days and the rezoning would be RNC -20. Boyle indicated that the developer would be allowed to build five or six units on this property under that new zoning and revocation of a permit would not forever bar construction on this property. Barker stated that there is the distinction between whether a building permit should be issued and whether a building permit should be revoked. Barker reminded the Board members that there was a presumption of regularity on the part of the City staff and the question was whether or not that's been overcome by the applicant's suggestion that the parking lot as configured is physically unusable and the further suggestion that you could not get a car to it if you wanted to. Barker stated that those were the two primary reasons before the Board and if any conditions were to be made on the motion, the conditions would lie in those two areas. MICROFILMED BY 1. __JORM -MICRbLAEl. -� CEDAR RAPIDS • DES M01'ES I r J Board of Adjustment March 2, 1983 Page 28 VanderVelde asked if the Board could make a motion stating that the building permit is revoked "unless and until." Boyle stated that the way the statute reads, he believed the Board had that power. Boyle added that there had been no interpretation regarding the Board's power in that regard, but the statute is very broad. Barker questioned whether that condition would cause any great harm as the question of access would have to be resolved before construction would logically begin anyway. VanderVelde stated that that was the reason it was important to condition the motion. The members discussed a possible motion. VanderVelde stated that the developer should be allowed the maximum flexibility of relocation of parking spaces, noting that the Board should condition the permit in such a way that those particular parking stalls (16 and 17) be accessible and that the retaining walls be located within the boundary lines of the property. Fisher suggested that the conditions be made more specific. He suggested that the parking spaces be located in such a manner that the aisle width be no less than a certain amount. Barker stated that he did not want to leave any more interpretation in the motion than necessary, stating he would not supporta motion unless it specified that 16 and 17 would be taken out of the lot and put within the building. Fisher suggested that the conditions should make clear that the applicant must obtain City Council approval on the opening of the alley prior to the start of A construction. Margaret Keough of 216 McLean Street was sworn in. She expressed concern over the possibility that construction could begin prior to theapplicant gaining access and referred to the case on Ellis Avenue. Nolen pointed out that this property was on McLean Street and was totally unrelated to Ellis Avenue. stated that they had the same builder. Nolan stated that the property Fad different owners. VanderVelde questioned whether Nolan would need parking spaces 16 and 17 if this were a ten unit building. Vanderhoef asked who approved drainage and was told that the City Engineer did. Boyle stated that, if the alley was built, the City Engineer would consider drainage in approving the plan. Vanderhoef asked who approved drainage'and.being told it was the City Engineer. Boyle stated that if the alley was built, the City Engineer would take drainage into consideration in approving the plan. Knight stated that the question of the design of the alley would also be discussed at the time a decision was made whether it should be opened. The Board discussed whether or not to vote on the motion to revoke the permit. VanderVelde suggested that the motions be taken up "seriatum" motion didn't pass, the Board could make another motion. and that if one VanderVelde suggested that the Board first take up the motion of just revoking the permit. Vanderhoef commented that when that was done the issue would be resolved because that was what applicant was requesting. The Board discussed whether the best Course of action was to revoke the permit period or to revoke the permit with conditions. Barker suggested that the Board limit its conditions only to spaces 16 and 17 and not deal with the alley. Fisher stated that he was persuaded that that would leave open the possibility that construction could start which would then make it very difficult for the City Council not to approve the alley, seeing a half - built apartment house. Nolan stated that he had no inclination to start construction on a parking lot or any apartment where access to a parking lot was not available. In addition, Nolan stated that there had been to his knowledge no construction of any kind that is in non-compliance with the City Code. i MICROFILMED BY 1" -DORM MICRO -LAB'- - 'l CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES I Board of Adjustment March 2, 1983 Page 29 Barker asked if Nolan would be inconvienced if the Board were to refuse to revoke the permit but condition it upon determination of alley access by the City of Iowa City. Nolan stated that, whether or not it would inconvenience him, he had no inclination to have a several hundred thousand dollar white elephant on his hands either. Nolan stated that there was a practical consideration in there that was not a matter of convenience. Mahon stated that she would like the record to reflect that .the current structure at 204 McLean is being occupied by individuals who have indicated to her that they will be occupying it until May l6. She observed that the place is not licensed as a rooming house or a rental unit. Mahon stated that she assumed that, if this building is allowed to remain indefinitely, Mr. Nolan will either bring it into compliance with the Safety or Housing codes of the City or see to it that it is not occupied unsafely by people. Nolan stated that as far as he knew, he had had a permit issued by the City Inspection Department. Ruth Jacobs, 327 Ferson, was sworn in. Jacobs stated that since Nolan had said he was not intending to build anything there, he should not mind not having a building permit. Jacobs suggested that since Nolan is waiting to open up the alley, he should give up his building permit. Staley. 314 Beldon Avenue, stated that she respected the rights of an individual property owner to develop his property according to the zoning exists as Nolan indicated. However, most of the neighbors in the room have been aware since 1978 that this area was under consideration for downzoning. Staley expressed. concern that the Board of Adjustment was reviewing a permit that once again preempts the contemplated zoning change. Staley urged that the Board take into consideration the inaccessibility of the parking area. VanderVelde stated that there were two possibilities for the Board to explore; one possibility is to act on the motion. Then assuming that that passes, that's the end. Assuming that that does not pass, then the Board can propose other motions and act on that. Vanderhoef questioned whether or not that could be done. Vanderhoef asked Boyle if the Board could state another motion if they were to vote on the motion as originally stated "that the Board recommended a revocation of a building permit issued for 204 McLean Street." Boyle stated that it sounded to him that if the motion did not pass, then the case is closed. VanderVelde questioned whether there was no way that the Board could then propose a motion that would be less stringent than the motion that did not pass as an alternative? Boyle stated that the motion would in fact dispose of the matter and there would be nothing left to decide. Barker suggested that the Board approach the matter from the other view and vote on motions that wouldn't dispose of the matter first. VanderVelde commented that the Board was discussing a strictly technical question of how to make a motion that meets the wishes of the Board. Boyle suggested that perhaps the Board could make a motion to amend the original motion and then act on each amendment leaving the main question on the floor. Vanderhoef asked whether or not it would be true that if the Board took action on a motion contingent upon several things, they would still have to make a motion directly regarding the revocation. In other words, the Board would not be disposing of the issue by acting on the first motion. .VanderVelde asked about the screening issue. Barker indicated he would not vote to require screening and Vanderhoef agreed. VanderVelde asked the reasons for this. Vanderhoef stated that it was because the Board had not voted for screening at its last hearing. VanderVelde pointed out that the issue last time had been different from this case. Vanderhoef disagreed, stating that screening it MICROFIL14ED BY 1_ --- JORM--MICRbLAB- 1 1 CEDAR RAPIDS - DES MOVIES 1 J Board of Adjustment r' March 2, 1983 Page 30 was only required where public view of the parking from the street occurred. VanderVelde disagreed stating that screening should be required from the public alley. Vanderhoef commented that Nolan had indicated that he would plant trees whether or not they were required. Boyle suggested that the Board first decide on each of the specific issues before them, suggesting that a motion with respegt to each of those issues could be made and findings could be made on each issue. Boyle stated that the Board also had the power to condition the motion on a time limit within which permission to open the alley could be obtained from the City Council. If that permission was not obtained, then the building permit could be revoked. Boyle stated that the Board also had the power to prohibit building during that period of time. Nolan suggested that the Board could preliminarily move and adopt that the operation in effect and time limit of the building permit be suspended pending compliance with the applicable laws. If the Board passed that then they could vote on the main appeal. Nolan suggested as a possible motion that it be moved that the operation in effect and time applicable to the building permit in consideration before the Board be suspended pending the approval and compliance with the laws applicable. Nolan suggested that if that motion passed, the Board• could then vote on the main question of whether or' not to revoke the building permit. Ryan commented briefly on Nolan's proposed language, stating that there is a provision within the City Code that a building permit expires within six months. Ryan stated that Nolan's proposal would give him indefinite immunity beyond the intent of the ordinance and suggested that if the Board decided to approve a motion similar to this, that the time limit provided be no longer than the six months which is provided for the building permit. Siders mentioned that another time limit was also in effect; that time limit is the 120 day expiration time period as set forth by the Uniform Building Code which the Board does not have the authority to act upon. That 120 day time limit is currently in limbo until a decision of the Board is rendered. Siders pointed out that there were two time periods within which the building inspectors had to work if the Board were to consider proposing a certain time period. With regard to access, Vanderhoef suggested that the building permit be conditioned upon access to the alley being gained from the City Council, parking spaces 16 and 17 being relocated to comply and all retaining walls being relocated within the property lines. Barker asked for a vote to suspend the procedural rules regarding adjournment for another 15 minutes. Moved by VanderVelde and seconded by Vanderhoef. The motion carried unanimously. VanderVelde suggested that the motion be made in the nature of "revoke unless and until and if that passed, go on to the issue of revoking unconditionally." Vanderhoef withdrew his pending motion and VanderVelde withdrew her second. VanderVelde moved that the Board revoke the building permit issued for 204 McLean Street unless and until access by the alley be gained from the City Council and parking spaces 16 and 17 be relocated to a two -car garage within the structure and all retaining walls be located within the property line. Nolan 1 MICRorILMED 0Y 11. JORM -MICR46LAB' 1 1 CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES I M] J Board of Adjustment March 2, 1983 Page 31 asked if the Board would consider the retaining walls within the property lines and alley right-of-way. VanderVelde stated no, that the retaining walls have to be within the property line and cannot be within the alley. Knight pointed out that the developer was referring to the construction of the alley itself. VanderVelde remarked that that was within the jurisdiction of the City Council when granting access. Fisher seconded the motion. Lucas asked that the motion be reread and Behrman complied. Lucas asked if the Board was referring to retaining walls not being permitted on private property other than Nolan's. VanderVelde stated that that was correct. Barker suggested that the motion read "all retaining walls on the property be located within the property lines." Lucas asked if the building permit would be revoked if this motion passed the Board and VanderVelde replied affirmatively. Lucas asked if the Board was saying that, if Nolan obtained City Council approval for the alley and moved parking spaces 16 and 17, the existing permit would automatically be reinstated without further action by the Board. Barker suggested that the word "suspended" be used rather than "revoked" in the motion. Lucas agreed with that suggestion. Boyle stated that that would be permissible. VanderVelde stated that that would be agreeable as long as there was no existing way that construction could be commenced on "suspended" but not "revoked" building permits. Lucas stated that Nolan had already indicated his intent not to start construction until access was available. Ryan reminded the Board that the issue before the Board is whether or not the permit that was issued complied with City ordinances at the time that it was isseud. Ryan expressed the belief that these matters were substantial amendments and it would be more appropriate to simply revoke this permit and have the applicant start over again. Ryan stated that a number of concerns had been addressed by the applicant, particuarly with regard to the abutting property ow6ers who are going to be affected by retaining walls and the effect of the drainage and the effect of building up the alley with a retaining wall. Ryan stated that there is an ordinance provision which provides that construction cannot be done to the damage of the neighbors. She observed that the applicant did not feel that this proposal even as amended meets that qualification of not damaging the abutting neighbors who have to be concerned about their surface water drainage and the problem of the walls that are proposed to be constructed around them. Ryan pointed out that no mention of a time limit was included in the motion. VanderVelde stated that it was her interpretation of the motion that this motion in no way extends the building permit over and ab.ove any existing time limits that exist. Fisher suggested that that might need to be clarified if "suspension" were used since it could be interpreted to mean that time clocks were also suspended. VanderVelde stated that that was why she preferred the word "revoked." Barker suggested a conditional revocation if within a certain period of time the applicant was unable to modify the permit to put the garage inside and obtain alley access from the City of Iowa City. Barker stated that he considered Lucas's objection to the word "revoked" to be a valid one. VanderVelde disagreed because that would have the effect of making the current building permit a valid one. Barker stated that that was true and would be done to give the applicant enough time to meet the rest of the conditions. VanderVelde stated that she did not think the building permit should remain valid. Fisher pointed out that with a valid permit the developer could continue 1 � 14ICROf IL14ED BY � 1. "'JORM--'MIC R(SCAB L ; CEDAR RAPIDS • DES 401AES i � .J /T f Board of Adjustment March 2, 1983 Page 32 to construct. Lucas emphasized Nolan's intent not to begin construction until such time as all regulations were complied with. Lucas questioned whether or not it was within the Board of Adjustment's power to pass the motion staying construction on a non -revoked building permit. Staley questioned the assistance the Board was receiving from Nolan and Lucas in wording their motions. Staley asked that the Board define the word 11construction," stating that a problem had existed in the Ellis Street case. VanderVelde suggested that that problem might be alleviated by asking if Nolan would agree not to demolish any present structure until all conditions were cleared. Nolan stated that he would agree to that. Fisher questioned whether or not the Board could put into a motion that a demolition permit could not be issued. Siders stated that demolition permits are controlled by the Uniform Building Code and are not within the purview of the Board. Janet Schlechte, 340 Magowan, was sworn in. Schlecthe questioned the procedure the neighbors could follow if the developer ignored the stipulations about to be worded by the Board. Schlechte asked who would be responsible for the enforcement of the stipulations. Boyle stated that the responsibility would lie with the City Building Department. Boyle stated that a stop work order could be issued for any violation of the Board order or the neighbors could come to the Legal Department and ask them to take legal action. Barker requested a motion to suspend the rules for ten minutes. Moved by Vanderhoef and seconded by Fisher. The motion passed unanimously. Murray Hill, 341 Ferson, expressed the concern that the Board was getting tied up in the difficulties of terminology and, losing sight of the issue. Hill stated that the major issues were that of access and parking configuration. Hill .expressed the concern that the intent of Nolan to add additional trees might affect the number of parking spaces. Nolan suggested that the motion read "revoked at the end of 180 days pending compliance." VanderVelde stated that the Board wished to make sure the permit was revoked presently rather than after a period of time is passed. Lucas suggested that the motion also include wording to the effect that "pending compliance all construction is stayed." Barker asked that the motion be read. Behrman stated that the motion read as follows: "Moved that we .revoke the building permit issued for 204 McLean Street unless and until access by the alley be gained 'from the City Council, parking spaces number 16 and 17 be located in two -car garage within the structure, and the retaining walls on the property be located within property lines." Vanderhoef asked Siders whether the "time clock" would start running on the 120 day period if the motion passed. Siders stated that he would have to refer that question to Legal, but it was his opinion that as soon as the building permit is revoked, it is revoked. In addition, that would start the time clock as soon as that opinion is filed with the City Clerk and the Board's decision has been rendered. Vanderhoef asked if that meant the permit would expire within 120 days from the date of issuance. Siders stated that that was correct and that clock would start as soon as the decision of the Board was filed. i MICROFILMED BY L- 1 -"JORIN �MIC RbLAB_ CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES 1 Board of Adjustment March 2, 1983 Page 33 VanderVelde asked if the Board should include language in the motion that says that this motion is in no way deemed to affect the running of the applicable time limits. Barker suggested that that was outside the purview of the Board. Vanderhoef pointed out that the original permit would expire of its own accord within a certain length of time. The motion passed 3-1; Barker voted no. Moved by Vandervelde to revoke the existing permit. Seconded by Fisher. Boyle asked why that motion was needed. VanderVelde explained that the Board wished to be able to vote on both the less stringent and more stringent motions. Boyle stated that he felt the Board had already solved the problem. Vanderhoef disagreed, stating that the Board had not responded to the applicants' request. Barker stated that the Board had in revoking the permit unless and until conditions "A, B, C and D" have been met. VanderVelde stated that her understanding was that the Board would vote on the revocation without the conditions. Barker observed that he had thought the additional motion would be made in case the Board had failed in the attempt to pass the previous motion. VanderVelde disagreed. Boyle stated that he did not feel the Board had to vote on a motion exactly as stated in the application. The Board has taken some action with respect to this application for revocation; the Board has said the permit is revoked unless the developer complies. The members discussed whether or not it was necessary to vote on the more stringent motion. Barker asked what would happen if the Board received three affirmative votes to revoke the permit. One motion stated that the permit was revoked and the other motion passed stated that the permit was revoked unless and. until. Barker questioned the result of this action. VanderVelde stated that the result would be that the more stringent motion would prevail. Boyle stated that it was his opinion that the Board has the power to make that decision between the members themselves. VanderVelde stated that she would amend the motion to make it clear that the motion would supercede the prior motion. Behrman reminded the members that a motion was on the floor. Kucharzak reminded the *members that they had to extend their meeting time. Vanderhoef moved that the meeting be extended for five more minutes and Fisher seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. VanderVelde moved the following amendment, this motion to supercede the motion that just passed, to revoke the building permit issued for 204 McLean Street. Fisher seconded the amendment. The motion carried 3-1; Barker voted no. The building permit issued for 204 McLean Street was revoked. CONSIDERATION OF FORMAL DECISIONS REGARDING: V-2832 - Pizza Hut; V-8234 - Zephyr Copies; V-8235 - Robert Powers; V-8236 - Beverly Enterprises; V-8301 - 528 E. College Street; and V-8304 - 365 Ellis Street. The Board discussed minor amendments to these formal decisions and Boyle made up the appropriate revisions. Ar MICROFILMED BY ,,.'•,, 11. JORM---MICROLAE!-_ � CEDAR RAPIDS - DES MOINES �I � r Board of Adjustment March 2, 1983 Page 34 i I VanderVelde moved that these formal decisions be approved as amended. Vanderhoef seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 10:43 p.m. Taken by: S�!_ Sara Be rma M e:Taker Submitted by: •\)_,�_ z��— � Douglas Boot �y, secretary i \ ( j Approved by:- Scott Barker, Chairperson i • j I _ I i i i G 8P p IdICROFIl14EO DY '� 111 / •�� y`` — JOR AA—W I C R#C"A B'— L % I CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 9, 1983 4:30 P.M. CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: FINAL ACTION TAKEN: None. Vanderhoef, Slager, Fisher Barker, Vander.Velde Knight, Boyle SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: Vanderhoef was appointed Acting Chair for this meeting. Vanderhoef called the meeting to order. Knight called the roll. VARIANCE ITEMS: V-8305. Public hearing on an application submitted by Terry and Lory Vargason for a variance to Section 8.10.23, Yard Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance to permit construction of a duplex at 1110-1112 Hotz Avenue. Knight reviewed the staff report, stating that the applicants are requesting a variance to Section 8.10.23, Yard Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit construction of a duplex which does --not have the required rear yard for the full width of the lot. Because of the shape of the—lot, the west half of the duplex would have only 11 feet between the building and the property line. A distance of 93 feet exists from the rear of the east half of the proposed duplex to the rear lot line. Knight stated that the applicants have pointed out several reasons why they felt a variance should be granted. First, they stated that an 11 foot rear yard exists for the duplex located at 1104-1106 Hotz Avenue. Knight stated that this property has a 77 foot rear yard which is located between the property in question and a duplex at 1104-1106 Hotz Avenue. The 11 foot dimension between the existing duplex and the north lot line is by definition in the Zoning Ordinance a side yard. Knight further stated that before a building permit could be issued to build a single- or two-family dwelling on the lot shown on site plan A, a subdivision plat would have to be approved by the City Council in accordance with Chapter 409 of the State Code and Chapter 32 of the Iowa City Code of Ordinances. Knight mentioned that the Zoning Code Interpretation Panel is currently reviewing the interpretation of rear yard on a case very similar to this one. That interpretation was requested to determine what area of the lot is intended to be the required rear yard. Knight stated that, in this case, the applicants are proposing to create an L-shaped lot for the purpose of constructing a new duplex in an existing neighborhood. The new lot would be created by subdividing the two existing lots to create a third lot. Therefore, the difficulty created by the unusual shape of the proposed lot is self-imposed by the applicants' chosen design for the property and does not constitute hardship. As the applicants have indicated in site plan B, an alternative lot configuration is possible which would not require a variance. Knight stated that because of required showing of unnecessary hardship could not be made, the staff recommends that the variance be denied. 14ICROFILt4ED BY f J � 1--JORM -AA1C __ CEDAR RAPIDS DES 14014ES l 1 J BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PAGE 2 Fisher asked clarification as to which -lot was now owned by the applicants. Knight outlined the position of the lot. Knight pointed out that another configuration proposed by the applicants would not require a variance. Knight defined the following terms for the benefit of the Board: "Lot line rear," "lot line front," "rear yard," and "lot width." Knight reviewed the implications of these terms to the property in question. Vanderhoef reviewed the procedure to be followed by the Board of Adjustment. Terry Vargason; 1116 Hotz Avenue, spoke in favor of granting the variance. Vargason submitted photographs of the property. Vargason explained that his intent was to build a duplex in which one-half of the lot would be lived in by the applicants and the other side would be rented to help make payments. i Leona Vickel expressed confusion about the request for a variance. Gerald Vickel mentioned concerns about setback and the impact of any variance on their property (the Vickels own the adjoining lot). Gerald Vickel stated that he was not against the variance request, just concerned about his property. Slager suggested that the Vickels discuss any building plans with Glenn Siders. Gerald Vickel stated that he would like to see a chain-link fence required along the Vargason's property line. Vickel again expressed confusion as to whether or - not this variance would allow Vargason to build on Vickel's lot. Slager i reiterated the fact that the Vargasons could not build on the Vickel's lot. Vanderhoef stated for the record that Leona Vickel and her son Gerald would prefer plan Al and would further prefer a chain-link fence on the property If j John Alberhasky, 1150 E. Jefferson, stated that he had originally owned this area and had sold it. Alberhasky stated that the purpose of this area had been I to build duplexes. Alberhasky explained that he had decided to let the j Vargasons take care of the rental property and was willing to give them a portion of the lot needed for plan A. Alberhasky stated that the applicants' plan would compliment the neighborhood and expressed a preference to have the frontage match with his property. Slager asked if it would be wise to defer final action until the Zoning Code Interpretation Panel's decision had been reached. Knight stated that the staff had recommended against the variance because hardship could not be shown; however, staff recognized that there was a question of interpretation. Should the Board decide to deny the variance, the applicant would be better off waiting until an interpretation had been rendered by the Zoning Code Interpretation Panel. The applicants could then amend their application and appeal the Zoning Code Interpretation Panel's decision if it was contrary to their cause. Vanderhoef asked if Fisher was prepared to vote. Fisher stated that he did not see hardship in this case and thought that other configurations could be worked out. Fisher stated that he did not feel he could vote in favor of this variance at this time. Vanderhoef explained that it would take three affirmative votes to pass the variance and one Board member has already indicated that he would vote to deny the variance. Vanderhoef suggested that the applicant request deferral of this item and await the decision of the Zoning Code Interpretation Panel. If the interpretation was in the applicants' favor, they would not need a variance. If opposed, they'could amend the application. Knight pointed out that an appeal of the Zoning Code Interpretation Panel's decision would not require a showing of hardship. pp 603 IMICROFILMED BY 1. `JORM -MICR6L__A9 1 , CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES �� BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PAGE 3 Vargason expressed concern at any delay on the Board of Adjustment's decision. Vanderhoef stated that Glenn Siders would still have to review Plan B and that would take time. Boyle stated that a subdivision would take a lot of time also. The next meeting was set for March 30, 1983. Moved by Slager to postpone the variance request of item V-8305 until the next meeting. Slager stated that hopefully the Board of Adjustment would have the Zoning Code Interpretation Panel's decision by that time. Fisher seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. CONSIDER APPROVING THE FOR DECISION FOR THE FOLLOWING CASES: V-8302. - 523-525 West Benton Street. V-8303. - 204 McLean Street. Vanderhoef suggested that these items be deferred until the next meeting to allow input from those members absent. OTHER BUSINESS: I. Discussion of a proposed amendment to the Board's procedural rules regarding formal decisions. This item was deferred until the next meeting. 2. Consider approving the minutes of the May 25, 1982, meeting. Vanderhoef suggested the following corrections be made: Page 5, third paragraph from the bottom, should read clarification not classification. Page 10, last paragraph, "not" be not "no be." The approval of the minutes was deferred until the next meeting. The meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m. Minutes submit�ed by�ara Be;l an, Mlinute Taker. (% Submitted by: MICROFILMED BY Al I JORM---MICRbLAB- 1 CEDAR RAPIDS DES MDINES I r r/ i L.. i� irk MINUTES HOUSING APPEALS BOARD MARCH 23, 1983 MEMBERS PRESENT: Goldene Haendel, Beth Ringgenberg, Al Logan, Fred Krause MEMBERS ABSENT: Mike Farran, Carol Karstens { STAFF PRESENT: Judy Hoard, Kelley Vezina, David Malone, David Brown SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION AND ACTION TAKEN: Krause called the meeting to order. Ringgenberg made a motion to approve the minutes from the March 8, 1983, meeting. Logan seconded the motion. The motion carried. APPEAL OF ELINORE PETERS, 521 NORTH DUBUQUE: Others present: None. Inspector Malone reported that he conducted a licensing inspection at 521 N. Dubuque on February 8, 1983. The violation appealed was Chapter 17-5.N.(4) lack 1 of required 7' minimum ceiling height. Apt. 7, livingroom, has a ceiling height of 6'10's". Krause made a motion to grant a variance to Chapter 17-5.N.(4) lack of required minimum 7' ceiling height. Logan seconded the motion. The motion carried. APPEAL OF GREG DOWNES, 730 MICHAEL: Others present: Greg Downes. Inspector Malone conducted a licensing inspection at 730 Michael Street on January 27, 1983. The violation appealed was Chapter 17-5.N.(4) lack of required minimum 7' ceiling height. Apt. 1, basement apartment, has a ceiling height of 6'7's". Mr. Downes reported that he hopes to soon demolish the property and wishes not to incur any major expense at this time. Krause made a motion to grant 'a variance to Chapter 17-5.N.(4) lack of required minimum 7' ceiling height. Ringgenberg seconded the motion. The motion carried. APPEAL OF MECCA, 611 SOUTH CLINTON: Others present: Art Schut. Inspector Malone conducted a licensing inspection at 611 S. Clinton on January 27, 1983. The violation appealed was Chapter 17-5.N.(4) lack of required minimum 7' ceiling height. The third floor habitable room has a ceiling height of 6'9" to 6110". Krause made a motion to grant a variance to Chapter 17-5.N.(4) lack of required 7' minimum ceiling height. Ringgenberg seconded the motion. The motion carried. The next violation appealed was 17-5.K.(2)(e) lack of required bathroom/toilet room window.. The third floor bathroom has no operable window or mechanical vent fan to the outside. Mr. Schut stated that the ceiling in the bathroom is sloped and in order to install a window or a vent fan they would have to go through the roof. In addition, a new fire code is soon to go into effect and will IIICROPIL14ED BY 11" JORM--MICR41CA8` 111 CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOVES ma J MINUTES HOUSING APPEALS BOARD MARCH 23, 1983 PAGE 2 necessitate extensive remodeling of the structure. Mr. Schut felt that rather than to do any remodeling the organization would be looking for a new location and requested that the Board take this into consideration in making their decision. Logan made a motion to uphold the violation 17-5.K.(2)(e), lack of required bathroom/toilet room window, with an extensioh of 12 months given to correct the violation. Krause seconded the motion. The notion carried. APPEAL OF AUDREY SCOTT, 83.7-36 CLARK: Others present: Chuck Scott and Sue Riedl. Inspector Malone reported that he conducted a licensing inspection at 834-36 Clark on February 16, 1983. The violation appealed was Chapter 17-5.K.(2)(b) lack of required natural ventilation. The two west basement rooms lack eight percent window area. Malone reported that the northwest basement room has 16.72 square feet of window area and needs 18.72 square feet to meet the natural light requirement. The southwest basement room has 16.72 square feet of natural light and needs 21.84 square feet. Mr. Scott and Ms. Riedl reported that the basement area had recently been remodeled and the plans had included enough window area to meet the natural light and ventilation requirements, but somehow the window area came up short and did not meet the required amount. Logan made a motion to grant a variance to 17-5.K.(2)(b) lack of required natural ventilation in both the northwest basement room and the southwest basement room. Krause seconded the motion. The motion carried. APPEAL OF CLARA HARRISON, 11A SOUTH DUBUQUE: Others present: None. Inspector Hoard reported that she conducted a licensing inspection at 118'= S.. Dubuque on December 29, 1982. The first violation appealed was Chapter 17- S.I.(2)(g) lack of required minimum door/doorway height. Apt. 6, entry door has 6' height, lacking the required 6'4" minimum height. Hoard reported that this apartment was located in-between the first and second floors. Krause made a motion to grant a variance to Chapter 17-5.I.(2)(g) lack of required minimum door/doorway height. Ringgenberg seconded the motion. The motion carried. The next violation appealed was Chapter 17-5.J.(1) lack of required natural light. Apt. 2 bedroom, has no window and lacks the 5.7 square feet natural light requirement. Hoard reported that there were two doorways from the bedroom into the livingroom. She further reported that there was ample natural light from the livingroom but that the provisions of the Housing Code that would allow for spill light from the livingroom into the bedroom were not met. She reported that this violation had been cited in 1979 and that at the time the violation had been corrected by placing a hide -a -bed in the livingroom area. Ringgenberg made a motion to uphold Chapter 17-5.J.(1) lack of required natural light in Apt. 2, bedroom. Logan seconded the motion. The motion carried. The next violation appealed was Chapter 17-5.J.(1), lack of required natural light. Apt. 3, bedroom, has no window and needs 8.96 square feet of natural light. Hoard reported that there was no doorway into the living room from the bedroom. Krause made a motion to uphold the violation of Chapter 17-5.J.(1) lack of required natural light in Apt. 3, bedroom. Ringgenberg seconded the motion. The motion carried. 1 i v MICROFILMED BY '-JORM `MICR(LAB - CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES i 104ff J i it i MINUTES HOUSING APPEALS BOARD MARCH 23, 1983 PAGE 3 The next violation appealed also involved Chapter 17-5.J.(1) lack of required natural light. Apt. 4, living room, has no window to the exterior. Hoard reported that there was a window in the kitchen and that there was a doorway between the kitchen and the livingroom with an opening of 18.88 square feet and two windows above the doorway between the kitchen and livingroom with openings of 10.5 square feet. The natural light needed for the livingroom was 9.4 square feet and the kitchen had a window of 14.16 square feet. After discussion as to how this situation could be remedied, Krause made a motion to grant a variance to Chapter 17-5.J.(1) lack of natural light in Apt. 4, living room. Ringgenberg seconded the motion. The motion carried. The next violation appealed was Chapter 17-5.K.(2)(b) lack of required natural ventilation. Apt. 2 bedroom, has no window and needs 2.56 square feet of natural ventilation. Ringgenberg made a motion to uphold the violation of Chapter 17-5.K.(2)(b) lack of required natural ventilation in Apt. 2, bedroom. Logan seconded the motion. The motion carried. The next violation appealed also involved Chapter 17-5.K.(2)(b) lack of required ' natural ventilation. Apt. 4, living room, has no window to'the exterior and Ij lacks 4.23 square feet of natural ventilation. Krause made a motion to grant a variance to Chapter 17-5.K.(2)(b) lack of required natural ventilation in Apt. 4, living room. Ringgenberg seconded the motion. The motion carried. The last violation appealed was Chapter 17-5.N.(4) lack of required minimum 7' i ceiling height. Apt. 6, bedroom and kitchen, has ceiling height of 6'94" and living room has a ceiling height of 6'6". Inspector Hoard again stated that this apartment was located in-between the first and second floors. Logan made a motion to grant a variance to Chapter 17-5.N.(4) lack of minimum ceiling height in Apt. 6, bedroom, living room and kitchen. Ringgenberg seconded the motion. The motion carried. Before presenting his first case, Inspector Vezina commended Inspector Hoard for the work she was doing with the Housing Appeals Board. He wanted the minutes to reflect his statement. APPEAL OF DAVID STEVE, 520 AND 522 FIRST AVENUE: Others present: None. i Inspector Vezina reported that he conducted a licensing inspection at 520 First Avenue on January 28, 1983, and at 522 First Avenue on March 16, 1983. The first violation appealed was Chapter 17-5:I.(2)(a)'Iack of required handrail. The southeast steps from the driveway to the sidewalk at the front of the house lack a handrail. Ringgenberg made a motion to uphold the violation of Chapter 17- 5.I.(2)(a). Krause seconded the motion. The motion carried. The next violation appealed was Chapter 17-5.N.(4) lack of required minimum 7' ceiling height. The basement bedroom in 520 First Avenue has a ceiling height of 6'11". Krause made a motion to grant a variance to Chapter 17-5.N.(4) lack of required minimum 7' ceiling height basement bedroom, 520 First Avenue. Logan seconded the motion. The motion carried. The last violation appealed was Chapter 17-5.N.(4) lack of required minimum 7' ceiling height. 522 First Avenue, the basement bedroom had a ceiling height of 6'9'". Logan made a motion to grant a variance to Chapter 17-5.N.(4) lack of G�j IIICROFIL14ED A-ORM I 1' -MCRCEDAR RAPIDS • DE ' ,r i MINUTES HOUSING APPEALS BOARD MARCH 23, 1983 PAGE 4 required minimum ceiling height 522 First Avenue, basement bedroom. Krause seconded the motion. The motion carried. APPEAL OF LEONARD VIDAI 942 IOWA AVENUE: Others present: None. t Inspector Kelley Vezina reported that he conducted a licensing inspection at 942 Iowa Avenue on February 4, 1983. The first violation appealed was Chapter 17- 5.N.(4) lack of required 7' minimum ceiling height. Apt. 7, kitchen, has ceiling height of 6'11". Ringgenberg made a motion to grant a variance to Chapter 17-5.N.(4) lack of required minimum 7' ceiling height, Apt. 7, kitchen. Logan seconded the motion. The motion carried. i The second violation appealed was Chapter 17-5.N.(4) lack of required minimum 7' ceiling height. Apt. 2, basement bedroom, has 6'9" ceiling height. Logan made a motion to grant a variance to Chapter 17-5.N.(4) lack of required 7' minimum ceiling height Apt. 2, basement bedroom. Krause seconded the motion. The motion carried. x APPEAL OF PAUL BOWERS 620 SOUTH RIVERSIDE DR. - Inspector Vezina reported that he did the licensing inspection at 620 S. ' Riverside Drive on February 10, 1983. The violation appealed was Chapter 17- 5.N.(4) lack of required 7' minimum ceiling height. Apt. B-2 kitchen, has a y ceiling height of 6'7", living room has ceiling height of 619" and bedroom has 1 ceiling height of 6'10's". Krause made a motion to grant a variance to Chapter t 17-5.N.(4) lack of required 7' minimum ceiling height in Apt. B-2, kitchen, c living room and bedroom.. Ringgenberg seconded the motion. The motion carried. s APPEAL OF DALE WATT 1607-09 MUSCATINE AVENUE: Others present: None. Inspector Vezina reported that he conducted a licensing inspection at 1607-09 Muscatine Avenue on January 31, 1983. The violation appealed was Chapter 17- 5.N.(4) lack of required minimum 7' ceiling height. 1607, second floor study, has ceiling height of 6'8". Krause made a motion to grant a variance to Chapter 17-5.N.(4) lack of required 7' minimum ceiling height. Logan seconded the motion. The motion carried. APPEAL OF GERTRUDE ENGLERT 415 EAST CHURCH: Others present: Gertrude Englert. Inspector Vezina reported that he conducted a licensing inspection at 415 E. Church on February 11, 1983. The violation appealed was Chapter 17-5.I.(2)(a) lack of required handrail. Stairs to basement lack a handrail. Mrs. Englert stated that a number of contractors had tried unsuccessfully in the past to install a handrail on the steps. She said that there were two handholes to grasp if needed. Ringgenberg made a motion to grant a variance to Chapter 17- 5.I.(2)(a) lack of required handrail. Krause seconded the motion. The motion carried. Gly 1 IIICROFIL14ED BY JORM MICR6L-AO'-. -� 'j CEDAR RAPIDS DES ROIAES I /� l MINUTES HOUSING APPEALS BOARD MARCH 23, 1983 PAGE 5 APPEAL OF KEVIN HANICK, 1730-30h MUSCATINE AVENUE Others present: Kevin Hanick. Inspector Vezina reported that he conducted a licensing inspection at 1730-304 Muscatine Avenue on January 28, 1983. The first violation appealed was Chapter 17-5.M.0), which was amended to 17-5.M.(2) lack of required supplied light fixture or switched outlet. First floor unit, west bedroom, lacks supplied j light fixture or switched outlet. Mr. Hanick reported that this violation was in his own bedroom. He felt the room was currently supplied with adequate lighting through adjustable reading lights. He did not wish to install a light fixture that would not be in keeping with the decor in the room. Ringgenberg made a motion to grant a variance to Chapter 17-5.61.(2) lack of required supplied light fixture or switched outlet as long as the structure was owner occupied the Hanicks. Logan seconded the motion. The motion carried. The next violation appealed was Chapter 17-5.J.(1) lack of required natural light and 17-.5.K. (2)(b) lack of required natural ventilation. The southeast room in the basement which was used as a bedroom has 3 square feet of natural light and needs 15.3 square feet. Mr. Hanick reported that he and the tenant had agreed not to use this room as a bedroom and that he would like to withdraw the appeal. The next violation appealed was Chapter 17-5.J.(1) lack of required natural light and 17-5.K.(2)(b) lack of required natural ventilation. Basement, southwest room, has 12.2 square feet of natural light and needs 15.4 square feet of natural light. Logan made a motion to grant a variance to Chapter 17-5.J.(1) lack of required natural light and 17-5.K.(2)(b) lack of required natural ventilation in the southwest room of the basement. Ringgenberg seconded the motion. The motion carried. �i The last violation, Chapter 17-5.M.(1) lack of required electrical outlet, basement, southeast bedroom lacks a second outlet, was withdrawn by Mr.. Hanick. I APPEAL OF MRS FRANK KUNCL 411-13 NORTH DUBUQUE Others present: Iva Hilleman, Mrs. Kuncl. Inspector Vezina reported that he conducted a licensing inspection at 411-13 ! North Dubuque on January 25, 1983. The violation appealed was Chapter 17-5.N(3) lack of required minimum room size, Apartment 3, northeast room, being used as sleeping room, has 51•.7 square feet lacking the 70 square feet minimum. Mrs. Hilleman reported that the tenant has a hide -a -bed in the larger room in the apartment and keeps a bed in the smaller room for her convenience. Although she sleeps in the larger room the tenant would prefer to be able to maintain these present arrangements. Ringgenberg made a motion to grant a variance to Chapter 17-5.N.(3) lack of required minimum room size, apartment 3, northeast room. Krause seconded the motion. The motion carried. APPEAL OF MRS. FRANK KUNCL 419 NORTH DUBUQUE Others present: Iva Hilleman, Mrs. Frank Kuncl. I Inspector Vezina reported that he conducted a licensing inspection at 419 N. j Dubuque on January 25, 1983. The first violation appealed was cited as Chapter r � • -... _ 141CROFILIIED BY -DORM--MICR6LAIT CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES I �� i MINUTES HOUSING APPEALS BOARD MARCH 23, 1983 PAGE 6 17-5.A. and should be amended to Chapter 17-5.8. Dwelling unit lacks kitchen or kitchenette. Apartment #4, kitchenette has 35 square feet, lacking the required minimum of 40 square feet. Mrs. Hilleman stated that the property had been a rental for 40 years and the room had been used as a kitchenette during that time. Krause made a motion to grant a variance to Chapter 17-5.B. Dwelling unit lacks kitchen or kitchenette, Apt. #4. Ringgenberg seconded the motion. The motion carried. The next violation appealed was Chapter 17-5.A. which should also be amended to Chapter 17-5.8. Dwelling unit lacks kitchen or kitchenette. Apartment #3, kitchenette has 27.26 square feet, lacking the required 40 square foot minimum. Krause made a motion to grant a variance to Chapter 17-5.B. dwelling unit lacks kitchen or kitchenette, Apartment #3. Ringgenberg seconded the motion. The motion carried. I !1 The last violation appealed was Chapter 17-5.N.(3) lack of required minimum room I size. Apartment #1, west bedroom, has 64.1 square feet, lacking the required 70 square foot minimum. Logan made a motion to grant a variance to Chapter, 17- 5.N.(3) lack of required minimum room size, Apartment #1, west bedroom. Krause seconded the motion. The motion carried. j APPEAL OF MARTHA ZENISEK �+ Others present: Dave Dvorak. Inspector Vezina stated that the appeal request had not been received within the proper time and. asked Inspector Hoard to report the circumstances involving the ilate appeal. Inspector Hoard stated that the classification of the property had changed from when Inspector Vezina had conducted the licensing inspection and that it was no longer listed as a duplex and that the owner had been unwilling to Take corrections because she did not feel the property was under the jurisdiction of the Housing Code. Inspector Hoard stated that she had encouraged a firefighter doing the reinspection to suggest to Mrs. Zenisek that she file an appeal and bring the case before the Appeals Board. Krause made a motion to hear the appeal. Ringgenberg seconded the motion. The motion carried. 1 Inspector Vezina reported that he conducted a licensing inspection at 435 S. Dodge on July 26, 1982. The first violation appealed was Chapter 17-5.I.(2)(a) lack of required handrail. Stairs to attic lack a handrail. Mr. Dvorak stated that the handrail would be no problem to install but he was confused as to why the property still had to meet the Housing Code requirements. Inspector Vezina stated that even though the property was no longer classified as a duplex, once he conducted an inspection he was obligated legally to follow through on the correction of the violations. Krause made a motion to uphold the violation of Chapter 17-5.I.(2)(a) lack of required handrail on the stairs to the attic. Ringgenberg seconded the motion. The motion carried. The next violation appealed also involved Chapter 17-5.I.(2)(a) lack of required handrail. The exterior steps north from the driveway to the west side of the house lack a handrail. Ringgenberg made a motion to uphold the violation. Krause seconded the motion. The motion carried. The next violation appealed was Chapter 17-5.K.(3)(a) lack of required/adequate mechanical ventilation. Basement bathroom has no window and lacks a system of it 141CROFILMED BY '-DORM -MICRd1LA9'- CEDAR RAVIDS • DES 140I4ES '� f r MINUTES HOUSING APPEALS BOARD MARCH 23, 1983 PAGE 7 mechanical ventilation. Mr. Dvorak stated that the bathroom had existed for a number of years and he did not feel that a vent fan was warranted at this time. Logan made a motion to grant a variance to Chapter 17-5.K.(3)(a) lack of required/adequate mechanical ventilation in the basement bathroom as long as the property was owner occupied. Krause seconded the motion. The motion carried. The next violation appealed was Chapter 17-5.M.(1) lack of required electrical outlet. Second floor, northwest bedroom, lacks one electrical outlet. Krause made a motion to grant a variance to 17-5.M.(1) lack of required electrical outlet, second floor, northwest bedroom, as long as the property is owner oceupied. Logan seconded the motion. The motion carried. The next violation appealed was also Chapter 17-5.h1.(1) lack of required electrical outlet. The second floor kitchen, electrical outlets, are not spaced at least 25% of the perimeter of the room apart. Inspector Vezina reported that he did not know what the exact distance the outlets were apart, but felt they were close to the required minimum distance. Mr. Dvorak stated that there was one each on two of the adjacent walls. Ringganberg made a motion to grant a variance to Chapter 17-5.M.(1) lack of required outlet, second floor kitchen. Krause seconded the motion. The motion carried. The last violation appealed was Chapter 17-7.A.(3) door, door hinge, door latch and/or door lock not maintained in good and functional condition. First floor, screen torn on east side entry door, Mr. Dvorak stated that this was a small tear ,and would be no problem to repair. Ringgenberg made a motion to uphold the violation, Chapter 17-7.A.(3) door not maintained in good and functional condition. Logan seconded the motion. The motion carried. APPEAL OF JAMES WERNER 1003 GINTER AVENUE Others present: James Werner. Inspector Vezna reported that he conducted a licensing inspection at 1003 Ginter on February 2, 1983. The first violation appealed, Chapter 17-5.I.(2)(g) lack of required door/doorway height was dismissed by Inspector Vezina because the Housing Code doorway requirements applies only to habitable rooms. The next violation appealed was Chapter 17-6.A. lack of required access. Access to north bedroom can be gained only by going through south bedroom or through bathroom. Mr. Werner stated that there was really no way to structurally change this arrangement because the stairway came right up into the south bedroom. Ringgenberg made a motion to grant a variance to Chapter 17-6.A. lack of required access. Logan seconded the motion. The motion carried. Ringgenberg made a motion to adjourn The meeting was adjourned. Goldene Haendel, Chairperson Housing Appeals Board the meeting. Logan seconded the motion GIfyf L,_.. i 141CRO(ILMED BY 1_ --DORM --"MIC R(LAB- CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES i ! MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 17, 1983 7:30 PM CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Blank, Jordan, Horton, Seward, Jakobsen, Baker MEMBERS ABSENT: Scott STAFF PRESENT: Franklin, Knight, Boyle, Behrman RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL: 1. V-8300. That the application submitted by Gregory Downes to vacate Lucas --- Street north of Page Street and south of the CRI&P railroad tracks be approved. 1 2. 5-8300. That the application submitted by A. & F. Enterprises for the approval of the amended preliminary and final PAD and LSRD plan of Lots 91 ' and 92 Ty'n Cae Subdivision, Part 2 be approved. 3. Z-8301. That the application submitted by Larry G. Rigler for the rezoning of property at 521 Kirkwood from M1 to RNC -20 be approved. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: Seward called the meeting to order. Jakobsen moved that the minutes of January 20, 1983 be approved as circulated. Horton seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. i There was no public discussion of any item not included on the agenda. 1/4rATTnU iTFM• V-8300. Public discussion of an application submitted by Gregory Downes to vacate Lucas Street north of Page Street south of the CRI&P railroad tracks. Knight reviewed the staff report, stating that the applicant is requesting vacation of a 60 foot wide right-of-way which deadends approximately 80 feet north of Page Street at the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad right-of- way line. This right-of-way is unimproved and has been closed since the early 1900's. There are no public utilities located above or underneath this right-of-way although a guy wire supporting a utility pole located south of Page Street does extend over the right-of-way to a pole in the CRI&P Railroad right- of-way. The Iowa -Illinois Gas & Electric Company has indicated the guy wire must be maintained and that an easement will be necessary. Staff, therefore, has no objections to the vacation of this property provided that the requested easement is reserved. The staff recommends that the vacation of Lucas Street north of Page Street and south of the CRI&P Railroad right-of-way be approved and that the easements requested by the Iowa Illinois Gas and Electric Company be reserved. G 9D 141CROFILMED BY 1 1' JORM"-MICR46LA13 ' rr CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES i i r Planning and Zoning ( fission February 17, 1983 Page 2 There was no public discussion. Jakobsen moved that the Commission recommend approval of the vacation of this section of Lucas Street north of Page Street and south of the CRI&P Railroad tracks subject to the reservation of the required easement. Baker seconded the motion. Baker indicated that he would support this motion but questioned the procedure of notifying the public. Baker stated that he would like to see signs posted in the future for vacations of alleys and further recommended that, when the City Council discusses the disposition of this land, a public sign be posted on the property as well as legal notice published in the newspaper. The motion carried unanimously. SUBDIVISION ITEM: 5-8300. Public discussion of an application submitted by A. & F. Enterprises for the approval of the amended preliminary and final PAD and LSRD plan of Lots 91 and 92 Ty'n Cae Subdivision, Part 2; 45 day limitation period: 3/9/83. Knight reviewed the staff report, stating the applicant is requesting approval of the amended preliminary and final PAD and LSRD plan of Lots 91 and 92, Ty'n Cae Subdivision Part,2. Knight explained that Lots 91 and 92 are part of an amended Planned Area Development plan and subdivision plat for Lot 90, which was approved in 1979 and included 6.9 acres divided into a total of six lots and 68 units. A total of 32 units were approved for lots 91 and 92. Knight stated that the deficiencies and discrepancies listed in the staff report have been corrected. Specifically, the preliminary plan has been revised and now shows the acreage of the tract and 15 foot easements over both the proposed sewer line and the proposed water line. The final plan has been revised as follows: Complete curve note information has been provided; the required easements have been shown; a signature block has been provided for Hawkeye CableVision; the legal description is certified by a land surveyor; and the acreage of the tract has been provided. Further, the water line has been revised to meet the specifications of the City's Water Division and common drive -way agreements have been submitted for review by the Legal Department. Finally, construction plans have been approved by the Engineering Division. A concern raised by the Fire Chief regarding the access provided to this development has been solved in two ways. First, for the easterly drive, a hammerhead turnaround would be provded at the north end of the drive. Second, a drive -way would be extended to Mormon Trek Boulevard from the north end of the westerly drive, thereby eliminating the dead ending of this drive. This driveway will also provide an additional means of access for the development. Knight stated that, because this application now meets all requirements of the Iowa City Code of Ordinances, the staff recommends that the amended preliminary and final PAD and LSRD be approved. Knight asked Boyle to verify that the common driveway easements seem to be in order. Boyle so verified. There was no public discussion. Knight stated that the applicant had request that the City Council set a public hearing in advance of action by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Although r 111cRor ILMED BY I L _-JORM MICRf6L.A1T CEDAR RAPIDS • DES VDINEs I G 9,0 J r - Planning and Zoning C iission February 17, 1983 Page 3 this does not mean that the Planning and Zoning Commission must act on this item immediately, the applicant is requesting that they do so to expedite final approval. Jakobsen pointed out that a delay in action by the Planning and Zoning Commission might delay the applicant a month. Jordan questioned why the application had been filed at such a late date. Larry Schnittjer, MMS Consultants, explained that the deadline. was based on an earlier than anticipated expiration of a purchase option. Seward stated that the Commission was concerned that all the deficiences be satisfied and that there be an opportunity for public discussion. Baker moved that the Commission recommend approval of this item. Jakobsen seconded the motion. Knight stated that the staff had received calls from the neighborhood and there had been no major problems expressed by the neighbors over the amended plan. John Roskam, 2341 Cae Drive expressed a concern that a traffic problem might be created during the winter on the steep hill approaching Cae Drive. Roskam asked if this was considered by the City due to the fact that there would be an increased amount of traffic on this road into the subdivision. Although access is now provided off Mormon Trek Boulevard, access all along that road is a problem due to blind spots in the area. Knight stated that the Traffic Engineer had looked at the plan and had not felt the addition of the proposed drive onto Mormon Trek Boulevard would create a problem. Knight stated that he was unsure as to what consideration had been given to the steep grade of Cae Drive when the plan was originally approved, although, possibly, the situation has been improved somewhat by the additional access to Mormon Trek Boulevard. The motion carried unanimously. iBaker stated that he had been reluctant to vote yes and reemphasized the fact that the Commission prefers to have two public hearings on an item prior to taking action. Jakobsen agreed and also explained that the Commission prefers to have fewer deficiencies and discrepancies when an application is submitted to the City Clerk. ZONING ITEMS: Z-8301. Public discussion of an application submitted by Larry G. Rigler for the rezoning of property at 521 Kirkwood from Ml to RNC -20; 45 -day limitation period: 2/28/83. Knight stated that this item had been discussed previously and was currently zoned M1. The requested zoning conformed to the current Comprehensive Plan Update as well as the past Comprehensive Plan. The staff sees the change to residential zoning as an improvement to the light industrial zoning existing in this area and recommends approval. Alan Leff, 222 S. Linn, Attorney for the applicant, indicated that he was present to answer any questions the Commissioner might have. There was no public discussion. Baker moved that the Commission recommend approval for the rezoning of the property at 521 Kirkwood from M1 to RNC -20. Jordan seconded the motion. Knight asked if this would include the provision to rezone to RM20 when 00 1 t l . IdIC ROF I LIdED A4014E'�' R "DORM CEDAR RAPIDS - DE _l i! L..r Planning and Zoning C ,fission 1 February 17, 1983 Page 4 that zone was adopted. Boyle pointed out that the Commission could not condition the rezoning. Baker stated that he was enthusiastic about this rezoning as it was a good indication of what the new zone could do for the City. He further noted that he would not look favorably upon any plans that would be a detriment to the surrounding neighborhood and expressed the hope that there would be other types of housing than dormitory housing provided in this area. Seward stated that the Commission had discussed the potential for vacation of the alley but would not recommend vacation to the City Council at this time. Seward stated the Commission is concerned that the alley right-of-way not be used as an access to this property. The motion carried unanimously. Z-8302. Public discussion of an application submitted by James Glasgow for the rezoning of 7.3 acres south of Taft Speedway from RIA to R3; 45 -day limitation period: 3/12/83. Franklin reviewed the staff report, stating that the property under considera- tion for rezoning is a wooded tract just northwest of Terrill Mill Park along the Iowa River. Franklin stated that this tract lies within the 100 year flood plain of the river and development of the property would require elevation of the structures to the 550 foot level and compliance with other specifications of the Flood Hazard Overlay Zone. Abutting property to -the east of the applicant's land is a public park and right-of-way for Dubuque Street, which at this point is a four lane divided highway; to the south is the Iowa River, with City Park directly across the river. Low density multifamily development's on the applicant's property would have little impact on these land uses to the south and east. Franklin stated that, immediately west of the applicant's property is a tract of vacant land which is currently zoned RIA and could be developed for single family use. Likewise, property to the north could be developed for single family use under its current zoning. Rezoning of the applicant's property would allow a maximum of 105 units which could potentially abut any single family development to the west and north.' However, given the land form of the peninsula and the location of the applicant's property in relation to other property within the peninsula, the negative effects of multi -family development next to single family uses may be decreased. Franklin stated that, sincIowa River, er,eZthisg in application uestion willalns needo toland be dsubmitted toacent to a theParks the and Recreation Commission and the Riverfront Commission for their review and comment. The staff recommends that the request for rezoning from RIA to R3 of the 7.3 acres south of Taft Speedway be deferred pending receipt of input from the Riverfront and Parks and Recreation Commissions. Jakobsen asked when a recommendation might be received from the other commissions. Franklin stated that the Riverfront Commission would meet on March 7 and Parks and Recreation Commission would meet on March 9. A 45 day waiver would be needed and Franklin expected to receive it shortly. Ocie Trimble, 103 Taft Speedway, expressed concern at the proposed rezoning. Trimble stated that he and his neighbors had fought this situation for 25 years and felt strongly about the wooded area near the river. Trimble stated that the neighbors did not want to see this area turned into a multi -family housing situation. The 10 acres between this development and the single-family houses belonged to the father of the applicant and were waiting devP1nnmon4 T.,*_kl„ asked if this item would receive a second -hearing. 1 v 14ICROFIL14ED BY 1" —JORM"--MICR4i LAB' - CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES Planning and Zoning C .fission February 17, 1983 Page 5 Seward stated that this item would be on the agenda for at least one more meeting and the developer was being asked for a waiver. Following the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, the City Council would hold public meetings on this item as well. Jakobsen stated that she had conversations with people in the area opposed to the rezoning. Jakobsen moved that this item be deferred until the next meeting on March 10, 1983. Horton seconded the motion. Baker stated that he had received a phone call from Mrs. George Gay, 5 Knollwood Lane, expressing both her own concern and the concern of her neighbor about the acceleration of development to multifamily in that area. The motion carried unanimously. Z-8303. Public discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City i for the rezoning of the entire R3A area of Manville Heights to RNC20. f Franklin reviewed the staff report, stating that the area displayed on the map is the current R3A zone which is under consideration for rezoning to RNC -20. Franklin stated that the downzoning would result in a decrease of the allowable density from the currently allowed 44 dwelling units per acre to approximately f! 20 dwelling units per acre. Franklin reviewed the current uses in the area stating that there were multi -family apartments, rooming houses, fraternities, single family homes, church properties, a vacant lot and two lots under construction subject to appeal. Franklin report that a decision had been rendered by the Board of Adjustment to uphold the building permit by a vote of 2 to 2 for the lot on Ellis Street. Seward announced that a public hearing date on this rezoning had been set for February 28, 1983. Casey Mahon, 226 McLean Street, quoted Sandy Boyd stating that "My rights end where yours begin." Mahon stated that, in a small community, one must rely on a neighbor's good taste to preserve the community. Mahon stated that her neighborhood, after 50 years of cooperative living with fraternities and rooming houses, was being threatened by the acts of men who have little concerns for safety, adequate parking, trees and etc. Mahon expressed support for the proposed rezoning. Lane Davis, 249 Magowan Avenue, stated that he was very concerned that any additional congestion in the area would spread west to Beldon and Magowan.- Davis expressed a concern of increased traffic congestion, safety problems and noise problems. Davis expressed support for the rezoning. Johann Ehrenhaft, 325 Beldon, stated that he had lived for 17 years at 329 Ellis Street. any additional construction the wouldlworseno the situation lyEhrenhaftrstated and that the neighborhood was unsafe for health reasons and expressed a concern that rescue vehicles would be unable to approach the area due to traffic congestion and parking problems. Ehrenhaft expressed support for rezoning. M& 1 I41CROFILIIED BY 1- �„_ -DORM�MIC REIL.lC B” - -� I rr I CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES E J Planning and Zoning L .ission February 17, 1983 Page 6 Bruce Sprague, 934 Highwood Avenue, .stated that this neighborhood was part of a series of neighbhoods being razed. Sprague stated that a nice building had been torn down to put up a tasteless apartment that was ill designed. Sprague stated that persons would be forced to move further out to the suburbs and urged that the Commmission curtail further development in the area. Sprague suggested that a solution to the problem might be found if, when existing structures were torn down, the units replacing them must be of equal price of value. Sally Staley, 314 Beldon, stated that, at the Horace Mann School, the neighbors had for the first time become aware that the area was under consideration for down zoning. Staley expressed the concern that there were few rules that the City could enforce to ensure that adequate parking and screening be provided. Daly expressed the hope that the City could find administrative measures to prevent the razing of neighborhoods. Daly stated that without a permit a building had been constructed that was out of character with the neighborhood; rather than a more modest size apartment building, the highest density per square foot allowable in Manville Heights was being constructed. Daly suggested that the neighbors were worse off than they might have been had the area not been 'under consideration for rezoning since it appeared that development had escalated with news of the possible downzoning. Daly stated that the problems were due to avarice on the part of developers and urged that the rights of neighbors as well as the rights of property owners be protected. Steve Loening, 307 Beldon, expressed the concern that, if construction continues, living in the single-family area would be comparable to living on Time Square. Loening stated that traffic created safety hazards for the children and that higher density is making the area even more unsafe. Loening likened the demolition in the neighborhood to bombings in Germany, stating that the destruction of a nice old building in a few hours hurt the neighborhood. Harriet Stevens, 440 McGowan, related the number of children in and out of St. More Church in a week. Stevens stated that 400 children per week arrived in the late afternoon to early evening hours, expressing the concern that safety of these children was threatened by the higher density. Margaret Cox, -226 River, expressed agreement with Staley's comments, stating that the "snowball' effect" of construction in the area was frustrating. Cox questioned how the neighbors could prevent their neighborhood from being destroyed. Seward commented that the neighbors were doing what they could to prevent further development at a higher density. Robert Sayre, 416 Hutchinson, pointed out that one of the most attractive homes in Iowa City was on the corner of McLean and Ellis Street. Sayre stated that this prairie style house should be protected and expressed support for any measure that would do so. Sayre suggested that this is the kind of house which could be used as an anchor to protect the other houses in the neighborhood. Jakobsen pointed out that there was nothing to protect a single home. Blank suggested that this prairie style home was protected due to its location on a corner lot and the setback restrictions which would restrict the number of units allowed on this site. It was suggested that that would be assuming that the adjoining property owner did not purchase the prairie style home for expansion. v 141CRONUIED BY r 1" DORM MICROLAS- � CEDAR RAPIDS DES MO E5 I f b 9,o J Planning and Zoning L fission February 17, 1983 Page 7 Phyllis Kelso, 9 Rowland Court, stated that she was distressed by the fact that this is "gaining a foothold" in the neighborhood and that further multi -family development could concern the entire area.. Kelso stated that this would be tragic. Seward thanked the public for their comments, stating that he hoped to see them at the February 28th public hearing. Franklin announced that the public hearing would be held in Room A of the Iowa City Public Library at 7:30 p.m. OTHER BUSINESS: 1. Planning & Zoning Commission information. Blank asked the outcome of the Board of Adjustment's discussion concerning the appeal in the Manville Heights area. Knight explained the decision of the Board. Jakobsen asked if the Commission needed to look at more stringent screening requirements. Knight suggested that the Commission examine and develop a definition of "public view." Boyle explained that public view currently was interpreted to mean view from a public street right-of-way from a point in front of the lot. Baker asked how many times an applicant for a building permit could adjust the plans upon which the permit was allowed. Boyle stated that, as long as the applicant was still in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, the permit did not need to be amended. Baker asked if there was a limit on the number of changes that would be allowed in the plans. Boyle explained that, once an appeal is filed, the plans before the Board of Adjustment are fixed. A new plan can be brought for the Board's consideration., but the plan on which the permit was issued serves as the basis for the Board's consideration. Commissioners briefly discussed the effect of downzoning to RNC -20 the R3A area in Manville Heights. The meeting adjourned at 8:44 p.m. Taken by: eh y, . Sara Behrman, Minute-/ ker Approved by: �n�y Horst Jordan, Secretar 11 .1 1 141CROFILMED BY —DORM"'"MIC ROC A[a�' CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES MA i �J I MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 10, 1983 7:30 P.M. IOWA CITY RECREATION CENTER, ROOM B MEMBERS PRESENT: Scott, Jakobsen, Blank, Baker, Jordan MEMBERS ABSENT: Seward, Horton j STAFF PRESENT: Franklin, Knight, Boyle RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: I. Z-8302. That the application submitted by James Glasgow for the rezoning of 7.3 acres south of Taft Speedway from RIA to R3 be denied. 2. Z-8105. That the application submitted by Hsi San and S.Y. Li Hsu for the rezoning of property at 209 Myrtle Avenue from RIB to R3A be denied. 3. A-8204 and Z-8204. That. the application submitted by West Side Co. & Earl Yoder et al for the annexation and rezoning from C11 and R1A to C2 of 70 acres south of the Iowa City corporate limits be approved. 4. Z-8207. That the City initiated application to rezone Hawkeye Mobile Home Court from RIA to RMH be approved. 5. Z-8220. That the application submitted by Michael Furman for the rezoning of .93 acres adjacent to the CRI&P railroad tracks between Van Buren and Johnson Streets from MI to R3A be approved. 6. S-8301. That the application submitted by Michael Furman for Van Buren Village preliminary and final LSRD be approved. I SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: Scott called the meeting to order. There was no public discussion of any item not on the agenda. Scott suggested that the order of the agenda be changed since so many people were in attendance for item Z-8302. ZONING ITEMS: Z-8302. Discussion of an application submitted* by James Glasgow for the rezoning of 7.3 acres south of Taft Speedway from R1A to R3; 45 -day limitation period: Waived. Armond Pagliai, 105 Taft Speedway, spoke in opposition to the proposed rezoning and expressed concern over what would happen to the road. Franklin explained that the developer had indicated his intent to pave the road, at least to the development; the City has no plans to pave the road. Pagliai questioned the effect a paved road would have on the existing properties 'especially during flood times. Franklin explained that this problem would be considered during review of development plans. MICROFILMED BY 1'JORM--MICR6CA13- CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES r PLANNING & ZONING COQ ;SION MARCH 10, 1983 PAGE 2 Kenneth MacDonald, 400 Foster Road, asked if the development was located in the flood plain. Franklin stated that the property was in the flood plain and would have to be elevated. Ocie Trimble, 103 Taft Speedway, stated that he had developed his property at R1A and expressed opposition to the rezoning request. Trimble stated that the neighbors wished to keep the area as single-family dwellings and opposed non- residents trying to change the neighborhood. Beverly Moore, 119 Taft Speedway, expressed opposition to the rezoning. Moore questioned the impact of increased traffic off the road onto Dubuque Street, especially during football games. M.L. Hale, 1100 N. Dubuque Street, stated that he wished to support his neighbors and was opposed to any more congestion in the area. Hale felt multi- family development was undesirable. Pete Vangerpen, 1546 Prairie du Chien Road, expressed opposition to the rezoning request. Vangerpen mentioned that the area was already congested due to the population of the Mayflower Apartments. ' Jim Glasgow; 5 Taft Speedway, -spoke in favor of the rezoning request. Glasgow urged the Commission to consider the fact that the density of the multi -family development would have little negative impact on the area due to its location between a city park., the river, a ten acre uninhabited wooded area and a farm field across the street. Glasgow stated that the increased traffic should have no major impact. Glasgow addressed the sewer issue, stating that there would be no problem with sewer service. With regard to trees and concerns raised by the Riverfront Commission pertaining to the fill to be used, Glasgow indicated that a multi -family development would have less impact on the area than a number of single-family dwellings. Janet Trimble, 105 Taft Speedway, spoke in opposition to the rezoning. Trimble stated that a change in zoning would preceed an influx of multifamily development in the area. Trimble further addressed the traffic hazards which would be created by the proposed development. Bruce Glasgow, 834 N. Johnson, spoke in favor of the request, stating that this development would be following the guidelines of the Mayor, who was encouraging development of land close to the downtown and accessible to the city's sewer system. Glasgow outlined the development history of the north end of Iowa City. John Cruise, 19 Forset Glen, pointed out that this rezoning request was completely consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. MacDonald asked if this project was part of an approved PAD and Jakobsen replied negatively. Jakobsen stated that a PAD could be approved in the future. Ocie Trimble, expressed concern at the rezoning request, wondering at the developer's versus residents' rights. Scott pointed out that a property owner has the right to request the rezoning. l 141CROFIL14ED BY 1" "DORM-MICR6L A9 _ CEDAR RAPIDS DES 1401NES 1 /� �• i � i 1 .. 1 i' PLANNING & ZONING CO1. .SSION MARCH 10, 1983 PAGE 3 M.L. Hale, mentioned an incident in which two students were killed on the highway in front of the Mayflower Apartments and expressed concern at the increased traffic which would be created by the proposed development. Jerry Gerard, 111 Taft Speedway, expressed opposition to the rezoning but expressed support for the development of the area at a lower density. Gerard mentioned traffic hazards as one of the reasons for his concern. Glasgow asked the staff to explain the R3 density. Franklin explained. I Robert Hess 515 S. Dodge Street, spoke of the problems connected with high , density. Hess expressed strong opposition to the rezoning request. I Margaret MacDonald, 400 foster Road, spoke in opposition. MacDonald asked what ' in the new zoning ordinance would be comparable to RIA. Franklin stated that the RS -5, the lowest single-family designation, would be five dwelling units per acre. Franklin pointed out that developments rarely develop to the full allowable density. Nancy MacDonald, 400 Foster Road, expressed a concern that existing properties would be impassable*during flooding if the road was elevated. Scott reminded MacDonald that any elevation of the road would be examined by the City. Hess questioned where the excess water would run off if this development was built. I Franklin called the Commission's attention to the memo from the Riverfront Commission which addressed sewer concerns, concerns at the amount of fill to be — used and the subsequent loss of trees and changes in elevation. Franklin stated that the Riverfront Commission would like to see a 100 foot area along the river maintained as a vegetative area. A memo from the Parks & Recreation Commission reiterated their concerns over the flooding levels of the river and the possible iflooding of Terrill Mill Park. Franklin pointed out that the concerns expressed by the Riverfront Commission and the Parks & Recreation Commission pertained to the development of the site generally rather than the proposed rezoning of the site. Baker asked if the Commission members wished to vote tonight. Jakobsen indicated a preference for voting. Moved by Baker to approve the rezoning of Z-8302 from RIA to R3. Seconded by Jakobsen. - Baker stated that he would vote against this mootion but indicated possible support for a rezoning request of R1B or RS8. Baker stated that these zones would allow a single-family development at a slightly higher density, yet retain its compatibility with the existing area. Jakobsen agreed with Baker's statements, stating that there were problems with the proposed development. Scott stated that telephone calls had been received from Margaret MacDonald, Pat Gilpin and Bill Gilpin, residents of Taft Speedway, expressing opposition to the request. Jakobsen stated that she had received a telephone call from Carol Nelson objecting to this rezoning. i 111CRorIIMED BY JORM 'MIC R6C X13- - 1 LCEDAR RAPIDS • DES MDIYES PLANNING & ZONING COI ;SION MARCH 10, 1983 PAGE 4 Blank asked how a PAD would vary if this area was rezoned RS8 or RIB. Jakobsen stated that it would cut the development almost in half. Scott stated that a single-family development, while lesser in density, would cover the area with a greater amount of impervious surface. Knight explained that a PAD would permit alternative development styles and buildings to the traditional detached single-family dwellings and would allow more flexibility in development while maintaining the same density as the underlying zone. Scott indicated his intent to vote against the rezoning request, expressing reservations, with development in this particular area. Scott stated that he would have problems rezoning the property to any density greater than what Baker had suggested. The motion failed unanimously. Moved by Jakobsen to deny the application. Seconded by Jordan. The motion carried unanimously. The public asked for an explanation of the densities as proposed by Baker. Jakobsen explained. Applications nendinq amendments to the Comprehensive Plan: I Z-8105. Discussion of an application submitted by Hsi San and Sy Li Hsu for the rezoning of property at 209 Myrtle Avenue from R1B_to R3A. iAl Kleinmeyer, 530 Olive Street, spoke of several offers made to the property owners to purchase their property. Kleinmeyer spoke in opposition to rezoning. Among concerns mentioned were traffic flow and the lack of open space for light. Moved by Jordan, seconded by Blank, to approve the rezoning request of Z-8105. Jordan stated that he would oppose the motion based on a visit to the neighborhood and the lack of parking there. Blank agreed with Jordan. Baker stated that he was bothered by the unofficial precedence which would be set by rezoning from R1B to R3A; Baker indicated there were no justifiable reasons for' such a change in zoning. Baker stated further opposition to any rezoning which would necessitate the destruction of existing housing. Baker stated that his final opposition was based on the feeling that development had to be stopped at some point and it might as well be a little bit east of that area. Scott agreed with Baker's comments. Scott further stated that he agreed with the applicants that the rezoning of the property to the east of theirs had had a detrimental effect on their property; however, two wrongs do not make a right. The motion to approve Z-8105 failed unanimously. Moved by Baker, seconded by Jordan, to deny the request. The motion carried unanimously. Jakobsen thanked the applicants for their patience. Z-8203. Discussion of an application submitted by Edwards Jones for the rezoning of property at 1425 N. Dodge Street from RIA to C2. G9D I J IIICROFIL1 ED BY - 11_ 'JOR M -"MIC R�C"4B CEDAR RAPIDS . DES Mol, 1I1 m PLANNING & ZONING COf ;SION MARCH 10, 1983 PAGE 5 Edward Jones presented a letter in support of the request and a plot plan. Scott stated that the letter reduced the area of the property for which the rezoning was requested. Jones stated that some access to the back of the building was needed. Scott suggested that this item be deferred. Jordan asked if an official plan needed to be submitted. Knight stated that it was the opinion of the legal staff that, as long as the request was for the same type of rezoning, new public notice was not required for the reduced area. Boyle indicated that this was the case and action could be taken tonight. The members discussed the reduced area in question. Scott suggested that this item be discussed at the next informal session after the exact area to be rezoned could be clarified. Moved by Jordan, seconded by Blank, to defer this item to March 17, 1983. The motion carried unanimously. Z-8204 and A-8204. Discussion of an application submitted by West Side Company and Earl Yoder, et al., for annexation and rezoning of approximately 70 acres located south of the corporate limits of the City of Iowa City and north of Highway 1 in Johnson County near Willow Creek from R1A to CH County to C2. Baker asked if this was a lot of land to zone commercial all at one time. Jakobsen explained the reason for this as being due to the fact that this area. was being annexed at the same time. Franklin explained that this request was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Update; the use of this property as commercial and the annexation were issues addressed in the Southwest Area Study. Jakobsen moved and Jordan seconded a motion to annex the property described in A-8204; the motion carried unanimously. Jakobsen moved and Baker seconded a motion to rezone the 70 acres to C2 with the understanding that some commercial zone or combination thereof would be applied to this area with adoption of the new zoning ordinance. The motion carried - unanimously. Z-8207. Discussion of an application to rezone the Hawkeye Mobile Home Court from RIA to RMH. Peter Vangerpen, owner of the court, stated that he had no further comments. Blank moved and Baker seconded a motion to approve the rezoning. Baker questioned Vangerpen as to whether he was agreeable to this; Vangerpen responded positively. Jakobsen stated that she would vote in favor of the rezoning. She stated that it was a Commission policy to zone for existing uses and that in this case the property should not have been annexed at RIA density. Scott agreed. i 111CROFILnED BY —DORM `MIC R(i/LAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MO1nE5 m T. J PLANNING & ZONING COP SION MARCH 10, 1983 PAGE 6 The motion passed 5-0. Z-8220. Discussion of an application submitted by Michael Furman for the rezoning of property located adjacent to the CRI&P railroad tracks between Van Buren and Johnson Streets from M1 to R3A. There was no public discussion. Jakobsen moved and Baker seconded a motion to rezone the property described in Z-8220. Jakobsen stated that M1 obviously was not the correct zone for the area. Baker stated that he would vote against the rezoning to emphasize his feeling that the area was over -populated. Jordan concurred with Jakobsen's statement. The motion passed 4-1 with Baker voting against. 5-8228. Discussion of an application submitted by Earl Yoder for approval of an amended PAD and a preliminary and final subdivision of Lot 62 MacBride Addition, Part II. There was no public discussion. Jakobsen asked if the building design issue had been addressed. John Cruise, representing the applicant, stated that Yoder had indicated he would do everything he 'could to make the buildings attractive. Baker stated that he questioned whether the building design proposed was the only solution to the high cost of housing. Jordan moved and Baker seconded a motion to defer to March 17 action on 5-8228 to allow the developer time to bring in a new building design; the motion passed unanimously. Larry Schnittjer pointed out that mansard roofs were designed to visually bring down the height of apartment buildings. 5-8301. Discussion of an application submitted by Michael Furman for approval of a preliminary and final LSRD for Van Buren Village. There was no public discussion. Michael Furman stated that the application had been thoroughly scrutinized by the City staff and was recommended for approval. He stated that this development would be the last in which he used mansard roofs. Blank moved and Jordan seconded a motion to approve the rezoning request; the motion carried, 4-1, with Baker voting no. OTHER BUSINESS: Jakobsen questioned whether the Commission's by-laws Council. The staff agreed to check. i 11I11011LME1 BY �1 -JOR M "M IC R4LA B-_ CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES T r' PLANNING & ZONING COI �SSION MARCH 10, 1983 PAGE 7 Baker raised the issue of whether the Commission should handle rezoning requests any differently during the period of consideration of the new Zoning Ordinance. The Commission agreed to address this issue at a later date. Meeting adjourned 9:30 PM. Minutes submitted by Kartti'Frn, Approved b j Horst Jordan ( Secretary j111, Y MICROFILMED BY CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES G 9,0 J i - 1 MINUTES IOWA CITY RIVERFRONT COMMISSION MARCH 7, 1983 7:30 P.M. CIVIC CENTER LAW LIBRARY i MEMBERS PRESENT: Oehmke, Rausch, Knarr, Willis, Lewis, Cleland, j Fountain MEMBERS ABSENT: Sokol, Horton, Boutelle _ _ ......_._. GUESTS PRESENT: Lois Gerard, Janet Trimble, Jerry Gerard, Jim j Glasgow, Pete Vangerpen STAFF PRESENT: Moen, Franklin, Boothroy jRECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: i j None. RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION: j 1. That the staff draft a letter summarizing the major concerns of the Riverfront Commission to the Planning & Zoning Commission regarding the rezoning of property south_of. Taft Speedway. 2. That the Riverfront Commission forward the'River Corridor Overlay (ORC) Zone as amended to the Planning & Zoning Commission. REQUEST TO CITY MANAGER FOR STAFF ASSISTANCE: I 1. Have the staff check with the Parks & Recreation Department to see if they could use any labor to clean and further clear debris in Napoleon Park. ! 2. Check with the Public Works Department as to whether or not they need assistance on the Rocky Shore Bikeway. 3. Check with both the Public Works Department and the Parks & Recreation Department to see if any work is needed in the Sturgis Ferry Park or any other park along the river. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Lewis at 7:30 p.m. Members and guests introduced themselves. The minutes of February 2, 1983, were reviewed. Moved by Willis and seconded by Oehmke that the minutes of February 2 be approved as j circulated. The motion carried unanimously. 141CROFILMED BY -JORM-- -AA IC F16LA9 L% CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES MINUTES IOWA CITY RIVERFRONT COMMISSION MARCH 7, 1983 PAGE 2 DISCUSSION OF REZONING OF PROPERTY SOUTH OF TAFT SPEEDWAY - REFERRAL FROM PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION: Lewis explained that this matter had been referred to the Riverfront Commission by the Planning & Zoning Commission. Franklin referred to the staff report, stating that this was a request to rezone 7.3 acres to R3, a low density multi -family residential development. The area in question is a wooded area to the north and west of Terrill Mill Park and runs directly adjacent to the river for 73 feet. Franklin stated that the primary question was whether this higher density was appropriate in the area. Franklin presented a sketched plan submitted by the developer, Jim Glasgow; a Planned Area Development (PAD) will be done for this property should the rezoning be approved. Franklin outlined the plan to provide sewer service to this development. Trimble expressed concern over possible sewer surcharge problems for the current residents should this development be approved. Franklin pointed out that sewer surcharges will iprobably become less frequent as the development would be connected to the City's sewer line rather than on a septic tank system used by the other residents in the area. Knarr asked what would happen to the sanitary sewer should the water rise, as it often does over the bank. Franklin explained that the water would not infiltrate into the new sanitary sewer pipes. Glasgow presented a brief background of the property and reviewed proposed development plans. Oehmke asked if there were plans to handle the fill around the trees. Glasgow stated that this would be handled on a year to year basis. Cleland pointed out that trees would have to be replanted in the filled areas. Glasgow mentioned plans to plant Ash and Linden trees in this area. Lewis asked if there were any plans to pave Taft Speedway. Glasgow stated that he would like to see the speedway raised to the level of Dubuque Street and then paved. Glasgow stated that the proposed buildings would be approximately six feet higher than Taft Speedway in elevation. Oehmke asked if fill would be required around the units. Glasgow stated that about four feet of fill would be used. Rausch questioned the effect of fill on the property to the west. Glasgow stated that the area had to be filled whether it was single-family or a planned area development due to the swampy nature of the property; however, an acre of native woods would be maintained in the center. Fountain asked what the effect this fill would have on the farm field. Franklin explained that this area, once developed, must comply with the Stormwater Management Ordinance; one concern dealt with would be the effect of runoff from one property to another. Cleland pointed out that the amount of fill required for this development raised serious questions about the survival of any trees on the site. Willis agreed, stating the major concern of the Riverfront Commission was G9/ lIdILROFILI4ED BY 1. —DORM"MIC R(>1L AB- 1 CEDAR RAN DS DES Mo 1. I I i .J MINUTES IOWA CITY RIVERFRONT COMMISSION MARCH 7, 1983 PAGE 3 along the 100 foot area adjacent to the river. Franklin mentioned that a single-family development would create more impervious surfaces than would a multi -family development. Oehmke asked how elevation would be handled to the east side of the development. Glasgow stated that drainage was good in that area. Oehmke suggested that an erosion problem might be created if the fill killed the existing trees. Janet Trimble expressed opposition to rezoning the property from RIA to R3. Willis asked if Glasgow would entertain the idea of a conservation easement for the 100 feet near the river. Glasgow stated that he would examine that suggestion. Willis asked if the replanting of trees was part of'the process. Franklin explained how the Tree Ordinance would apply to this development. Glasgow mentioned that many of the existing trees on the site were already dead. Lewis stated that the concerns of the residents along Taft Speedway must be acknowledged. These included the sewer questions and the traffic on the unimproved road. Lewis stated that the concern regarding this sewer was that the development should have an adequate sewer system and whether there would be any effect on the existing properties and the existing sewer system. Glasgow commented that this was the best site for a multi -family develop- ment; Trimble disagreed, expressing concern at the proposed change in zoning. Cleland reiterated his concern of the visual effect, from the river, of losing these trees so close to the river. Cleland asked Franklin to review the procedure the Planning & Zoning Commission would follow. Franklin explained the process. The members discussed the present flooding pattern of the area and its possible effect on the proposed development. Lewis expressed appreciation for the attendance of the residents. The members discussed the visual impact of removing trees. Lewis stated that the fill was the main concern of the Commission. Lewis noted that the drawing of the development looked reasonable with its maintenance of trees; however, in practice, this probably would not happen. Rausch questioned the probability of the City granting an easement or quitclaim of some parkland. Willis suggested that any quitclaim deed require certain practices by the developer, such as regulating the amount of fill and the removal of trees, f I i MICROFILIdED BY -; 1' JORM-MICR©CAB- CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOIRES 9/ J MINUTES IOWA CITY RIVERFRONT COMMISSION MARCH 7, 1983 PAGE 4 Moved by Oehmke that the Riverfront Commission recommend that the staff draft a letter summarizing the major concerns of the Riverfront Commission to the Planning & Zoning Commission and further requested that the Riverfront Commission be apprised of any further action on this develop- ment. Seconded by Cleland. The motion passed unanimously. iDISCUSSION OF THE RIVER CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE: j Moen asked that any further concerns of the Riverfront Commission with regard to the River Corridor Overlay Zone be expressed and remedied at this meeting. Moen referred to page 3, number 8, and suggested that the words "except public signs" be inserted after the word "signs". Moen reviewed the definitions of "public signs." The consensus was that that amendment was agreeable. Moen referred to the special provisions section, stating that the ORC zone would be taken into consideration when reviewing open space requirements required within a development. Cleland expressed concern at this practice, suggesting that density would be increased because unbuildable land within the flood plain, which could not practically be used, could potentially account for the open space requirements. I Knarr asked where property owners' 30 foot setbacks would begin if the flood plain was flooded and what the effect of fill would have on this setback. Lewis asked the source of the 13,000 cubic feet per second contained in the definition of riverbank and suggested that the definition may have come from the flood plain management ordinance. Cleland suggested that only the buildable areas in the ORC zone should be credited toward the open space requirements. Moen asked how the term "buildable" would be defined. Boothroy explained that the PAD currently allowed a property owner to use all his property when computing open space. Boothroy stated that density would not be increased by the ORC zone. Upon explanation, the members decided to leave the special provision section as written. Moved by Cleland and seconded by Oehmke to send the Riverfront Corridor Overlay Zone to the Planning & Zoning Commission with the suggested changes. Fountain suggested that the word "establishing" be inserted on page 1 in b and c as follows: (b) Purpose. The purpose of establishing the River Corridor Overlay Zone is to: (c) Intent. The intent of establishing the River Corridor Overlay Zone is to: MICROFILMED BY _JORM-`MIC RfSLAB- _ �j CEDAR RAI, 1B DES 1401tIES i �� i MINUTES IOWA CITY RIVERFRONT COMMISSION MARCH 7, 1983 PAGE 5 Moved by Oehmke and seconded by Rausch to amend the motion and insert the word establishing as suggested. Lewis mentioned the concern at the consistency of setbacks as discussed on page 2, b2. Moen stated that flexibility should be given to the developer; 30 feet would always be the minimum setback. The amended motion carried unanimously. DISCUSSION OF THE MODEL CONSERVATION EASEMENT: Moen distributed a list of Iowa City residents who own riverfront property within the corporate limits of Iowa City. At a later date, the Riverfront Commission may select to contact these residents to apprise them of the model conservation easement. Mailing addresses will be obtained by the April meeting. Moen distributed a list of questions and answers which might be asked by the public regarding the model conservation easement, Moen suggested that these be reviewed and discussed at the April meeting. Fountain questioned whether a municipality could gain control of the land once a conservation easement had been signed. Cleland pointed out that ithe easement would not grant the City any additional rights. Moen reported difficulty in obtaining information about the tax benefits of the easement. i Moen reiterated the fact that the easement itself would not pave the way for the installation of bike paths but rather woudl establish a greenbelt j along the river. Moen stated that, if the ORC Zone is established, property owners would be obligated to provide a 30 foot buffer. The members discussed the possible confusion that might result from the adoption of the ORC and the use of a conservation easement. Another question was suggested: "How does the conservation easement relate to the proposed River Corridor Overlay Zone?" DISCUSSION OF THE NAPOLEON PARK RIVERBANK TRAIL: Moved by Cleland and seconded by Fountain to schedule a walking trip in Napoleon Park in early May and make a final decision regarding the Napoleon Park riverbank trail in August with a follow-up, on-site meeting. The motion carried unanimously. DISCUSSION OF THE RIVERFRONT COMMISSION'S CANOE TRIP: It was suggested that a canoe trip be scheduled for the first weekend in June. 141CROFILMED BY --DORM 'MIC S: -J13'_ CEDAR RAPIDS DES M0 4& �1 MINUTES IOWA CITY RIVERFRONT COMMISSION MARCH 7, 1983 PAGE 6 PUBLIC DISCUSSION: Moen stated that monies have been allocated to the Mayor's Youth Employment Program for seven weeks this summer. It was suggested that that labor could be used to clean debris in Napoleon Park or any other park areas on the river. Moen stated that she would check with Dennis Showalter to see if he could use any labor to clean debris in Napoleon Park. Moen further stated that she would check.with the Public Works Department as to whether or not assistance was needed on the Rocky Shore Bikeway. Moen was further asked to check with the Parks & Recreation Department, as well as the Public Works Department as to whether or not Sturgis Ferry Park or any other park along the river required labor. The next meeting was tentatively scheduled for April 4, 1983. The meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Minutes submitted by Sara Behrman, Minute -Taker. i MICROFILMED BY -JUR M ---MIC RbLA B'" " CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES 6 9/ T -J ' � 1 I i \J! Ilgrid MINUTES DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE APRIL 13, 1983 4:30 P.M. CITY MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Haupert, Seiberling, Lafore, Summerwill, Eckholt, Alexander, Wockenfuss MEMBERS ABSENT: Amert, Sinek, Wegman STAFF PRESENT: Boothroy, Behrman i GUESTS PRESENT: James Clark, Bob Burns, Robert Bender, Dave Hayes, Jim Anderson, John Roffman - - RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: i 1. The Design Review Committee recommends support of the preference expressed by the City staff for the City pipe yard bid proposal of - James A. Clark and Loretta C. Clark in order to promote the orderly consistent development of that area. i 2. The Design Review Committee commends Hawkeye Associates for its design plans in the pipeyard parcel bid but suggests that it is unsuitable for this location from several points of view. 3. The Design Review Committee recommends that the City Council not approve the design plans of John Roffman Construction. SUMMARY: 1. The design plans presented by James and Loretta Clark were found to be satisfactory. The Committee discussed the possibility that i property currently owned by Dorothy Maher may be sold to Clark in the future for further development. I 2. The design plans of Hawkeye Associates were commended for being aesthetically pleasing. The Committee commented that, due to the traffic noise and close proximity to housing primarily for students, an elderly apartment complex might fare better in a quiet neighbor- hood. The Committee suggested that a more suitable location be sought. 3. The design plans presented by John Roffman Construction were found to be inadequate for several reasons: 1) the need for a variance for the underground parking in the floodplain and 2) a poor traffic circulation pattern. 4. The Committee discussed the possibility of designing a prototype of aesthetically pleasing housing. Also discussed was an arts festival scheduled for June 27 through July July 2, 1983, which would possible include a competition on store window displays. 49,.,7 - III I �. I` J 111CRDEILMED BY V 1. � - I -JOR M"" -MIC R46L A B-- ' CEDAR RAPIDS • DES 1101NES Design Review L nittee April 13, 1983 Page 2 5. The members expressed concern at the increasingly apparent neglect of the Old Capitol Mall's facade. It was suggested that the City check to see if Old Capitol Mall was in compliance with its contract. 6. The renovation of "Sweets and Treats" was discussed and Mr. Neumann and Associates were commended for their beautiful renovation of the property on the corner of Clinton and Burlington Street. 7. The Committee commented on the inappropriateness of the white trash bin located in the Blackhawk Mini Park. DISCUSSION: The meeting was callled to order by Seiberling at 4:50 p.m. PIPE YARD (SOUTH GI Clark reviewed the design plans, explaining that they tied in with the Ralston Creek village apartments. Clark stated that the proposed structure would have the same exterior features which would include brown brick, brown shingles and brown windows. Clark commented that the proposed structure would like a 21 -unit addition to the present Ralston Creek Village apartments. Clark stated that the off-street parking area would be on the south and west sides of the structure, with balconies on the other two sides and the front of the building. Clark stated that the driveway would be off Gilbert Street and commented that no signage was anticipated except for a plaque with the street number. Summerwill asked if Clark had received complaints about the size of the balconies and Clark stated that he had not. Summerwill asked if the plans adequately reflected the plantings and Clark replied that it conformed to the Code requirements. Clark asked for assistance in selecting trees. Clark stated that nine one -bedroom units, six two -bedrooms and six three - bedrooms units were anticipated. Eckholt asked if the existing building was fully occupied and Clark replied affirmatively. Wockenfuss asked if Clark had projected plans for acquiring the corner of Burlington and Gilbert Streets. Clark stated that he had spoken to the owners of that corner and the design plans would work well with future development, should it occur. Clark commented that the City was interested in obtaining a ten foot area for a turning lane at that corner. Seiberling thanked Clark for -his presentation. ON OF DESIGNS FOR CITY PIPE YARD _(SOUTH GILBERT STREET) ON David Hayes, architect for Robert Burns and Associates, presented the plans for Hawkeye Associates. Hayes stated that the plans called for one building with 28 apartments, which would include 26 one -bedroom units and two efficiencies. Hayes stated that this complex was designed for the elderly and certain amenities were provided such as raised outlets, grab bars, emergency call system, wider doorways for accessibility for wheelchairs and walker access. Hayes stated that this would be an 1 v 141CROFILMED BY 1 -'JO RIUI-"MICR6LA8' -' 1 CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES I 10,9041 J Design Review f littee April 13, 1983 Page 3 elevator building and the entrance would be recessed with a canopy. A secure lobby for mail delivery would be provided, as well as a small community room•for activities such as card playing. Hayes stated that the Parking would be concealed from Gilbert Street and the main entrance would be oriented to Gilbert Street. There would be no steps as the building would be completely handicapped accessible. A small plaza area would be developed to the front of the building and a drop-off zone would be provided near the entrance for taxi service. The exterior would be composed of dark brown shingles, brick veneer and siding (bronze zur). The building would be dark brown but not identical to the Ralston Creek Village apartments. The siding would be porcelain enamel on backing board. Hayes distributed samples of the parking lot lighting and reviewed the landscaping plans, which called for maple, white ash, eastern red bud, American linden, red maple, gray birch, and upright Japanese U trees. Hayes stated that the entire side and parking were in the floodplain. Hayes commented that this would be a rectangular building with a canopied entrance, exposed plaza with benches for seating and asphalt shingles. Hayes stated that the building would be 110 feet long in a lot of 150 feet long. Summerwill asked if the apartments would be air conditioned and Hayes stated that there would be provisions for air conditioning but it would not be done, centrally. Summerwill asked the projected rent and Anderson replied that $325713;0 per month was projected. Summerwill asked what type of windows would be used. Hayes replied that horizontal sliding type windows with aluminized finish. Anderson remarked that a small garden area would be provided as well as a lift station for the wheelchairs in the back of the building. Haupert asked if the staff's concern about restricting the occupancy to the elderly had been resolved. Boothroy stated that that concern had been resolved; it was one of the requirements of Section 8. Haupert asked if the applicant had completed soil bearing tests. Anderson stated that they had not been completed and he would like to meet with the City; however, the concerns expressed by the staff had been addressed in a letter from him to Neal Berlin. Boothroy stated that the concerns regarding IRS financing and parking may be resolved but the contingency on soil testing could only be resolved by the City Council. Haupert commented that he felt this was a reasonable contingency. Alexander stated that this was especially the case in view of what happened east of the property at the Iowa -Illinois manner. Haupert asked the plans for signage. Hayes stated that no signage beyond a painted house number at the entry was anticipated. Seiberling thanked Hayes for the presentation. Roffman reviewed the design plans, stating that a large rectangular building with an open courtyard similar in design to the Ralston Creek Village was anticipated. Roffman stated that they would be the same size, with the proposed building in chateau brown, brown windows and bronze siding. The entry would be recessed off Gilbert Street and the building would have security amenities. Roffman stated that the apartments would open onto an internal courtyard which would serve as a focal point for the residence. Roffman stated that the plans were compatible with the existing buildings and berms would hide the parking with trees. There JMICROFILMED BY ` 1. 'DORM-WICR6LAB- -1 CEDAR RAPIDS • DES NDINES G 907- J i Design Review ( littee April 13, 1983 Page 4 would be three areas with shrubs and plantings and he was asking for an examption or a waiver for underground parking. Roffman stated that one parking space per each apartment would be provided and the building was designed to meet the need for close -in apartments for professional and working persons and elderly retired persons. Roffman commented that the interior courtyard would serve as a "Garden of Eden" and would bloom all year round. All the units were three-bedroom and there were 29 units total. Summerwill asked if large windows would be provided for each apartment looking onto the courtyard and Roffman replied affirmatively. Eckholt asked if there were schematic drawings with more architectural detail. Roffman replied negatively, stating that this building had no offsets, a hip roof and an overhang roof all the way around. Wockenfuss stated that there were differing window sizes and Roffman stated that all windows would be the same size. Haupert asked where the underground parking would be located and Boothroy explained. Roffman emphasized the security that would be provided the residents with the underground parking. Seiberling asked if Roffman was concerned about underground parking in a flood area. Roffman stated that it would be the same as if it was above ground in the floodplain. Summerwill questioned the effect of student population to the nearby apartments on this structure. Roffman stated that the brick exterior would provide 5/8's of an inch of insulation and most of the sound would travel through the windows. Roffman stated that no signage was planned other than a boarder address. Seiberling thanked Roffman for his presentation. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM JANUARY 5 1983. Moved by Haupert to approve the minutes as circulated. Seconded by Summerwill. The motion carried unanimously. Committee comments on City pipe yard design presentations: Eckholt asked if the Committee should compare and recommend the preferable design plan. Boothroy stated that the City Council wants to hear which design is best with regard to design and use of land. The concerns raised regarding zoning need not necessarily be commented upon. Boothroy stated that one of the major concerns on the Roffman design was the need for a variance for parking underground in the floodplain. Boothroy further commented that the design plans for Roffman showed changes and an inadequate circulation pattern was provided. Wockenfuss commented that the courtyard as described by Roffman seemed unfeasible. Lafore expressed concern about underground parking. Alexander arrived at this point. Lafore moved that the Committee not approved the Roffman construction plans. Wockenfuss seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-1-0; Haupert asbstained. The members discussed the plans as presented by Hawkeye Associates. Boothroy stated that this was the only bid which had a contingency. Seiberling commented that this was the only building with an elevator. Boothroy remarked that, according to the bid proposal, if the soil bearing MICROFILMED BY 1 JOR M"MIC R46LAB` 7) CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOIRES G 9z Design Review l Iittee April 13, 1983 Page 5 capacity does not prove out, the applicant may modify the design. Boothroy commented that all proposals would be required to meet the tree regulations. Summerwill asked for whom the Iowa -Illinois manor building was being constructed. Boothroy explained that they were large three-bedroom aparmtents which would probably be rented to students. Summerwill commented that it was inadvisable to impose student housing upon the elderly and vice versa. Eckholt stated that it would be unfair to people in the other projects to have elderly housing at this site. Summerwill questioned whether there would be cross ventilation. Seiberling remarked that traffic noise would also be a concern to these elderly residents. Lafore stated that these plans would be acceptable in a quieter neighborhood. Eckholt commented that he would prefer a more harmonious development on this corner. Summerwill suggested that these plans would be better constructed in the Mormon Trek area. Haupert suggested that the applicant be commended for aesthetically pleasing designs and Seiberling agreed that the plans were very sensitive. Haupert stated that the basic inconsistency was that this was housing for elderly in primarily a student neighborhood. Haupert expressed the concern that, if Jim Clark buys Maher's corner, the proposed elderly building would be further impacted by student housing. Lafore stated that it would be better to continue with Clark as the developer. Lafore moved that Hawkeye Associates be commended for their design plans but that the Committee finds it is unsuitable for this location from several points of view. Alexander seconded the motion. Wockenfuss suggested that Hawkeye Associates look for a more suitable location. The motion carreid 6-1-0; Haupert abstained. Haupert explained that he was abstaining from all these industrial revenue bond requests due to conflict of interest. Alexander moved that the Design Review Committee support the preference expressed by the City staff for the Clark proposal in order to promote the orderly, consistent development of that area. Eckholt seconded the motion. Summerwill commented that she wished there would be a more imaginative design. The motion carried 6-1-0; Haupert abstained. PUBLIC DISCUSSION AND OTHER BUSINESS: Eckholt commented on a conversation with Bill Nowysz, who had spoken to Mike Furman, about desigos that would better fit in neighborhoods. Seiberling stated that she had met with Wegman and Amert to discuss what to talk about with the City Council and one idea would be creating a prototype of a good design so that developers would have something on which to base their plans. Eckholt stated that he had looked into the possibility of store window design and stated that an arts festival scheduled for June 27 -July 2 might include a competition of store window designs. The competition may focus on the Old Capitol Mall's windows. 1 i nICROFILIdED BY � I-1 r - —JORM MIC R¢LAB'�� !f CEDAR RAPIDS • DES M019ES 4.9>_ J I Design Review nittee April 13, 1983 Page 6 Haupert stated that he was concerned about the situation at Old Capitol Mall with regard to the neglected facade and the lack of landscaping. Haupert suggested that the City check to see if Old Capitol Mall was in compliance with its contract and the facade was in a state of disrepair. Seiberling asked if the members had noticed the new building called "Sweets and Treats" on the corner of Burlington and Clinton Streets. Seiberling stated that this building had been renovated by Neumann and Associates and should be commended for its beautiful and tastefully done renovation. Seiberling stated that she would write a letter to Neumann and Associates and would also draft a letter to the City Council with regard to the neglected downtown mall. I Seiberling remarked that a white trash bin was now located in the Blackhawk Minipark and expressed concern, stating that a brown trash bin would be more appropriate. Haupert referred to an article which discussed the taking over of the pedestrian right-of-way near the library for the hotel development. Boothroy generally explained the current design plans. The meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m. Submitted by: Sara Behrman, Minute Taker ti 1 n1CROFILMED BY 1" JORM-MICRfJL49- --� -- CEDAR RAPIDS DES 11DIAES 6 9z �T i J