HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-10-31 Info PacketCi
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: October 28, 1983
To: Persons wi>{r 1ments on the Proposed New Zoning Ordinance
From: Don Schmehs
1
Re: City Council Discussion of Proposed New Zoning Ordinance
Please be advised that the City Council has scheduled a meeting to
discuss the issues, comments and questions raised at the public
hearings and in correspondence relating to the proposed new zoning
ordinance, for 7:30 PM on November 1 in the Civic Center Council
Chambers. The Council will not be discussing the site specific
requests for changes in zoning at this meeting. Changes in the
zoning of specific properties will be addressed at a subsequent
meeting which has not yet been scheduled. We will advise you of
dates of subsequent meetings for review of the ordinance.
Attached is a list of the issues, comments and questions raised all
or part of which will be discussed by the City Council at their
meeting on the 1st.
If you have any questions in regard to the above subject matter,
please feel free to call me at 356-5230.
bc5/7
cc: City Council
,3e4
�l
LIST OF ISSUES, COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS
1. Agricultural zoning.
2. The inclusion of commercial recreational uses in the AG zone.
3. The inclusion of dairy products processing in the CH -1 zone.
4. The inclusion of offices in the CH -1 zone.
5. The exemption of hospitals and religious institutions.
6. The exemption of commercial and industrial uses from compliance
with the performance standards.
7. Suggested changes to the OPD -H zone.
8. Uses permitted in the CN -1 zone.
9. Provision for downtown expansion.
10. Parking space requirement in the RM -145 zone.
_ 11. Parking space requirements in other residential zones.
12. Problems associated with nonconformities.
13. Impediments to the establishment of low-cost housing.
14. Problems with special exceptions.
15. The establishment of 13,000 cfs as the water level defining the
river bank.
CWV of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: October 28, 1983
To: City Count�'
From: Don S hm�iis n
Re: Issues, Comme is
Zoning Ordinance
and Questions Concerning the Proposed New
The staff has compiled a list of the issues, comments and questions raised
at the public hearings and in correspondence submitted to the City Council
on the proposed new zoning ordinance. Each item has been addressed by the
staff and its responses are presented as follows:
1.
2.
3.
Agricultural zoning - why some properties and not others are zoned
agricultural.
The AG zone and the RR -1 zone are two designations which are used for
those areas of the city in which city services cannot be provided in
the near future. The AG zone is used in those areas where services
will eventually be provided and RR -1 is used where city services are
not planned for within the time frame of the long range comprehensive
plan. The rationale behind these designations is that in those areas
where city services and urban development are anticipated, it is
unwise to permit sparse, scattered rural development in the present,
which would inhibit the possibility of orderly urban development in
the future. The AG zoning permits continued farm uses but prohibits
residential development which would obstruct future development. An
RR -1 designation allows large lot rural residential development
where city services and urban development are not expected to take
place.
The inclusion of commercial recreational uses in the AG zone as a
special exception.
The Planning and Zoning Commission, early in their review process,
concluded that the AG zone should permit only agriculturally related
uses. Areas intended for urban uses should be appropriately zoned.
Allowing commercial recreational uses in the AG zone, even as a
special exception, could result in future incompatibility of land
uses when urban services are finally provided to the area.
Mr. Anthony Frey expressed interest for this addition as a special
exception in the AG zone because he wishes to establish a commercial
camp ground off Caroline Court. This is very questionable as a good
location for this type of activity given the neighborhood concern
regarding traffic on Prairie du Chien, noise, and the existing amount
of commercial activity in the area.
Inclusion of dairy products processing and manufacturing in the CH -1
zone at all or as a special exception.
Lr
Under the current ordinance, "creameries" are allowed as a permitted
use in the CH zone. A creamery is an outdated term for the operation
of dairy product processing and packaging establishments.
Therefore, the term was changed.
The highway commercial zone, as outlined in the intent section of the
zone, is intended to provide for service uses related to expressway
traffic - hotels, motels, restaurants, and auto -oriented uses.
Dairy product processing does not fall within the usual definition of
these types of uses and could present problems of compatibility with
other uses in the zone. It is reasonable, therefore, to include
dairy product processing under the special exception section rather
than as a permitted use. Existing uses would be conforming and would
not require an appearance before the Board of Adjustment to establish
themselves.
4. Expanding the CH -1 Highway Commercial Zone to include office use as a
permitted use along with other minor modifications in the ordinance.
A request was made to allow office use in the CH -1 zone, particularly
in the application of this zone to property located north of the
Highlander. As indicated on page 58 in the proposed ordinance a CH -
1 zone is "intended to permit development of service uses relating to
expressways or other controlled access locations along major
arterial thoroughfares. An office use was not listed in this zone
because it was not perceived as a use typically characteristic of
those uses located along major thoroughfares. There are, however,
certain types of offices which would prefer to locate along major
thoroughfares, and for this reason I believe there is a strong
argument for permitting offices in this zone.
There also was a request to allow, as a provisional use, retail
establishments when associated with the permitted uses of this zone,
provided that not more than 50% of the total ground floor area is
devoted to retail display of merchandise. This is a provisional use
which is also permitted in the CI -1 Intensive Commercial zone (see
page 61 of the proposed ordinance). Other than the CI -1 zone, the
CH -1 zone is the only other zone which does not permit a wide
selection of retail uses. For this reason, it would seem logical to
include this provisional use in the CH -1 zone in association with the
other uses permitted. It is not uncommon, for example, for a service
station (an auto oriented use) to have a retail display area in the
station.
Finally, the suggestion was made and requested to classify such
grocery stores as Quik Trip as an auto oriented use. There is little
question but what such convenience groceries are intended to serve
the traveling public, and it would seem appropriate to classify
convenience groceries as an auto oriented use.
3069
Li
5. Exemption of hospitals and religious institutions from compliance
with the proposed zoning ordinance.
In the present zoning ordinance (see Section 8. 10.19) it states that
any hospital, educational or religious institution existing on
August 7, 1962, shall be exempted from (the specific conditions of
the additional regulations) and from any other height, yard and off-
street parking requirements otherwise applicable in the district in
which such existing use is located." The staff realizes the
significance of classifying a use such as the Mercy Hospital
nonconforming. Such a provision in the proposed ordinance certainly
is worthy of consideration. Such an exemption, however, should not
be extended to future additions and expansions of a use without
compliance with the provisions of the ordinance for the addition or
expansion.
If compliance with the new ordinance does create problems for the
addition or expansion of certain uses, the ordinance is made much
more flexible as to the methods of seeking relief where such relief
is justified. For example, the ordinance now permits the Board of
Adjustment to grant a special exception in the modification of yard
requirements where such modification is warranted. The Board may
also grant a special exception to reduce the parking space
requirement.
6. Existing commercial and industrial uses which do not comply with the
performance standards of the proposed ordinance should not be
exempted from compliance if they are established illegally, and the
reference to their existence as a nuisance should be omitted.
The ordinance does provide for the exemption of commercial and
industrial uses from compliance with the provisions of the
performance standards in the new ordinance. They would not be
classified as nonconforming uses because they were in noncompliance
with the performance standards.
In recognition of the large investment associated with commercial
and industrial uses and the likewise large expense to bring such uses
in compliance with the performance standards of the ordinance, the
staff, and subsequently the Planning and Zoning Commission,
recommended that commercial and industrial uses be exempt from
compliance with the performance standards.
Section 1-69(b) (see page 167) states that "Nothing in this chapter
shall be interpreted as authorization for the continuance of the use
of a structure of land in violation of the zoning regulations in
effect prior to enactment of this chapter." Simply stated, no use
which had been illegally established under the provisions of the
present ordinance is exempted under the provisions of the new
ordinance. The exemption provision would only apply to legally
established uses which would otherwise be nonconforming.
,?af
Since it is extremely difficult to establish a use as a nuisance, the
reference to nuisance should be omitted in the performance
standards.
A statement of "purpose" and other additions, particularly in
reference to the effect on adjoining properties, should be added to
the OPD -H Zone.
As instructed, the OPO -H zone consists of the same requirements as
for Planned Area Developments of the present zoning ordinance. The
staff had discussed with the City Council the need for guidelines and
design standards for planned unit developments which the PAD
provisions sorely lack. It was, however, resolved to maintain the
present provisions at least at this time.
8. CN -1 zone should be broader and include more uses such as general
office, clothing, specialty shops of every kind , etc. Also the CN -1
zone should not be limited in area, i.e. three to seven acres.
Neighborhood commercial centers are intended to blend in with and
service a residential neighborhood. The zone is designed for a very
limited purpose of providing only those types of commercial
activities which meet the needs of the residential neighborhood and
not for businesses which draw customers in significant numbers from
beyond the neighborhood. Standards for location, size,
access, local conditions, topography, and competition are
specifically spoken to in the 1983 Comprehensive Land Use Plan Update
and are designed to protect neighboring uses from potential
conflicts. Broadening the number of commercial uses permitted in the
CN -1 zone would dilute its intended purpose and remove many of the
distinctions it has from other commercial zones. The intent section
of the CN -1 zone should be amended to reference the siting criteria
as specified in the 1983 Comprehensive Plan Update.
The size range of three to seven acres ensures that the neighborhood
commercial centers retain a scale of development compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood. The three to seven acre range can be put
into perspective by the following examples: Hy-Vee-Drugtown site on
North Dodge is 4.3 acres with a retail area of approximately 32,000
square feet, Hy-Vee-Drugtown site on Boyrum Street (including
Contractor's Supply) is 5.4 acres with a retail area of approximately
60,000 square feet. In contrast to these two examples, the Hy -Vee
site at First and Rochester is approximately 2 acres in size and does
not meet the minimum requirements considered adequate for a
neighborhood commercial center. The proposed zoning map recognizes
this and has included additional area around that site for further
expansion of neighborhood commercial uses. The staff does not
recommend changing the maximum limitation for the neighborhood
commercial zone.
.3 0A1
J
The expansion of the downtown - the proposed zoning ordinance should
accommodate for expansion, e.g., the areas zoned CC -2 could be zoned
CB -2.
Presently, there is available space within the CBD (CB -10) district
for commercial expansion. There is land within the CBD district
which is not fully developed as intensely as a downtown area should
be. Numerous parcels or lots within the downtown area are presently
underutilized; i.e., there are private parking areas, auto oriented
uses, low rise single store commercial buildings, etc. It is the
City's goal to maximize intensity of use within the CBD and the new
ordinance would permit up to ten stories of development. Also, the
above notwithstanding, the existing CBS (CB -2) area immediately
south of Burlington Street could be rezoned to CB -10 to allow for the
future expansion of the downtown if the need arises.
Uses permitted in the CC -2 zone are generally the same as those
permitted in the CB -2 zone. This allows for commercial support of
the downtown business district. The primary distinction between the
CC -2 zone and the CB zone is in the provision of parking. All
commercial uses in the CC -2 zone'are required to provide off-street
parking whereas in the CB -2 zone this is not always the case.
The CC -2 zone configuration just south of the downtown reflects
existing commercial areas and commercial areas where parking should
be required because of the distance from public parking facilities.
At such time when the downtown is fully developed, consideration can
be given to rezoning the area immediately south of Burlington Street
(CB -2) to CB -10. At that time, consideration would have to be given
to ways in which to integrate the two areas and overcome the barrier
that Burlington Street provides to shopping patterns.
10. The parking space requirement in the RM -145 Zone should not be as low
as 3/4 space per dwelling unit.
A reduction in the parking space requirement to 3/4 space per
dwelling unit is a recommendation of the Planning and Zoning
Commission. The objections to this low a requirement for parking
have generally been based on a perceived greater demand for parking
spaces than required. That may be true.
One of the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan is to increase the
density of development close to downtown and University campus areas
and decrease the density of development in neighborhoods, which are
predominantly single family, that may experience damage due to the
intrusion of higher density development. The Commission and staff
were informed that to encourage the type of high rise, high density
development contemplated in the RM -145 zone (previously termed the
RM -80 zone) would require an allowance for greater building bulk to
make it feasible for development. A parking space requirement of A
.309
spaces per dwelling unit would probably preempt high rise
construction because of the larger amount of land area required for
parking.
Whether 3/4 space per dwelling unit is sufficient may always be
conjectured, but the Commission felt that it was in the public
interest to permit high rise, high density construction near the
downtown and University campus areas even though there may be a
greater demand for parking than required. The Commission argued,
however, and the staff would agree, that there is less need for
parking in these areas than in outlying areas because of the shorter
walking distance. The issue becomes one of balancing the advantages
to high rise, high density development close to the downtown and
University campus areas and the problems resulting from inadequate
parking facilities, if indeed they will be inadequate.
11. Parking space requirements for low rise multi -family uses is too
restrictive.
The Planning and Zoning Commission surveyed recently -built apartment
buildings and complexes in the area south of Burlington Street, east
of Gilbert Street, north of the railroad tracks, and west of Dodge
Street and determined that due to the number of bedrooms per dwelling
unit that the Ih parking space requirement was inadequate. The
assumption being that with more bedrooms per dwelling unit the
likelihood of more occupants per dwelling unit increases and
therefore also the need for off-street parking. The Commission
recommended the use of square footage as a better means of enforcing
the parking requirement in lieu of parking spaces per number of
bedrooms.
12. The problems associated with the establishment of nonconformities.
Unfortunately, with the change in design of the proposed ordinance,
there will be created nonconformities. Those nonconformities are of
three types: (a) nonconforming uses, (b) nonconforming buildings,
and (c) nonconforming lots. A nonconforming use is an existing use
which is not permitted in the zone in which it is located by reason
of the adoption of the zoning ordinance. A nonconforming building is
an existing building which does not comply with the setback or height
requirements of the zone in which it is located by reason of the
adoption of the zoning ordinance. A nonconforming lot is an existing
lot of record which fails to meet the lot width, lot frontage or lot
area requirements for a use in the zone in which it is located by
reason of the adoption of the zoning ordinance.
Although zoning regulations cannot be retroactively applied to
presently established property, the concern is that if the property
is destroyed by some natural cause, the present use of the property
is abandoned for more than a year, or that the use of the property is
converted to another use, the property must then be brought into
.j0�9
compliance with the provisions of the new ordinance. Realizing the
relative permanency of existing uses, many provisions are proposed
which will lessen the impact upon those existing properties by
adoption of the new ordinance.
For an existing use to have to comply with the provisions of the new
ordinance due to its destruction by natural cause, it would have to
be destroyed by more than 100% of its assessed value. If a use were
destroyed by less than 100% of its assessed value, it could be
reconstructed to the same degree of noncompliance with the ordinance
requirements. This provision would theoretically allow a person to
recover the economic value of property destroyed to the extent that
assessed value is equal to market value. state law, assessed
value is defined as market value even though By s some cases there
appears to be a discrepancy between the two. The assessed value of
property, however, is the only record the City has of the established
value of property.
There are exceptions provided for established setbacks in the zoning
ordinance (see page 152) and, as has alreadybeen discussed, the
Board of Adjustment may grant a modification to the yard requirements
under the special exception procedures which is not possible under
the present zoning ordinance. These provisions will enable one to
etback
j
realize or
existing buildingslief rmaysbecome n no�ncomplian a rements of thPersons amay
actually find, however, that in many instances the setbacks,
particularly in residential zones, are less restrictive than under
present zoning regulations.
Although a nonconforming lot of record may not have the proper
frontage or width, that may be built upon by any use permitted in the
zone in which it is located so long as all other ordinance
requirements are met. For example, any building for a use permitted
in the zone in which the nonconforming lot is located, may be built
upon the lot even though the lot does not have the proper width. The
building must, however, be provided with the appropriate setbacks
required in the zone. The ordinance does specify that if a lot does
not have the proper amount of area for a duplex or multi -family
dwelling, it would have to be developed with a single family dwelling
or a nonresidential use permitted in the zone.
ction
e number of
13. Amp diment toitheh stablishmentrOfmlow ers cost ermittehousdingn dwellings is an
There is probably little disagreement that a reduction in the number
of roomers will reduce the number of persons which can commonly share
rent in a dwelling unit. As is proposed, however, the number of
roomers now permitted in dwellings in multi -family zones would not be
decreased. As to the reduction in the number of roomers permitted in
dwellings in single family zones, the issue is one of balancing the
Positive aspects of reducing the effect that dwellings with a large
306 9
number of roomers will have upon adjacent residences and the negative
impact of a resultant decrease in the number of opportunities for low
cost housing.
There has been a considerable interest expressed by many for the
establishment of provisions for "accessory apartments." To the
extent that it is a major concern, the City Council may wish to
consider the adoption of such provisions in the near future.
There is little evidence to support that the new zoning ordinance is
more of an impediment to the construction of low cost housing than
presentthe ordinance.
been written toaccommod to low cost rhousi housing. Therenewpisvprobablyano
better opportunity for the community to provide for low cost housing
than for the establishment of areas for modular housing. The
establishment of the RMH Manufactured Housing Residential Zone is
the first opportunity for persons to subdivide land for the
accommodation of modular homes and mobile homes. Other provisions
have been written to accommodate many different types of residential
housing including zero lot line dwellings and townhouses without
having to comply with Planned Area Development provisions.
14. Special exceptions involve a lot of "red tape" and time involvement
and there is no assurance that such uses will be approved by the
Board of Adjustment.
Chapter 414 of the Iowa Code allows the Board of Adjustment to "hear
and decide special exceptions to the terns of the (zoning) ordinance
upon which such Board is required to pass under such ordinance." It
is one of the powers of the Board of Adjustment which has existed in
Iowa law for a number of years. It wasn't until more recently that
cities in Iowa as well as cities across the nation now realize the
benefits to special exceptions. Such uses are listed in the
ordinance where it's expected that they may create problems of
incompatibility with other uses permitted in the zones in which they
are located because of certain unique characteristics of the special
exceptions compared to the other uses.
Special exceptions must be approved by the Board of Adjustment,
provided that the conditions placed on them to ameliorate problems of
incompatibility will be met. The concern by many is that the Board
of Adjustment may abuse their powers by imposing such rigid
requirements upon special exceptions that it will make it difficult
or impossible for the uses to be established. While that may be
Plausible, I would not expect that to occur as boards of adjustment
have the tendency of being sympathetic to the establishment of
stringent requirements upon applicants.
The procedures for approval of special exceptions require that a
hpublic hearing
earingenablehbefore Board
s allpropertyowners
nthe vicinityeof the hproposed
,3,061
r
location of the special exception to voice their concern regarding
any aspects of the proposed use. That input provides valuable
information to the Board in establishing appropriate safeguards.
The alternative to the establishment of special exceptions is the
prohibition of the same uses in the zones where they are listed as
special exceptions. The Planning and Zoning Commission indicated
that they would feel very reluctant to permit most of the special
exceptions in the zones in which they were located unless they could
be approved after some review process with the establishment of
safeguards.
15. The 13,000 cfs (cubic feet per second) is too high a level for
defining the "river bank" in the ORC River Corridor Overlay Zone.
Residents along the Iowa River are concerned with the proposed ORC
Zone definition of river bank as the water level at 13,000 cfs
outflow from the Coralville Dam. They claim that this outflow alone,
without adding water from other sources as creeks, runoff, etc.,
would inundate their riverfront properties. Measuring the 30 foot
ORC setback or the 100 foot zone from the river bank, as defined,
i would be meaningless as the bank would most likely be found beyond
the depths of the riverfront properties.
Conversations with the Army Corps of Engineers indicate that these
concerns may be warranted. Release rates of 10,000 cfs or more from
the Coralville reservoir are the exception rather than the rule.
The.Army Corps of Engineers follows a regulation schedule adopted for
the Coralville Reservoir as a guideline for determining release
rates throughout the year. Three flood control time periods are
identified in the regulation schedule. May 1 to December 15
represents the longest interval of time. This 7h, month interval
includes a portion of the spring rains and, unless unusual
circumstances exist, only 4,000 cfs to 6,000 cfs are released during
this time period. Depending upon the amount of flood control storage
occupied within the reservoir, release rates of 6,000 cfs to 10,000
cfs are authorized for only a10 day period, from April 21 to May 1.
Although conditions may warrant releasing more than 6,000 cfs of
water from the reservoir between May 1 and December 15, generally,
6,000 cfs or less is released from the reservoir most of the year.
Staff recommends the use of the water level line at 6,000 cfs outflow
from the Coralville Dam to define river bank as that rate represents
the limit of normal conditions. A rate above 6,000 cfs describes
exceptional conditions. The ordinance should place restrictions
based upon conditions which occur most of the time rather than on
isolated circumstances.
306'
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: October 28, 1983
To: City Coun i
From: Don Schmei `! Director of Planning & Program Development
Re: Proposed Regulations for Fraternity/Sorority Houses
As instructed by the City Council, the new ordinance has been changed to
require that the occupancy level for fraternity/sorority houses be based
on the area of the lot on which the fraternity/sorority house is located
rather than on floor area. Accordingly, in each zone in which fraternity/sorority
houses are permitted as a provisional use, the following wording is
suggested:
"Fraternity/sorority houses, provided there shall be at least
square feet of lot area for each person residing on the premises."—
The amount of square feet per occupant required will depend upon the
number of persons allowed in a dwelling unit and the number of dwelling
units permitted in the same zone. For example, in the RM20 zone five
unrelated persons are permitted to reside in a multi -family dwelling
unit and 1800 square feet of lot area must be provided for each unit.
Therefore, a fraternity/sorority house in the RM20 zone would be required
to have 360 square feet (1800 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit
divided by 5 persons per dwelling unit) of lot area for each person
residing on the premises.
Of the 34 fraternity/sorority houses surveyed, only one such fraternity/sorority
house would be nonconforming because of this occupancy limitation. I
have discussed this matter with Ms. Kate Head, and she is amenable to
the proposed change.
I have not been able to establish or determine an appropriate parking
standard for fraternity/sorority houses. There appears to be no correlation
between the number of cars owned by residents of fraternity/sorority
houses and the number of members residing on the premises. Even more
frustrating is the fact that there appears to be a large inadequacy in
the number of parking spaces provided per the number of cars owned by
fraternity/sorority members. Any parking requirement established will
in all probability render a number of fraternity/sorority houses nonconforming.
bc5/3
,3070
City of Iowa Citi
MEMORANDUM
Date: October 28, 1983
To: City Counc
From:Don Schmels Director of Planning & Program Development
: Jim Hencin,,IUBG Program Coordinator
Re: Public Hearing on Recommended 1984 CDBG Program
The Committee on Community Needs has finalized its recommendations
to the City Council on the use of Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) funds in 1984. These recommendations, made at the October 26
special CCN meeting, are listed on Attachment A, in order of funding
priority. Note that CCN recommended 18 projects, plus general
program administration and contingencies, totalling $830,220. That
amount represents the $824,000 grant which the City expects to
receive from HUD on January 1, 1984, plus $6,220 in "program income"
from rehabilitation loan repayments.
Also, Attachment B provides the City Council with a full listing of
1984 funding requests which CCN received between September 20 and
October 18. Attachment B shows the priority votes (high, medium,
low) of the 9 CCN members present on October 26; the total points
assigned to their priorities; and the project rankings (1A -16D)
based on the points received ("1" being highest; ties indicated by
"A", "B", etc.). More detailed information on all funding requests
and CCN's recommendations will be sent to the City Council on
November 4.
In order to meet the December 1 deadline for submission of the 1984
Program Statement (grant application) to HUD, a public hearing on the
recommended program and budget has been set for November 7. The City
Council will be requested to adopt a final program and budget at the
November 22 formal Council meeting.
tp4/9
Attachments
307/
1984 CDBG FUNDING RECOMMENDATION
COMMITTEE ON COMMUNITY NEEDS
10-26-83
Project or Activit
1. Creekside Storm Drainage Project Completion
2. Cedarwood Apartments Community Center Equipment
3. Miller/Orchard Neighborhood Park Acquisition
4. Accessibility Guide for Iowa City/Coralville
Community
5. Mark IV/Willow Creek Neighborhood Center Van
6. Congregate Housing Construction
7. Nelson Adult Center Phase II Renovation
8. Housing Rehabilitation & Weatherization
-9. Brookland Park Improvements
10. Creekside Alley Repair
11. Iowa Youth Corps Park Shelter Construction
12. Kirkwood Circle Drainage and Surfacing
13. Longfellow Playground Improvements
14. Shared Housing
15. Rental Rehabilitation
16. American Red Cross Emergency Disaster Assistance
17. Alternative Housing Site Acquisition
18. Creekside Sidewalks
19. General Program Administration
20. Contingency.
TOTAL
Projects listed in order of CCN priority ranking.
J
Attachment A
Recommended
Allocation
$ 18,700
4,000
60,000
560
15,000
225,000
41,400
125,000
5,000
2,500
12,318
60,000
3,250
15,000
24,000
5,000
50,000
47,000
106,260
10,332
830,220
3 07/
F.
RRn.IRrT
A.
J
Project
1.
Mark IV/Willow I
RRn.IRrT
A.
Creekside Storm
Project
1.
Mark IV/Willow I
Neighborhood Cei
2.
JCARC Nelson Adi
Center Renovatti
3.
Ralston Creek Ir
Creekside
4.
Property Acquis
Clearance
S.
Historic Rehabi''
Program
6.
Historic Presern
Planning
).
Creekside Sldewi
PROJECT
o.
lreeKslae Alley R
9.
Rental Rehabilita
Program
10.
Accessibility Guli
Iowa City/Coralvi'
Community
11.
Elevator at Old Br
12.
Sturgis Ferry Park
Update
13.
Brookland Park imp
Project
14.
Senior Center Intel
System
15.
Phonic Ear Special
Hearing System
L
n
i
PROJECT
16.
Iowa Youth Corps - Pai
Shelter Construction
17.
Congregate Housing
18.
Housing Rehabilitation
and Heatherization
19.
Shared Housing
20.
Alternative Housing Si'
Acquisition
21.
Senior Center Energy
Management System
22.
Longfellow Playground
Improvements
23.
HACAP/Johnson County
Multi-purpose Center
24.
Miller/Orchard Neighbor
hood Park Acquisition
PROJECT
25.
Cedarwood Apartmer
munity Center Equi
26.
River City Housing
tive (lousing Purch
Rehabilitation
27.
Consolidated Human
Facility
28.
Shared Youth Servii
29.
Kirkwood Circle Drr
and Surfacing
30.
American Red Cross
gency Disaster Asst
31.
General Program Ada
tration
i. nM ntwutau.0
1984 COOG Funds expecte
TOTAL AVAILABLE
J
Li
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: October 26, 1983
To: City Council
From: Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission
Re: Historic Preservation Awards Program
The Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission is starting their first
annual Historic Preservation Awards Program. The Commission has invited
three people to serve as a jury to review projects that have been
submitted for consideration in the awards program. Two entrants will be
selected by the jury as recipients of the 1983 Iowa City Historic
Preservation Awards Program. Copies of the application and advertisement
have been enclosed for your review. All projects must represent
historically sensitive rehabilitation or aesthetically sensitive new
construction that has been carried out within Iowa City.
Rather than present the winners with a Certificate of Appreciation, the
Commission felt that a bronze plaque would be more appropriate and
effective. The plaques could be fastened to buildings or posts and serve
as visual displays. Cost per plaque is approximately $125, therefore, in
order to issue bronze plaques the Commission would like to request from
the City Council either a) $250 remuneration to cover the cost of the
plaques, or b) a resolution authorizing the Commission to solicit funds
for the purpose of purchasing plaques.
The use of plaques as an award would assist in the tangible display of the
merits of historic preservation as well as provide an aesthetic incentive
for participation in the program.
bdw3/14
,307.2.
Ci
1983
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
AWARDS
PROGRAM
Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission
Applications may be picked up at the Department of Planning & Program
Development • Civic Center' 410 E. Washington' Iowa City, Iowa 52240
or call 356-5247.
The deadline for submitting an application is: November 30, 1983, 4:00 PM.
Please submit applications to the Department of Planning and Program
Development • Civic Center • 410 E. Washington • Iowa City, Iowa 52240.
For information call Margaret Nowysz, Chairperson • Iowa City Historic
Preservation Commission' 337-9934 or 356-5247.
307.2
Li
1983 HISTORIC AWARDS PROGRAM
IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
PURPOSE:
The Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission has
implemented an historic awards program in order to foster
pride in the historic attributes of Iowa City buildings and
to reward individuals and businesses who have either
rehabilitated historic structures or constructed newer
buildings that enhance historic areas.
ELIGIBILITY:
Projects may be nominated by the owner, resident or
another interested person. The project may exemplify
building exteriors, grounds or other forms of historic
significance within Iowa City. The project must be located
within the corporate limits of Iowa City, Iowa, and must be
completed prior to the deadline for receipt of submissions.
An individual or firm may submit an unlimited number of
entries.
SCHEDULE:
Entry slides and required data must be received at the
Department of Planning and Program Development Office,
322 East Washington Street, before 4:00 p.m. on November
30, 1983.
SUBMISSION:
For each project submitted, the applicant is required to
provide materials which properly illustrate the work. A
maximum of fifteen 35 mm slides that can be placed in a
standard 80 slide Carousel slide tray may be included for
each entry.
Information concerning the project must be placed on the
Descriptive Data Sheet which is provided to each entrant.
It is desirable to have photos/slides of the predesign
condition of projects which involve remodeling or
restoration.
_ 3d7.z
APPLICATION
Check if applicable:
Residential
Commercial
Grounds
APPLICANT:
Name:
Address:
Phone:
LOCATION OF NOMINATED PROPERTY:
Property Name:
Address:
OWNER OF NOMINATED PROPERTY:
Name:
Address:
Phone:
PROJECT ARCHITECT:
Name:
Address:
PROJECT CONSULTANTS:
Name:
Address:
Name:
Address:
CONTRACTOR WHO COMPLETED WORK:
Name:
Address:
PHOTOGRAPHER:
Name:
Address:
New construction
Rehabilitation
J
3el7z
J
1983 HISTORIC AWARDS PROGRAM
IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
COMPLETING THE DESCRIPTIVE DATA SHEET
Attached is a completed Descriptive Data Sheet which is to serve as a
sample of how that sheet may be completed. Because the judges reviewing
this information will not be Iowa City residents and are probably
unfamiliar with your project, it is important that you provide as much
information regarding your nomination as possible. All projects,
regardless of magnitude, will be considered.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Margaret
Nowysz, Chair, Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission, Civic Center,
Iowa City, Iowa.
3074
SAMPLE
1983 HISTORIC AWARDS PROGRAM
IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
DESCRIPTIVE DATA SHEET
SPECIFIC USE OF BUILDING: Structure is located on the edge of the
Central Business District in a proposed historic district.
First Floor: Commercial
Second Floor: Multi -Family Residential
PROJECT STATEMENT: The project involves the restoration of a building
and replacement -of architectural elements deteriorated by deferred mainte-
nance. This building was originally a single-family dwelling and the size
and location of this structure have made it economically infeasible to
continue this original use. We have tried to sensitively convert its use
to an art gallery and an insurance office on the lower level. The upstairs
currently houses two apartments; however, nonload-bearing walls may be re-
moved and the structure may be used for single-family use.
TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION AND MATERIALS:
Wood frame construction with wrought iron ornamental cresting
Rubble foundation
Asphalt shingle roof -
AREA AND COST DATA: 5,000 square feet+; $18,000±
3o7Z
q
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: October 28, 1983
To: City Council
From: Rosemary Vitosh, Director of Finance
Re: Word Processing Center Equipment
Bids were taken on new word processing equipment for the City's Word
Processing Center this fall. The attached memo details staff's recommen-
dation for the new equipment; the City Manager approved the purchase of
the equipment in late September at which time the equipment was ordered.
This information is being provided to you to provide more background
information for your consideration of the City Clerk's request for
equipment for her office.
bdw/sp
3073
r.
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: September 22, 1983
To: Neal Berlin, City Manager
From: Rosemary Vitosh, Director of Financepi
Re: Word Processing Center Equipment
Current IBM mag card equipment is of outdated technology and the continued
increased maintenance costs to the equipment is not justified. Staff is
recommending replacement with equipment of current word processing technology
and increasing total printing capabilities by 30% for $70 -per month over the
current operating budget.
Proposals were received on August 19, 1983 for replacement of word processing
equipment. Equipment was evaluated that would encompass new word processing
text editing capabilities, ergonomics, utilizing current staff level,
upgradability for software and hardware in the future and at an operating cost
within the current budget.
Proposals were evaluated according to the following factors with their
accompanying weights: 45% conformance to specified features, ability to adapt
to present and future needs of the City; 30% total cost; 20% service
responsiveness, training, continued vendor support; 5% references.
Six (6) proposals were received and after preliminary analysis three vendors
were requested to provide demonstrations. Final comparison was between Modern
Business Systems, Cedar Rapids, Iowa (Compucorp equipment) and Electronic
Business Equipment, Moline, Illinois (CPT equipment).
Proposed Systems
Barb Coffey, Word Processing Supervisor, evaluated thoroughly each proposed
system in relation to features, effect on current operations and future
adaptability. Compucorp equipment has been recommended as the best system for
the City of Iowa City word processing needs. Below is a brief summary of the
major differences between the two systems.
1. Compucorp has a network orientation (all terminals can interact with each
other and peripherals (e.g. printers) directly. CPT's distributed logic
allows for one terminal to send information to another via the hard disk as
an intermediate. A terminal that does not have direct interface to a
printer sends a document to the hard disk where another terminal which does
have access to the desired printer picks it up and directs it to print.
2. - CPT offers 30 megabytes of hard disk storage vs. Compucorp's proposed
15 megabytes.
- Compucorp has 192K per terminal vs. CPT's 128K per terminal.
CPT has single sided, single density diskettes (127 pages) vs.
Compucorp's dual sided, double density diskettes (350 pages).
Barb feels that the power (K) in the terminal is a more crucial factor than the
advantage of more megabytes of hard disk storage since the Word Processing
307.3
2
Center does not anticipate that all documents would go onto hard disk storage.
Hard disk storage would be for form letters, daily correspondence, and the
documents that see a lot of revision activity. The longer, infrequently revised
documents need not be immediately accessible but instead could go onto floppy
disks.
3. Compucorp had more ergonomic features than CPT. CPT's screen is fixed,
Compucorp's pivots and tilts to counteract glare. The pivot and tilting of
screens is becoming almost a mandatory feature for new word processing
systems.
4. Compucorp has a priority override for items awaiting printing in a queue.
With CPT you obtain priority by deleting each preceding queue.
5. Compucorp has a document orientation vs. a page orientation provided by
CPT. Considering the amount of heavy editing of long documents the City
does, document orientation is being recommended over a page orientation.
Costs
Life Cycle Costing was evaluated for each system over a five5
Total costs were very similar: five(5) Year period.
Compucorp CPT
Total Equipment $50,728 $47,489
Total Maintenance 28,260 31,345
Total Cost $78,988 $78,834
,Remaining within the current operating budget was a major consideration for the
acquisition. Funds were not available for an outright purchase from a vendor,
therefore municipal lease/purchase options were included as part of the request
for proposal. Equipment vendors were offering lease/purchase agreements at over
23% financing per year. Cathy Eisenhofer, Purchasing Agent, contacted several
national municipal leasing companies and has obtained a 10.77% annual lease over
a five year period ($23,000 savings) which does allow the acquisition of the
equipment very close to the operating budget figures. This type of leasing
arrangement will allow us to acquire equipment that has state-of-the-art text
editing capabilities, expand the total printing capabilities by 30% for peak
loads, and at an additional cost of only $70 per month over our current
operating costs.
Your approval is being requested to upgrade the Word Processing Center equipment
and to amend the budget for the additional $70 per month operating costs.
bc4/8
303
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: October 28, 1983
To: City Manager and City Council
From: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk
Re: Record Management in City Clerk's Office
Problem Areas
The City Clerk's office has identified four problem areas:
1. Workload heavy - small staff
2. Limited storage
3. Limited customer service area
4. Deteriorating cemetery books
Workload in the Clerk's office has steadily increased. Retrieval requests
have increased from 1,603 for calendar year 1982, to 3,153 for 9 months
of 1983, an approximately increase of 96% over the past year. Phone
inquiries have doubled in the last year alone. The number of Council
meetings has also increased. However, the City Clerk's office staff of
three has not increased since 1975.
Limited storage area continues to be a problem. Vault storage is shared
with the Finance Department and adequate space for both departments is
growing smaller. Currently my office is housing 42 boxes (17XllX26) in
the vault and downstairs in the retention area. Legal has researched
the question of retention of hard copy documents after microfilming and
determined some records can be destroyed.
The Clerk's office has a small counter area measuring 7 feet, 9 inches .
in length. However, the clerk typist's desk and file measures 6 feet, 7
inches. This leaves only 14 inches of open space for customer service.
Individuals doing lengthy research/retrieval often occupy the counter
for over 30 minutes at a time. This causes congestion when another
citizen requires assistance. It should be noted that over 80% of our
retrieval requests are not current year but involve searching past year
indexes.
Currently five cemetery deed books are housed in the Clerk's office.
These books date from 1864 to the present and represent over 2,290
transactions. The two oldest books are deteriorating rapidly. There is
a need for the records to be centralized and basic information readily
available.
I
Available EouiDnent
After discussions with the City Manager, City Clerk, Finance Director,
Word Processing and computer representatives, the Compucorp Information
Processors have emerged as a possibility for the department's use. A
logical relationship exists with our office and the Word Processing
Center (WPC) and it would be helpful to be tied in with WPC for several
reasons. Currently a Complete Description rough draft is typed in the
Clerk's office, Word Processing retypes and submits back for approval.
Corrections are then made, xerox copy edited for Official Actions and
again revised by Word Processing. This results in double typing of the
same material and often pushes both departments to complete the task so
legal publication deadlines can be met. With this system the rough
draft would be typed directly on the terminal, and Word Processing would
receive via terminal and store for future revisions. The minutes would
not have to be retyped by staff. The only equipment that would allow us
this tie-in capability would be Compucorp - the same company that equipped
WPC. This direct tie-in could be expanded at a later time with a printer
that could deliver text directly back to the Clerk's office. A printer
in the Clerk's office would be advantageous for legal publications. The
notices could be dictated to Word Processing by other departments and
delivered directly to our office via the printer.
Compucorp offers three models of work stations. The Clerk's work station
would be networked by cabling into the Word Processing Center equipment
and would run off the Center's software for both the word processing
function and the records processing function.
Model #745 is a diskless work station. Data would be stored on the hard
disk in the WPC. A limited amount of storage (shared with WPC) would be
available and would mean that only the current year's index would be on-
line all the time. Prior years' index listings and other files, such as
cemetery records, would need to be loaded into memory by the WPC staff
when it was time to update the records. For these records, hardcopy
listings would be used for retrieval on a daily basis and the work
station would be used only as a tool for updating records, it would not
be used for retrieval of information.
Model #775 is a work station with two floppy diskette drives. It would
allow the Clerk's staff to directly input the files stored on separate
floppy diskettes and any file could be placed on-line as needed. The
work station could then be used for both updating and retrieval. The
work station could also be used when the WPC's system was not operating,
such as after hours and on weekends. The diskless work station, model
#745, can only be used when the WPC system is operating. The Clerk's
staff would need to start up the WPC system if they wanted to use their
equipment after hours.
Li
3
Model #785 is a work station with one floppy diskette drive and one hard
disk drive. The hard disk has a storage capacity of five megabytes
which is 7h times the storage capacity of a floppy diskette. This would
allow all files to be on-line all the time and would eliminate the need
to input files continuously from floppy diskettes.
Table I outlines the costs projected for five years for each model,
including set-up and supplies. Printer costs for each model are also
included.
Summar
Although any of three models will help the Clerk's office, the models
differ as to their ability to address the four problems identified (1)
workload heavy - small staff, 2) limited storage, 3) limited customer
service area and 4) deteriorating cemetery books).
Model #745
Problem
1. Would be able to put current year index and free staff time for
other duties; Council minutes could be typed directly.
2 Has limited storage; storage in 'APC; no expansion.
3. Model would not be used for 80% of retrieval requests and hard copy
would still be utilized at the counter.
4.* Could allow conversion to disk but would require WPC to load and
unload disk back to this model and could cause waiting problems.
Model #775
1. Would allow quicker access than hard copy of current and past year
index; Council minutes could be typed directly.
2. Has unlimited storage (with floppy disks).
3. Model would be used for retrieval and located at the counter for
quicker customer service. However, this model would require storage
for disks in the office.
4. Would allow converting to disks of deteriorating books.
CF_
4
Model #785
1. Would allow quickest access (all files on-line all the time);
Council minutes could be input directly.
2. Has unlimited storage (7� times capacity of floppy disk).
3. Model would be located at counter for retrieval uses and provide
best customer service. Less amount of storage required for smaller
floppy disks.
4. Would allow conversion of deteriorating books.
Model #745 alone has limited storage, is available only when the Word
Processing Center is operating, and could not be used for retrieval.
Model #775 would have unlimited storage and operate with or without WPC.
This model would help alleviate staff time indexing and filing current
materials, aid with storage problems, provide customers direct on-line
access to records, and allow for deteriorating cemetery books to be put
directly on-line. One concern is that with only one terminal staff will
not have access to records and WPC while customer retrievals are in
process. Therefore, #745 would provide staff with one work unit for
daily updating while #775 would allow the unlimited storage and retrieval
for customer service.
Model #785 would allow all files to be on-line at all times and be more
convenient than working with floppy disks, but would not alleviate the
problems of simultaneous staff and customer use.
Status Report
The Clerk's office has acquired the new used desks from WPC and will be
rearranging this week. One access thru our office has been closed and
will allow us to move the Clerk -Typist desk back from the counter. This
will mean a much more open customer service area. We are also starting
to destroy documents already microfilmed and freeing up additional
space.
I will be meeting with Mike Noth from the University Weeg Computer
Center re possible use of a microcomputer to solve some of our problems
and comparables will be made as to cost and feasibility of using Compucorp
or some other company. (Mr. Noth assisted Finance with selection of the
City's computer.) We need to determine if a tie-in with WPC is best for
identified problems, whether a microcomputer or combination of the two
should be considered. A report will be sent to you within 30 days and I
will be requesting informal discussion at that time.
/sp
3e7�e
Ci
f
POLICE DEPARTMENT REPORT
September, 1983
Citizen generated requests for police services increased
slightly in September
as compared
to 3152. Increases were recorded
to July, 3198 as compared
in the following reporting
categories:
Classification
July
September
Assault
27
32
Larceny
196
210
Forgery/Counterfeiting
7
8
Vandalism
103
113
Controlled Substances
9
11
014I
46
51
Intoxication
42
59
iDisorderly Conduct
355
449
Vagrancy
8
13
Juvenile
32
58
Mental
8.
10
Suicide
3
5
Other Accidents
11
17
Attempt to Locate
59
88
Sudden Death
0
'1
Gunshots
0
5
Miscellaneous Services
12
22
Miscellaneous Information
113
120
Lost/Found Property
33
23
Hazardous Roads
8
20
The largest increase. . . disorderly conduct. , is probably
Bccasioned by an increased number of beer drinkers
while the number of available restrooms remains
in the downtown
relatively constant.
In general, no significance can be
attached to
any of the other
increased.
Arrests were effected in three hundred fifteen
incidents and a
total of 2963 citations or tickets
was issued.
One hundred eighty-
four illegally parked vehicle were
towed. 0.W.I.,
intoxication,
disorderly conduct and vagrancy arrests accounted
for more than
one-half of the arrests made in Iowa City during
September.
3o7S
.J
J
Animal Control activities increased moderately during the month
as compared to the same month one year ago.
0..
w
r
K,
City of Iowa city
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 28, 1983
TO: Neal Berlin, City DIanager
FROM: Harvey D. Dfiller, Police Chief
RE: Noise Complaints
Sergeant Cook has been regularly recording noise
complaints and periodically updating the tally by
number; month; type of complaint and disposition.
Attached, for your information, is the most current
update. Of special interest, I believe, is that
contact of the officer with the offender normally
leads to a reasonably satisfactory resolution o
the problem.
Li
Name Ar
Oct. 131 11
1982
Nov.
1982
79
4
Dec.
53
5
1982
Jan.
57
A
1983
re—F.—
61
G
1983
lar.
1983
92
8
pr.
1983
130
1
Day
1983
141
1
TU—TTe
1983
53
8
u1y
1983
112
1
Aug.
1983
88
1.
Sept.
1983
121
1
UE—t.
1983
ov.
1983
ec.
1983
CITY
CIVIC CENTER
CSF
410 E. WASHINGTON ST
October 24, 1983
OW/A
IOWA CITY, IOWA F2240
Mr. Randall P. Bezanson
Vice -President for Finance & University Services
101 Jessup Hall
University of Iowa
Iowa City, Iowa 52242
Dear Mr. Bezanson:
l
CITY
(319) 356-C7 ODD
The Broadband Telecommunications Commission (BTC) of the City of
Iowa City is charged with the responsibility of monitoring the
development and progress of the cable system, channels and
facilities in Iowa City, Iowa. One of the areas the City and
Commission have worked hard to implement and develop has been the
cable production access facilities located in the Jc,o City Public
Library which are available from Hawkeye CableVision.
These facilities and services, which Hawkeye CableVision offers the
citizens of Iowa City, are part of their obligation to the City as a
result of the Iowa City franchise and contract. These facilities and
services, which include workshops in video pre -production,
production, editing, lighting, studio, portable switcher and the use
of the corresponding equipment, are offered free of charge to
citizens of Iowa City. It is these facilities and services that are
the subject of this letter and are of specific concern and interest
to the Commission.
While we have wanted to insure these workshops and equipment are
available to Iowa Citians, it has become increasingly difficult to do
so for several reasons. One of those reasons is the University of
Iowa student participation in workshops and their use of the
equipment. It has been our observation that a large segment of our
users have been students attending the University of Iowa.
We have no trouble understanding why students wish to use our
facilities and want to make use of the opportunities they present.
It is oftentimes difficult for these students to gain access to the
facilities and equipment at the University, so it is logical they
would seek out this alternative. It has been of great benefit for
many of them to do so too, because they have learned skills and
techniques that they could not have learned otherwise. This
situation has been of some benefit to the community as well, because
some of the programs these students have created are shown over the
access channels and thus are contributions to the richness and
enhancement of the Iowa City community life.
3077
Li
1
Mr. Randall P. Bezanson
October 24, 1983
Page 2
However, as more and more people learn of, are trained on and use
Hawkeye's equipment in the Iowa City Public Library, the demand for
this equipment, the related maintenance costs and the life
expectancy of this equipment change considerably. Since there is a
finite amount of money and equipment allocated for the workshops and
equipment, both from Hawkeye's franchise provision agreements (which
Hawkeye has already exceeded) and the City's franchise fee funds
which are used to support cable and access related endeavors (we have
no General Fund money, and all franchise fee money is allocated for
this area), the situation is becoming increasingly difficult. The
equipment can hardly be maintained, let alone the possibility of
keeping up with the state of the art in equipment technology and
offerings. The University of Iowa students, eager to use -our
facilities and having more time to do so than the average Iowa City
resident, contribute to the situation. In some ways and to some
extent at the cost of Iowa City residents.
We have also written to Coralville and University Heights about their
residents' use of the Hawkeye CableVision equipment and workshops
located and given in the Iowa City Public Library. We have received
a positive response from Coralville.
We would like to have an opportunity to discuss possible solutions to
the situation with you and/or other appropriate University
representatives. Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
We look forward to hearing from you soon.
Sincerely,
W _ M//
W.O. "Bill" erry
BTC Chairperson
bdw4/4-5
cc: Drew Shaffer
BTC Members
Connie Tiffany
MR. Sam Decker
City Council
3 077
R 1333
TDAI Statement Concerning
FAA Tower Determination
The Television Development Association of Iowa's (TDAI)
efforts to provide Iowa City with its first commercial
television station were seriously harmed today by the Federal
Aviation Administration's (FAA) determination against the
multi-user tower needed for the station to serve more than
10,000 square miles of Eastern Iowa.
However, the Iowa City Airport Commission apparently has
within its power the ability to permit TDAI to continue working
towards the station so it can be in operation in 1984.
If the station cannot be in operation by the first of
October 1984, it may not be feasible for Iowa City ever to
have a powerful regional commercial television station. The
economic feasibility of the station depends upon the lead
time the station has on television signals from satellites
directly to homes equipped with small and relatively inexpensive
earth stations (DHS). In addition, substantial advertising
revenue expenditures resulting from the 1984 election will
be critical to the station in its early weeks, and if these
revenues cannot be realized, the station's early losses might
be fatal.
It will take a minimum of nine months to construct the
station. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) must
grant a construction permit before construction begins. The
construction permit cannot be granted until a transmitting
tower receives FAA approval. It is unclear how long it will
take to receive the construction permit after an FAA approval.
TDAI can ask for a Federal review of the adverse finding
by the FAA Kansas City Regional Office. However, such a
review would take several months --clearly too long for the
station to be operating by October 1984. A review also would
be expensive for TDAI, the FAA and taxpayers.
TDAI first asked the Airport Commission to take a stand
on the tower in July. Two subsequent approval requests have
been made to the Commission by TDAI. Although the FAA has
the impression that the Commission is opposed to the tower,
because of correspondence from the Airport Manager, the
Commission officially has not taken a stand.
It appears that a vote by the Commission to delay the
implementation of an new instrument approach under development
into the airport would result in a favorable finding by the
FAA on the tower. The instrument approach is not essential
to the airport until a planned extension of its runway 06
is completed. TDAI has offered to make a gift to the Commission
for substantially all of the costs in obtaining an instrument
307,7
Ci
approach to runway 06 that would not interfere with the
communications tower. The resulting approach probably would
be superior to the approach that the Commission has been
planning. There will be plenty of time to implement.an
improved instrument approach before runway 06 is extended
and becomes the airport's primary runway.
The communications tower would offer substantial economic
and other benefits to Iowa City and Eastern Iowa. Among those
benefits are several for aviation directly. The tower would
serve as an aeronautical navigation aid. It also likely would
reduce the total number of obstructions to aviation to be
built in the Iowa City -Cedar Rapids area within the next few
years because it would be available for many different
communications applications.
Most cities of any size are excited at the prospects of
a new television station. TDAI is not proposing to construct
and operate only a powerful regional television station. The
station also would serve as the flagship station for a statewide
network available to as many as a million homes. The station
would be a a communications conduit for the culture of Iowa
City that would attract attention, admiration and economic
benefits to the city.
By failing to support the tower, the Airport Commission
would be making an extremely serious error --probably against
its own immediate interests and overwhelmingly against the
interests of the general public. Part of the reason for the
Commission's inaction is a recent otherwise unrelated controversy
over the construction of buildings near the airport that require
the abandonment of a sizeable portion of the main runway.
This controversy has made the Commission members overly
cautious about taking any action that might result in
additional criticism from pilots who use the airport.
The television project proposed by TDAI is highly
speculative financially. The Iowa City station would lose
hundreds of thousands of dollars before it has any chance
to make money. Although TDAI hopes that someday it will
realize economic gain from the station, the primary beneficiary
of its construction and operation will be the public of Iowa,
especially the people of Iowa City. The Airport Commission
needs.to take a leadership role on resolving this matter so
that the public interest can be served.
Bill Newbrough
Director
October li , 1983
,307
Cr
NARRATIVE
Aeronautical Scudy No. 83 -ACE -573-06
Williamstown, IA
1. LOCATION OF PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
5.6 miles northwest of Williamstown, Iowa.
2. OBSTRUCTION STANDARDS EXCEEDED
The proposed construction would exceed obstruction standards of Federal Aviation
Regulations, Part 77, as follows:
77.23(a)(1). A height more than 500 feet AGL. Exceeds by 1500 feet.
77.23(a)(3). A height that increases a minimum instrument flight altitude
within a terminal area.
3. EFFECT ON AERONAUTICAL OPERATIONS
a. Enroute: Would increase the minimum vectoring altitude of Chicago ARTCC
to 3800 feet in the quadrant of the structure. .
b. Terminal:
(1) The structure would raise the minimum vectoring altitude of Cedar
Rapids Approach Control in the quadrant of the antenna from 2500
feet to 3800 feet.
(2) Would require an increase in minimum descent altitudes (MDA) and
visibility minimums for the NDB Rwy 6 and NDB/VOR Rwy 6 as follows:
NDB Rwy 6
Existing MDA Straight in and Circling 1420 MSL (759' height above touchdown)
Increase required 2300 HSL (1639' height above touchdown)
Visibility minimums in miles for straight in and circling approach
Category A B C D
Existing 1 lk 2k 24
Increase required lit I4 3 3
NDB/VOR 6
Existing MDA Circling only 1200 MSL (539' height above touchdown)
Increase required 2300 MSL (1639' height above touchdown)
Visibility minimums in miles for circling approach
Category A B C D
Existing 1 1 lk 2
Increase required Lk 14 3 3
2
(3) An IFR departure limitation would be required for takeoffs on Rwys
24 and 30 at Iowa City.
4. CIRCULARIZATION AND COMMENTS RECEIVED
a. The proposal was circularized to all known affected aviation interests
and to nonaeronautical interests that may be affected by the proposal.
b. Comments.
Objections received during the comment period are consolidated since many
spoke to the same issues. Objections were based upon the following effects.
The proposed structure would:
(1) Increase the minimum vectoring altitude (MVA)which would increase
rate of descent into Cedar Rapids and Iowa City or may cause prolonged
flight for arrivals into those airports.
(2) Cause IFR aircraft to remain higher in winter which would be conducive
to icing.
(3) Be unacceptably close to V6 and V67.
(4) Be hard to see in minimum weather conditions or when flying into
the sun.
j (5) Be on the 290° radial from the Iowa City VOR to Weiss Airport which
is used frequently.
(6) Be on a direct line from Iowa City Airport to Orville Weiss Airport.
i
(7) Be a hazard to flights from Iowa City to Williamsburg. Iowa and
Marengo, Iowa.
(8) Between Iowa City and Des Moines.
(9) Be in the center of a designated acrobatic/VFR practice area.
(10) Be a danger to instrument approach procedures for aircraft from
Des Moines, Iowa to Iowa City.
(11) Increase ND8 approach minimums.
In evaluating the aeronautical affect, the impact on IFR and VFR flights
are analyzed.
The minimum vectoring altitude would be increased in the quadrant of the
antenna site from 2500 feet to 3800 feet. Aircraft arriving in a path in close
proximity to the antenna and at an altitude of less than 3800 feet MSL would
be turned slightly to avoid the antenna. The additional flight time would be
307f
Gi
3
minimal. Aircraft arriving directly over the antenna ac 1000 feet above (3820
feet MSL) would have approxima rely 13 miles to descend in order to reach
traffic pattern altitude (600 feet AGL) at Iowa City requiring a descent rate
of approximately 200'feet per mile. For VFR flight this is not restrictive or
steep. Cedar Rapids is further from the antenna (17 miles) with less impact.
The structure would be located off airways and not affect minimum enroute altitudes.
In answer to the claim that the antenna would be hard co see, the strobe light
system would provide a high level of conspicuity during all weather conditions.
One objection was based upon the claim that it would be on a direct line from
the Iowa City Airport to Weiss Airport and on the 290° radial from the Iowa
City VOR to Weiss Airport. As a result of a previous case, Mr. Orville Weiss
advised that he has a landing strip approximately 2 miles east-southeast of
Williamsburg, Iowa. The strip is uncharted and has not been submitted to the
FAA for review as of this date. However, the strip is there as evidenced by
Mr. Weiss. In a previous study, Mr. Weiss advised that he flies to his airport
from Iowa City about twice a week. Mr. Weiss also claimed the tower would
be on the 290° radial from Iowa City VOR to the Weiss Airport. There is not
substantiating evidence that a VFR flyway is established between these
points. There are no surface visual routes such as major highways, railraods,
etc. within 2 statute miles of the site that would be used extensively by
pilots in minimum weather conditions flying with visual reference to the
ground. Also, the fact that the antenna is between Des Moines and Iowa
City does not in itself establish a VFR flyway. The cities are separated by
92 miles.
The proposed antenna site is located within the confines of an area used for
VFR flight instruction and practice by student pilots. Mr. E. K. Jones,
owner/operacor of Iowa City Flying Service states that his company provides
flight instruction and aircraft rental among other services. The school
utilizes an area bounded on the west by longitude 92°00', on the north by
Interstate 80, and on the east by railroad tracks running through West Branch,
Iowa, West Liberty, Iowa, and southerly to Columbus Junction, Iowa, and on the
south by latitude 41°201.
Mr. Larry Kuebrick, General Manager of Green Castle Aviation, from Green Castle
Airport stated that his company provides flight instruction using five single
engine trainers and one multiengine trainer. Their school uses the area south
of I-80 and north of Kalona Airport which is located approximately 9 miles south
of the proposed antenna.
In September 1982, the City of Iowa City, Iowa, after coordination with
regional Flight Standards and Airway Facilities personnel, submitted a Notice
of Proposed Construction stating their intent to install a city owned
nondirectional radio beacon (NDB) to enhance the IFR capability of the airport.
Subsequently, the City of Iowa City requested that approaches be established to
Runways 6, 24, and 30. It is hereby noted that the plan and proposal for the
NDB navaid preceded the proposal to construct the antenna as denoted in
Aeronautical Study Number 83 -ACE -573 -OE dated June 22, 1983, by several
months. The proposed site is within the NDB instrument approach maneuvering
area.
307f
4
The MDA for the NDB approach is established at 1420 feet MSL (759 feet above
touchdown) for the straight -in and circling approach to Runway 6. This would
increase to 2300 feet MSL (1639 feet above touchdown) if the tower is
constructed. The effect would eliminate the usefulness of the approach since
minimums would be over 600 feet above VFR minimums which is 1000 foot ceiling.
Additionally, lower NDB/VOR approach minimums are established for Runway 6
using an Iowa City VOR cross radial as a stepdown fix. A stepdown fix would
not resolve the effect if the tower is built.
Responses were received suggesting the final approach course be moved further
south to accommodate the antenna. The subsequent review revealed that the
approach maneuvering area could not be located so as to clear the antenna,
either on the north or south side, and yet meet straight -in approach criteria.
The maneuvering area was reviewed with the procedure turn on the north side
and south side of the final approach course. The antenna still remained
within the area affecting the MDA.
S. ANALYSIS
a. The structure would be in a training area used by two flight schools.
b. Currently, two instrument approach procedures are published for Iowa City
Municipal Airport. They are (a) RNAV Rwy 24, and (b) VOR Rwy 35. Total
instrument operations for the 12 -month period August 1982 thru July 1983, was
5973. Actual instrument approaches for the same period was 589. To provide
additional IFA capability and utilization of the Iowa City Municipal Airport
the City has installed the nondirectional beacon to provide straight -in
approaches to Rwy 6 and Rwy 30. The IFR MDA would be increased for the NDB
Rwy 6 instrument approach procedure utilizing a public use navaid for which
public funds have been expanded. The loss of MDA would render the NDB
ineffective as an IFR approach aid. Negotiations with the sponsor did not
resolve the effects. A suggestion to relocate further west would have
relieved the impact an the NDB Hwy 6 approach procedure and may have reduced
the VFR impact. A lower tower or towers was suggested. Neither alternative
is acceptable to the proponent.
6. DETERMINATION - HAZARD
For the reasons stated above, it is determined the proposed construction
would have a substantial adverse effect on the safe and efficient use of
navigable airspace by aircraft and therefore a hazard.
3078
MINUTES OF STAFF MEETING
October 26, 1983
Referrals from the informal and formal Council meetings of October 24
and 25 were reviewed and discussed by the staff (copy attached).
The Assistant City Manager advised that the City Manager and Mayor would
be returning from the Invest in America's Cities Conference on Thursday
night.
The Assistant City Manager further advised that no Council meeting would
be held on November 8. Instead a special Council meeting will be held
in conjunction with the informal meeting on November 7. The agenda for
this special meeting is to be brief.
The City Clerk asked that the microphones for several Council members
in the Chambers be repaired. The Clerk was asked to supply a list of
microphones which were out of order.
The Human Relations Director advised that the training for department
heads had been changed from November 1 to November 18.
Prepared by: ��
Q�G✓aha�r �AaJItt/
Lorraine Saeger
367y
l
1
Informal Council Meet
October 24, 1983
SUBJE
Dirt in Street
Fraternities/Sororitie,
Bob Wolf Development
Lletters Counci
mp
Ramp Permits
Li
W
O
�0
Regular Council fleeting
October 25, 1983
&BJE(
Special Meeting
Wastewater Facilities G
recommendations
404-406 South Dubuque
Knights of Columbus reqs
Meeting with Board of SL
Request from Convention
Bagel Bakery Agreement
Cable Rate Increase
Board of Electrical Exam
7
-a
G F-
Regular
pi
�p
October 25,�ncil 1983h1eeting DEPARTMENT REFERRALS
Page 2
SMECT DATE REFERRED DATE 11 1
RECD M DDE F
Blackhawk Minipark
Assisted Housing Staffing
Highway #1 Speed Limits
Zoning Ordinance
0-25 11 Assistant
Human Relat
0-25 Public Worl
IPolice
0-15 P&PD/
Assistant C
COMMENTS/STATUS
Reply for Mayor re. recommendation
from Parks and Recreation Commission:
1. $160,000 from Central Junior High.
Ile nanny^Yi
c* 'll h
minimized - under $100,000. ,
w f
Provide Council with information
on additional costs.
Passed and adopted.
Schedule discussion on November 1.
Categorize discussion and notify
all speakers at public hearing when
Respond to input from public hearing
(written and oral) for Friday packer
CITY OF IOWA CITY
CITIZEN INPUT SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE DATA
110NTH OF August 1983
NUMBER OF QUESTIONNAIRES MAILED 500
NUMBER OF RESPONSES RECEIVED 53 10.6 %
i
NUMBER OF REQUESTS MADE WITHIN THE PAST YEAR FROM THE FOLLOWING DEPARTMENTS:
Animal Control 5
City Manager 5
Code Enforcement 5
Finance
Fire I
Housing Inspection 2
Human Rights
Library 13 "Great Facility"
Parking
Parks 1
Personnel
Police 13
Pollution Control
Recreation 6
Refuse Zj—
Streets �,—
.Transit
Water �—
Forester "�—
WERE CITY EMPLOYEES COURTEOUS?
Yes 31_ 91 %
No _ 3 =%
WAS YOUR REQUEST HANDLED
Immediately
Within one week z 20�
Within one month
Longer =%
WAS THE RESULT SATISFACTORY?
Yes 2_ 78 %
No _8 22 %
WHAT IS YOUR GENERAL REACTION TO CITY SERVICES?
Very good 20 39 %
Good 22 43 %
Acceptable 6 —T2—%
Poor 3 _6%
WHAT ONE THING WOULD YOU "JANGE ABQUT THE IOWA CITY GOVEP'—•NT OR SERVICES IF YOU COULD
AND WHY? R / � -..sem L ase Y �.d
,C%j,6l / .</'�"'_r• �.tne�.`E<ti.eG d%vl.L
`i's.Gi „Cc..✓4. �-w--7 ���+-J<`-.'r O�rr� ,�i..4..i./c4^K-��
/.lir•a��bc.�ra 2G .c.evLG«-p�'�.�F � �i�uul✓ � �a-`� ..
cizv .�i iw ?"✓'� : +•�_ ..!/-sra �"_ 1 ,P`t� .cc=Z�w � /�.C.�.<.�., �✓ f;.�iX�u..�• /
7Zr</•�f i r/ e,..xr=t . / < f ern- n (� r/',',[�- _ ('wa[' rt/<(i�Cti
WHAT SERVICES SHOULD BE REDUCED OR ELIMINATED AND WHY? ik�tiw y rsi
GZF-� h 6....( rx �Syro / � !1u -U cy iY-•.Lls/
`�.-., r°' aL! rsac,_:-/ -.tit..,-a<✓ �, � r�-�-e......� .¢-0
WH�jl Nd SERI%VIC`ES �WOULD YOU LIKE OR IJHICH EXISTING SERVICES WOULD YOU IMPROVE OR EXPAND?
v'�"� •Qli.`n� _LrhG .....1O.-1 �crtF:.% :fT{,( .vy .JLsu..%� ..tx.,r.._:.d,..�(/
A O '
_(n.d?,L �j„u:i?,i G'.,cr ur'•,/ 31..v ,sG:F. f��G/.��•,P ,na-t.. 7,w„ ul�
i:in A.�'nu2Y'tl<.-�.+�»t..�. _ /Lcr. ,.t/Cw /��' (rGGI C+-o-suz�.�.• .�^L/a•-�.��iscr.. '�/,�r<vw ..
HOW WOULD YOU PAY FOR THESE CHANGES? lyE
�g�(lPG
eA
WHAT DO�OU LIK�T THE I CITY GOVERNMENT?
I Y,e.-tl'- 4U<-.�npa.✓ �.-..: �,yt-f��'�i: V.-G�r..e.G C`'L`�<"' .e...i,+�`N.
Je
`I A.G 71�%JY,e%�C��ri-_.J OL �-w+-.-y /,1i�n+�Cef^ ' /iG'.LISK-Cdv /�G,�i�n.<pr(/// �!"•�
e4, nuA! �`�^y�F`i .r% C /•'�ii+t
Cr
WKA✓�...� �'yaa �4��
"0 YOU LIKE LEAST ABOUT THE II;;OWA CITY GOVERNt� NiE Ti `�[G� d"--
7i/ �'.%/�i,a.!..�� *� 7>7.r..(t .�ec�iaN-�W�w•< �,l.,r �,l..P-r..s•�
.y'ti°2`'{�-' y�v°� . / 4'.-w.�c�F _ �i�a•ti• ...�'� mwr�i � ,�,o.�-.<G..�/
/Lu.«..,.iJ _-um....LG�-4"`..i .t a `<�-f c"•G.y"'' �s�.'G"'�. 7r
OTHER MMENTS. Zel,J�k �M�!!Lp//O�i�r��
�.fky ^ •'�/ oofLw 41f.1
��JGnG7-�"fi+1�®
G. I.Le.L.-• r-7 r'r�n. �n�.aL.-.rw ,. rr •�--,
d J 3080'`"
2 WHAT ONE THING WOULD YOU ^NGE ABOUT THE IOWA CITY GOVERN 'r OR SERVICES IF YOU COULD
/ AND WHY? P,✓ +C �� ^� "" `! Gr �,.� ._c
y✓��..+,_. /✓-�- --ra,.c.L. ..:C��+1+svj O(�„�.,s ... .ea.... i vn-fLct.[�e-/./ler.E te....o,.(�
p(K �'✓ .(.V+4Fr G4V c4: A�i4Ak 2•v�Q �< il¢.n4.(1.� �.f�/
WHAT SERRVI S SHOULD BE REDUCED OR ELIMINATED AND WHY?
,u-s-.ci �"�au �i-✓ ,l.Yi.7..� �e.. �,.2 yo-s.,,� �-'.�C�.:+.s. / ({+y, .esC.:..E �// �w —
IdHAT NEW SERVIrC�-ES WOULD YOU LIKE OR WHICH EXISTING SERVICES WOULD YOU IMPROVE OR EXPAND?
i � �,�.,.- .cA}✓ � �P`'z .�.�,:,�. s,,. xa�.c, �..c,.ot-k�.., .�.r1e r..: 54;...�
,c(iC-,•.,E, ate.,.,./ � �- .a�,...:�.� a.�Gd-�..�../
HOIV IJOULD YOU PAY FOR THESE CHANGES? /��,� Q,. O_ �L _,, •= _�
lw✓+�.-o cam. •/ho ma....�' yc�.C,-,c./ ,(L.�,(w �pt,� waft✓
WHAT DO YOU LIKE BEST ABOUT THE IOWA CITY GOVERNMENT? a -.A
'i/j/�I'yt�L�ue.✓� f-2U�++� 6/(�i, ; � /t.'ip.-i.L.-..L,, e>-.�G'!/*.,,.�.l.L ,4,��1. MO,,..n.-�-^ /•�"°�
WHAT DO YOU LIKE LEAST ABOUT THE IOWA CITY GOVERNMENT(?
Z
OTHER COMMENTS: �e.N�! Q�.xa. / J f°"
p -e 464
Lu
• ',two., M.e�.� �`.�.�»�� � t�w��" �"�"`" ,�� �....�, s�...�'
h�-
, 19 e
Lr
WHAT ONE THING WOULD YOL"MANGE ABOUT THE IOWA CITY GOVEB ' NT OR SERVICES IF YOU COULD
AND WHY? %jan�/�,f.1yQ.�cuX .Ou"+� p�, `� •�-,�,,,i,� � � a...0
v ,y�/"%J'✓(�//`6.�T�/kms.. w. �-� 2GL''a�. /�� � /�
WHAT SERVICES SHOULD BE/REDUCED OR ELIMINATED AND WHY?
IJHAT NEW SERVICES IJOULD YOU LIKE OR IJHICH EXISTING SERVICES WOULD YOU IMPROVE OR
OR EXXPAND?
.�i�e�.w.-c. �...,./ itr..�a.G. .av,...Le.�. � �-E.n, oc •7:wti.—�/.,� : • .....t;/"� _ _ ""' .—
HOW WOULD YOU PAY FOR THESE CHANGES?
WHAT DO YOU LIKE BEST ABOUT THE IOWA CITY GOVERNMENT? Geu..c,;LQ ,& " 7k*."
WHAT DO YOU LIKE LEAST ABOUT THE IOWA CITY GOVERNMENT? fie!
.41 t F,Pj , ���,, a.j, ,, 76 (� zfauG,[. Y c"—=L.." Z4.
':.�.R.P.a .P: C. '' 'L..._ �.,..,.L ac..•„..n,. . � rL •r-7��-0+..-,�,i,� >.fcG.
0TH R C�:
.S.,naw.� ,n..,,...,. •»l. ,yr --7 ,�- �,.� �,z �+�, AUG. r L c"'"'%„°"'
01l Vrn.-rJ -.y-f'•-v.-u�l.,.- Vi,.-„ yo..�r �: ~% `.�."'� "K""..� I..-�t.z°
Oi-t..,.gy,, - /
p�(C, u 83_-11
s C. c /-u.;-!, Pa (d/,
.4,� vir (d7w
57be
-14—r�O` Y`7
JC. �.. iLI.G(i �FZL U .Gt„1- �. /Ilii ct.:LGL.4-,n, .d Ki4,,,.42v�•
z,
I'g� 47 oe!:"`
d-�,.y axe 4:.� ir
Lea
4, ;Z;e
li aP«�,cC �� G�ee��..... ,tip •�`l��-`"'-�"-�`. � �,�:.u:7 ��...,
7,&'., dA
�.c.�A-+.
�t / T
D,=/.A'�
/
�:,(, '/ 4✓k. �"�'' '74' `dQL SEq�s aa,,.•.� .,.�+�...t Gni y a.G..0 h,w,.a,�,;,, , � � �p
Ci
WHAT ONE TH NG 14OULD YOU Ch. ;E ABOUT THE IOWA CITY GOVERNMEMi OR SERVICES IF YOU COULD
AND 11HY?
IV
WHAT SERVICES SHOULD BE REDUCED OR ELIMINATED AND WHY?
1.4HAT NEN SERVICES WOULD YOU LIKE OR WHICH EXISTING SERVICES WOULD YOU IMPROVE OR EXPAND?
H014 WOULD YOU PAY FOR THESE CHANGES?
WHAT DO YOU LIKE BEST ABOUT THE IOWA CITY GOVERNMENT?
WHAT DO YOU LIKE LEAST ABOUT THE IOWA CITY GOVERNMENT?
OTHER COMMENTS:
//
V9
T
g
W
TH
BAM-12Noon-
BAM-Magistrate
Court (Chambers)
.2. LOAM -Staff Mtg.
(Conf Room)
3
Negotiations
(Conf Room)
/8AM-Ma istrate
3PM-Housing Comm
8AM-Magistrate
Court (Chambers)
4: 30 M-Bodtd pp
Adjustment
(Public Library)
7630PM-Riverfront
1(Conf _ Room) Coun
(8hamb)
Comm (Law Library
7:30PM-Formal P&2
7
g
9
BAM-Magistrate
Court (Chambers)
8:30AM-Housing
Appeals Board
Conf Staff Mtg.
(Conf Room)
/8AM-Ma istrate
Room)
4: 30 M-Bodtd pp
Adjustment
Court(Chambers)(Conf
7:30PM-Informal
(8hamb)
Council (Conf Rm)
7PM-Parks & pc
Comm (Rec Center).
7:30PM-Airport Co
7:30PM-Historic
(Conf Room)
Preservation Comm
(Old Brick)
Iq
8AM-Magistrate
/3
1:30PM-Council
/&
LOAM -Staff Meeting
7r
1Rhra_u-4---.._
Court (Chambers) Goal
Set ingSesshlai
Qemmnic7:30PM-Informal Tlecuati<Council (Conf Rm) Comm gConf Rm
7P&2(Public
P(Law Library) 3CLibrary)
21 2:L
8AM-Magistrate
Court (Chambers)
7:30PM-Informal
Council (Conf Rm)
!Conf Rm)
:an Right1
�or Ctr
ormal
...........
4PM-Library Board
Ctr (Library Conf Rm)
Ctr) 7:30PM-Formal P&2
(Chambers)
LOAM -Staff Meet
(Conf Room)
4:30PM-Board of
Ad ustment
(C ambers)
ting
HOLIDAY
F
3PM-Police Court
Scheduling
(Conf Room)
HOLIDAY
HOLIDAY
Umf