Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-05-03 Info PacketJ City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM DATE: April 29, 1983 TO: City Council FROM: City Manager RE: Informal Agendas and Meeting Schedule May 2, 1983 4.30 - 6.30 P.M. Conference Room Monday 4:30 P.M. - Meeting of the City Conference Board Separate Agenda posted 4:35 P.M. - Discuss Lower Ralston Creek Land Disposition 5:00 P.M. - Bidders' Presentations for City Pipeyard Redevelopment 5:45 P.M. - Discuss Asphalt Overlay Program 5:55 P.M. - Discuss Special Assessment Projects (Tanglewood/Ventura; St. Anne's Drive, Kimball Road) 6:15 P.M. - Discuss Airport issues (part -of discussion may be in Executive Session) 6:30 P.M. - Council time, Council committee reports j May, 3, 1983 Tuesday 7.30 - 9:30 P.M. Conference Room 7:30 P.M. - Special City Council Meeting 7:35 P.M. - Special Informal Council Meeting to discuss planned development housing overlay zone of the new Zoning Ordinance. PENDING LIST Priority A: Iowa -Illinois Utilities Franchise Melrose Court Improvements Policy on Vehicles in Transit Interchange Area Discuss Special Paving Projects Priority B: Discuss City Council Majority Voting Requirements Discuss Affirmative Action Task Force Report City Council Salaries Housing Inspection Funding Policy Housing Market Analysis Recommendations Transit Fare Subsidy Program Community Energy Study Proposal Shamrock/Arbor Drive Drainage Area Funding Request from MECCA Meet with Broadband Telecommunications Commission Priority C: Meet with Design Review Committee regarding recommendations Traffic Signals - Flashing Mode Mandatory Parkland Dedication (Fall 1983) Appointments to United Action for Youth Board and Board of Adjustment - May 10, 1983 Appointments to Resources Conservation Conmission and Housing Commission - May 24, 1983 79i� i MICROFILMED BY --"JORM-MICROLAB- .) L CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES 'I r ' a April 28, 1983 To When It May Concern: The Iowa City Conference Board will meet at 4:30 P.M. on Monday, May 2, 1983, at the Iowa City Civic Center. AGENDA: 1. Call meeting to order by the chairperson. 2. Appoint Board of Review member. 3. Motion for chairperson to sign contract with Vanguard for residential reappraisal. 4. Other business. S. Adjourn. Dan L. Hudson Clerk, Conference Board AGENDA SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING MAY 3, 1983 7:30 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS Item No. 1 - MEETING TO ORDER. ROLL CALL. Item No. 2 - CONSIDER RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON MAY 10, 1983, ON PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, FORM OF CONTRACT AND ESTIMATE OF COST FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BENTON STREET BRIDGE REPAIR PROJECT, DIRECTING CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH NOTICE OF SAID HEARING AND DIRECTING CITY ENGINEER TO PLACE SAID PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS ON FILE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION. Comment: This project involves the repair of both abutments on the Benton Street bridge over the Iowa River along with the raising to grade of the expansion joints at each end of bridge, which will eliminate damaging impact loads. Con- struction is estimated to cost approximately $30,000. Itl Action: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, FORM OF CONTRACT, AND ESTIMATE OF COST FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF The Benton Street Bridge Repair Project DIRECTING CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH NOTICE OF SAID HEARING, AND DIRECTING CITY ENGINEER TO PLACE SAID PLANS, ETC., ON FILE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: 1. That a public hearing on the plans, specifications, form of contract, and estimate of cost for the construction of the above-named project is to be held on the 10th day of May , 1g 83 , at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Civic Center, Iowa City, Iowa. 2. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to publish notice of the public hearing for the construction of the above-named project in a newspaper published at least once weekly and having a general circulation in the city, not less than four (4) nor more than twenty (20) days before said hearing. 3. That the plans, specifications, form of contract, and estimate of cost for the construction of the above named project are hereby ordered placed on file by the City Engineer in the office of the City Clerk for public inspection. It was moved by and seconded by that the resolution as read be a opte an upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: _ Balmer Dickson Erdahl _ Lynch McDonald Neuhauser Perret Passed and approved this day of 19_ ATTEST: CITY CL RK MAYOR i I MICROFILMED BY l' I-JORM-MICR6LAEl�_ CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES w By 7AZ / / V E J City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM DATE: April 29, 1983 TO: City Council FROM: City Manager x- / RE: Wellness Program Enclosed is a memorandum which I sent to the Police and Fire Departments relating to concerns which they have about the employment agreement. We will continue to work on the other aspects of the wellness program. As you previously have received information concerning the program, the issue has not been scheduled for informal discussion on Monday. f r 141CROFILRED BY f11 "DORM' -MIC RbCA EI'- ' CEDAR RAPIDS DES 1101NES X97 r -J , City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM DATE: April 29, 1983 TO: Mike Goldberg, Nate Hopkins, Bill Cook, Wellness Task Force FROM: Neal G. Berlin����,f RE: Employment Agreement In recent days you and others have raised concerns about the employment agreement. Until these issues are resolved, the use of the agreement will be held in abeyance. I have asked Anne Carroll to contact you to schedule a meeting so that we might discuss and attempt to satisfactorily resolve your concerns. In the interim, if you have any questions, please contact me or Anne Carroll. cc: Chief Miller Chief Keating City Council City of Iowa Cit, MEMORANDUM Date: April 29, 1983 To: Mayor and Council, City Manager From: Robert W. Jansen, City Attorney J�L� Re: Hometown Dairies Building Permit Mr. William Meardon, attorney for Hometown Dairies, called me on the evening of April 27 and stated that he had advised his client that the stop work order issued by Building Official Glenn Siders was invalid and that the City lacked legal authority to issue such an order. Accordingly, I was informed that his client was going to proceed with its construction plans and the City would have to take whatever action it thought necessary. The background of this situation is that Hometown was granted a variance by the Board of Adjustment to permit certain construction activities to bring the plant operation into compliance with County health board requirements. The variance was first granted in December, 1981, however, the six month period following the granting of the variance expired before Hometown applied for its building permit. Hometown was then required to reapply for the variance since the City Code requires that the building permit must be applied for within six months following the grant of variance. The variance was again granted in November, 1982, and the permit was issued by Mr. Siders on March 22, 1982. The issuance of the March 22nd permit was appealed to the Board of Adjustment by Mr. Andrew Isserman and Mr. Anthony Frey by filing an appeal on April 21st but not perfected until April 26th when the filing fee was finally paid. When an appeal is taken from an action by the Building Official, the Iowa Code (Ch. 414) and the City Code (Sec. 8.10.28D) state that "an appeal stays all proceedings in furtherance of the action appealed from." Pursuant to this, the Building Official issued a stop -work order to Hometown Dairies on April 27th. We have consistently interpreted this language to mean that construction work is included in the terms "all proceedings." Hometown's position is apparently based on New York court decisions interpreting a New York statute, which is identical in language to ours, that construction activities are not stayed by an appeal or are not construed to be "proceedings." The Iowa Supreme Court has not ruled on this issue nor does it appear that many other states have dealt with this issue. I recommend that I first send a letter to Mr. Meardon informing him of the'City's position and advise Mr. Meardon and his client that if Hometown does go ahead in defiance of the stop -work order that appropriate court action will then be instituted. bj5/9 lI i MICROFILMED BY 1_ ._JORMI MIC R6LA13- - CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES J i City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM DATE: April 25, 1983 TO: City Manager FROM: City Attorney lb RE: Government Management Corporation -Possible Acquisition of City Sewer System This is a report on my meeting in Kansas City on April 20th with the representatives and attorneys for the parties seeking to ad- vance this project. The meeting was held in the offices of the J. C. Nichols Company. i The Iowa City project is one of 3 pilot projects designed to ac- quire or lease and operate municipally -owned sewer or water systems under the name of Government Management Corporation. As you know the objective is to provide delivery by the private sector of those services now exclusively furnished by municipalities thereby relieving cities of the operational burdens and costs of expansion of those 1 services. Government Management Corporation was created to carry out these projects as a joint venture for Utility Trust of America, Armco Steel Corporation and Burns E McDonald Engineering Company, a wholly owned subsidiary of Armco. i J. C. Nichols Company is a large and very successful development company in Kansas City (commercial, shopping centers, residential and hotels) and wholly owns a company called U.S. Utilities. U. S. Utilities is the general partner of the limited partnership known as Utility Trust of America. Burns B McDonald is a nationwide engineering firm and has developed a sewage treatment process which will significantly reduce the costs of a new treatment plant. Armco will manufacture or fabricate the systems and equipment. Presumably the J. C. Nichols Company and Armco are providing the preliminary development and start-up capital for the joint 'venture. The key concept is that Government Management Corporation will warrant that it will reduce existing sewer service charges to consumers by at least 10%. The company will also warrant that sewer service charges for any new construction will be at least 10% less than the cost would be using current City financing methods. �9y MICROFILMED BY -DORM -MICROLAB__ L% CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES City Manager April 25, 1983 Page 2 A feasibility study showing comparative costs between municipal and privately owned and managed facilities is underway for Iowa City. As you know, the group wants a committment from the City that the City will go ahead'with the project before the study is finalized. According to the proposal, Government Management Corporation will purchase the entire sanitary sewer system and treatment plan, land, easements, sewers, etc. A contractual agreement will provide the City with a significant amount of control including City approval of rates and consent to increases. There are obviously a number of legal questions that need to be ex- amined at the outset since there is no precedent for this in Iowa law. Examination of the legal issues will involve a substantial expenditure of my time and legal staff time. We should discuss this. I am attaching a letter from Mr. Frank Hawkings outlining the steps ahead if the City is interested. I Attachment MICROFILMED BY �.L...-JORM11-MICR( L -AB'- CEDAR RAPIDS DES M01YES J &/I us UTILITIES WATER • SEWER • POWER • COMMUNICATIONS • SINCE 1905 April 20, 1983 Mr. Robert ,Jansen Trott & Jansen #9 South Linn Street Iowa City, Iowa 53240 Re: Government Management Corporation Accluisition of the fowa City, Iowa Sewer System Dear %Jr. Jansen: This letter outlines our meeting of today. We met with Messrs. Shaffer, Schleicher, Ilrimer, and foil in the Kansas City office of the J.C. Nichols Company. You were also introduced to Mr. Lynn McCarthy, the president of the ,J. L'. Nichols Company. We left with you drafts or a resolution and contract for your studv. We outlined to you the relationship of each representative at the meeting as follows: I. Government Management Corporation is organized as a Allot project joint venture vehicle rot' Itilit,v 'frust of America, Armco Steel Corporation and their wholly owned subsidiary, Burns I,, McDonnell 8nginccrillg Company. f 2. Utility 'frust of America is the J/h/u ul' ll(it itr ,\s sur is toy, Ltd., a NJissouri limited partnership. 3. U.S. Utilities is the general partnerof Utility 'frust of America and is wholly owned by the J.C.Nichols Company. 4. Mr. Shaffer is general counsol for Government Management Corporation. 5. Messrs. Schleicher and Brimer are tax counsel to the J.C. Nichols Company and to Utility 'frust of America. 6. Mr. Foil represented the Burns $ McDonnell Engineering Company and Armco Steel Corporation. We agreed that the next step is for you to determine for the city that we can legally accomplish our program in Iowa. NICHOLS BUILDING • 4200 SOMERSET • PRAIRIE VILLAGE, KANSAS 66208 • (913) 648.0052 7 % i MICROFILMED BY - 1 'JORM- -MICRf L:Aff 111 CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES K i J Mr. Robert ,Jarnsen April 20, 1983 Page Two After ,you have gained your comfort level, we will meet with the City Manager and his staff to explain further our program and answer their questions. Following the City Manager and his staff gaining their comfort, we understand we will then meet with the original ,roup we met with in our recent visit to Iowa City, to secure this "coup's recommendation to the City Council. We anticipate preparing for the members of the council a memorandum outlining our program, incorporating into the program the input from the legal and administrative representative of the city. Following a review and discussion period by the council members, we anticipate a formal presentation to the council of our proposal. Assuming positive action by the council, Government Management Corporation would then prepare the Icasibility study under the conditions of the contract, using input from each 0'1* the companies' staff. Following a Positive determination of the utinnnum 10, savings, a Public hearing to Present the program to the citi-ens of Iowa City would be scheduled. We await your response. Respectfullyi ' Frank Hawkins Consultant T % — —'1 parks & recreation department MEMO o: Mayor and City Council f r om. Fred Riddle and Dennis Showalter re. Parks and Recreation date: April 28, 1983 Commission Parks Tour You are invited to join the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Parks and Recreation staff on a tour of city parks on Saturday, May 7. We will leave at 8:30 a.m. from the Recreation Center parking lot and visit 35 parks and park - related areas with a stop for lunch at approximately noon. The May Parks and Recreation Commission meeting will be at the conclusion of the tour at approximately 3:00 p.m, at the Recreation Center. Please call Dennis at 356-5111 if you want to go, city of Iowa city 800 u I4ICROEILMED BY -JORM-"MICR6L14E� CEDAR RAPIDS DES MD A J 1 1 3 Yo � Ck. it e. LLkC-OL sc- T o W o,I I l O vel pL `l :. Pr; I N)'. r� WivteA -fiO our of p�a� �1ne .I �� i�-►ni��� 1owc� C;� fio be 9 � Sera e Uo.')-A oe.r 01d Carl May u +I, giveyi ;S Iowa 1F IL14ED BY MICR6LA6' S DES MOIYES f r J City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: April 29, 1983 To: city coupgil'\1 From: Don Schmm Re: Building Moratoriums and Nonconformities One of the least understood aspects of the new zoning ordinance is the establishment of a building moratorium commencing on the date that the City Council sets the public hearing on consideration of the new ordinance. The moratorium is actually brought about by provisions of the existing ordinance. Section 8.10.32D states "No building permit for the erection of any building or structure or license or permit for the conduct of any use shall be issued for a period of sixty (60) days after the City Council of Iowa City has set a public hearing on the question of amending the zoning ordinance and map so as to rezone an area which rezoning would permit the building or use contemplated by the requested permit in the area concerned..." Simply stated, the City could not issue a building permit for a building or use unless the proposed building or use met the provisions of the proposed zoning ordinance buil din at the ortime ime thewouCity Council set the ordinance for public hearing. 9 d of course have to comply with the present requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, as the present requirements are applicable until the new ordinance is adopted. This form of moratorium should not be confused with an outright prohibition to the issuance of any building permits anywhere within the City. To the contrary, building permits may be issued for any lot in Iowa City again provided that the building permit is for a building or use which would meet the requirements of both the proposed ordinance and the present ordinance. Since there are few provisions of the proposed ordinance that are exactly like the provisions of the present ordinance, many properties will be affected either positively or negatively by the moratorium. Assume, for example, that a person, owning a single family home 30 feet from the front property line in an RIA zone, wishes to construct an addition onto the front of the house. Under existing regulations the front yard requirement is 30 feet; however, in the new zoning ordinance the requirement is 20 feet. Although the property owner could meet the requirements of the proposed ordinance, he/she could not met the requirements of the present ordinance and could not obtain a building pe to build in the front yard. Contrarywise, suppose that a property owner owns an apartment building located in an R3A zone, which is proposed to be zoned RM -44, and wants to expand to within five feet of the side lot line. If the addition were to be only one or two stories high, there would be no hesitation in issuing a building premit for the addition. However, if the addition were to be three stories high, then the third story would have to be built not closer than seven feet to the side lot line, because the new ordinance requires that an additional two feet of side yard setback be provided for each story above two stories. As you can see, whether the moratorium will affect property or not depends upon how a person wishes to use his/her property. { 1 j a 141CROFILIIED BY I " DORM - MICR46LA13 CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES i RM J A question which has been raised is whether the new ordinance would actually constitute adoption of a new ordinance rather than amendment of the existing ordinance. Since the moratorium only applies to amendments, a moratorium presumably would not be required upon the Council setting a public hearing on a 11newilzoning ordinance. The Legal Department will be researching this question in the near future. A second issue which has been raised is the impact the ordinance will have on existing development particularly in terms of the establishment of nonconfor- mities. Zoning laws cannot be retroactively applied to existing development, i.e., the City cannot enforce upon existing property owners the requirements of the new zoning ordinance. New ordinance provisions, however, can render properties in noncompliance with the provisions of the new ordinance thereby making them nonconforming. Even though a building or use may be nonconforming and in noncompliance with the Provisions of the new ordinance, the property owners are entitled to use the premises as it had been used prior to adoption of the new ordinance for perpetuity. However, a nonconforming use cannot be expanded, a nonconforming building cannot be structurally altered that would increase or extend the degree of nonconformity, a nonconforming use could not be abandoned (vacated) for a period of one year, and a nonconforming use could not be converted to another use without compliance with certain provisions of the zoning ordinance, e.g., the parking requirements of the new ordinance. In addition, a nonconforming building, if destroyed by a fire, flood or by other means, cannot be rebuilt. Now the present Zoning Ordinance states that "Any nonconforming building which has been destroyed or damaged by fire, explosion, act of God, or by a public enemy to the extent of fifty 50percent or more of its assessed valuation, shall thereafter conform to the provisions of this ordinance' In the new ordinance as proposed, however, "Any nonconforming building which has been destroyed or damaged by fire, explosion, act of God, or by a public enemy to the extent of 100ercent or more of its replacement value, shall thereafter conform to the provisions of thischapter. Where the damage is less than one hundred percent of replacement value, such building may be restored to the same degree of nonconformity as existed before such damage." According to the new ordinance provisions, if a building is destroyed by less than 100% of its replaceable value, the building may be rebuilt exactly as it existed prior to the destruction. This provision would allow a person to recover a building's economic value if it's destroyed by more than 100% of its value. You might ask, "How can a building be destroyed by more than 100% of its value?" There are instances when, for example, fire damage and smoke damage as a result of a fire may actually exceed the actual value of the building itself, i.e., the cost to repair the damage from smoke and fire may exceed the actual cost to replace the dwelling in its present state (new costs minus depreciation). The right to rebuild a building destroyed by fire is, of course, little consolation to a person who wishes to expand a nonconforming use or building. This is what concerns many property owners with respect to new zoning regulations. 1. i 141CROFILIIED BY 1 _DORM-MICR6LAB - CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOL'IES I i The degree to which properties are rendered nonconforming depends upon many factors. Let's again compare the RM -44 zone and the R3A zone. A property with a building and use in the R3A zone which is in compliance with present zoning regulations may be nonconforming under new ordinance provisions simply because under the new ordinance, more parking spaces are required for the dwelling. If the dwelling is more than two stories high, it in addition probably won't comply with the required setback provision of seven feet in the new zoning ordinance. Since the new zoning ordinance provisions are different than present zoning ordinance provisions, chances are that many properties will to some degree be made nonconforming, i.e., be brought into noncompliance with new ordinance provisions, as the above examples demonstrate. As explained in another memorandum from me enclosed in the packet, the present zoning ordinance is based on traditional Euclidean zoning control techniques. The zones in Euclidean zoning assume a descending order of exclusiveness, i.e., there is a heterogeneous progression of uses permitted as districts become less restrictive. An R1 zone is the most exclusive or restrictive zone and the M1 zone is the least exclusive or least restrictive zone. Single family dwellings are permitted in an R1 zone; single family and two family dwellings are permitted in an R2 zone; single family, two family and multi -family dwellings are permitted in an R3 zone; all these residential uses are permitted in a commercial zone; and in an M1 zone, any use is permitted. I � Since our present zoning ordinance is of the Euclidean type and the new zoning ordinance assumes less of an accumulation of uses from higher zones to lower zones, invariably there will be nonconforming uses resulting. The present M1 zone,.for example, permits any use. Even if the City were to retain the present industrial classification for those properties zoned M1, many of the uses will be nonconforming simply because the new industrial zones only permit industrial and similar uses and exclude residential and many commercial uses. In summation, it is virtually impossible to know how the new zoning ordinance will impact property in regard to the 60 -day moratorium. Whether the moratorium will have any impact at all depends upon how a property owner wishes to use his/her property. It is equally as difficult to know the degree to which properties will be made nonconforming. One property may be brought into noncompliance with the new ordinance simply because the new ordinance requires a greater number of parking spaces than provided, another property may be brought into noncompliance with the ordinance because the use will not be permitted in the new zone within which the property is located, and there will be many other properties with a varying degree of nonconformity in between. Unfortunately, a change from Euclidean zoning to a less accumulative form of zoning will necessarily result in an impact upon existing properties. But that impact, if negative, will have resulted from provisions which require higher compatibility of land uses and fewer detrimental effects upon adjoining land uses. Most importantly, the density and intensity of land uses will be more in accordance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. i N lcRor ILIIED By -DORM-MICR6LA13 CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES !� 1 _� City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: April 27, 1983 To: City Co�grT'fil \\ .1 From: Don Schmeefst4_.1i' Re: Proposed OPD -H Zone Regulations In 1926 Amber Realty sued the City of Euclid, Ohio, because it downzoned a portion of its property from commercial to residential. The case was probably the most important case tried in the history of zoning regulations, not because the City of Euclid won its case for downzoning the property but because the zoning ordinance, which was also challenged, was upheld in the U.S. Supreme Court. After this case cities across the country adopted similar zoning regulations. The zoning ordinance which the City of Euclid adopted is very similar to the ordinance which we presently have for Iowa City, both of which incorporate what has been termed Euclidian zoning control techniques. To avoid the problems with the traditional Euclidian zoning concepts, cities have adopted different zoning techniques. In the case of density controls, for example, some communities have adopted floor area ratios; some have required a usable open space percentage; some control density on a number -of -bedrooms basis; and a few communities, like our own, use planned unit development provisions that essentially say: "show us what you want to do, and we'll let you know if we like it." The Federal Housing Administration in the early 1960's developed a non - Euclidian approach to site planning controls commonly referred to as the LUI (pronounced Looey) system. The system is perhaps best explained in an excerpt from a publication by Mr. Frederick H. Bair, Jr. attached to this memorandum. The proposed Planned Development Housing Overlay Zone is an adaptation of the LUI system as developed by Frederick H. Bair. Bair incidentally is one of the most noted authors of model zoning regulations and has written The Reaulation of Modular Housing, with special emphasis on mobile homes; the text of a model zoning ordinance, with commentary; and many others. Unfortunately, however, I would have to agree that the model ordinance to which the OPDH zone was adapted is very difficult to comprehend. The staff's intentions for developing the OPDH zone were to apply a totally different system of land use controls than enforced under more traditional and conventional zoning techniques. It is a very workable system and one which has been tried and tested by FHA since the early 1960's and one which I have personally used in other communites for assessing planned unit developments. It in actuality is a very simplified and flexible system of land use control, although it is not apparent in the draft provisions of the OPDH zone. i 141CROFIL:CR BY 1. --JORM--MI:LA B CEDAR RAf�IDSYES I � I' J Part I. Introduction The details of the system of simplified land -use - intensity (LUI) controls and regulatory devices are out- lined in the 1973 edition of HUD's Minimum Property Standards series, specifically in Volume 2, Multifamily Housing, and Volume 4, Manual of Acceptable Practices to the HUD Minimum Property Standards (MAP). The use of these publications will increase the ease with which the LUI system can be incorporated in local regula. tions. In this report, ordinance language and commentary indicate how this system can be used to control attached and multifamily uses in existing districts and also to preset land -use intensity (a refined expression of density) to correspond with comprehensive plans in future rezonings. as * • a Shortly after the land -use -intensity (LUI) system was developed, a group of prominent Washington, D.C., archi. tects met with Byron Hanks, the Chief Land Planner of the Federal Housing Administration and one of the originators of the LUI system. For almost an hour Henke listened quietly to a series of pleas to junk it. It would in- hibit good design, shackle imaginative construction, and produce stereotyped housing. Hanka had known what was coming. When he got the floor, he showed a series of slides of award-winning developments planned by the architects in the group, with analyses indicating that each had passed the LUI screen with no problems. A great deal of study and testing went into the creation of the LUI approach and related controls, which Norman Williams appraises m "the most important recent proposal for an overall system of bulk control."' He goes on to note that it has been incorporated in a number of Frederick H. Bair, Jr., planning consultant, Bair, Abernathy and Associates, Inc., Auburndale, Florida is author of earlier ankles on application of landaus, intensity in local regulations in Land -Use Controls and Zoning Digest. Three appear in composite form in his Planning Clues, published by ASPO in J9701 pp. 327-3471. 1. Williams, Norman, Jr.. American Land Planning Law IChiago; Callaghan & Co., 19741, Vol. 3, p. 250. zoning ordinances and has not turned up yet in reported litigation. Current revisions make it even more useful. Henke, in urging a new approach to land -use regulation, notes that zoning has usually pressed new urban develop- ment into molds "with monotonous uniformity of building type and land use ... and with conspicuous inadequacy of common open space for livability and recreation."' FHA began using the LUI system in processing appli- cations for planned developments in January 1964 and in 1965 applied it to townhouse and multifamily housing generally. Among first local adaptations for zoning was the October 1964 Amendment of the Zoning Ordinance of Frederick County, Maryland, on Planned Unit Develop- ment and Land -Use Intensity. An early application to both planned developments and attached and multifamily dwellings appeared in controls drafted in 1966 and adopted in 1967 in the comprehensive zoning code of the city and county of Honolulu. The lend -use -intensity system, with its related controls, has substantial advantages over conventional zoning straitjackets that restrict design needlessly without compensating public benefits. The LUI system controls density more effectively than crude limits on lot area per dwelling unit. It relates building spacing to window orientation, rather than to which lot line a wall faces. In addition to setting minimum requirements for total open space, it calls for "livability" space—landscaped pedestrian open space—and recreation space. It recognizes the significance of presence or absence of per. manent open space adjacent to the lot. It can be adapted to a variety of horizontal and vertical building configura- tions. Many existing ordinances achieve some of these refine• ments by a variety of devices—establishing light fans adjacent to windows; varying lot area requirements according to number of bedrooms; requiring minimum amounts of landscaping; or increasing floor area ratios on comer lots or lots adjoining other permanent open space. The land -use -intensity system, with its related controls, does all these things In an internally consistent manner. 2JAnd•Usr Intensity, A Guidance System for Housing and Urban Development (Testimony before the Nations] Commission on Urban Problems at its hearing on zoning, Houston, Texas, August 10, 19671. 1 j MICROf ILt4Eo BY I- --JORM-"MICR6LA13 _ CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOVIES i I J The LUI scale is adaptable to regulatory use from the outer edges of suburbia to very -high-density locations in metropolitan cores. With all these advantages, it is surprising that the system is not more generally used in local planning and zoning. There are a number of possible reasons. In the zoning field, new ideas catch on slowly, particularly if they are complex. Planners tend to criticize zoning without doing much to improve it. Zoning ad• ministrators often are comfortable with archaic controls and resist change. Day-to-day pressures are for map amendments, minor changes in text, variances, or other accommodations that will allow a particular applicant to do a particular thing. When an old ordinance becomes festooned with ad hockery and riddled with internal conflicts, it may be replaced or rewritten: but even then the overhaul may not include a fresh look at public purposes and adjustment of regulatory techniques to achieve them, without needless and sometimes counter• productive constraints. Thus, to take an overworked example, most ordinances still require greater dimensions in rear yards than side yards. The main building may not extend into the rear yard except for an unenclosed porch, but accessory buildings may be located in it, subject to provisions of varying complexity grounded in long gone stables and smokehouses. And boards of adjustment spend inordinate amounts of time considering variances for enclosure of rear 2 porches, because no one has taken the lime to consider what the regulations are intended to do and whether they do more than is justified by public purposes. Making the rear yard the some minimum dimension as the side yard would provide separation considered adequate for bedroom -to -bedroom exposure. Establishing maximum lot coverage limitations lin addition to minimal fixed yard requirements) would insure against over- crowding land with structures. Enlarging the buildable area of the lot to allow a greater variety of building forms does not seem adverse to the public welfare. And enclosure of the rear porch would be permissible without all that red tape. Why not? If simple and obvious improvements in zoning are so long in coming, more complicated changes may - be expected to take even longer. But increased adoption of the LUI approach seems likely. The initial objection that it hasn't been tried elsewhere was overcome long ago. A number of major cities and counties (as well as smaller jurisdictions) have been using it or are in the process of adopting new ordinances that incorporate the system. And the new HUD material makes it considerably easier to understand without intensive study. Changes in the HUD manuals suggest possible revisions in present LUI based local controls. What follows explains important elements of both the old and the new system and suggests ordinance language for adoption or adaptation. I v micRorIL11ED BY 1 r j —JORM MICRbLAO 1 CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES 9103 J City of Iowa Cit„ = MEMORANDUM Date: April 22, 1983 To: City Manager rJ From: Don Schmeiser, Director, Planning & Program Development Re: Eligibility of Paving Projects on Kimball/St. Anne/Ventura/Tanglewood for Jobs Bill CDBG Funding The Planning staff recently analyzed the paving projects on Kimball Avenue, St. Anne Drive, Ventura Avenue and Tanglewood Street for eligi- bility for CDBG funding. The conclusion was that none of these projects appear to be eligible for funding with Metro Entitlement CDBG funds, but that they might be eligible for CDBG Jobs Bill funding. We have not yet received the final regulations for use of the CDBG Jobs Bill monies, but preliminary information indicates that project eligibility requirements will be essentially the same as for CDBG Metro Entitlement funding. It appears therefore, that the paving projects would not be eligible for CDBG Jobs Bill funding. bj3/4 0 I• ` M]CROFIU4ED BY --, •,` 1`- 'JORM-MICROLA87 1 ' I� CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES / Date: To: From: Re: City of Iowa Cite MEMORANDUM April 20, 1983 Neal Berlin,'•ty Manager Don ScN" irector of Planning and Program Development Kimball Road Sidewalk - Eligibility for CDBG Funding Project Proposal Replacement of curb and sidewalk on the east side of Kimball Road between Kimball Avenue and Whiting Avenue. Estimated Cost (City Engineer's estimate) Sidewalk (2,756 square feet) $12,601.91 Curb, intake and asphaltic concrete overlay 14,891.00 Total $27,492.91 (Actual costs are likely to be lower because of contingencies, debt service, etc.) The original Engineering Division recommendation to the City Council was for sidewalk replacement costs to be assessed to the property owners, with remaining costs to be paid by the City. Project Eligibility for CDBG Funding Under HUD regulations, a neighborhood improvement project, such as sidewalk replacement, is eligible for funding with CDBG monies if the majority of persons benefitting from the project are lower income persons or if the project is designed to prevent or eliminate slums or blight. Analysis of Ownership Income Levels and Housing Conditions in Project Area The attached plat map shows the lot size and ownership in the relevant area. Proceeding north from Kimball Avenue, the following additional information is available: Parcel 1: 22,734 square feet. Vacant; double width lot. Owners are retired and own and occupy the adjacent property at 703 Kimball Avenue. Parcel 2: 11,369 square feet. 620 Kimball Road. Owner -occupied. Medium-size house in good condition. Occupant is purchasing house on contract from an out- of-town landlord. Parcel 3: 11,369 square feet. 624 Kimball Road. Owner -occupied. Medium-size house in good condition. Owners are retired. Parcel 4: 41,625 square feet. 632 Kimball Road. Renter- occupied. Small house in poor condition. House is situated on a double width/double length lot with a I ; i MILRDrILMED BY I 1 -DORM 'MICROLA9- CEDAR RAPIDS DES MDINES I� J gos �1 large accessory building (garage/shed) next to the house, and the remainder of the lot is vacant. The owners are retired and live across the street at 711 Kimball Road. Parcel 5: 40,681 square feet. Vacant; double width/double length lot. This property is owned by the retired couple at 624 Kimball Road. Parcel 6: 8,700 square feet. 724 Kimball Road. Owner -occupied. Small house in good condition. Both owners are employed. Parcel 7: 6,300 square feet. 800 Kimball Road. Renter -occupied. Large house in good condition. Property being purchased on contract by an Iowa City resident. Four of seven lots are owned by retired (and therefore presumably elderly) persons; because of the size of these lots they account for 70% of the total sidewalk assessment. However, only one retired couple actually resides on a lot on the east side of Kimball Road. Most of the remainder of the assessed property is vacant. Since all these retired property owners have considerable assets (their homes as well as the additional vacant property), it appears that they would not be considered lower income persons under the HUD guidelines. Conclusion Based on the limited available income data, it is not certain whether this sidewalk project would be eligible for funding under the CDBG program. In order to be considered for funding under the "slums or blight" provision, it would be i necessary for the City Council to designate the area as slum or blighted under Chapter 403 of the Iowa Code. Elicibility for Project Funding with Anticipated CDBG "Jobs Bill" Funds The City has been notified about additional CDBG funding ($258,000) under the recently signed "Jobs Bill." The specific "strings" attached to this money are not yet fully known. However, since the primary intent of the bill is to create jobs quickly and in this way benefit lower income persons (i.e. the unemployed), this sidewalk construction project might be eligible for funding with the additional CDBG money. tp2/3-4 M 141CROFILMED BY 1 '----, I -JOR M "MIC RbL:N B' LCEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES I City of Iowa Cl_i MEMORANDUM Date: April 25, 1983 To: Iowa City Boards and Commissions, Agencies and Interested Persons From: Mickey Lauria, Chairperson, CCN Jim Hencin, CDBG Program Coordinator Re: Allocation of CDBG Jobs Bill Funds Iowa City will receive an additional $259,000 of federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for FY83. These funds are part of the "Jobs Bill" approved by Congress and signed by the President on March 24, 1983. Basic Objectives of the Jobs Bill CDBG Program This additional appropriation by Congress is intended to: a. Provide productive employment for jobless Americans; b. Hasten or initiate Federal projects and construction; and C. Provide humanitarian assistance to the indigent. Basic Requirements of the CDBG Program CDBG-funded projects which address the objectives of the Jobs Bill, are also governed by the basic requirements of the CDBG program. Each activity funded with Jobs Bill money must be an eligible use of CDBG funds and must meet one of the three national objectives of the program. These objectives are to: 1. Benefit low- and moderate -income persons. 2. Aid in the prevention or elimination of slums and blight. 3. Meet other community development needs having a particular urgency. Proposals for Projects to be Funded With Jobs Bill CDBG Funds CCN will be holding public hearings on May 4, 1983, at 12:00 noon in the Public Ljbrar and on May 11, 1983, at 7:30 PM i the Cjvic Center Counc 1Chambers, to receive citizen proposals on the allocation of the Jobs Bjll CDBG funds. We apologize for the short notice, but there is a real time crunch on getting the statement of proposed activities to HUD, and using the funds for summer activities. If you have a project which you would like CCN to consider for funding with these monies, information and proposal forms are available from Jim Hencin (356-5244) and Marianne Milkman (356-5245 in the Department of Planning and Program Development at the Davis Building on Washington Street (mailing address: Civic Center, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52240). Proposals may be made in writing if you are unable to attend either public hearing. CCN will forward its recommendations on allocation of the Jobs Bill CDBG funds TENTATIVE SCHEDULE: "JOBS BILL" COBG PROGRAM STAMMENT 4-25-83 City Council Teets with CCM informally to discuss funding priorities. 4-28-83 Publish information on available funds and eligible activities. Notify.Boards and Commissions and other interested persons of fund availability. 5-4-83 Regular CCPI meeting. Public hearing on proposals for funding (12:00 noon). 5-11-83 CCN public hearing on project proposals (7:30 p.m.). 5-17-83 CCN finalizes recommendations on fund allocation to City Council (12:00 noon). 5-20-83 Forward CCN's recommendations on proposed Program Statement to City Council. 5-24-83 City Council sets public hearing on Program Statement. Publish proposed Program Statement. 6-7-83 City Council holds public hearing on proposed Program Statement. 6-17-83 Regular CCN meeting (3:30 p.m.) - new meeting schedule. 6-21-83 City Council approves final Program Statement. 6-24-83 Final Program Statement published and forwarded to HUD. 141CROFILMED BY �l " JORM..._MICRI�JILAB�- CEDAR RAPIDS DES 14014E5 II T City of Iowa Cit, MEMORANDUM Date: April 26, 1983 To: Neal Berlin and Members of the City Council From: Michael Kucharzak���/e Re: Housing Appeals Board Decisions At a recent meeting of the City Council the types of decisions rendered by the Housing Board of Appeals was discussed. In particular, the City Council was interested if ceiling height violations would have to be reheard if a building changes ownership. To help provide a foundation for the understanding of the work of the Iowa City Housing Appeals Board, may I provide the following factual information: From January of 1983 through March of 1983, the Housing Appeals Board heard appeal requests on 152 rental properties. Their decisions fell into the following categories: 118 properties were granted a variance from one or more code items. 7 of the variances were conditional on the property remaining owner -occupied. 9 of the variances were granted with special instructions to the owner on the use or occupancy of the room affected by the variance. Fifty-seven of the properties appealed had violations upheld by the Board. 7 properties where violations were upheld received an extension in the time required for correction. Two appeal requests were denied. Five properties had violations dismissed. The Board rendered two interpretations regarding the Housing Code. It should be noted that the overwhelming number of decisions of the Housing Board of Appeals has resulted in a variance being granted with only a small number of the variance decision having special conditions; such as restrictions on the use of the room affected, or the requirement that the variance is in effect only as long as the dwelling unit in violation remains occupied by the owner. The majority of the variances granted dealt with inadequate ceiling heights or a deficiency in minimum room size, window size or doorway height. i 141CROFILIIED BY DORM""MIC RbLAB' CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOME. M. �1 1 City of Iowa Cit;^ MEMORANDUM Date: April 26, 1983 To: Neal Berlin, City Manager I A/r`� •,'� From: Michael Kucharzak�%•'J�' ` Re: Firewalls f At a recent meeting with the Iowa City Council, a discussion regarding the requirements for duplex construction, condominium and zero lot line construction were discussed, with the Council asking for an explanation of the difference in the construction types and what happens when there is a conversion from one use to another. This memorandum along with the attached technical reports will be an attempt to answer the Council's questions. Duplex Construction A duplex is a two-family residence. The building code allows a duplex to be constructed of any type of approved building materials and is the same classification of construction as single-family home construction. As a result, a structure built as a two-family residence, (duplex), is not required to have special firewall protection separating one dwelling unit from another; however, it is the practice of the Building Official to require a side-by-side duplex to have each side separated by 2x4s having 5/8" drywall on each side rather than the V drywall minimum required by Code. I Since sound attenuation is a market concern for duplex builders, sound insulation or an additional row of 2x4 studs is often added so as to f create a dead air space to minimize sound transmission. Walls built expressly for sound attenuation will not carry a fire rating unless specifically designed as such. The building code does not require additional fire protection for a duplex or single family structure from adjoining property other than what would be provided by the requirement for open yards on the lot separating one duplex building or single family structure from a neighboring building. .9S+O rV ..i J J J �l i f i 141CROFILMED BY 1_ JORM MIC R;LA13- % CEDAR RAI1105 • DES MOINES i � Condominiums A condominium is not a type of construction, rather is a type of property ownership which allows for individual ownership of a unit in a multi -unit structure such as an apartment building. A building sold and/or owned as a condominium may be constructed as a single-family residence, a duplex or a multi -family residence. Regardless of the ownership of the property, the building official will not change the construction classification of the building from its original design, that is, if a building was built according to the code requirements for a duplex, it will remain a duplex regardless of whether it is under condominium ownership or not. A building built as an apartment dwelling will retain the apartment classification of the codes whether or not the apartments are individually owned as in a condominium arrangement. Zero Lot Line The Department of Planning and Program Development has provided a rather lengthy report on zero lot line construction which I may recommend to those desiring additional information. However, for the question at hand, it is important to remember that a zero lot line structure is a single- family residence and therefore must be built and designed as a separate individual dwelling unit. To the building official, that means the code requirements for a single-family home govern and that fire protection may be achieved by providing ample side yards. By definition, a zero lot line structure has one or more of its exterior walls on a property line, therefore, when a yard is not provided (zero lot line) the fire protection normally provided by yards must be achieved by constructing a one-hour wall on that property line. The one hour wall is expressly for the structure being protected and is not a common wall with the neighboring zero lot line dwelling. According to the International Conference of Building Officials that promulgates the Uniform Building Code, dwellings built on, or within three feet of the property line will require, at a minimum, a one-hour wall. The most conventional method of achieving a one-hour fire rating in light frame construction is to fasten five -eights inch drywall to wooden or metal studs comprising the wall. A zero lot line structure built according to this recommended design then stands as a separate dwelling, and not just a separate dwelling unit. The neighboring zero lot line structure abutting the property line in common must also be constructed in the same fashion, that is must have its own one-hour wall thus creating a separate dwelling unit, and not just another dwelling unit in a common structure. Should a fire destroy one of the dwellings, it is conceivable that the neighboring dwelling would not be extensively damaged due to the separation of the two dwellings by four sheets of drywall material and two sets of studding material. In addition, when and if one of the structures is demolished, the building demolished can be entirely removed from its foundation without affecting the neighboring property since each are built as completely separate structures. (Ire 1 i MICROFILI4ED BY ' _."JORM MICR46LAE3 CEDAR RAPIDS • DES 140INES j I f J It should be noted that a number of zero lot line structures have already been built in Iowa City, that is they have been constructed with the proper fire separation and have been built with the possibility of being converted to legitimate zero lot line buildings when the zoning ordinance allows. There are also a number of duplexes which have been built to be sold as condominium units. These structures were designed and built as a duplex and not as a zero lot line structure, since the realtor/developer desired only to create an opportunity for individual ownership of interior space with exterior walls and property owned in common by two property owners. Building construction other than that required for duplexes is not an issue in this case. What happens when conversion takes place? In essence, any type of residence may change ownership from owner -occupied to tenant -occupied, from fee simple title to land contract purchaser , from individual ownership to condominium ownership. Structures cannot change classifi- cation from single-family to duplex without a structural alteration creating two separate and distinct dwelling units, each having facilities for cooking, eating, living and sleeping, and having no physical connec- tions from one dwelling unit to the other. A single-family home or a duplex cannot be converted to an apartment, that is a dwelling with three or more apartment units contained therein, without meeting the construction requirements of the Uniform Building Code for a separate, and more demanding classification of dwellings. In simplest terms, the conversion would require a complete review of the existing building materials and the proposed conversion to make certain that appropriate fire protection separations exist as required by code. No structure built as a duplex or as an apartment may be converted to a zero lot line structure, that is have a property line run through an existing structure, without providing the required fire separation between dwelling units. It is not impossible to do this, but rarely practical or economically feasible. The better solution would lie in converting an existing duplex or an apartment complex to a condominium. MICROFILMED BY l 1 -JORM MICR6LA9- , II CEDAR RAPIDS • DCS Ig01NES I J 4 How can these be more consistent? I believe the greatest level of consistency will exist if we do not proliferate more ordinances but rely on the existing ordinances in effect which adequately regulate structure design, construction and ownership. You may recall that we had a similar conversation in respect to the housing code requirements for inspecting both sides of an owner -occupied duplex and the arguments presented at that time by both the Department of Housing and Inspection Services and Legal referred to the lack of fire separation between the two units within the duplex. The Council may further recall that based on that information no change from the existing Policy requiring inspections of both halves of a duplex, regardless of ownership or occupancy was initiated. Continuation of our existing inspection and licensing policy would be in accord with the requirements and interpretation of the Uniform Building Code. If I can provide any more information for your consideration, please so advise. bdw/sp cc: Don Schmeiser Glenn Siders r— -- 1 MICROFILMED BY "JOAN"- MIC ROLA 13 CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOIYES I r1�. -J s 10 L.. Separately Owned Multiple -unit Residential Buildings INTRODUCTION VAcre are condominiums covered in Ole Uniform Building Code? What degree of fire -resistive separation must be provided between units in a Condominium? must a property line beassumed between the units? If so, are parapet walls required? Are. town. houses treated differently? In what occupan. cy classification should such buildings be placed? Does the foregoing soon,) familiar? These are some of the numerous questions which have been raised regarding multiple -tenant residential buildings where each unit within n building is under separate ownership. The key tothe answers to most of these questions is how the budding is actually constructed and this, in tum, "'It determine whether the provisions for a Group R. Division 1 or Group R, Division 3 will apply. CONDOMINIUMS OR TOWNHOUSES! _Whherher a n4,hinlr. ..'r s, r'Idin wsith n�ch umt underseparate ownershipis. filed .r cnndammmm er+rnw•n n; r, u.entl- _lied by any other name) is really immateria msedar as w in cna ono intron ,s con cane . The u timate goal Ii to elermine under what occupancy group a building should be. classified. For the purposes of this article, however, a definite distinciiun will be made between the terms "con. dominiums" and "townhouses," The fol. lowing concepts apply to mulliple-unit commercial buildings as well as m residen. tial buildings, but because most of Ihe quos• lions raised have been related to residential buildings this article will be limited thereto. Ina nutshell. it the method of ownership of a 1,1111 within .I budding is such that a ,s rviaible lin an uwnr, In u,wn only.1'r space by T.1. Koyamatsu, P.E. Chief Plan Check Engineer International Conference of Building Officials occupied I:y his unit (e.g., a unit located entirely on the third sioryr, such a building will be referred to as a condominium. On the otherhand, if it rs a budding m which Ihe owner of a unit (regardless of ;he number of stories) also owns the land upon wsndch lits unit is located, and is completely indepen- dent except for the yard surrounding the building, the structure will be referred to as a townhouse. CONDOMINIUMS Condominiums as defined above are con. sidered apartments and all the requirements for Group R. Division I Occupancies apply (except for two -unit condominiums which (all into a Group R. Division 3 dassifice• tion). An owner of a unit within a con. dominium owns outrighl only the air space occupied by his unit. The portion of the land upon which the building is situated, the sur. rounding grounds, party walls, corridors, services other than those within Indepen- door units, such as electrical, water gas, sewers, etc., become joint responsibilities of all (he owners as tenants in common. Arcordingly, some legal agreement an:ung all the uwrers will be necessary for the Ownership and maintenance of these areas owned in common. The building may be assumed to require no special building code compliance other than that (or a ivpi,;al apanmenl building. In order to support the posinun described in Ihe previous paragraph. let us assume that a Itnn,u of ten individuals built a ten.unn, N%o dory apartment building with cuual shares for renting or leasing purposes. Un. less otherwise speeifis.ally stated it, the rrgt• nsg or leasing acre -:men), the uOkeep :end m,untenantr olthe eutuc budding h,vnnny the resnons,bility of the ten owners. Now let us a.,,:mc Ilial each ni the usurer. rw ears lu occupy one of the units instead of renting or Icasing. The conditions have not changed and the building orcupaney classification is still an apartment. Each owner owns his unit but the group of owners are collectively re. spr ible for the remainder of the building. The resulling conditions for the apartment building are exactly those described in the Previous paragraph for condominiums. TOWNHOUSES Townhouses as explained previously are buildings which arc subdivided inicl individ. ual units such that each owner owns his own unit and alsn has entitlement to the parcel of land upon which his unit is located. The yards surrounding the building are owned jointly by the owners of the townhouse. Each unit may Ix only one story in height but could b,• two or seven three (combustible construction assuml!d) stories in hutght. In anycase, thea wnerhas exclusive use of the land ulxm which his unit is consl•ucted. lines between adjacent parcels of land is the method by which boundaries of ownership are established. In nther words, between ad. jaceni units within a townhouse, property lines must he eaablished since tile adjacent parcels of land are owned separately and redo•, lively bwo%%nvrsof the units. Refernnp to FIGURE 1, property lines 2.11.3.1o. 4.9and i.em0.16oe 1.1bllshe,l between unir. A and Is, B and C. C and n. .end n and E. ie%pertwr(v. Cr.lr nvumr. mems b.rsed on haanon on proovoK set ' ' I IIICROFILMED BY j - DORM MICR6LA13 CEDAR RAPIDS • DES M014ES I'm f,. J 2 3 , 1 , , A I 0 , • I , , X C -x --� a 5 6 ►-I I .I , D it .. I 1: 11 10 9 COMMON OWNERSHIP' ~'.-FIGURE-1=.'; . nh in Section 504 area licahle to these strurtion, including the footings as indicated alIsand wa ooenmcs iacmgt ese mtennr in:•ection %-X. FIGURE II. A single footing urope:rlylines between units. as indicated in Detail Y could be considered Property lines should a so • established an acceptable alternate with a legal agree- heneeen the boundary of the entire building ment hemseen adjacent unit owners. In ad• sod the adjoining common property since dition, if the floor area of any unit at any Ilieunilsand their rew. ctiveparcelsofland level exceeds 1,000 square feet, parapets of are independently owned and the common the same degree of fire -resistive con- pmpertyisjoindyowned.ln this case, how. struction as required for the walls complying ever, the common property may be consid- with Section 1709 should be provided. In eyed poen yard to determine the fire-resis. this regard questions have been raised five requirements for walls and wall open. whetheror not aone-hour roof fora distance Ings for walls such as 1.2, 2.3, .___._._..__.._..-....._..... _ ._ 3.4 ..: 12.1. The property lines for this puroose may be considered analogous to pruperh• lines between private property and I public streets or alleys. Some legal instru• _ nu•nt will be necessary In reserve these open spaces in perpetuity. [f Occupancv Classification j Now that ithas beenestablished that each it . of the units A, B, C. D and E in FIGURE I is independently owned and, furthermore, the parcel M land upon which each unit is situ- t ated is also independently owned, each unit may be classifier) as a Group R, Division 3 ••• Occupancy. In other words the building is a '=" %��•� S,• . `•.•;,,:. ,eries or a row (thus, sometimes referred to ;s mw houses) of single-family dwellings � _i:,,-„�,�� ;.;.<;• ,• .d+uttin•each other. Inorder to qualitycom- nletely as an R•3 Occupancy, however, the +•tie :.:4:'•='r;'•'��;• �,: i <. .�! :' � .;,;y scalls at the interior property lines should be c�-''�4•�S .•,;, = �"' ;r:'t •"' properly constructed and services to the :.��r' 14 •._4 ,,,, ..• t,.';.: '.j:�;-::. .wits must be independent as hereinafter '� "•^^' '�r+'._:;$ECiIONX-X de•<aibed. Wall Construction cwr • arh f the unitsof the townhouse is m indru,mrlenl building on an in evendent {ram , til land, the rix a requires t a t eacn .'rust he provided wit me epent em t•<tenor .valls rn t u' aonmunate Irc•resisuvu true Is rt permissible to construct a single two- hour area separation wall in lieu of two Inde. pendent one-hour walls at the interior prop. erty lines in townhouse construction? This is another question which is often raised. Sec. hor.505 (d) states, in part, that "Each portion of a building separated by one or more area separation •.calls may be considered a sepa. rate building. . ." A single (w•o-hour area Practical:g to prohibit the area separation wall from being pierced may be easier said then done. This statement would also be true for the required fire -resistive exterior prop• erty line walls. In the latter case, however, if the interior face of the exterior wall within a units pierced, one fire -resistive membrane for this wall still remains, separating it from the exterior wall of the adjacent unit. See iRAPET ... 1 ,.qJ Lt DETAIL Y FIGURE II 1 RICRof ILMED BY _JORM - MICR6L"AB` CEDAR RAPIDS • DES r•101NES (Continued on page 70) JI Z 30 r;RE-RESISTIVE MEMBRANES PIERCE[ MEMBRAI FIRE-RESISTIVI MEMBRANES PIERCED MEMBRANE TWO ONE-HOUR WALLS SINGLE TWO-HOUR WALL FIGURE III. In the case of a single two-hour wall, if the face of a two-hour wall within a unit is pierced, the wall of the adjacent unit and the unit itself become exposed to haz- ards from the first unit. See FIGURE IV, It should be kept in mind that when the two one-hour walls are replaced by a single two-hour wall the adjacent units are no longer completely independent of each other. If a se arate ownenhi conte t is to he maintained between t e its, l�legal pro. visions must bemadetort eisTemainlenancepi' e common was between them. net weighing the pros and cons or a single two. hour will compared to two one-hour walls required at the property line by the code, the decision is left to the building official for acceptance or rejection of the area separa• torn wall as an alternate. See Section 105. FIGURE III FIGURE IV Services . In order for units and parcels within a townhouse to be considered se aratel own services suc as water as sewers -electricity, etc., must also beindependent of each other. -They should not crossover prop- erty lines established between units. It would be acceptable, however, to have main distribution or collector lines to serve the independent urns, provided they are separately metered where required. A main• tenance and repair agreement will be neces. sary for such main lines since they are items of joint ownership. See FIGURE V. Perhaps the townhouse concept could be better explained if we were to begin with a subdivided tract containing, for example, a row of 40 -foot -wide lots fronting on a 60 - foot -wide street with a 20 -foot alley at the J i MICROFILMED BY -"JORM -MICRdLAt3 CEDAR RAPIDS • DES 110MES rear as indicated in FIGURE VI Now let us assume that the zoning ordinances were such that zero setbacks were permitted, i.e., construction is permitted to extend to ail property lines of each lot. if, for example. the owner of lot 29 were to take full advan• tage of this he may construct a house and garage as indicated. The exterior walls at the interior properly line which are adjacent to lots 28 and 30 must be of one-hour fire. resistive construction and, furthermore, one-hour parapets may be required. Walls facing the 60 -foot street and 20 -foot alley need not be fire resistive since the center lines of streets and alleys may be considered the property line for the purposes of deter- mining these exterior wall and openingpro. tections, based on Section 504. Sewers, water, gas, electricity, etc., services should be connected to the street or alley without crossing interior property lines into either lot 28 or 30. I'm sure we would all agree that the building must be structurally indepen- dent. The owners of lots 28 and 30, may each do likewise by erecting completely in- dependent buildings, including services, as did the owner of lot 29. By repeating this procedure for the remaining lots, the end result would be a row of R-3 Occupancy buildings. The point is that townhouse con- struction and ownerhip must be as given in this example in order that they may be con- sidered as Group R, Division 3 Occupan- cies. The lot on which each unit is con- structed must be owned by the unit owner, and the building erected thereon plus the services must be completely independent. The yards which surround the townhouse building may be compared to that of the streets and alleys in this example for the purposes of establishing exterior wall and opening requirements for those walls which face these yards. It is important to recognize that all of the conditions which apply in this example must be satisfied in the con- struction of a townhouse as defined earlier in this article so that the units may be consid- ered Group R, Division 3 Occupancies. Un- less complete independence is provided, any multiple -unit residential building would fall into a Group R, Division 1; in other words, a condominium—as defined earlier. OTHER OWNERSHIP COMBINATIONS In the previous paragraphs it has been pointed our that in order for units within a multiple-dwel ling building to be considered as Group R, Division 3 Occupancies it would be necessary that each unit be com- pletely independent from another and con- structed on a parcel of land which is also owned by the owner of the unit; it is also necessary that all of the services be indepen- dent of each other. What happens when all of these conditions are not satisfied? Ler us assume that each of the units of a multiple -unit dwelling meets all of the re- quirements for lownhouses previously dis- cussed but that they are not provided with independent fire -rated walls for an alternate two-hour area separation wall approved by M. , J ,6,, h:old,nrz othci,in at the pruperty line; the - .. ,i uning propenv line wall is a single wall of perhaps one-hour fire -resistive con- svuclion. Despite the fact that the owner of cath unit also owns the parcel of land upon w I,Kh his unit is located, the single-wall construction at the property line creates continuity among the units, resulting in a single building, i.e., an apartment house. If the various services are interconnected with each other across the interior property line interdependence is created and a similar i r condition results. In such cases the proper j occupancy classification for the building is Group R, Division I lexcept that a building consisting of two such units is classified as a Group R, Division 31. SUMMARY It would be accurate to say that in most r f cases multiple -dwelling -unit buildings con. 1' _ ''. sistingofthree ormore uniiswhere the units !="' are separately owned are considered con- on-dominiumsandareregulatedbythecodeas dominiums and are regulated by the code as •' apartments or Group R, Division 1 Occu- pancies. Multiple -dwelling -unit buildings .— W =G; where units are completely independent of each other, including the parcel of land - ---- uponwhicheachunitisconstructed,and all the services to each unit are independent, --- are classified as townhouses; these build. I ings are regulated by the requirements for L Group R, Division 3 Occupancies. Regardless of the method of ownership of t dwelling units within a building when there , are only two units, such buildings are regu- lated by the requirements for Group R, Div: O r COMMON OWNERSHIP ^� son 3 ccupannes. r...,, _........ .. _...._. ._--- .. _ .. j OR ERTY ES r FIGURE V I J• i i MICROFILMED BY —JORM'MICR46CAB" -� CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES I ' E 31 0 J 4 LETrERS!w;qs: =T-s1iL'r«t:M'.,x...,: >.^i lb4i•..�'. t�f T.i{f�.. :.r4..;„ ai ldras ilia opmmm m this [,tort.. are Ihose or the• writer and ,or nmessardv of ICBG. letters should lie sent l2: (Biot. Budding Standarns. 53605ourh Ltbrkman Aldl Road. Ithimer, Calgnrnta 90601. Townhouses and Condos—Property Lines and Code Requirements I would like to comment on Mr. Koyamatsds article entitled "Separately Owned Multiple -unit Residential Buildings," as printed in the lanuaryFebruary, 1981, Buildine _ landaids. The notion of separate ownerships, such a: in townhouses and condominiums, is becoming more prevalent each tear. In many instances, land is being subdivided mucic later than the actual construction of multiunit buildings in order!() dihieve such sepa- rate uwnership,. This phenomenon has natia;i.iv 61 to the clues. lion of building protection requirements tar these types of build- ings, as set tooth to the Building Code. It is exp^::a I Iy sexing should .in existing building be placed in a "noncomplying" condition simply because property lines have been located between two dwelling units after the building has been occupied. This situation brings to mind a question: Should the building official initially require certain types of common wall construction in an R-1 townhouse, keeping in mind that at some time in the future these units mayvery likely become individually owned (R-3 Occupancies?) due to the addition of property lines? It is my contention that the problem of common wall protectirn (construction) need not ever be addressed insofar as these paricu- Jar walls relate to property lines. Let me cite an example of a very basic type of building with which we are all familiar—the double bungalow—to point out a peculiarity rn the referenced article. Suppose this double bungalow is constructed on a lot with no property line between units (a single lot). The code requires nothing special in terms of common wall construction for this R-3 Occupancy. In fact, the code does not even require that any wall at all be built between the two units. Now, suppose that another building is constructed identical to the first, except that in this case there is a property line between the two units. At this point the article asserts that the code requires that the common wall between units should be constructed of two separate one-hour rated walls (including parapets as required in Section 17091. Why is it that the code would require this additional construction when the use of the building, the occupancy classi. fication of the building, and the building itself have not changed? Is this an apparent aberration of the Building Code? I think not. I contend that the code does nnrrequire additional construction at the common wall, whether or not there is a property line at that wall. Where then, does this "requirement" for rating certain com- mon walls find its roots? Let me answer my own question. It appears that once property lines are introduced between any two units, many people are referencing certain code sections pertaining to pio[erty lines and distances that buildings are located from property lines (see Sec- tion 504 (h) and Table No. 5 -AI. A cursory examination of these sections might indicate that this is the most logical thing to do. But is it correct? Refer closely to Section 504 (bl and Table No. 5-A. The rode correctly expresses concerns ever the distances that exterior walls are set from property lines. Therein lies the crux of my dissertation. The code specifically states that it is the mleriorwalh of a building that we should he concerned with. Let us he very sure exactly what these exterior walls really are that the code is alluding to. Refer to Section 424 for the tdelimtinn wall r%ienur swab. In pall, this section reads, ..Exterior ',t',d1 is any a,o: ,:: eiement of a wall ... which defines the exterior boundaries . of a build. ing ..." With further reterem a to a dicoona:w, ih< term exterior means "on the outside, external." Note thal by Ihedefinition to the Building Code, ex terror walls are referring to the outside walls of a fsuilding and nub the ex nemdres of a unit or portionof a bmldtng. In other words, a rectangular building containing several units will have oniv four exterior walls, no matter where certain property lint. may be located. It is extremely important to recognize that exterior walls are "outside" walls and in no way relate to a com- mon, parry, tenant separation, etc., wall. These wall types are all interiorwail'. is. Keeping this in mind, all references in the code to exterior will protection (including parapets) as they relate to property lines should not be applied when considering any requirements for common walls (interior waI lo. How then should one look at these common walls where a property line exists( As previously pointed out, the presence of a prupern line should have no bx.inng nn any special type of con- struciun required for that common wall. However, it is the manner in which one views the entire building that would necessitate various code requirements. One would have to consider if the building were composed of several smaller buildings (many R-3 Occupancies) or of several units within a single building (an R-1 Occupancy). In either case, ownership of those units (and possibly the underlying land) should not affect the building construction requirements. There are many portions of the code one could utilize when addressing either of the situations indicated above, depending on sire, number of floors, etc. Curiously, in neither of the situations mentioned does the ccvle require twrs separate one-hour rated walls. As a further pnint of :niormation, the only wall type that should be considered (when requiredl, whether an R-1 or an R-3 Occupancy, is an area separation as prescribed in Section 505 (d). Reflecting further, perhaps a comparison of two identical multi- unit buildings, one without property lines between units and one having property lines between units, will prove helpful. Consider the building containing the property lines and ask yourself the following questions: As a result of adding property pines within this building, 1. Has:he building physically changed? 2. Has the use of the building, changed? 3. Has the occupancy classification (multiple dwelling) changed? Seedefiniltonaf Apartment Houses." 4. Have whatever hazards inherent ?n this building been in. creased or altered? Perhaps when answering each tithe questions listed above, one can readily see that property lines will alter little in a building besides ownership. It is not cur commitment, nor does the code require it to be, to address the phenomenon of ownership. For additional commentaries and viewpoints on this subject, refer to the similar articles published in the July -August, 1972, and the November -December, 1972, issues of Building Standards. Tim Skusa Plan Check Engineer City til Bloomington, Minnesota 1 : i t41CROFILI4ED By I_ "-DORM MICROLAS 1 CEDAR RATIOS • DES I401'IES 1 J z i o< z U hhtu and opmrun. in rhes coiumn are thu,e of the anted and not nec'ruanly n1ICBO Loners should be sem rot lrinrr 51EO8nnWillmanh Will Atilt R..... w'himer Caliinrma 906ol. Standards "Separately Owned Multlple-unit Residential Duilcings" Drawn Comments In response to aim Skusa•s well letter in the March - April, 1991, issue of Building Standards an '70wflhnuses and Condos—Property Lines and Code Requirements"—I dissent. &.e "Separately Owned Multiple -unit Residential Buildings" by T. I, Noyamaisu, liuildi• gSlandardS. lanuary.F h•uary, 1991.1 I agree that'the noon ( separate ownersh ips. such as m Inwnho uses and condnmmiurnc, is becoming mare prP-valenl cath year. In many instances, land is if -ir,g suLdividerl much later than [fie rrt.ival con,uuction of mulliunit hoil ines in order to achieve such sepa- rate ownership." or later it. Sku•:a raises the question of future requirements of an R- I lownhouot :hill would hP modified into an RJ Occupancv. The code amply r overs change of occupancy, and all of utemmimum requirements should be mel it exceedptl if and when a r-haage incurs—whatever the classtitcation. Now, returning to the more substantive difference of approach in fundamental code requirement—which is life saletyl—the mini. mum protection of the individual from the imprudent acts of the careless, whether he is a neighbor with an adequate side yard or one with the required hourly rating property separation either of which will provide the needed protection until the fire services can arrive to do their duty. Historically, our building codes, the law and the public have demanded no less. And I, for one, see no lessening of this demand—no matter how the construction industry and its financial supporters respond to the public's other pressures of high cost, increased taxes and mounting interest rates. Life protection, within acceptable bounds, is our principal duty, and I believe that the existing code -making bodies do an outstand- ing job, especially when one considers the complexity of the demands placed upon them by today's imperious society. Courtney Robinson, A.I.A. ehic(Archilect City of Indianapolis, Indiana Koyamatau Article Lauded Mr. Skusa's interpretation of the nvo-unit building not requiring one-hour walls when there is a property line between them ignores the intent and implications of the property line. I have no quarrel with the duplex building without a property line. However, the presence of a pn)pe.rty line establishes two single• family dwellings and there is no longer a duplos involved. These two single-family dwellings should be separate legal cntnics with appropriate protection afforded each, i.e., one-hour walls. Furthermore, in the event one of the units liecame substandard, either by neglect or disaster (fire), and its owner did nor rorrect the deficiencies, there then exists a very clear-cut difference between the duplex building and the two-story single-family dwelling. In the former case, the building is legally in joint owne. rship and both owners are responsible for bringing thedefective unit up to code or lace the legal consequences. In the latter case, separate ownerships of Ihe single dwelling units, only the owner of the defectise unit is Kahle and, in the extreme, if he chooses not to correct the defects his unit can be ordered demolished, yet not affecting file nther n,nii or owner. Obviously there is more to (he subject than Mr. Skusa has discusses/. He looked at the matter solely as an ewrose in code Language study rather than the eniorcenneni and legal cones. quences of the differences. In Ihe present-day would of litigation and consumerism, one must be sure that sur code interpretations are com;sienr with the legal ,nohcatunn n( l!", cutle and the prnpw1y rights involved. I found Tak Koyamatsu•s anirie not only to be a clear explanation of this maser but also one that n very pen men: to prosent-day legal sots. Unionuuately, tem many designers and some building offi. cials have moon unaware of 1' • lege: implications of townhouse/ condo calsus single-family owellmg, and have Frrmnted con. v •uoion rt buildings that both legally and practically violate the spun and intent of the code.. Alfred Goldberg, p. r. G91.1/erg Research R DevelupmP.rfAssociales Corporation San Francisco, California Author Replies to Letter to Editor on Townhouses and Condos: .t/ter reading rim Skusas comments in the March -April, 1981, issue of Building Standards relative to my article "Separately Owned Mulliple-unit Residential Buildings•' in thelanuary-Eebru. dry, 1961, issue, it is apparent that the basic concepts illustrated have been misunderstood. Mr Skusa states, -11 is especially vexing should an existing building be placed in a 'noncomplying' condition simply because property lines have been located bensren two dwelling units after the building has been occupied." This writer does not and never did intend to take such a position. The onls' statement made in regard to Mr. Skusa's illustration was that when loch a building commas three or more dwelling units it must comply with the prm•isiuns fur a Group R, Division 1 Occupanci: whether or not prnpsry fines are ew blishid between such units before, after or ever The series of units may be reviewed as separate single-family rfwegmgs complying with the provisions fora Croup R, Division 3 Occupancyonly ii theyare constructed so that they are complete/,, independent of each other. An example is cited in Alt. Skusa :s comments, specifically, a duplex constructed on a single tot, lVe agree that, based on code definition, such P. building is otCroup R, Division J classification. His illustration now supposes an identical building be attached to the first duplex with a property line establisher/ beeveerr them with only a singe parry wall. The final building (double duplex! would not be considered a noncomplying building, but since it will contain fourdwelling units ft must comply with the provisions fora Croup R. Division I Occupancy. Mr. Skusa wishes to consider these as Control R, Division 3 Occupancies. The fallacy ofconsidering the example ofthe "double duplex"in the previous paragraph as a Croup R, Division J Occupancy can perhaps be oxvlained as ;bllon•s. By relerring to Table No. S -C we find that the door area of a Grniip R. Division J building is unlimited regardless oftvpe nfcon!uucfion. Table No. S•D allows such buildings, mclurting Tvpe V -N construction, to be three sto. nes in height. Applying these rode provisions to r tr, Skusa's exam. ple, it world be permissibie to construct a duolex of Type V N ronstruction. three storms in heightand unlimited in floorarea. So tar so goal. ,Vow let us take an identical duplex, attach it to the lint, with no provisions for property line requirements between buildings, and then attach another and another and another ... The end result is a multiunit residential building, of Tfpe L=N c instruction three stories in height and ofunlimimd floorarea with only party walls between duplexes funitsk I'm sure we would all agree thatsuch a building is nolpermittedby the code. Bvproperly rlassiiying such a building as a Group R, Division 7, the necessary limits are auromaticelly established L 1. Ko1•amatsu. p. E. Chief Plan Check Engineer i i MICROFILMED BY 1. -JORM"MICREsLA6" CEDAR RAPIDS • DES Id019ES J Condos—R-1 or R-37 It is interesting to note that in all of the leners puhlished relating to Mr. Koyamatsu's article ("Separately Owned Multiple -unit Resi- dential Buildings," Building Standards, January -February, 1581L the terms "townhouse" and "condominium" have been used as synonymous terms. What the building official must recognize is that a "townhouse" is a type of construction, actually a rowhouse with common walls on both sides of the structure, usually built in this manner for economy, which are usually owner occupied. These structures ate built as townhouses and not converted at a later date. In our jurisdiction, they are built as an R-3 Occupancy with a full separation from the basement to the roof. A condominium is not a type of construction; it is a type of ownership created by special real estate law that permits individual dwelling unit estates to be established within a total or larger property. The individual estates are technically established by use of vertical and horizontal planes (surfaces) which are usually iden. tified: vertically as the walls (not room partitions) of the unit and, horizontally, as the floors and ceilings. In Colorado, the "State Condominium Act" requires that all property owners within a condominium -owned structure belong to a homeowners associa- tion. Many apartment houses built as R -I Occupancies are now being converted to condominium ownership. This is usually done without the jurisdiction's knowledge or approval as long as the proper documents are filed with the assessor's office. My point is, the building official should not get overly concerned about whether it is R-1 or R-3 when dealing with condos; it has nothing to do with the building code. Legally, a group of town. houses or even a duplex can be sold off as condo ownership, provided the proper documents are riled. Roque E Marquez Zoning Administrator City of Littleton, Colorado Mr, Koyamalsu's response to above letter: Mr. Marquez states in the last paragraph of his commentary relative to townhouses and condominiums, 'My point is, the building official should not gel overly concerned about whether it is R.I or R-3 when dealing with condos. "It is our position that as far as applying the provisions of the code is concerned, this is truly the main consideration. When there are more than two dwelling units interconnected to form a single building, the building should be reviewed as a Group R, Division I Occupancy. When buildings are separated so that they form completely independent buildings in groups o/not more than two units per building, such buildings should be considered Group R, Division 3 Occupancies. As stated in my original article, it does not really make any difference whether they are called 'town- houses" or 'condominiums" as far as code application is con- cerned. The bottom line is whether they should comply based on therequirements for R-1 orR-3 Occupancies. 1 � i 141CROFILIIED By �- —JORM - MICR6LAB- CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES .._ A J s,lumnienitary u.. LL Res den1dai Buf6d-cngS«- The anicie by T, I. Koyamatsu deals quite j thoroughly witha subject about which there is a great deal of misunderstanding. It both enlightens and, at the same time, gives icause for further examination of the subject. Such, therefore, is the purpose of this commentary. IOn page 10, the second paragraph under 'Townhouses" states, "Provisinns within building codes are written based on the pre. mise that buildings muss be structurally in- dependent and located within the ex. t tremities of its own parcel of land ..." The author's statement is entirely true if under• stood that" ,. is own parcel of land" may: 1. Consist of more than one lot, all of which are Occupied by the building, or 2. Consist ofalot divided byseveral con. dominium unit lines or townhouse Property lines. A previous commentary printed in Bu4lding Standards, November -December. 1972, page 35, gets to the issue as follows: "There is ... no section or provision (in the Uniform Building Code) which would prohibit the issuance of a per. mil for a single building which is to. cated directly over a property line. There is no provision that such a strut• lure have support on either side of the Properly line which, if the building were cut at that property line, would hold the building up independently of the structure on the other side of that property line." This leads to the second issue, "Docs a building which crosses a property line re- quire Fire protection at the property line?" Agaln, quoting from the previous commentary: 'The building which we are talking about crosses a property line. It there• fore has no exterior wall at that prop• erly line and, as long as the roof crosses the property line, there is no exterior wall until you reach the boundaries of the fluor area of the building." There is no code requirement for fire pro. '� Roe'drr4+ (landare,, hnuary FC I), It InRI by Coleman W Jenkins Deputy County Engineer County of Los Angeles lection, due to proximily to a property line, of an interior wall. Neither is there a require• menl in the code for even having wall at an interior property line. Consider now Figure I. (Reprinted herein from page 11 of the lanuaryFebruary, 1981, 811ildin0landards.) The buildings may con. form to the requirements of an R-3 Occu. panty. It is then possible to combine Units A and 8 into one building across property line 2.11. Group R-3 Occupancies are dwellings and dwellings are defined as ".. , any building which contains .. , two dwelling units ..." Since the Uniform Building Code does not have a requirement fora wall of any kind along line 2-11 except where it is adjacent to the courtyard, any wall that is constructed along that line common to both buildings may be constructed in any way desired by the applicant for permit. Fire walls then constructed only along lines 3.10 and 4.9 would provide compliance with the code, a fire wall not being required along 5-8 except as may be required in Unit D facing the courtyard. Carrying this consideration further in the same Figure I, page 11, Units A, B, C, D and E may be contained in one building as a Group R Division 1 Occupancy without fire. rated walls separating Unit A from B, B from x r 1 2 3 , I I A I R I C r i e to COMMON 01yr• FIGURE I C. etc., and, of course, no parapet walls are required. Separate services of utilities may be provided. Some building officials find these con• cepts frightening. Choosing to ignore the absence of a code requirement, they require the applicant for permit to provide a fire wall al each property line anyway because "it is iusI good sense." Is it really good sense? Take the case of an apartment converted to a townhouse. condominium o In one apartment, tenants n nlive s next to tenants separated by a nonrated wall. Aftertheconversion,a"property line" Z — exists within the nonrated wall. Do the owner• u occupants of adjoining dwelling units in a < condominiumor townhouse building repre. senta greater fire hazard loone another than do apartment lenents? Aren't 0 such Owners more aware of the jeopardy to their equity o presented by careless living habits than apartment tenants? Also, a condominium or townhouse can be occupied by tenants. In that case, there is no difference in 3 exposure whether the building is an apartment or a condominium or a townhouse. m Has a single -room store never been per. mitted to occupy two lots by being located 47 over and perhaps centered on a property line? Is a store more any or less hazardous X 4 f S _ 6 UE �-T DI 11 I I e e Lr 9 8 7 KSHIP l talDRoruwED By 'DORM MIC RdL AB"- CEDAR RAPIDS r DES t40114E5 :( '. m ndP. 4,)1 gob J tCmnnwd from payr a,, because an imaginary line bisects it? There is no provision in the Code, nor need there be one, to prohibit a singe building from occupyin3 two or more separately owned lots withuut any interior wall or walls at the property line. Is there a concern that a fire wall is needed at every property line to serve as a fire break to prevent a city -block -long holocausil Consider then a block -long shopping center consisting of one building. The problem still exists (the need for fire breaks) even though there are no intervening property lines. The code ade- quately addresses this problem as well as it does in buildings constructed over several property lines by limiting the allowable area of the building through the use of area separation walls or sprinklers. The building official should not be concerned with matters involving maintenance of common walls or the necessity of how these lines are recorded in the course of his duty of enforcing the code. His authority is that which is granted by the Uniform Build- ing Code as may be supplemented by local ordinances. To venture beyond the confines of the Building Cade in this subject is rather distracting, to say the least. For example, there is no definition in the Uniform Building Code nor in most good dictionaries of the term "property line." Many laws do not clarify the question. For example, Section 659 of the Civil Code of the Stateof California defines real properly as "... lard, soil, rocksor other substances, including free of occupied or occupied space ..." In most jurisdictions, the assessor sends a lax bill to persons who own such "free or occupied space." BY doing so, he has recognized that (1) the space is property, and (2) has tacitly accepted the concept that these spaces have boundaries which, in plan, appear to be lines. From that reasoning, the boundaries between the air spaces or units within a condominium might be called property lines. However, when this question was recently addressed to a group of attorneys with expertise in property laws, none of them could answer the question, "Are the boundaries between condominium units property linesf" Mr. Koyamatsu's definition of the differences between town- houses and condominiums appears to be generally accepted in the trade, although there is no distinction made in most civil codes between the two. Thgse who mandate fire protection at interior property lines would do well to consider what they are permitting for the other walls of a townhouse or a condominium, i.e., those exterior walls which face common property, usually a yard, but which are right at a property line. Technically, the code considers these walls as exterior walls within J feet of a property line. As such, openings are not permitted and a rating is required. Fortunately, Mr. Koyamalsu provides a solution to this problem in his excellent article. T.1. Koyamalsu's Response to Commentary: It is enlightening to find that the article entitled "Separately Owned Muhiple-unit Resi- dential Buildings," which appeared in the January -February, 1981, issue of Building Standards has generated much interest. Mr. Jenkins' obsenation relative to the example depicted in Figure I is correct. Units A and B combined may be considered a duplex or an R-3 Occupancy. It is also true that the code does not have a requirement for a will of any kind between these units except when a court is formed. Similarly, Units 0 and E may M combined with no special requirement for a wall between them except where a court is created. One-hour walls plus parapets lif over 1, olio square feet in Bnorarea) must be provided for the walls of Unit C and the walls of Unit B and Unit D adjacent to Unit C if these units are intended to comply as Croup .R, Division 3 Occu- pancies. Although this parlicularcombinationofsutviivisu)nofthe units was not specifically described in rhe article, it eeas rhe intent, although perhaps somewhat Ifidden, to be handled in the last paragraph of the summary, page 3l, wherefstated.-Regardlessof 6A ?e it 141CROFILMED BY --JORM-MICR6L:A9` 1 CEDAR RAPIDS DES I401RES r� KOYAMATSU'S RESPONSE (Continued from page 19) the methodolownership of dwelling units within a building, when There are only two units, such buildings are regulated by the recuirements for Group R, Division 3 Occupancies. " The example presented by Mr. Jenkins of an apartment convert• ed to a condominium or townhouse accentuates one of rhe main Points that w2s intended to be brought out in my article. WF heartily agree that requiring an applicant to provide a are wall between units of condominiums converted from an apartment buildingisnotnecessarily good sense"simplybecause property lines"have been established. As he points out, nothing has really changed alter the conversion as lar as hazard and exposure are concemec,, if anything, a safer condition can be anticipated be. cause of the pride of ownership attitude of the condominium owners. There are some areas of Ali. Jenkins' commentary which I feel are open to discussion, but, generally speaking, I think we are in agreement. The bottom line is not necessarily vs hat one must do at the property line, whether buildings are permitted to be -built across"them, whether walls should be treated as interior or exteri• or at the property lines, etc. There is foo much emphasis placed on theterm 'Property line" (which IbelieveNlr.Jenkinsalso rmpliesin his commentary) in dealing with this subject. The entire subject boils down to the following: 1."en a building contains three ormore dwelling units andit is constructed as a single building, it should be ieviewedas a Group R, Division I Occupancy. 2. Aduplex orsingle-family dwelling unit byitself isclassified as a Group R, Division 3 Occupancy regardless of any Property line considerations. If such units are placed adja• cent to each other in any combination so that the total number of units is three or more, the requirements of Croup R, Division i Occupancy apply. 3. When a series of dwelling units three or more in number are built adjacent to each other and it is desired to consider the structure based un Group R, Division 3 requirements, the units must be independently constructed as described for townhcuses in my original article. They may also be sub• divided as described in the second paragraph of this article. I would like to extend my appreciation to Mr. Jenkins for his input on the subject ofcondnminiums and lownhouses which is, in his words, "a subject aboulwhich there isagreat deal olmisunder- standing."Hopefully, my original article plus his commentary will help those who administer the code, as we// as the designers, to apply the code properly on the sublect of 'separately owned multiple unit residential buildings. " a gob r� ! r j MICROFILMED BY )ORM'-MICR6Li4B` -� CEDAR RAPIDS DES HONES II r �1 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM DATE: March 28, 1983 TO: Neal Berlin,, City Manager FROM: Harvey D. Miller, Police Chief � RE: Noise Ordinance To Date The following is submitted in response to ,your request for in- formation is regard to the noise ordinance and enforcement. Records pertaining to the ordinance have been maintained by the Police Department since October, 1982. Totals, offered below, are the aggregate of various requests from citizens from October, 1982 through February, 1983. A. A total of 707 complaints of excessive or disturbing noise was received from citizens during the five month period. Some 381 citizens volunteered their names as complainants and 326 would not offer this information. B. Loud music (335) complaints constituted the greatest number of noise complaints. Loud parties totaled 251. Noisy animal complaints accounted for forty-one requests for service; traffic complaints numbered fourteen; and, all other complaints totaled 56. C. Most complaints (524) were resolved simply by an officer or officers going to the source of the noise; identifying the person or persons responsible for the noise and asking them to "quiet down." In 175 instances the source of the noise could not be located by the officers, or no noise was apparent when officers arrived at the scene. Charges of "keeping a disorderly house" were filed in eight (8) instances. Dogs or noisy animals were impounded by officers in eight (8) additional instances. D. Actions taken to enforce the noise ordinance are those suggested by you in the accepted draft of the enforcement process manual dated September, 1982. In addition to this, in a short time when the printing of "warning notices" is' completed, I will issue an order and process for what I be- lieve will be more effective response to complaints of noisy animals. Upon completion, I shall forward copies of the order and process to you and Council for your information. E. Monthly summaries of noise complaints received and actions taken by the Iowa City Police Department will be included in the monthly report. 7 i 141CROFILMED BY - -"DORM "M4CR6LAB'-- CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES I J L�. F. The Animal Control Division receives an average of two "noisy animal" complaints each working day. Their actions consist of: 1. Identifying and issuing a written "warning notice" to owners of offending animals. 2. Filing the warning notice for future reference. 3. Notifying the complainant, if known, of the courses of legal action that he/she may take. 4. Suggesting actions the owner of the offending animal might take to avoid future complaints. 5. Upon subsequent complaints, filing of an appro- priate charge with the Clerk of Court. (NOTE: The courts will not accept the direct filing of a citation by 'En—Animal Control Officer. Thus, they must file misdemeanor charges in the same manner as any citizen. Again, they cannot issue a direct citation as does a police officer.) G. In summary it can be noted that 250 of all noise complaints were not located or appeared unfounded by the responding officer; 740 were resolved upon a request by the officer to the offending party; and, slightly more than 1% of the complaints resulted in charges being filed against the offending party. Less than 6% of the complaints received by the Department were animal calls and of those, nearly 200 resulted in the impoundment of the offending animal. I cannot determine at this time the number of animals that were reclaimed after impounding or whether subsequent complaints against the same owners of the impounded/reclaimed animals were received. All in all the ordinance appears to have generated an increased awareness in regard to noise in our community. The ordinance has not received any hard legal challenges, and perhaps will not be subject to a great deal of legal tests, particularly where extremely noisy parties or the operation of illegal sound devices are evident, simply because in many instances, the actual charge that might be filed against an offender lies outside the actual ordinance and is arrived at by reference. For the next several months, you and the City Council will receive regular reports as to the use of the ordinance in Iowa City and the Department's observations of its effectiveness and situational applicability. A summary of activities to date is attached. MICROFILMED BY 11. DORM- MICR4ILAB- J CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES J jj f ;a cirl or :OWA c:fY NMI' OR11 NIVILL ';?LF.Ar?NG � RdcffidRl'� t AUGII;I 1. liC!111rf11 -. . a. The Police Department is r!aponsible for enforcement except where specified utherwis!•. I b. vlhen in doubt, ask your commanding officer or department head! Always use cr.mmon sense. i .i Sec. Lxc.:pliunt, i I I a. Before taking any enforcement ,fiction, review this section. j b. If you have a doubt, reter the question to your commanding officer or department head for a written decision. The department head will cuor•dinaLe with the legal staff, if i necessary, j I 3. sec. 24.1-•1 Specific Activities Pruhibited. a. Issue a verbal warning for the tirst violation. Log the warning. A citation is issued on the wcomd nccurrenr-c fur same address I or person. ��..- 141CROFIL14ED B1' I �/ JORM- "MICR#LAB'- CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MINES J L 4. Sec. _4.1 -ii t•hrsical 1nsU:nv, nts. playing 1 r e is xpoi.F. .ioIt . parr.-,- or ;. Avii.al to L•e WWII on cni..;: ints only when ••eeeived from 10 Lpl. to 7 a.m. and cal ler should he info^med Lhat complaint must be filed by complainant. issue vnroal warning. C. Log your complaint. When second complaint in any eight (8) hour period following the initial r,!,.ponse is received, request that complainant tile compla.*nt. Police do riot file complaints for this violation. 5. Sec. ^4.1-6 sound Lquipmrnt.and `ound Amplifying Equipment a. "SLereo 'War." {Allen a "Still -VU W-11"' 1', boing conducted, contact responsible party, discuss implication of failure to stop, log complaint. b. Parties. I. When a complaint is received abIJUL stereos and/or loud parties, use the provision or Section 24-48, Disorderly House. Action can be Laken against local parties, even if stereos arc not involved. The determining factor is the level of noise :md .mnuyantc •.o neighbors. Cnntaet 1 MICROFILMED BY JORM '-MICR6L AB'- CEDAR RAPIDS DES M014ES 1 fI Ml- 'r - DRAFT k3 3 /. responsible party, discu•;s implication of continued comnlainls, log r_nr•;;rlaipr. OaiSe COMIIIUe1, ,end/u:en •.o(.uUd cumplaint, issue Ci Ldt 10't fur ui;or•dor•lV iv:use. C. When ni•rulh is requi Td, rrl p,•I;o^ I•; Ih)trsiru and Inspection Services. d. All :they, circumstances. Issue verbal warning; log complail:t; file citation ;f continues or on receipt of another complaint. Q . Housing and Rejection `;rrvir.es will initiate permit applil:.ILitill prucedure by ident iIyiug the Iocatiun u a permit request in relationshiop to noise sensitive areas and decibel levels permitted for the specilied address for the hours proposed for the event. Housing and inspection Services will also disseminate informational packets and brochures to applicant at the time the pruce:.s is initiaLad. Howevi!r, the Police will sign off on all app;icatiuns, and after fees are paid, the Police will receive an enfq.rcement copy of the permit since enforcement would mosi. iikcly be during the night or late shift or involve sections of :ho or;in..ulce rue Lricted to pulite enforcement. i I-01CROFILI4ED BY JORM-MICRdLAO'- --_�---� CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES ( tt 5M ; - -7 -- - DRAFT a3 6. Sec. 24.1-7 4 a. Several hand - held rleLers will he available for Measuring vehicle noise. b. Police will respond Lo couq;lainL, and stup vehicles when they have reason to believe ve!u c I e is in violation of this provision. C. Vehicles will be tested with hand-held meter. d. A warning ticket and notice to repair will be issued, unless vehicle is repeat violator. For "repeats," citation will be issued. U. All warning tickets ind notices Lu repair will be lugged in the Police Department and followed-up. f. Police Department will send letter to all automobile repair services and garages informing them of these requirements and Police Department policies. Letter will also include provisions of Section (d), re: modification of exhaust systems. 7. Sec. 24.1-8 Animals. MICROFILMED BY 1 JORM`�MICR(�LAB CEDAR RAPIDS •DES MDI NES i 1. ...._ 0M DI. FT n3 I. (irisLICOJn will be 01'f;!!LO(! by Lne Animal Cuntrol Division of LI:P Puiite Dep.-rUnonL. When Anim,ri Control personnel are not ay.tilable, usher Police per,unnel will respond. 2. A warning ticket and a pamphlet explaining the law will be proviJer.i on the first comp 1;liIt. Lng the complaint. A misclunu;urur' complaint will he issued nn subsequent, verified cumplaints. 3. It should be noted that the definition of a barking r'.og is: "Barkinn_Dog" or Dirrl ur'Dther Animal. A dog, bird or uthur animal that hnr'k<, bays, crirs, Irnwls or emits any M hot ::c;` cuntinuuu•;I; ,rndiur• inr.Pssantly for a period of Lull (IU) minuLes ur barks intermittently for one-half h) hum• Ur IIWre and the sound therelrum is plainly audible across a residential real property boundary or within a noise sensitive area. This requires the animal control officer, police officer or the citizen to be able to tesLity accordingly. 3. section 24.1-9 Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards This section shall be enforced by the Department of Housing and Inspection Services. if a complaint is received after normal working hours, the Police Department ,rill Pelta the cua,plaint and information to HIS for enfnrcemenL •r;iun. �^ MICROFILMED BY � i I 1-1 -DORM--MICR#UA B-- CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES i. _ ..J DRAFT N3 6 9. Sec. 24.1-10. Primary respunsibi 1 ity is delegated, under Section 24.1-16(b), as follows, dl of whom will be appointed nuise control officers. Sub- o-actioil (b): 1. Director of UepartmenL of Huucinti S Inspection Services: (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (11), (10). 2. Inspector in ilepartment of 1101.11 ill'; & lnspei.tiun `ervices: (5). 3. Sworn PoliLa Officers: (5), (9)- 4, Animal Control Officers: (5), (9). 10. Sec. 24,1-11 Whenever departments purchase new vehicles or mechanical equipment of any nature they shodld coordinate with the Purchasing Agent to determine that "quiet" equipment is purchased, consistent with financial limitations. 11. Sec. 24.1-11 Sound Variances. This suction shall be administered by the Director of Housing Inspection Services. 7 141CROFILMED BY —_ JORM—MICROLLAB— . CEDAR RAPIDS • DES I401YES Iowa Department of Transportation 5268 NW 2nd Avenue, Des Moines, Iowa 50313 515/281-4265 April 22, 1983 Ref. No. 090.47 Hon. Mary C. Neuhauser, Mayor City of Iowa City Civic Center 410 E. Washington Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Subject: Program Change in State Transit Assistance Dear Mayor Neuhause n On April 12, 1983, the Iowa State Transportation Commission adopted a change in the procedures for the State Transit Assistance (STA) program. These changes (outlined on the attached page) will be used for the fis- cal year 1984 funding cycle. The intent of this program change is to allow most transit managers to j determine their own STA formula projects, methods -of -payment, and results. i We believe that this will give transit systems a more flexible and certain funding source. It will also allow the Public Transit Division staff to dedicate more time to its primary mission - providing management and technical assistance. I am pleased to inform you that your transit system has qualified to de- ternine its own STA formula projects for fiscal year 1984. (Note: This change has already been outlined in your grant application material.) Please review the criteria which has qualified your system to determine its own projects. As you close fiscal year 1983 and begin fiscal year 1984, we ask you to review how your operating statistics compared with those of fiscal year 1982. Declines in key formula -performance factors (locally -determined income, passenger per cost, and revenue miles per cost) could result in a return to the negotiation process for your sys- tem. 'Neither your system nor the Public Transit Division wishes to see that happen. Therefore, I am directing the district managers to work with YOU so that you will be able to determine your likely status for fiscal years 1984 and 1985. In summary, we believe the program change is healthy and beneficial. It represents a recognition by the department that public transit in Iowa has come of age. I hope you share this feeling. If you have need of specific technical and management assistance, please let me know or con- tact your district manager. We will try to fulfill your need. Sincerely, Frank erkow, Deputy Director Public Transit Division FS:cn Enclosure cc: Gordon A. Sweitzer, Interim Director, Public Transit Division Rob Forrest, Director, Office of Accounting Don Breniman, Director, Office of Audits Don Ward, Director, Advance Planning 8/U r 141CR0EIE14ED BY JORM -'MIC ROLAEI -� CEDAR RAPIDS • DES 1401A[S I ,� L J I April 12, 1983 STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM CHANGE BY IMPLEMENTING THIS CHANGE: 1.. No Administrative Rules Change in Necessary (provides for immediate implementation). 2. No Major Re-education Effort is Required. 3. Program Complexity is Reduced for Most Systems. i 4. Administrative Burdens for Most Systems and the Public Transit Division is Reduced i i * Transit systems are required to negotiate STA formula funds only if: f 1. Their percentage of the formula allocation declines for two consecutive years, and 2. They have at least two of the three formula factors decline compared to ast year factors: Locally Determined Income, j passengers per cost, and revenue miles per cost). * All other systems would use the process outlined below: (for FY'84, 26 of 33 transit systems) 1. Transit formula, systems are allocated STA funds through the performance I 2. STA funds are received up front. 3. Transit managers devise their own projects. 4. Transit managers document the projects results for technology sharing purposes at the end of the contract (three-page letter). i 5. Project results would be available to the Commission, legislature, other transit systems. j 6. The ultimate accountability and program incentives are contained within the performance funding formula. * All special projects funding is negotiated with the Public Transit Division ($300,000 per year. I MICROFILMED BY �. r ' JORM-'MIC ROLAB _ % I CEDAR RAPIDS • DES 14O1YES i i City of Iowa Cit, MEMORANDUM I l_`A`r Date: April 26, 1983 / l� To: Neal Berlin, City Manager From: Larry McGonagle, Transit Manager; Re: Air Conditioner Summer is approaching and that means Transit must begin repairing bus air conditioners. Last year approximately $20,000 was spent repairing air conditioners. This year Transit plans to spend a maximum of $30,000. This is possible because we are presently spending less than was budgeted for vehicle maintenance. Unless we hear otherwise, $30,000 is the maximum that will be spent on repairing air conditioners. bdw2/13 i 111CRO110E1 DY DORM -MIC R6C"AB-- r CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES V1 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: April 28, 1983 To: City Council From: Bette Meisel, Senior Center Coordinator Re: Update on Senior Center Our Program Specialist, Lori Benz, has requested a year's leave of absence beginning in August at the birth of her baby. We have advertised for a replacement for her for this period. We also advertised for a person interested in filling a VISTA (Volunteers in Service to America) position at the Senior Center. Tom Walz of the School of Social Work applied for two VISTA positions. If they are awarded to him, he will assign one to the Senior Center. The City will select the person to fill the position but will be under no financial obligation. , The person selected will be assigned the responsibility of managing the Senior Center Post, the Host/Guide program and the Eldercraft Shop. These are all ongoing Senior Center activities which could be further developed and strengthened with sufficient staff attention. A VISTA volunteer would provide us the opportunity to do this. Attached you will also find three schedules of special programs at the Senior Center. The first, Home Sweet Home is a series that recently ended. The attendance at each succeeding workshop was larger than at the last. The final meeting was a standing room only crowd of 70. The major criticism was that the series was not longer and that the speakers had too little time to give indepth presentations. And we were afraid we'd overwhelm our audience! second,The has averagedover 100�persons 5at�each eofnthe, panel tiais ldiscussions. most over. Soltawas fr theld specifically on Sunday afternoons so that families with an inflicted member would be able to attend. The audiences were from all over Eastern Iowa with some members taping programs for distant families. The third, is our final portion of the AGES series. The first two segments of this series were on photography and printmaking. This one is on folk art. The classes started slowly but have grown so in popularity that we have had a problem with over -enrollment in classes. Interestingly enough it was the SEATS Director who mentioned that this series brought out people to the Center they had never served before. bdw4/17 Johnson Co.., ,ty Council of Govern its r 410 EI, t� Irg c)nS[. bm ocy bwn 52240 Date: April 27, 1983 To: City Council and City Manager From: Cheryl Mintle, Human Services Coordinator Re: 1, Proposed New Agency Guidelines for City, Johnson County, and United Way Z• Results of Emergency Housing Needs Survey 3. Mid -Eastern Council On Chemical Abuse (MECCA) Request for Funding I 1• New Aaencv Guidelines: � A draft of the New Agency Guidelines is attached. These were ! prepared in conjunction with United Way staff and volunteers and would be used for future human service requests as well as in reviewing the pending Red Cross request to the City's Aid to Agencies Fund. I Z• Emeraencv Housing Survev: I — Results of an Emergency Housing Survey conducted by the Human Service Office was distributed in last week's packet. United Way, Johnson County, and the Ecumenical Consultation have been involved with the City in researching the need for emergency shelter. 3. MECCA: Background: As you know MECCA requested $18,745 from the City of Iowa City Liquor Profits for FY84. The Council, at its February 7th work session did not approve this request, but indicated an interest in assisting MECCA with their space needs. Since the initial request was made the Directorship of MECCA has changed. The new Director has initiated several administrative changes and has more on the drawing board. The budget has been entirely revamped - this new budget has been distributed to the Council. Numerous cost saving and fund-raising methods have been initiated, with space costs a major one of these. The Director, Art Schut, has requested, in lieu of the $18,745 from Liquor Profits, City assistance with MECCA's one-time space costs associated with moving their Iowa City office to the Old United Terminal at the Iowa City Airport. 8/3 -'- �- FILMED BY JORMROMICR6LA13__ CEDAR RAPIDS DES 1401NES d I C /J i Need: $800 per month ($650 rent, $150 utilities escrow) is being requested for 12 months from 7-1-83 through 6-30-84, for a total request of $9,600. Currently MECCA is paying $1,022 per month rent plus 25 percent of any property tax, insurance, and utility increases for their Johnson County outreach office and main office space at 325 E. Washington. These costs average out to approximately $14,500 for calendar year 1982. MECCA also operates Voss House, a 24-hour per day residential facility for adult male substance abusers. MECCA is in the process of purchasing Voss House at 611 S. Clinton. (They have $23,000 left to pay on the principal and an estimated $100,000 equity. However, major repairs are needed to fully use that facility, $175,000 is estimated to be needed to remodel the building to bring it up to standard. The new Director sees the move to the airport as a one year temporary measure which will save money and will allow the agency a year to do long-term planning to determine the least expensive solution to their long-term physical plant needs. For instance, locating the administrative offices and Voss House in the same facility could give savings in terms of staff coverage, utilities, phone, etc. Program Summary: MECCA operates in Iowa, Cedar, and Washington counties, in addition to Johnson County. They offer programs designed to facilitate a change of direction for those who have alcohol or other drug dependency. Outpatient individual, group, and family counseling is available. Voss ,House provides a semi -structured environment for recoverying abusers who are working to develop a more successful lifestyle. There is also an Elderly Outreach Project focusing on senior citizen education, treatment, and rehabilitation. In addition, the Prevention Unit offers workshops and presentations related to Wellness, such a the health risk reduction program provided to City employees this year in cooperation with the County Health Department. Over 100 City employees were assessed. A preventative curriculum has also been developed in cooperation with County Health Department staff and is in place in 15 elementary and three junior high schools in Iowa City. I4ICROEILI4ED BY l -DORMR(,tiLA9 CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES i ( I F/,3 3 Twenty-four hour phone coverage is available for crisis intervention as needed in addition to the above services. 1,706 - 60 minute units of service were given to Johnson County clients and their families in FY82, two-thirds of these units were provided to Iowa City residents. Prooram Evaluation: The only follow-up material available on MECCA is a study conducted using a sample of 31 MECCA clients who had been out of treatment from three months to one year. It was conducted in December of 1981. The study found the following results when comparing pre- and post- treatment statistics: 42% showed an increase in salary after treatment 39% showed an increase in educational level after treatment Of the sample 89% had pre-treatment criminal involvement 10% had criminal involvement post-treatment. The United Way of Johnson County Planning Division accepted MECCA as a new agency to receive designated funding at their meeting April 5th, which is an indication of program quality and community acceptance. Informal feedback on the agency from local Professionals is positive. Budget; The new budget reflects a change from 24% administrative costs to 6%. The new Director is using a program accounting system to break down costs as accurately as possible. The current Director's salary is $4,500 less than originally budgeted for FY83 and about the same less for FY84. The new Director has plans to generate more income. By improving the client billing system he hopes to increase client fees by 75%. As has been stated earlier, he applied and was successful in becoming a new United Way agency. All cities and counties who receive liquor revenues received a request for funding from MECCA for FY84. dist stancevcalls�nTh This showed at34%hsavingsclastcbillstem for Attachedlisga chart of the Individual Units of Service per month and the service cost, reflecting increasing service units provided and projected and r 141CRDE1 L14ED BY ,1 1 -JOR M- -M IC R4jLAB CEDAR RAPIDS •DES I4DIAES $/3 -J 4 decreasing cost per unit since the new Director's administrative changes beginning December, FY83. i Summary; i Federal and state cuts have left this agency $40,000 short of what they need to maintain service for FY84. The new administrative staff appears to be doing everything possible to cut costs and increase income to meet this crisis. Short-term City assistance is L. recommended with rent assistance at a level considered appropriate by Council. Whatever temporary funding can be provided would help this ongoing agency stabilize operations until their facility j planning and other changes can provide them increased income and lowered costs. bdw/sp I I I I � I i 1 of3 IA ICRDFIENED 1 I DORM- MICR6 CEDAR RAPIDS • DES:8ES NEW AGENCY GUIDELINES CONDITIONS OF ASSOCIATION I. PREAMBLE The United Way of Johnson County, the City of Iowa City, and Johnson County believe in the principle that each person's worth as a human being is in a large degree the responsibility of the community itself. As funding bodies, we have a legitimate and overriding concern for people, the problems they face, and the community's role in resolving them. Accordingly, the chief goal of the United Way of Johnson County, the City of Iowa City, and Johnson County is to provide the means by which a cross section of citizens and agencies, governmental and volun- tary, may join in a community -wide effort to deliver efficient human service programs that target on current needs. To this end, the United Way of Johnson County, the City of Iowa, and Johnson County has identi- fied the following minimal criteria as "Conditions of Association" for all who desire to join or to maintain their current affiliation with United Way, Iowa City, and Johnson County. II. SERVICE GOALS A) The agency must be an organized tax exempt body which addresses one or more of the human services goals out- lined by the United Way of America Services Identifi- cation System (UWASIS II). (See Attachment A). B) The need for the agency's services (mission) have been documented on the local level. (See Attachment B). III. AGENCY MANAGEMENT A) The agency must be managed by a responsible, active volunteer Board of Directors which: 1 i MICROFILMED BY - r 1" DORM MIC R46L 4[I CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES 8/3 J � Ai I) Meets at least 4 times a year. 2) Represents the agency's geographical service area with regard to such factors as race, sex, age and economic status. 3) Assumes responsibility and accountability to the public for the administration of the agency's program through the creation and maintenance of Articles of Incorporation and bylaws which comply with local, state and federal regulations. 4) Has a viable committee structure and elected corporate I i officers. B) The agency Board must have initiated action which definitively discerns the role of each staff position. IV. PUBLIC DISCLOSURE A) The agency's books and financial records shall be open and available on demand for examination by United Way, Iowa City, i or Johnson County officials or any other responsible citizen during the course of the normal work day. B) The agency must comply with the Standards of Accounting and Financial Reporting for Voluntary Health and Welfare Organi- zation, as revised. V. VOLUNTEERS/BOARD SUPPORT A) The agency must elicit and maintain broad community support for its mission through the effective use of volunteers. B) The agency must have written internal evaluation procedures which attempt to measure its ongoing effectiveness in meet- ing community needs. 2 813 MI CROFIWED BY - �,.." -JORM--MICR4ILAE3 CEDAR RAPIDS DES 140I4E5 � l 1 I VI. FUND RAISING (United Way Agencies only) A) An agency shall not conduct independent fund raising efforts in the United Way soliciation area nor shall it permit its name to be identified with a fund raising project of any kind without the written approval of the Allocations/Agency Relations Committee. (See details on enclosed Inclusiveness Policy Sheet C) B) Agency board and staff members shall be willing to I render financial, volunteer, and resource support to the annual United Way Campaign unless undo hardship i - would result to the agency and/or United Way as a re - I sult of said participation. i VIII. GENERAL INFORMATION I A) An agency shall submit a copy of the following documents to the appropriate funding body before admission into I i •- I the federation: (1) Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws; (2) Personnel i Policies and Procedures; (3) Job Descriptions for all Management Personnel; (4) A list of all funding sources (public and private), complete with total dollar amounts, activities and time frames funded, and copies of appro- priate contracts; (5) A current Board Roster and Staff Organization Chart; (6) A Program Need Narrative, com- plete with demographic or other data which addresses the agency's mission and purpose in the local community. 3 r�- I I ` 141CROFILIIED BY JORM-MICR0LA[! �- CEDAR RAPIDS DES MO NES /� IX. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY A) Agencies shall comply with all federal, state, and local non-discrimination regulations pertaining to the employ- ment of persons regardless of race, sex, religion, creed, age or handicap. X. AMENDMENTS A) The United Way of Johnson County, City of Iowa, and Johnson County reserves the right to modify these condi- tions as events and time may warrant. B) All amendments will be mailed to each agency within ten days after their approval by the United Way Board of Directors, Iowa City City Council, or Johnson County Board of Supervisors. i ATTACHMENT A i Goal I: Optimal Income Security and Economic Opportunity i iGoal II: Optimal Health Goal III: Optimal Provision of Basic Material Needs Goal IV: Optimal Opportunity for the Acquisition of Knowledge and Skills Goal V: Optimal Environmental Quality Goal VI: Optimal Individual and Collective Safety Goal VII: Optimal Social Functioning Goal VIII: Optimal Assurance of the Support and Effectiveness of Services, through Organized Action 4 i MICROFILMED BY _DORM"--MICRI�LAB 1 I CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES i or. J ATTACHMENT B 1. Does not duplicate an existing service agency in service or clients served. 2. The service could not be appropriately provided by another existing agency. 3. The requestor has exhausted and explored every other funding source available. 4. This request is the least expensive way and most effective way to accomplish the program goals. 5. Incorporation of this service into an existing agency has been explored and it is determined that such is not possible. 9 141CROFILMED BY l_-- JORM-"MIC R#CAB- CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOIYES C71 ;t �J T , MID -EASTERN REr:_'V7n ; ? " 1983 COUNCIL ON CHEMICAL Substance Abuse Treatment Centers ABUSE SERVING: CEDAR. IOWA, JOHNSON AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES mecca :- March 25, 1983 Mary Neuhauser Mayor of Iowa City 410 E. Washington Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Mayor Neuhauser: Enclosed please find the draft projected budget for fiscal year 1984. The expense, income, and budget comparison with fiscal year 1983 are presented on spread sheets. I want to emphasize that the fiscal year 1984 is a "draft projected" budget; we will not be certain of Iowa Department of Substance Abuse funding levels until June, 1983. Please note that the expense portion of the budqet includes the following: 1) the establishment of an office in Cedar County; and providing a 50% Counselor and 20% Prevention Specialist for services in Cedar County; 2). an overall reduction in operating costs (exclusive of personnel) while increasing services and opening an office in Cedar County; 3) elimination of "bartered services" at Voss House more accurately reflects the actual expenditures for Voss House services; this alone results in an expense "increase" of slightly over $10,900.00 annually (offset by an increase in client fee income); 4) placing the Medical Director on a stipend for services rendered with the understanding that this will enable billinq of third parties for payment for services provided under the physician's supervision; 5) the addition of a 50% Counselor for services to Johnson County and Iowa City; requests for the provision of services exceed current staff ability to respond to those requests; 61 a 3% cost of living to the staff salary scale; 7) budgeting all positions as filled for the entire fiscal year rather than planning on temporary vacancies of any duration; 81 significant increases in health and hospitalization insurance costs due to changes in employee characteristics necessitating family rather than single coverage. i MICROFILMED BY I -JOR M -""MIC R6L,4 [i� CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES II glS- r� Page 2 3/25/83 Changes of note in income include: 1). maintenance level funding from the Iowa Department of Substance Abuse; 21 funding from Cedar County to support the Cedar County office; 31 billing of the counties of residence of individuals not legal residents of Johnson, Iowa and Cedar county on a regular and consistent basis under Chapter 125 of the Iowa Code; 41 termination of the State Health Department grant for Health Education Risk Reduction in January, 1984, resulting in a 50% loss of income; 51 increasing client -generated income by approximately 75% so that client -generated income would produce 14.5% of all income in FY'84 as compared to 9.9% of all intone in FY'83; 61 producing slightly over $41,000.00 in income from catchment area cities and other sources. Services provided would include: 11 prevention programs for all four counties served; 21 6;570 days residential care; 313,864 units of.individual and.family counseling; 41 1,400 untis of group counseling; 51 200 units of community awareness, In general, M.E,C,C.A. is interested in providing the highest quality and quantity of services for the least amount of expense. Fulfilling this -goal involves at the minimum the following: 1) accurate budgeting, budget control, and financial management; 2). reduction of operating costs; 31 long-range planning for service delivery systems that maximize service and attempt to minimize cost of service; 41 increased productivity; 51 consolidation of physical plants (particularly Voss House and the outpatient office located in Iowa City). Any assistance that the City of Iowa City can provice to help meet service costs during Fiscal Year 1984 , would be greatly appreciated. Pr • 1 ; 141CROFILMED DY -JORM--MICR#LA13 77 CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES I r/ i ! b _Fy I? q to? CE .3 a 777,1-��_ _, i ; vl L MICROFIL14ED By a R mLAB t4ol NES CEDAR RAPIDS DES JI T f i__... ..._.._._.. _._... _.. ..__._.__.___�....._.-.,...r. _._. _ M,E,G,c,.R..._._ _.._ 6uv6eT_'.ComPARisarJ_-..-Fy.e3. Ac�.nv wi�w-1�RAF1' Pro�ccnor±. reit _—Fy�e4.-. M.E.C.C,A. Salary Changes FY'83 to Draft FY'84 Budget Total DRAFT projected increase FY'84 over FY'83 = DETAIL of FY'84 Exoense over FY'83 3% cost of living adjustment to salary scale Normal step progressions on salary scale determined by longevity of employment (first 30 months of employment) Merit increases (30 month employees) Positions temporarily vacant during FY'83 budgeted with no vacant periods for FY'84 Salary cook at Voss House $6,6U.00 Salary relief worker at Voss House 3,955.00 (eliminates $9,000.00 in "bartered" client fees plus $1,906.00 in contract labor = $10,906.00) Sub -Total NEW POSITIONS $52,198.00 8,451.00 6.504.00 3,295.00 6,465.00 10,622.00 $35,337.00 Increase Prevention Specialist to full-time (+.25 FTE) 3,786.00 Add 1.0 FTE Counselor for services to Cedar and Johnson Counties (client fee income increase of $4,675,00) 13,075.00 Sub -Total $16,861.00 I S MiCROF1LBYE-� f 1. JORM1" M-- -� CEDAR RAPIDS A �J M.E.C.C.A. Personnel Cost Chances FY'83 to Draft FY'84 Budget Total DRAFT projected increase FY'84 over FY'83 = Detail of FY'84 expense over FY'83 F.I.C.A. Life Insurance Unemployment Insurance (project increase to 1% rate from 0.5% rate) 3% retirement for 2+ year employees Blue Cross/Blue Shield (Consequences of January '83 rate increase of 37%; projected January '84 rate increase of 25%; employee changes from single to family coverage (1) and from coverage through spouse to self coverage (3) ) Rates excluding employees 10% contribution single rate = $ 938.00 annual family rate = $2,382.d0 annual TOTAL lMICROFIL14ED BY l.. —DORM ---MIC R�ILA A� � CEDAR RAPIDS DES id01RE5 f I ..J $19,142.00 3,501.00 191.00 1,646.00 3,039.00 10,765.00 $19,142.00 8/S I IOWA CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY r— AGENDA ITEM IX-A THIRD QUARTER REPORT - FY83 WITH STATISTICAL SUM61ARIES Fiscal Year Objectives: 1. Continue library services to 65 percent of Iowa City residents by reducing in-building user/staff ratios to 12,000 users per one FTE staff member, limiting circulation to an average 160 items checked out per hour open, and holding the ratio of information staff to questions handled to 17,000. 2. Maintain the library's collections by acquiring at least one new or replacement item for every 40 circulated. 3. Sustain the current level of volunteer hours, gift materials added and private funds received to augment basic tax support. 4. Complete the first cycle of a systematic planning process to assess community priorities as the basis for annual budget proposal for FY84. Work Completed: I. With an estimated 34,500 registered borrowers living in Iowa City, over 68% of Iowa City residents are now cardholders. The number of items checked out is up 10% over the first nine months of FY82 (19% in the third quarter). People entering the building is up 11% (third quarter: 24%). In services are up 15% (third quarter: 23%). 2. Over 9200 items were added to the collection during the first nine months of i FY83. This is one item for every 42.8 circulated - not enough to maintain the collection. Despite healthy increases in funds for library materials during the last two years, use of the collection continues to grow at a faster rate than new, gift or rebound items can be added. 3. While volunteer hours are down over a year ago, they are ahead of the estimate for FY83. We are averaging 93 hours per week - the equivalent of 2.3 full-time people. The number of gift books and records received is also down I slightly, but is offset by a large increase in the number of new items added. In addition to the $20,000 in gift money added to the regular materials budget, over $4300 in gift funds has been spent so far this year on special collection projects. 4. Six sub-committees worked throughout the third quarter developing goals and objectives for all functions of the library. The fourth quarter will be spent setting priorities and writing the final report. Performance Measures: FY81 FY82 FY83 FY83 (goal). (9 mos.) I.A. % IC residents who are 46.2 65.0 65 68.6 (est.) registered borrowers B. # people entering the building: 278,840 414,000 342,098 per hour open 93.9 135.4 144.6 per FTE staff 9,142 12,950 12,000 13,220 C. Circulation (Avg. # 146.4 162.0 160.0 167.8 items per hour) 0. Questions per FTE staff 14,849 18,982 17,000 19,627 assigned to Info. Desk -._.. i MICRONWED BY III 1. _ JORM -M1CR6LAB'- L% CEDAR RAVIDS • DES MOINES � .J E. Meetings by non ~'•ary groups 69 798 1' 800 712 2. Circulation per item added to 42.0 43.0 40.0 42.8 collection 3.A. % of acquisitions which are gifts 13.7% 13.6% 15.0% 12.3% B. % total acquisition budget from 19.2 23.7 20.0 21.0 (est.) grants and gift funds C. Volunteer hours 2,130' 5,138 4,240 3,568 N volunteer hours per FTE staff 69.8 199 160 179.5 4. Have planning results available to apply to FY84 budget process. *Does not include 4300 hours for move to new building. Division Analysis: Use of the library continues to expand, with several measures up 18-25% in the third quarter. New daily and monthly highs for circulation were set in March. This level of continued growth makes both adjusting to current circumstances and planning for five years difficult. The public is delighted with the library and asking for new or expanded services faster than we can evaluate present ones. Expenditures Budget Year -to -Date % 6000 670,747 482,703 71.9 7000 19,165 20,106 104.9 8000 161,035 103,775 64.4 9000 98,400 75,974 77.2 Total 949,347 682,558 71.9 n rreHawkeye"" Cabl¢Visio TO: CITY MANAGER's OFFICE FROM: KAREN KALERGISAC y RE: ATTACHED LETTER TO LEISA FEARING Please see to it that the enclosed letter is included in the Council's packet of material. It is in response to a letter written to Hawkeye on April 14th and copied to the Councilors individually. Thank you. P.O. Box 4500 546 Southgate Avenue Iowa City, Iowa 52240 319-351-3984 A subsidiary of American Television & Communications Corp. J MICROFILMED DY DORM""-MICR#LAB" - I ' CEDAR RAPIDS • DES M014ES 917. OHawkeye Cabl¢�Tisio April 22, 1983 Leisa Fearing 605 Manor Drive Iowa City IA 52240 Dear Leisa, I'd like to take this opportunity to address the issues you raised in your letter of April 14th. Your main concern was that the PVOM you scheduled for April 9th was not available the day of the shoot. Since I had personally scheduled the equipment for you and worked with our Community Programming Grant Committee in awarding you the funds needed for the program, I am fully aware of what the absence of this unit meant to you and your production. I cannot give you a good reason why the PVOM or its replacement was not on hand because there is no acceptable one. The system set up to rent a backup unit when our own is not available was not carried out. This can only be attributable to human oversight on the part of our staff. As I am ultimately responsible for the j Programming Department, I extend our apologies to you and assure you that since that occurrence, I. have carefully traced what happened in order to ensure that it does not f happen again. Unfortunately, since you were the one who discovered this missing link in the chain of operations, you have had to put in extra work on the program. I hope our willingness to extend ourselves and our editing hours to assist you in this needed postproduction stage will give you a program you're pleased with. You also mentioned that there have been other PVOM shoots where the PVOM was not . available. Actually, during the three week period where the unit was scheduled to be out for repairs, only one community program, coverage of a live City Council, did not utilize the two -camera switching capability of the PVOM. However, given the ingenuity of the City's Don Bailey, the shoot did continue as a two camera production, using ancillary equipment in the PVOM and Don's ability to "make an electrical connection out of a potato" to pull it off. Because we were able to plan the downtime on the PVOM, we were able to rent a switcher for the other two shoots scheduled during the three week period. This proves, I believe, that our backup system works; the only casualties for'the PVOM came in the same weekend as yours did, again due to the staff oversight. The February PVOM workshop, in fact, was cancelled because only one of the six people showed up. Because we have been having a problem with "no shows" for workshops, we thought it best to reschedule the March workshop to when our own switcher would be back in the system rather than renting one, not knowing if enough people would show up. All those registered for the March workshop were called well in advance and rescheduled for April; only two of the six showed up on that date. This problem has prompted us to seriously consider charging a five dollar deposit for workshoppers which would be refunded when the participant shows up on time or calls well in advance to cancel his or her spot. This is necessary as the demand for the equipment does not accomodate scheduling equipment for workshops which will not be attended. P.O. Boz 4500 546 Southgate Avenue Iowa City, Iowa 52240 319-351-3984 A subsidiary of American Television & Communications Corp. 817 I 111CROEILMED BY 1.-.JORM- MICR46LA9- L% CEDAR RAPIDS • DES'MOINES I Again, I'd like to offer my apologies for the problems you encountered on your shoot. Yours is a program that I'm confident will be of interest to many Iowa Citians, indeed, it is just the kind of program that community programming and our grants embrace: I trust that you'll produce a worthwhile program with all the extra effort you've had to put in and that this situation is one we can learn from and be sure that it does not happen again. Before I close, I'd like to thank you for your compliments on our staff person, Sandra Terzis. Often, in the rush of things, our staff is often not recognized by the community for the extra effort they put in all the time. Your recognition of this is appreciated! And thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts and experiences. I'm certain they'll be incorporated into our general operations so that community programming will continue to fluorish in the Iowa City area. I I I � Sinc rely, i n Kalergis Director of Community Programming i CC: Bill Blough, General Manager City Councilors Drew Shaffer, Broadband Telecommunications Specialist William Terry, BTC Chairman J 141CROFILMED BY I. 1.." JORM-- -MICRO►ClC6" 1 CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOUES 1 ... .. A S/7 i J % ', BAM-Magistrate Court (Chambers) 9AM-Emergency Housing Meeting (Conf Room) 4:30PM-Informal Council (Conf Rm) 7P&ZP(Conf Room) T W 10.30"" Ground breaking ceremony aff Meeting at transit facilit Room) site 12noon-CCN (Public Library) 1:30PM-Council of 8:30AM-Housing Bd. 10AM-Staff Meeting RAM -Magistrate Court (Chambers) of Appeals (Conf (Conf Room) Room) 4:30 -Board of 4:30PM-Informal LOAM-Ia. Bldg Code Adjustment (Rm B, Council (Conf Rm) Advisory Council Rec Center) 7:30PM-Riverfront (Chambers) 7;30PM-CCN Public Comm (Law Library 7:30PM-Council Hearing on CDBG (Chambers) Funds (Chambers) •30PM-Informal Council (Conf Rm) •30PM-Informal P&Z (Conf Room) 01.1 ,•30PM-Informal Council (Conf Rm) ':30PM-Human Right Comm (Conf Room) )o RAM -Magistrate Court (Chambers) 7P&2P(ConfoRoom) 7:30PM-Council (Conf Room) TH BAM-Magistrate Court (Chambers) 7:30PM-Formal P&Z (Chambers) Court (Chambers) 7.30PM-Airport Comm (Cont Room) ng BAM-Magistrate Court (Chambers) 1:30PM-Senior Ctr Comm (Senior Ctr) aff Meeting BAM-Magistrate Room) Court (Chambers) 4PM-Library Board (Library Conf Rm) I MICROFILMED By I )- -JORM-MICRLAB•_ CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES C E7 F 4 J I M -Parks & ' ec commissiol Room A, Rec Ctr) ! I i M J