Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-07-06 Bd Comm minutesA I LI MINUTES IOWA CITY HOUSING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, JUNE 2, 1982 MEMBERS PRESENT: Haendel, Karstens, Ringgenberg, Vander Zee MEMBERS ABSENT: Logan, Krause, Farran STAFF PRESENT: Seydel, Flinn, Barnes, Hencin, Milkman, Kucharzak RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL 1. That income limits for Housing Rehabilitation be changed as recommended to correspond with Section 8 income limits. M/Vander Zee; S/Karstens; Passed 4/0: 2. That recaptured proceeds from the public housing site acquisition be used for funding Moderate Rehabilitation. M/Vander Zee; S/Karstens; Passed 4/0. 1. Meeting to Order - Meeting was called to order by Chairperson Haendel at 3:35 P.M. 2. Minutes of meeting of May 5, 1982 - Moved by Karstens, seconded by Vander Zee', that minutes be approved as written. Approved 4/0. 3. Iowa City Residence for Women - Cyndie Franklin explained that this is a temporary living facility for women returning from institutions. Most referrals come from Psych Hospital and the State Mental Health institutions, but they will accept them from any interested party. Goal is to enhance existing skills for integration into community. Focus - 1) vocational liaison with community support service, 2) daily living skills, and 3) personal skills (getting along with self and others). Franklin indicated the three greatest unmet needs in the community are -1) similar facility for adult males. 2) independent living a problem for some clients, thus rental assistance is problem for those needing to live with someone. 3) temporary minimal care facility for crisis situations. 4. Housing Rehab - Barnes presented application for weatherization loan. Moved by Vander Zee, seconded by Karstens, that application be approved. Approved 4/0. Application for forgivable loan - Moved by Karstens, seconded by Ringgenberg that application be approved. Approved 4/0. 1/l7 IIICROFIL14ED BY JORM MICR6LAB 1 CEDAR RAPIDS DES I401NES I I 1 r Minutes Housing Commission June 2, 1982 Page 2 Income Limits - Moved by Vander Zee, seconded by Karstens that income limits be changed as recommended to correspond with Section 8 income limits. Approved 4/0. 5. Environmental Review - Milkman explained environmental review process on public housing site, and reported that findings indicated no significant impact. She further advised notices have been published in the paper. 6. Coordinator's Report - Seydel Public Housing 22-4 request for final site approval is in Des Moines; 4 triplexes and 4 duplexes. 22-3 - Spent $5,000 on landscaping. Have hired temporary part- time maintenance man. Have lost one tenant on Broadway. Section 8 - Paid rent on 404 units totaling $70,648.50 and have 37 new applications for approval and one disapproved. 7. Utilization of Recaptured CDBG Funds - Hencin explained the rollover of funds from public housing site acquisition to moderate rehabilitation. Moved by Vander Zee, seconded by Karstens, that recaptured proceeds from the public housing site acquisition be used for funding moderate rehabilitation. Approved 4/0. 8. Recommended Code changes, owner -occupied duplex - Kucharzak reported on status of Code changes, but due to loss of quorum, no action was taken. 9. General Discussion - Haendel expressed concern over poor attendance at Housing Commission and Housing Board of Appeals and the problems resulting from same. She requested a letter be sent advising Commission members of policy relative to attendance at meetings. 10. Adjournment - Moved by Karstens, seconded by Ringgenberg, that meeting be adjourned. Adjourned 4:55 P.M. Approved by: Goldene B. Haendel Chairperson 111CROEILMED BY DORM MIC ROLA B I CEDAR RAPIDS DES h101 YES I i r 1 Lj MINUTES RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION MAY 6, 1982 7:00 PM CIVIC CENTER ENGINEERING CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Fett, Gartland and Singerman STAFF PRESENT: Webb RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL: None. REQUESTS TO THE CITY MANAGER: None. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION - INFORMAL ACTIONS TAKEN: Chair Singerman called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. There not being a quorum present no formal actions were taken. COMMUNITY ENERGY USE REPORT: The meeting was devoted to final development of the draft of this report. Approval is anticipated for the next meeting of June 3. The meeting is scheduled for Thursday, June 3, 1982. The meeting adjourned at 8:50 PM. Respectfully submitted, Richard Webb Tony Hamilton, Secretary 1l` 141CROCILIICD BY � JORM MICRbLAB CEDAR RAPIDS • OES t401NES I I l O 1 r I I MINUTES HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION MAY 25, 1982 7:30 P.M. CITY MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT (EXCUSED): STAFF PRESENT: Watson, Raupp, Gill, Turner, Jordison Portman, Futrell, Barcelo, Johnson Helling, Behrman RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: None. RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY MANAGER AND STAFF: 1• Look into. action taken by the Iowa Civil Rights Commission prior to the completion of an investigation by the City staff. 2- Request that the Legal Department look into the status of the State law regarding homosexual practice and whether or not this is still considered to be criminal behavior. 3• Request that the Legal Department respond to the issue of age discrimination in the employment section of the current non-discrimination ordinance. d• Request that the Legal Department prepare a legal opinion regarding whether or not credit transaction contracts with mentally handicapped persons are enforceable. SUMMARY OF RELEVANT DISCUSSION: 1• Meeting called to order at 7:35 PM by Chairperson Watson. 2• Raupp responded to a question by Watson regarding E/R 4-22-8101. then moved and Raupp seconded that the minutes Turner of the meeting of April 25, 1982, be approved. The motion passed unanimously. 3• There was no p-ublic discussion. 4. Complaints pending: a. E/R, 9-18-7909. Watson advised that a letter had been sent to the complainant in Chicago asking if the complainant wished the Commission to continue activity on the complaint. No response has been received to date. b• H/S, 8-19-8101. Watson advised that the respondent's attorney will speak with the respondent this week regarding a proposed conciliation agreement. J i 111CROE1LI4E0 BY JORM MICROLA13 -- CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES i r MINUTES HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION MAY 25, 1982 C. E/R, 4-22-8101. Raupp advised that a conciliation agreement had been tentatively reached which involved the complainant being given immediate employment. Watson noted that in a conciliation agreement neither party is considered at fault. d. H/R, 8-6-8101. Turner advised that the conciliation team met on May found11 or 12 and d. She noted that he Io a Civil Rights le cause. The c ghts Commissionhad notifase will iedctthe eparties in December of 1981 that it had found no probable cause. It further appears that a copy of this notification was sent to the City. She questioned why the State Commission.had taken action in the absence of a completion of the investigation by the City staff. Helling will discuss this matter with the Civil Rights Specialist and the Commission will be provided a clarification at its next meeting regarding the procedures followed by the State Commission in this and similar cases. 5. Cases in legal: Melling advised that no cases had come out of legal. He will advise legal staff that the Civil Rights Specialist is available for consultation regarding cases now being reviewed. 6. .Informal complaint: Matson advised that he and Barcelo would be handling an informal complaint regarding alleged sex discrimination in employment. They will meet with the respondent this week to try and resolve the matter. 7. Educational Projects: a. Business Community Seminar - Raupp advised that the committee had not met during the past month. He asked if money was available for pamphlets and other promotional materials. Helling advised that money is budgeted in the account of the Civil Rights Specialist for similar projects but that this did not amount to a large sum. b. Coalition of Organizations - Watson advised that there will be a meeting on May 26, '1982, at 7:30 P.M.' in Meeting Room B at the Public Library. He and Turner will attend along with any other Commissioner who desires. The Coalition will probably be using a rotating Chair and among -items to be discussed at the upcoming meeting are the political nature of the Coalition, a fall workshop, a brochure to explain the nature and resources of the Coalition, and a master calendar of events for all member organizations and also the Iowa City- Human ityHuman Rights Commission. 8. Old Business: a. Legislative Committee Report - Watson referred all members to a copy of suggested revisions in the current non-discrimination ordinance (attached). Gill noted that most of the proposed changes were relatively minor, housekeeping revisions. However, she indicated that several are substantial, the most extensive of which pertain to the Housing section. HICRorILMED DV JORM MICROLA 1 j CEDAR RAPIDS • DCS MOINES ///9 J r L MINUTES HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION MAY 25, 1982 Watson explained the definitions of disability and marital status. (Behrman arrived at this time and assumed minute taking duties. Minutes to this Point were prepared by Helling.) Gill reviewed the recommended changes under "Housing", stating that marital status and sexual orientation have been added to this section. Raupp expressed opposition to including sexual orientation as a protected class in housing, stating that homosexual practice may be defined as a crime and protection should not be offered to criminals. This question will be referred to Legal. Gill stated that most of the changes in the ordinance were made to make it as consistent as possible. The members reviewed recommended changes in the section dealing with employment. Helling pointed out that portions of the ordinance may have been drafted prior to the passage of age discrimination laws. General consensus was to refer questions regarding age discrimination in this section to the Legal Department. Raupp questioned proposed' changes under the "Credit" section, expressing concern over whether contracts with mentally handicapped persons were enforceable. The members discussed the meaning of "mental disability." Raupp asked for a legal Opinion regarding this matter. Raupp expressed concern at forcing financial institutions to enter into contracts with persons felt to be poor credit risks. Watson strongly disagreed, stating that financial institutions would not be forced to enter into contracts if the person was tested and found to be a poor credit risk; however, persons could 'not be prejudged as poor credit risks on the basis of their mental capacity. Watson stated that the issue was similar to any type of stereotyping. Raupp stated that, while supportive of the issue in all other areas, he could not support the rights of the mentally disabled in credit transactions. Gill pointed out that these people would be subject to the same guidelines as others. b. HUD Update - Helling reported that HUD had determined the City's ordinance to be substantially equivalent and the City had been authorized to make application for federal funds. Helling stated that, while no final decisions had been made, the City hoped to receive funding for a quarter -time position to assist in handling complaints. The members expressed concern at meeting deadlines, wondering if the turnover of cases in Legal could be improved. C. Human Rights Month - Helling suggested requesting the Mayor to proclaim July "Human Rights Month." Turner offered to work with Pat Westercamp, Graphics, on flyers and bus posters and to contact the Dottie Ray Show and KCJJ for possible radio talks. Turner offered to rewrite the States's proclamation for submission to the City Council. MIcRDE1LMED BY JORM MICROLA13 1 ! CEDAR RAPIDS DES '401 NES I// 1 J I '1 MINUTES HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION MAY 25, 1982 9• New Business: a. City of Iowa City Affirmative Action Report - Watson suggested that including the number of persons and percentages would make the report more meaningful. The members discussed handicapped accessibility to the Davis Building and Civic Center. 10. Staff Report - The Commissioners received no formal staff report. 11. Next Commission Meeting: June 28, 1982, City Manager's Conference Room. Agenda setting: June 21, 1982. 12. The meeting adjourned at 9:38 p.m. Taken by: Sara Behrman. i ' t11LR0f ILt1CD BY • _? 1 DORM MICRbLAB �- CEDAR RAPIDS •DES MOIRES � 1 , r t 1� MINUTES SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION JUNE 3, 1982 3 PM SENIOR CENTER CLASSROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Alan Arenson, Bill Coen, Gladys Scott, Jean Williams, Michael Kattchee MEMBERS ABSENT: Larry Carlton, Margaret Clover GUESTS PRESENT: Rev. Robert Welsh, Diane Pepetone, Ruth Wagner, COE STAFF PRESENT: Bette Meisel, Lori Benz, Barbara Murray CALL To Gladys Scott called the meeting to order at approximately 3 PM. MINUTES: M. Kattchee moved to adopt the minutes of May 5, 1982 as presented. B. Coen seconded the motion. Motion declared carried (5 yes, 2 absent). G. Scott asked about the status of concerns addressed in the May 5 minutes. Regarding the library situation, L. Benz reported the volunteers are color coding the books into different categories; the religious magazines have been taken off the coffee tables and put on a shelve as was •suggested in the May 5 meeting. Locks. B. Meisel reported that the locksmiths she spoke to were not interested TIn­Putting locks on cupboards and drawers in the kitchenette as that work is designated y 1982)cabinetry. (before July The work has to be paid out of this fiscal year's funds for doing the work.* G. Scott recommended Steven Lee, from Solon, be consulted Piano. B. Meisel reported the proposed donor had already given the piano away. SPACE APPLICATION A—TION Diane Pepetone representing Communia Farm, Inc. and The Iowa City Friends wMeetingto , Inc. was present to discuss the application which was mailed in the ouldtlike the set up aion schedule of food preservote ilnthe application) "Their group Senior Center, using' kitchen facilities and havingtheSeniorand fCitizens at the of the Center involved in the activity in whatever capacity that is appropriate. In the fall, we would distribute the food to the elderly and needy of Iowa City." D. Pepetone went on to explain the purpose of their group is not only to distribute freshly harvested food to needy but to preserve the bounty so it would be able to be used by people in need during the winter months. /Mo 141CROr1LI4ED BY J JORM MICF26LA13 1 I CEDAR RAPIDS • DES M014ES I i r C Senior Center Commission June 3, 1982 Page 2 B. Meisel reported that the Health Department indicated that they do not allow restaurants to serve home canned vegetables; there would be liability for the City if any food would be improperly canned. D. Pepetone responded that her talks with the County Attorney indicated there would not be liability for the City, particularly if the preservers of the food took the food home with them. She said Agnes Kuhn had suggested this idea and their group suggested that older people might be using this. G. Scott suggested that many older people have been preserving food all their lives for their family and was not sure it was something they would want to do at this time of the life. Ruth Wagner stated that some of the older people might not have the strength to tighten the jars in the canning process. Michael Kattchee suggested an explanatory article could be put in the Post to see if response from the elderly would indicate they wanted to participate in this project and then make it their project. L. Benz suggested that B. Meisel might ask the Health Department about freezing. If there are no legal problems, Tom Lunckley could be asked to give a food freezing demonstration early in July and the Post could'have an article about it inviting the elderly to participate in the freezing process and to take home their frozen produce. People could respond and indicate their interest. The response from this article would serve as a test to the degree of the elderly interest in the project. J. Williams moved that Lori Benz's suggestion be made into a motion. M. Kattchee seconded the motion. Motion declared carried (5 yes, 2 absent). Ruth Wagner suggested that the freezing demonstration could be announced at Congregate Meals. B. Meisel mentioned that political candidates are coming to the Senior Center and she has asked the Legal Department what would be permissible policy for the Center. J. Williams observed a, politician wandering in the dining assembly room and that people seemed pleased to talk with him. After discussion M. Kattchee moved to set a policy allowing official candidates to circulate in the Senior Center providing they spend only a reasonable length of time, and no picture taking with or by the candidate would be permitted. J. Williams seconded the motion. Motion declared carried (4 yes, 1 abstention, 2 absent). REPORTS Gift Fund. B. Meisel reported that Margaret Clover and Jill Smith are working on books for the gift Fund and helping to correctly categorize the funds. The audio-visual stand has been ordered. There is approximately $2,800 in the gift fund. Eldercraft Shop. Lori Benz distributed the report of the 30 day period ending May 25, 1982. Cash sales $518.04: disbursements $413.50: balance $1,254.55. The bill for sales receipts and display items totalled at $160 which should be deducted from the balance. Dance. L. Benz stated that the Nostalgics from Cedar Rapids will play at the dance tomorrow (June 4): admission is $1.00. About 100 people attended the last dance including 20 students. Students are not expected at tomorrow's dance. MICRONUIED By JORM MICROLAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES 97 J r L Senior Center Commi__ion June 3, 1982 Page 3 SENIOR CENTER USAGE FIGURES B. Meisel distributed a sheet of May attendance totals - 4,452: 3,703 city, 587 rural, 262 guests. This was the highest monthly total for the Center since it has opened. There are probably 10% more people who use the Center but did not sign up on the attendance sheets. A. Arenson asked if the game room is being used much. B. Meisel responded that the pool table is being used by a growing group of regular users. J. Williams moved that B. Meisel should write a thank you letter to the Press -Citizen for the recent articles in the paper relating to the elderly including the editorial. M. Kattchee seconded the motion. Motion declared carried (5 yes, 2 absent). UPDATE ON SENIOR CENTER From information presented at the Speak -Out and from B. Meisel's observations, the weekend afternoon usage of the Center is minimal. She is asking the weekend hostesses and Bari (the weekend maintenance person) to count the number of people in the Center at different times on weekends. If counts warrant it, Barrs hours may be moved in July from 1:30 to 4:00 to 12:30 to 3. B. Meisel noted that Project GREEN donated chrysanthinums and daisies to the Center. The landscape architect will come to plant them next Saturday on his own time. He is planning beds on either side of the stairs in the front and probably a row by the drop-off point on Washington Street. He would like another Yew at the drop-off point which Bette will order. A Committee will help to plant the flowers. We are hoping for a donation of tulip bulbs. Staffing A CETA person will work 20 hours this summer; a Title V person will be here through June. The Adult Day program contract extended to June 1983 will be on the City Council agenda. AARP, Elderly Services, SEATS (the other renewable contracts) should go on the Council agenda June 23. J. Williams suggested that if contracts remain as they are established, Commission will approve them. A. Arenson moved to recommend approval of the three contracts. B. Coen seconded the motion. Motion declared carried (5 yes, 2 absent). OPEN DISCUSSION Bob Welsh recommended the weekend usage checking should be in September as July and August may be slow. He asked if there was a progress report of the Goals Committee. J. Williams said there will be a report soon. G. Scott asked, as a follow-up to the Speak -Out concern, could a shuffle board be set up in mid - corridor on the second floor. B. Meisel is concerned because there is not enough staff to monitor the second floor. The current usage of the second floor is one hour a morning for four mornings per week for daycare and for exercise class. G. Scott suggested shuffleboard instruction could be tied in pool instruction. M. Kattchee suggested if there was substantial interest, the second floor could be opened for one morning for shuffleboard. Bob Welsh suggested that a number of people could be involved in offering creative funding and utilization of the second floor. M. Kattchee suggested taking a survey to determine if there is sufficient interest for shuffleboard. J. Williams mcRDEILMID BY JORM MIC R41L 40 CEDAR RAPIDS • DES VINES IJA6 1 J 0-4 Senior Center Commission June 3, 1982 Page 4 mentioned that nine international social workers had visited the Center and were very impressed but suggested that the Senior Center may be too "large" in order to establish a. feeling of community. L. Benz mentioned that the Service Providers demonstrations were not well attended; B. Coen was surprised with the small turnout at the Speak -Out. J. Williams stated that to develop the sense of ownership, it has to be something that older people want here at the Center.G. Scott adjourned the meeting at 4:55 PM. Minutes prepared by Barbara Murray. /P MICRor1L14E0 BY JORM-MICR¢LAB'- - l CEDAR RAPIDS • DES M014ES I 1 MINUTES COMMITTEE ON COMMUNITY NEEDS JUNE 2, 1982 12: 00 NOON IOWA CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY, ROOM A MEMBERS PRESENT: Bonney, Whitlow, Lauria, McGee MEMBERS ABSENT: Becker, Hirt, Cook, VanderZee, Dodge, Lockett STAFF PRESENT: Milkman, Hencin, Behrman RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: None. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: Hencin announced McCormick's resignation. The members discussed whether or not there would be an August meeting. Bonney suggested that the members review their membership and make recommendations to the City Council concerning the appointment of a new member. Bonney suggested that it would be useful to have someone from the North Side area filling the vacancy left by McCormick. C The next meeting is July 7, 1982. The meeting adjourned at 12:20 PM for lack of a quorum. Prepared by: Sara Behrman, Minute Taker 1/a MICRoriLmED By -DORM MIC RIJC AF3 j CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOMES I � L r i MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY 27, 1982 7:30 PM CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Jordan, Horton, Seward, Jakobsen MEMBERS ABSENT: Scott, Baker STAFF PRESENT: Jansen, Boothroy, Behrman RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: None. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: Seward called the meeting to order. There was no public discussion of any item not included on the agenda. ZONING ITEMS: 1. Public hearing to consider an amendment to Chapter 8.10 of the Zoning Ordinance to limit construction within a designated area for a maximum period of six months pending a decision to rezone all or part of the area. The area affected by this ordinance is the R3A area as shown on the City of Iowa City Zoning Map. Boothroy outlined the boundaries of the R3A area. Boothroy explained that this area had been referred to the Planning and Zoning Commission for consideration and recommendation of a possible moratorium for a maximum period of six months or pending a decision to rezone all or part of the area. Boothroy explained that a recommendation should be made at the Commission regular meeting of June 3 to the City Council, regarding what the boundaries of the area should be. Boothroy explained that the area could not be enlarged without setting a new public hearing but it could be reduced. Jakobsen wondered what the pink area on the overhead map reflected. Boothroy explained that the pink area reflected those areas consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. While those areas in pink would not require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, those areas not in pink would if they are to be considered for R3 density. Charles Imig, 536 S. Dodge, spoke in opposition to the item. Imig raised concern with the validity of the petition. Imig expressed concern that, should the moratorium go into -effect, he would be unable to build a duplex on his empty lot in the R3A area because the required minimal lot area per unit would increase from 2500 sq. ft. to 3000 sq. ft. Jakobsen informed Imig of his right to make a formal protest to the City Council. Jakobsen explained that if 20% of the area to be rezoned filed a formal protest, the City Council would be forced to an extraordinary majority to pass the moratorium. VII CAOEI LIdCD DY J. .�� JORM MICR6LAB- i LI CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOVIES i i r L. Planning and Zoning Commission May 27, 1982 Page 2 E.H. Borchardt, 516 S. Dodge, spoke in opposition of this item, proposing that the Planning and Zoning Commission consider only the area north of Burlington Street. Borchardt explained that the structures in the area south of Burlington Street were predominantly multi -family units. Borchardt also questioned the validity of the petition, stating that persons from outside of Iowa City, and tenants have signed the petition. Borchardt stated that the majority of people owning property south of Burlington Street were satisfied with the zoing as it is. Borchardt expressed no opposition to rezoning the area north of Burlington Street, but stated that any rezoning of the area south of Burlington Street would be a reversal of a trend as it exists today. Borchardt stated that the moratorium was poorly timed; contractors and construction workers were being adversely affected during the prime construction season. Seward thanked Borchardt for his letter of May 10, 1982. Jakobsen advised Borchardt of his rights to file a formal protest. Mike Furman, 2305 Cae Drive, expressed opposition to rezoning this entire area. Furman explained that his tract of land above the railroad tracks near South Bowery was currently being used as a semi -truck loading area and staging area for trains. Furman stated that this area was not a single family neighborhood, but was envisioned as a commercial or multi -family property. Furman stated that there was .no market feasibility for low density use in this area and urged the Planning and Zoning Commission to exempt that area from the rezoning plan. George Woodworth, 226 South Johnson, spoke in favor of a moratorium on construction for the area north of Burlington Street. Woodworth, representing the College Hill Park neighbors, stated that there were two forms of petitions; one was labeled clearly as being signed by people in support of the moratorium and the other was circulated in the neighborhood. Woodworth denied any fraud in connection with the petitions. Woodworth pointed out that the petitioners were substantially in agreement with the previous speakers, suggesting that the moratorium be placed on the.area north of Burlington Street. Woodworth stated that the area north of Burlington was substantially single family homes and rooming houses and the area around College Hill Park was almost exclusively single family homes. Woodworth stated his opposition to a high density area in that neighborhood. Jim Miller, 2216 Cae Drive, expressed opposition for a moratorium on the area between Burlington Street down to Johnson Street. Miller, property owner of a sixplex on 317 S. Johnson Street, indicated that the only well kept structures in the neighborhood were the newer apartment buildings. Miller expressed the concern that a moratorium might create less maintenance of the older homes in the area, which would lead to the decay of the neighborhood. Miller suggested that, if no moratorium in this area existed, older homes could be torn down and well maintained newer apartments could be built. Miller expressed concern that the value of his property would decrease if a moratorium was enacted. Miller also expressed agreement with the concerns raised by Furman. Donna Fae Park, 816 E. College, expressed support for the idea of a moratorium. Park outlined her own experience as a homeowner living next j 111CROFILMED BY JORM MIC ROLA8 CEDAR RAPIDS • DES M018ES /V 1 J r Planning and Zoning commission May 27, 1982 Page 3 door to an apartment complex. Park urged that the Planning and Zoning Commission consider the property values for those who own their own homes. Park stated that Iowa City needed older substantial areas in the town and suggested that there was plenty of other property in which to build apartments. Park answered some of the questions raised concerning the validity the ownerswasf more petitions. portant thanktheated tht hardship one contractors norroert rental property owners. Concerning the issue of timing, Park stated that it has been more than four years and the Comprehensive Plan has yet to be implemented. Seward stated that the adoption of the zoning ordinances to implement the Comprehensive Plan had been delayed and would hopefully be completed by the fall of 1982. Parks stated that had the Comprehensive Plan been implemented four years ago, the entire area in question would have been much nicer. Park expressed sympathy with those property owners that are concerned about apartments being built next to them and outlined her own problems with screening, etc. Borchardt questioned the issue of density, wondering at the difference between a sorority that contained 20-30 persons and apartment houses with the same number of people. Boothroy stated that the new ordinance would recognize that problem. Park stated that a sorority was a rooming house and not an apartment. Seward stated that certain alternate uses would be allowed in the new zoning ordinance regarding residential areas; sororities being one of them. -Seward thanked the public for attending the hearing. The hearing adjourned at 8:13 PM. Taken by: Sara Behrman, Minute Taker Approved by: • John Seward, Chairperson //4 i IdICRDEILMEO BY J I JORM MICR4tiLA13 i CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES I I r MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 1982 CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Scott, Jordan, Horton, Seward, Jakobsen, Baker MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Boothroy, Knight, Woito, Behrman, Hillstrom RECOMMENDATIONS TO•CITY COUNCIL: 1. S-8117. That the application submitted by Larry P. Waters for approval of the final subdivision plat of Waters First Addition located north of Muscatine Avenue, west of Southlawn Drive, south of Brookside Drive, and east of Memory Gardens, be approved subject to the approval of legal papers. 2. S-8215. That the application submitted by Braverman Development, Incorporated, for approval of a final subdivision plat and PAD/LSRD plan of Walden Wood, Part 1, located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Mormon Trek Boulevard and Rohret Road be approved subject to the following: 1) the submission and approval of legal papers, 2) an agreement with Engineering on the firelane, 3) signatures on the document, and 4) Homeowners Association papers providing for the maintenance of the firelane and walkway and an escrow account to provide for the construction of semi-public improvements. 3. That the amendment to Chapter 8.10 of the Zoning Ordinance to limit construction within a designated area for a maximum period of six months pending a decision to rezone all or part of the area be approved; the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that the area affected by this ordinance be amended to include the following: that area north of Burlington Street presently zoned R3A and all of the area south of Burlington Street within the R3A area as shown by the City of Iowa City Zoning Map and the area proposed for downzoning by the Comprehensive Plan. 4. That the referral from the City Manager regarding a request to develop a Zero Lot Line Ordinance be deferred until the adoption of a new zoning ordinance. //A a 11100rIL:dED DP J JORM MICR;LA9 I CEDAR RAPIDS •DES !d01NE5 t i i r MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 1982 PAGE 2 SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: Seward called the meeting to order. The minutes of May 20, 1982, were approved as circulated. The minutes of May 24, 1982, were amended as follows: Page 1, Recommendation N1, last sentence - corrected to read 3:1 to 4:1. The minutes of May 24, 1982, were approved as amended. SUBDIVISION ITEMS: S-8117. Public discussion of an application submitted by Larry P. Waters for approval of the final subdivision plat for Waters First Addition located north of Muscatine Avenue, west of Southlawn, south of Brookside Drive, and east of Memory Gardens; limitation period: Waived. Knight presented the staff report, stating that all deficiencies had been corrected except for approval of legal papers. Knight stated that a subdivider's agreement to provide a sidewalk along Dover Street had yet to be submitted. J. Patrick White, representing the applicant, 330 S. Clinton, stated his client's intention to install a sidewalk on Dover Street. White pointed out that because Dover Street right-of-way was contained in Oakes Meadow Addition, this sidewalk will lie outside of the subdivision. Knight explained that while this was true, the property adjacent to Dover Street was contained in Waters First Addition and that property so located was typically assessed for sidewalks. White urged approval contingent upon approval of the legal papers. Knight stated that a utility easement agreement was needed as well. Horton moved and Jakobsen seconded that this item be approved subject to the approval of legal papers. The motion carried 5-1-0; Scott abstained. S-8214. Public discussion of an application submitted by Home Town DaTiries, Inc., for approval of the preliminary and final Large Scale Non - Residential Development plan of the property located at 1109 North Dodge Street; 45 -day limitation period: 6/26/82. Knight stated that the applicant was proposing to enlarge an existing use an amount greater than 50 percent and that therefore the parking requirements had to be met for the entire use. Knight explained that approximately 131 total spaces were needed, all of which could be provided by using existing spaces and an existing truck parking lot. Knight noted 11ICROEILMED BY JORM MICR40LA6- CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOVIES i I Pa J 1 r I MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 1982 PAGE 3 that some of the existing spaces must be resurfaced and that tree requirements would not apply if an existing parking lot was used. Knight stated that screening for off-street parking will be required along Prairie du Chien Road and that these trees could be used to meet the Zoning Ordinance requirements for trees along the right-of-way. The staff recommended deferral of this item pending the correction of these deficiencies. Anthony Frey, 15 Caroline Court, spoke in opposition to this item, citing concerns over noise, dust, and traffic in the neighborhood as reasons for his opposition. Frey raised the issue of the industrial nature of this use, and questioned the appropriateness of locating it in a commercial zone. He wondered how the residential neighbors could resolve the issue of conforming with this nonconforming use. Knight pointed out that zoning was not an issue in. the LSNRD process and outlined the appeal procedures. Bea Davis, 707 Kimball, expressed opposition due to noise and traffic. Davis expressed concern over the "nonconforming use" issue. Knight pointed out that Home Town Dairies was not considered to be a nonconforming use. Ellen Jacobsen, 9 Caroline Court, expressed opposition due to noise. Boothroy pointed out that the LSNRD did not allow for discretion; if it was in compliance with the provisions of the Code of Ordinances, then it needed to be approved. Knight stated that the issue of noise could not be addressed at this time as it was not part of the ordinance. He pointed out that, should Home Town Dairies be interested in building a "noise fence of greater than six feet", a variance will be .required. Herb Davis, 707 Kimball, wondered why curbcuts, sidewalks, parking and storm sewers were not required. Knight explained that since this was not a subdivision, but rather a Large Scale Non -Residential Development, the Commission was limited as to what they could require. Baker encouraged those in opposition to continue in their efforts to work out an agreement with Home Town Dairies to alleviate the noise and traffic problems in the area. Jakobsen moved that this item be deferred until June 17. Horton seconded. The motion carried unanimously. MICWILnED By LF JORM MIC RbL1: \ J CEDAR RANDS DES !401AE5 � I a r MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 1982 PAGE 4 S-8215. Public discussion of an application submitted by Braverman Development, Incorporated, for approval of a final subdivision plat and PAD/LSRO plan of Walden Wood, Part 1, located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Mormon Trek Boulevard and Rohret Road; 45 -day limitation period: 7/2/82; 60 -day limitation period: 7/17/82. Knight suggested that the Commission either defer, or approve this item subject to the approval of legal papers, engineering approval of the firelane, and a maintenance agreement for the walkway. Jakobsen wondered if an escrow account was provided for in the legal papers. Knight replied no; it will be provided for in the Homeowners Association papers which have not yet been submitted. Woito stated that the City will require the same items as required for other condominiums. Ralph Stoffer, 1902 Broadway, requested that action be taken tonight. Jakobsen moved and Baker .seconded that this item be approved subject to the following: 1) the submission and approval of legal papers, 2) an agreement with Engineering on the firelane, 3) signatures on the documents, and 4) Homeowners Association papers providing for the maintenance of a firelane and an escrow account. The motion carried 5-1; Seward voted no due to lack of an escrow agreement and a review of legal papers. ZONING ITEMS: 1. Public discussion of an amendment to Chapter 8.10 of the Zoning Ordinance to limit construction within a designated area for a maximum period of six months pending a decision to rezone all or part of the area. The area affected by this ordinance is the R3A area as shown on the City of Iowa City's zoning map. Boothroy reviewed the boundaries of the area which would be affected by this ordinance if adopted as written. He stated that a petition by property owners had been submitted, requesting that the area south of Burlington Street not be included in the ordinance. Seward requested that Boothroy explain the significance of the shaded areas on the map. Boothroy stated that the shaded areas reflect areas recommended by the Comprehensive Plan to have an overall density of eight to 16 units per acre, which is currently closest to the R3 zone. Boothroy stated that, should the Commission choose to rezone without amending the Comprehensive Plan, it could do so only for the shaded areas within the R3A zone. mcROEILMED BY JORM MICROLA13 CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES 1 r I I MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 1982 PAGE 5 Jakobsen wondered if fraternity and sorority houses were considered to be rooming houses. Boothroy explained that under the present ordinance, the density requirements for fraternities and sororities are different than for rooming houses. Robert Hess, 515 S. Dodge, spoke in favor of the moratorium. Hess commented favorably on the possibility of downzoning, stating that the area was deteriorating due to apartment construction, noise and parking problems. Hess stated that he also owns property on Johnson Street, zoned R3A. Hess stated that the City was being remiss by issuing permits thoughtlessly. Larry Lacterman, 431 S. Dodge, spoke in favor of the moratorium, stating residents are tired of -houses being demolished, sidewalks torn up and parking problems. David Schor, 438 S. Dodge, spoke in favor of the moratorium, expressing concern that the rapid density increase in the area increased traffic and parking problems. Schor requested that the area south of Burlington Street be included in the moratorium area. Margaret Nowysz, 1025 River, spoke in favor of the moratorium and presented additional petitions. She pointed out that 75 percent of the signatures on the petition were homeowners.* Nowysz mentioned that a neighborhood meeting had been held and involved parties had been invited; one contractor and one City staffer attended. Nowysz suggested that, South Johnson Street more than compensated for the density loss since the moratorium was imposed and the area downzoned. She agreed that South Johnson Street should not be included in the moratorium area. Baker wondered if Nowysz had contacted the State Historic Preservation Office regarding the historic status of the College Hill Park area. Nowysz replied affirmatively and explained that the Historic Preservation office had indicated that the area was suitable for possible nomination to National Register and funding for historic survey was being pursued. Mike Furman, 2305 Cae Drive, owner of 407 and 408 S. Dodge, spoke in oppositic. io the moratorium for the area south of Burlington Street. Furman noted that all his plans for construction had been reviewed with the building staff and found to be in compliance with the Code. Furman stated that he intended to build a 75 -unit apartment complex on property owned near railroad tracks between Van Buren and Johnson Streets. Furman commented on the petition submitted by Borchardt, pointing out that 71 of the landowners* of the 179 lots urged that the area south of Burlington Street not be included in the moratorium area. /iaa MICROFILMED 6Y JORM MICR6LAIG CEDAR RAPIDS •DES MOINES j i r 1 1 MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 1982 PAGE 6 *(It should be noted that signatures had not yet been verified at this time.) Seward read the petition aloud for the benefit of the public. Lacterman questioned the wordiness of the petition. Seward explained that the intent was to define the property involved. Thomas Reasoner, 125 South Lucas, expressed support for the moratorium, stating that this is not a fight between developers and homeowners but rather a request for time in which to assess the direction the neighborhood growth should take. Reasoner stated that the area was becoming saturated with apartments and should either be upzoned and made exclusively multi -family or downzoned and further construction ended. Jakobsen pointed out that the present zoning had been in effect since 1962, and suggested that efforts to downzone could have been made at any time since then. Jakobsen stated that this effort was the first considered attempt to change the zone in that area. Baker stated that, to be fair to all present, the process of demolition and construction of multi -family units had accelerated in the last year or two. Dorothy Moeller, 623 E. College, spoke in favor of the moratorium, stating that the moratorium would allow time to find solutions to the problem of preserving the irreplacable historic treasures in the area. Nowysz took exception to Jakobsen's remarks, stating that since the University quit construction of student housing, the neighborhoods have been assaulted continually with multifamily construction. Nowysz pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan, which four years ago provided for the downzoning of this area, had yet to be implemented. Baker moved that the entire R3A area be considered for the moratorium. The motion failed for lack of a second. Horton moved that the proposed ordinance be amended to include the area north of Burlington Street presently zoned R3A and all of that area designated by the Comprehensive Plan as 8-16 dwelling units per acre south of Burlington in the R3A zone. Baker seconded. Baker asked Furman the number of bedrooms in the proposed 75 -unit complex. Furman stated that they would be two- to three-bedroom apartments. Baker pointed out that the moratorium would help implement the Historic Preservation Commission ordinance and �ia a 111CROFILMED By ` JORM MICR6LA6 I J j CEDAR P41111A DES MOINES 1 J r MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 1982 PAGE 7 Boothroy explained that that proposed ordinance has not as yet been adopted. The motion carried 4-2; Scott and Seward voted no. Scott explained his opposition, stating that there are significant problems with "pushing out" higher density housing into the fringe areas of the City; high density housing should be located close to the central business district and the University of Iowa. Scott expressed support for a moratorium north of Burlington Street. Seward expressed support for a moratorium over the area north of Burlington Street but felt it inappropriate to include the area south of Burlington. The meeting recessed at 9:10 and reconvened at 9:17. 2. Public hearing of a proposed ordinance establishing an Historic Preservation Commission for the City of Iowa City, Iowa, and providing for the establishment of Historic Preservation Districts, and defining powers and duties in association therewith. Boothroy stated that this ordinance would establish a Historic Preservation Commission and provide for the future establishment of districts but does not establish any districts at this time. Hillstrom outlined the main points of the proposed ordinance. Anthony Frey, 16 Caroline Court, expressed support, wondering if school buildings could be potentially included in a historic district. Hillstrom explained that, while a school could be included in a district, regulations would not apply if publicly rather than privately owned. Woito explained that the City cannot impose its zoning ordinance on other governmental bodies. Edgar Folk, 430 N: Linn, expressed support for the ordinance. Brett Davis, 1729 N. Dubuque, wondered at the activities of the proposed Commission. Davis wondered if the Commission would monitor demolition of old homes. Horton stated that the Historic Preservation Commission would not be concerned with an individual building unless it was located in an historic district. Davis wondered if a demolition could be prevented and Seward and Woito answered affirmatively. Charles Ruppert, 1406 N. Dubuque Road, wondered if privately owned schools could be eligible, and Seward stated that potentially they could be. MICROEILIIED DY JORM MIC ROLAB f � CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES i I J /M r LF... I\ 1 J r MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 1982 PAGE 8 Dorothy Moeller, 623 E. College, expressed support. Jakobsen wondered what could be considered the smallest size for a historic district. Horton replied a district must be at least two lots. Jakobsen wondered if that could be considered spot zoning. Woito stated that, as long as the district meets other requirements, spot zoning doesn't really apply. Boothroy stated that, if clearly distinguishable, spot zoning is legal anyway. Jakobsen questioned the composition of the Commission, wondering if the wording should be changed to state that the majority of the districts will be represented by a member, rather.than every district being represented. A maximum number of Commission members was suggested. OTHER BUSINESS 1. Public discussion of a referral from- the City Manager regarding a request to develop a Zero Lot Line Ordinance. Anthony Frey, 15 Caroline Court, wondered which zones would be considered for inclusion in the Zero Lot Line Ordinance and the advantages of such an ordinance. Boothroy explained that it would include the present R2 and R3 zones but staff time could not be made available until after July due to the review of the new zoning ordinance. Scott suggested that this item was a low priority, and the other members concurred. Scott moved that this item be deferred until the adoption of a new zoning ordinance. Jordan seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Jakobsen requested that discussion of a new zoning ordinance be placed on the next meeting's agenda. The meeting adjourned at 9:48 PM. Taken by: Sara Behrm Approved by: zve--- Tom Scott, Secretary m icRor ILRED BY I JORM MICR6LAB 1 j CEDAR RAPIDS • DES td014ES I r qhs MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 10, 1982 CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Scott, Jordan, Seward, Jakobsen, Baker MEMBERS ABSENT: Horton, Blank STAFF PRESENT: Boothroy, Knight, Woito RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: 1. 5-8214. That the application submitted by Home Town Dairies, Inc., for approval of the preliminary and final Large Scale .Non-residential Development plan of Home Town Dairies, located at 1109 North Dodge Street, be approved. SUMMARY OF.DISCUSSION: Seward called the meeting to order and explained that it was a special meeting for the purpose of acting on one subdivision item. SUBDIVISION ITEM: 1. 5-8214. Public discussion of an application submitted by Home Town Da ries, Inc., for approval of the preliminary and final Large Scale Non- residential Development plan of Home Town Dairies located at 1109 North Dodge Street. Knight explained the current status of the application and noted that two deficiencies remained. These deficiencies included resolution of a legal question concerning applicability of the tree ordinance requirements for the "existing" parking area, and provision of a note on the plan stating that the parking lot in the southwest corner of the tract will be resurfaced. Knight stated that the staff would recommend approval of this item subject to the two deficiencies noted above. Mike Kammerer, engineer for the applicant, stated that the applicant had no problem providing the requested note on the plat, and that they would have to wait until the tree ordinance question was resolved by the City legal staff prior to complying with that. Anthony Frey, 15 Caroline Court, stated that he felt Home Town Dairies had been trying to cooperate in terms of reducing noise and noted that the neighbors appreciated that effort. He pointed out that the neighbors had not yet had a chance to review the revised plan and that they had not had notice that there would be a formal meeting held on this date. He therefore explained that the neighbors were requesting that this item be deferred to a later date. Frey also questioned the applicability of Section 8.10.26.A.3 of the Code of Ordinances to the parking requirements for Home Town Dairies. This section states that in a CH zone, incidental storage shall not exceed 40 per cent of the floor area. Staff indicated this question would have to be researched. MICROEILME0 BY JORM MICR46LAO I � CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES] , i I //V 7 r \LF.. Planning & Zoning Commission June 10, 1982 Page 2 Seward asked staff what sort of time table existed for this item. Boothroy stated that action would have to be taken at the June 17, 1982, Commission meeting to remain within the 45 -day limitation period. Jakobsen stated that she felt a lack of communication had occurred and that the Commission and Council should both have been better informed. Knight explained that the purpose of the LSNRD process was to carry out a site review to insure that an application met all the code requirements which existed. Boothroy pointed out given the fact that the code requirements were met, the Commission had very little discretion on approval of this item. B. Davis, 707 Kimball Avenue, expressed support for the comments made by Mr. Frey and stated her opinion that Home Town Dairies had not been a good neighbor. She further expressed the opinion that the dairy had been allowed to "get away with murder" and that they should no longer be allowed to do so. Herbert Davis, 707 Kimball Avenue, questioned whether any requirements for truck parking spaces existed in the code. Knight explained that no such provision existed and that staff could require only what the code permitted. It was moved by Scott and seconded by Jakobsen that the preliminary and final Large Scale Non-residential Development plan of Home Town Dairies be recommended for approval subject to interpretation of the tree ordinance requirements for the northeast lot, interpretation of the impact of Section 8.10.26.3 regarding the percent of incidental storage permitted in a CH zone and provision of a note regarding the resurfacing of the southwest parking lot. Tom Scott explained that the Commission's powers were limited and that he would vote in favor of this item because the neighbors had recourse through the Board of Adjustment upon issuance of a building permit. The motion was approved 3-1-1; with Jordan voting against because of his objections to "rushing" this item through and Jakobsen abstaining because of "lack of candor" of both staff and applicant. Baker questioned the Commission's ability to vote no on this item. Boothroy explained that in staff's opinion the Commission had no grounds to vote aaainst this item since the LSNRD was only a site review process. The meeting adjourned at 8:37 P.M. Prepared by Bruce Knight, Planner4STocott,S Approved by: cretary IIICROFIL14ED BY JORM MICR6LA13 1 j CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES i llaa 1 r MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FORMAL MEETING JUNE 17, 1982 - 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Horton, Jordan, Seward, Baker, Blank, Scott, Jakobsen MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Franklin, Knight, Woito, Hillstrom RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: A proposed ordinance establishing an Historic Preservation Commission for the City of Iowa City, Iowa, and providing for the establishment of Historic Preservation Districts, and defining powers and duties in association therewith be approved; 5-1-1. 5-8216. An application submitted by Hallmark Homes, Inc. for approval of the preliminary and final subdivision plat and amended LSRD plan of Benton Manor be approved; 7-0. OTHER FORMAL ACTION TAKEN: Discussion of a proposed ordinance amending Section 8.10.35 of the Zoning Ordinance to establish a mechanism for licensing sign installers and a system of establishing fees for sign permits be deferred to the next formal meeting; 7-0. Z-8112. Discussion of an application submitted by Robert Wolf for the annexation and rezoning to RIB of approximately 37.5 acres located east of Scott Boulevard be deferred to the first meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission to be held in December, 1982; 7-0. Discussion of the Planning and Zoning Commission By -Laws be deferred to the next formal meeting; 7-0. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: Chairman Seward welcomed Jackie Blank to the Commission. The minutes of the June 3, 1982, meeting were amended to change the last paragraph on page four. Jakobsen requested that the statement made by Boothroy regarding the treatment of fraternity and sorority houses in the zoning ordinance be explained. The minutes were deferred until the next meeting with all changes noted. MICROFILMED BY CORM -MIC ROLAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOIY8 IMN 1 F, 1 MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FORMAL MEETING JUNE 17, 1982 PAGE 2 Seward requested that two items be added to the agenda under "Other Business" - 1. Sharing of information among Commission members. 2. Draft of the Northeast Area Study. ZONING ITEMS: 1. Public discussion of a proposed ordinance amending Section 8.10.35 of the Zoning Ordinance to establish a mechanism for licensing sign installers and a system of establishing fees for sign permits. Knight stated that Michael Kucharzak, Director of Housing & Inspection Services, who had proposed the licensing of sign installers was not able to be present at the meeting. Knight suggested that the item be deferred to the next meeting of the Commission. Jakobsen stated that she. had no problems with the general concept of the ordinance. Various Commissioners agreed, however, that discussion should be deferred until Kucharzak was present. Scott moved and Jordan seconded to defer this item until the next formal meeting of the Commission. The motion passed unanimously. 2. Public discussion of a proposed ordinance establishing an Historic Preservation Commission for the City of Iowa City, Iowa, and providing for the establishment of Historic Preservation Districts, and defining powers and duties in association therewith. Knight pointed out that the public hearing on this item had been held and that if there were no further comments, the Commission could act on the proposed ordinance. Sandra Eskin of 1047 Woodlawn Avenue addressed the Commission with various suggestions relating to the proposed ordinance. Eskin felt that Section 9 of the ordinance was lacking; she questioned whether there were any provisions for the compatibility of the district with the existing zoning. She also questioned the phrase "100 percent or more of the assessed taxable value," stating that no building would suffer a loss of more than 100 percent. She commented that this particular phrase must be a typographical error. Eskin also felt that the proposed ordinance failed to address the problem of totally new construction located in an historic district. She felt that there was no way of ensuring that a new building would be made compatible with the existing structures. She also questioned how the ordinance would treat nonconforming structures in a district MICROFILMED BY JORM CROCEDRA RAPIDS DES'MI.NES 1p4� r MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FORMAL MEETING JUNE 17, 1982 PAGE 3 and felt that there should be guidelines for nonconforming buildings. Doug Hillstrom stated that the question of new construction was addressed in the definition section of the ordinance and referred to the definition regarding change in appearance of a structure or a lot. Eskin questioned whether every building within an historic district would be treated equally. Hillstrom responded that yes, all buildings would be subject to review if they were altered. Woito explained that a change in appearance, as defined, covered vacant land as well as that upon which a structure existed. She went on to explain the "100 percent" phrase stating that there were instances in which partial damage resulted in a 100 percent decrease in assessed taxable value. Eskin questioned why no provision had been made for the declaration of individual buildings as historic structures. Woito explained that the ordinance was not intended to address individual buildings. Eskin also questioned why there was no provision for adaptive use and urged the Commission to adopt language which would encourage the Board of Adjustment to allow variances in adaptive use situations. Jakobsen stated that the proposed ordinance -did not make such provision for a purpose. Woito explained that the state enabling legislation for the Board would not allow such a provision. She went on to state that the adoption of the ordinance•by the City Council would act as a policy directive and thereby guide the Board, if the Board so chose. Seward stated that the Historic Preservation Ordinance would be an overlay zone and reiterated Woito's point that adoption by the Council would reinforce the intent of the ordinance and set a policy. Jakobsen raised the question of whether designating a district would be, in essence, a rezoning through the imposition of an overlay and would, therefore, require a three-fourths vote of the Council if 20 percent or more of the property in the district were represented by protestors to the ordinance. Woito answered affirmatively. Eskin questioned whether each district designation would have to be submitted to the appropriate state and federal agencies and if so why a local ordinance was necessary. Horton stated that this was a City ordinance and that properties would be subject to the municipal code which could be different from the state and federal regulations. David Arbogast, 720 East Market Street, stated his support for the ordinance. However, he pointed out a number of problems which he MICROERMED BY � - JORM MIC R(SLAB 1 CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES //aa 1 J r MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FORMAL MEETING JUNE 17, 1982 PAGE 4 perceived. The first concern addressed the problem of buildings which do not contribute to the historical nature of the area. He stated that, from his experience as a preservationist, he found that these buildings would not qualify for grants and tax breaks. His second point addressed the ordinance's emphasis on districts. He pointed out that the ordinance does not recognize landmarks and suggested that before recommending adoption of the ordinance the Commission consider instituting provisions to enable the Historic Preservation Commission to designate landmarks. Lastly, Arbogast felt that some provisions for the preservation of interiors should be adopted. He cited cases in New York in which individual interiors were designated as landmarks. Jakobsen asked whether he knew of any interiors that should be so designated. He responded that Old Capitol was a good example. Jakobsen pointed out that the City had no jurisdiction over Old Capitol. Woito and Hillstrom stated that the state enabling legislation does not deal with individual structures or with interiors. Jakobsen suggested that the Historic Preservation Commission; when formed, could address many of the issues that were being raised. She felt that the ordinance should not be delayed while waiting for resolution of these other issues. Jordan questioned whether each district would have one representative and asked if there were 25 districts, would there be 25 members on the Commission, thereby creating an unwieldy group. Hillstrom stated that there would be one representative for each district according to state law. He pointed out, however, that there were not enough areas in Iowa City to create that many different districts and that, therefore, such a scenario was unlikely. Scott stated that he had problems with the restrictive nature of the ordinance. He stated that he had some familiarity with the situation on the north side of Iowa City and knew that many people had problems maintaining older homes and building on small lots. He felt that the City had the right and responsibility to intervene and regulate in situations in which property owners entered the marketplace through rental of their property. However, he felt that in circumstances in which property owners occupy their property, he would resist the intrusion of the City. He felt that an additional burden was placed on private property owners by this ordinance, especially in older neighborhoods where one found older residents. He stated that he would prefer the individual designation of historic structures and would not favor a district which did not discriminate between the properties within the district. I41CRON DIED BY j JORM MICRO LA13 I CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOVIES, I 1 r MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FORMAL MEETING JUNE 17, 1982 PAGE 5 Baker stated that he had a philosophically different position from Mr. Scott. He felt that it was in the public interest of the City as a whole to designate these districts and that the value of older historic buildings would be enhanced by such a designation. Margaret Nowysz, 1025 River Street, an Historic Preservation Task Force Committee member, stated that she was also concerned with the burden of rules and regulations; however, she felt that there were many structures within Iowa City which deserved recognition. She perceived the Historic Preservation Commission as a body which would be an aid to older people who needed technical assistance and advice on preserving older buildings. She perceived the Commission as being a benefit to the owners of older homes rather than a burden. Arbogast reiterated his support for the ordinance and stated that he felt the Commission would serve as a supportive and educational body. He cautioned the Commission on the application of the ordinance and the selection of the Commission, stating that both would need to be done with great care. Horton moved and Jakobsen seconded recommending adoption of the proposed ordinance. Jakobsen stated that she felt section nine should read "100 percent" instead of "100 percent or more." It was pointed out that in fact the assessed taxable value could decrease by more than 100 percent and Jakobsen's suggestion was rejected. The motion passed 5-1-1 with Scott voting no and Jordan abstaining. 3. Z-8112. Public discussion of an application submitted by Robert Wolf• for the annexation and rezoning to RIB of approximately 37.5 acres located east of Scott Boulevard between Sunrise Village Mobile Home Park and Muscatine Road. The Commission questioned the applicant's desire in reference to this application. Franklin stated that the applicant wished to defer this item indefinitely. It was pointed out, however, that the Commission's practice had been to defer an item for no more than six months. Discussion followed as to the reasons to defer and whether there would be any factors which would arise within the next few months which would affect this application. Scott questioned whether construction of the water pollution control plant would provide capacity to this area. Franklin stated that it would. Jordan moved and Scott seconded to defer this item until the first formal meeting of the Commission in December, 1982. The motion passed unanimously. 141CRonu4ED BY JORM MICR6LAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOVES 1 J r MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FORMAL MEETING JUNE 17, 1982 PAGE 6 SUBDIVISION ITEMS: 5-8216. Public discussion of an application submitted by Hallmark Homes, Inc. for approval of the preliminary and final subdivision plan and amended LSRD plan of Benton Manor. Knight pointed out that this application was for an amendment to an approved LSRD and for the subdivision of the tract into two lots. He stated that the changes in the LSRD were minor ones - 172 dwelling units were proposed as opposed to the original 160, the design of the buildings had been changed, and a subdivision was proposed. He stated that'the staff had discussed requiring a city street; however, this issue had been resolved through the provision of two access easements to the south through the parking lot and along Benton Drive. Knight pointed out that the site of this LSRD had a number of limitations - the topography made location of the street problematic, access to Highway 1 was limited, and there did not appear to be an appropriate alignment for a collector street. Knight pointed out that all of the deficiencies stated in the staff report had been corrected and that the legal papers had been reviewed. The staff recommendation was that the Commission approve the application subject to final approval of the legal papers and submission of the stormwater management basin construction plans. Jakobsen moved and Jordan seconded approval of the application. Baker asked whether condominiums had been part of the original plans. Chuck Mullen, attorney for the applicant, stated that the previous plans had not included condominiums and that the condominiums would not be provided for until a declaration was filed. Jakobsen questioned the provision of escrow for improvements. Woito responded that she and Mr. Mullen had differences of opinion as to the requirement for escrow. Mullen stated that his position was that the escrow was not needed at this point. He stated that Hallmark traditionally makes these provisions on an individual basis with the condominium purchaser or Homeowners Association and would be extremely reluctant to enter into an escrow agreement at this point. The motion on the floor to recommend approval of the application was approved unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS: 1. Public discussion of the Planning and Zoning Commission By-laws. Jakobsen stated that she felt a revision should be made on page four, section six, so that the section would indicate that the secretary 1 111CRONVED By � JORM MIC ROLAB � CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOIYES I I J F, ff•♦ MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FORMAL MEETING JUNE 17, 1982 PAGE 7 would take charge in the absence of the Chair and the Vice -Chair. Jakobsen then questioned what problems the Council had in terms of Capital Improvements Programming. Knight stated that it was his understanding that the Council felt the Planning and Zoning should not be involved in Capital Improvements Programming. The item was deferred for public discussion at the next formal meeting on July 1. 2. Sharing of information among commission members. Seward asked that if any commission members received phone calls or information regarding commission business that they share this information with the other commissioners. 3. Draft of the Northeast Area Study Seward pointed out to the Commission members that a draft of the Northeast Area Study had been presented to them that evening. It was decided that discussion of this item would take place at the next formal meeting of the Commission. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 PM. I Minutes submitted by Karin Franklin. Approved by: Tom Scott, Secretary Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission MILROf ILNE I -JOfiM MIC I CEDAR RAR1D5 I 11aa I EL Aelu¢s i !� __ J 7 r MINUTES IOWA CITY RIVERFRONT COMMISSION JUNE 2, 1982 7:30 PM CITY MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Knight, Sokol, Boutelle, Humbert MEMBERS ABSENT: Horton, Johnson, Lewis, Oehmke, Fountain, Shaffer STAFF PRESENT: Franklin, Behrman RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: None. This was an informal meeting due to lack of a quorum. REQUESTS TO THE CITY MANAGER FOR STAFF ASSISTANCE: None. DIRECTIONS TO STAFF: ; i 1.* Check on the extent of erosion at the Sturgis Ferry boat ramp. 2. Submit a proclamation to the Mayor proclaiming June "Iowa Rivers Month." SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: Knight called the meeting to order, stating this would be an informal meeting due to lack of a quorum. The minutes of May 12, 1982, were approved as circulated. REVIEW PRIORITIES STATEMENT FOR COUNCIL: Franklin stated that, since the scheduled meeting did not take place with the City Council, the list of priorities would be presented at a future Council meeting. The date of the meeting had not yet been determined. Boutelle suggested reviewing the priorities statement when the date was set for the Riverfront Commission meeting with the City Council. UPDATE ON JURISDICTIONAL QUESTIONS OF IOWA RIVER WATERS: Franklin stated that Bob Jansen, the City Attorney, is writing an opinion concerning the jurisdictional question. Jansen had indicated that since the Riverfront Commission had been established at a time when the City had been vested title to the river, the changes which came with home rule did not affect the powers of the Commission. Franklin indicated that Jansen may pursue a ruling by the Attorney General, as there are no court cases in this area of the law to date. MICRDEILMED BY ( JORM MIC RbL49 , � CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES ' i ' I 1 J r Riverfront Commission June 2, 1982 Page 2 Boutelle questioned whether City ordinances regarding the river, such as the no water skiing ordinance, would be invalid if it was found that the Iowa Conservation Commission had jurisdiction. Franklin replied affirmatively. Sokol pointed out that overlapping jurisdictions were not all that unusual. Franklin expressed the hope that this would not be a case of overlapping jurisdictions, as that might lead to noone taking responsibility. Franklin indicated that it may be some time before the question is resolved. Boutelle wondered how this question affected the request for permission to have a water-ski show July 4th. Franklin stated that Jim McKean, Iowa City Jaycees, had spoken to her about the Coralville Ski Club's proposed activities on the river. McKean had indicated that Parks & Recreation had approved the Ski Club's application. Humbert stated that this was not the case; the Parks & Recreation Commission had withheld final approval pending the Riverfront Commission's recommendation and a discussion with the Ski Club regarding safety precautions. Sokol expressed the concerns raised at the previous meeting. Humbert stated that, if this application was approved by Parks and Recreation, it would be with the consideration that the ski show did not become an annual event. Knight pointed out that there was no boat ramp at the proposed location for the activity. Boutelle pointed out that the University scheduled a variety of acceptable activities along the river. She felt that allowing water skiing on the river may set a precedent that others might follow. Boutelle expressed concern that logs and other debris might pose safety hazards for the skiers. Knight suggested that, since it was the Coralville Ski Club, they could have their activity in Coralville near Edgewater Park. Franklin indicated that the ski show was part of a number of activities sponsored by the Iowa City Jaycees. Boutelle asked whether the Iowa City Jaycees admitted women and suggested that this application should be denied on the basis of the fact that the Jaycees do not admit women. PRESENTATION OF UNIVERSITY TRAIL SYSTEM PROPOSAL: Boutelle presented the conceptual site development plan for the east bank riverfront promenade designed by Crose-Gardner Associates. Boutelle stated that, due to an addition to the University Theater, utility lines would be relocated and overhead transmission lines would no longer extend over the River. Utility poles immediately adjacent to the City Water Plant would not be removed. n ICRDEILMED BY I ' JORM MICROLAB- J CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOVES //A3 J r Riverfront Commission June 2, 1982 Page 3. Boutelle discussed the proposed plantings for the area, stating that the City had consented to the University including the area around the City Water Plant in the University's tree planting designs. The possibility of a bridge walkway on the west side of the plant was suggested by the University. Boutelle stated that a meandering sidewalk would follow the natural land form and the lighted path system would be extended. Boutelle stated that the sidewalk would not extend south of Iowa Avenue due to traffic considerations, the terrain, costs, and the sentiment that the natural grassy nature of the area be preserved. Boutelle stated that a meeting with Project GREEN had taken place at which Project GREEN had expressed interest in providing plantings around the Water Plant. The members expressed enthusiasm for the plan. Boutelle stated that cost estimates and lists of plant material would be shared with Project GREEN. COMMITTEE REPORTS: Knight stated that •she, Sokol and Franklin reviewed the report to be Presented to the City Council when the Commission meets with them. Humbert mentioned that the Parks and Recreation Department was planting trees in City Park to replace the elms and oaks now dying of oak wilt. Sokol wondered if riprap had been provided for Rocky Shore Drive. Franklin stated that that would take place when Woolf Avenue was torn up. Sokol mentioned that the Sturgis Ferry boat ramp was heavily used. Knight asked Franklin to look into the extent of erosion at the boat ramp. Knight reported that material had been received from the Iowa Conservation Commission, announcing Governor Ray's proclamation of June as "Iowa Rivers Month." Sokol suggested that the proclamation be paraphrased and read by the Mayor. Knight indicated that she would forward the materials to Johnson for possible use in an article. Sokol thanked Franklin for distributing copies of The Landowners Option, published by the Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation. Franklin stated that the publication could be discussed at next month's meeting. The meeting adjourned at 8:40 PM. Submitted by: lN—G Sara Odhrman, Minute aker J 111CRDEILnED BY i ' JORM MICR6LA8 CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES 11V it J MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 13, 1982 -- 4:30 P.M. CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Barker, Harris, Slager, Vanderhoef MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Knight, Keller, Franklin, Boothroy, Woito, Kucharzak, Frantz FORMAL ACTION TAKEN: 1. V-8208. The application submitted by Michael Furman for a variance to Section 8.10.23.A of the Zoning Ordinance to vary the front yard requirements from 25 feet to 20.3 feet at 29 Wrexham Drive was granted. i 2. V-8209. The application submitted by Howard and Mary Villhauer for a variance to Section 8.10.21 and 8.10.23 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the structural alteration of a building in a way which increases its degree of non -conformity at 711 E. Bloomington Street was granted. i 3. V-8210. The application submitted by Domino's Pizza Inc. for a variance to Sections 8.10.25 and 8.10.40 of the Zoning Ordinance to vary the parking requirements and the tree regulations at 527 S. Riverside Drive was granted. 4. V-8211. The application submitted by Trivial Inc. for a variance to Section 8.10.26.8.1 and 8.10.26.B.2 of the Zoning Ordinance to vary the location of an accessory building at 2220 F Street was granted. 5. V-8212. The application submitted by Allen N. Thomas for a variance To Section 8.10.23.A of the Zoning Ordinance to permit construction of a single family house in the required 25 foot front yard on Lot 13, Tower Court Addition was granted. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: Harris called the meeting to order. Harris outlined the procedure to be followed by the Board of Adjustment. V-8208. Public hearing on an application submitted by Michael Furman for a variance to Section 8.10.23.A of the Zoning Ordinance to vary the front yard requirements from 25 feet to 20.3 feet at 29 Wrexham Drive. i/a1/ F11CROf1..... aY 1 JORM MIC R46LA9 -� CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES !� 1 r BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 13, 1982 PAGE 2 Slager excused herself from this item's proceeding. Franklin stated that, through a field error, the garage attached to a single-family dwelling at 29 Wrexham Drive encroached into the required front yard. Franklin stated that, since any hardship was self imposed, the staff recommended denial of the variance. Barker wondered how the problem came to the staff's attention. Franklin explained that the applicant had contacted the City when the discrepancy was discovered during a qualifying survey for a Veteran Administration loan. Michael Furman, 2305 Cae Drive, spoke in favor of the variance, admitting responsibility for an error made in the field. Furman stated that it would be.a hardship to correct the error, since the utility of the garage and the aesthetics of the house would be impaired by removal of part of the garage. Furman stated that the discrepancy in the yard setback was not detectable as the property sits on the curve of a hill. Furman also pointed out that the new zoning ordinance proposes 20 foot front yards rather than 25 foot front yards in this zone. Gary Andersen, 29 Wrexham Drive,. expressed support for the variance. Andersen, present occupant of the property in question, reiterated Furman's statement that the discrepancy is not noticeable due to the curve in the road. Andersen pointed out that compliance with the code would render the garage useless for a bigger car. Andersen pointed out that had he not tried to purchase the house with a VA loan the error would not have been caught. Harris verified that Andersen did not hold title to the property. Woito wondered if an 'offer on the house had been made contingent on VA financing. Andersen replied affirmatively, stating that he would not receive VA financing without a variance or a change in the garage. Woito asked for the proposed possession date. Andersen stated that the original date had been an April 1 possession date with a March 19 closing, but the survey had been done on March 18. Andersen stated that the loan guarantee runs out on June 7. No one spoke in opposition to this item. Harris circulated a letter dated May 10, 1982, signed by Rick and Judy Berndt, 22 Wrexham Drive, in opposition to the variance. The Berndts suggested that professional landscaping be used to visually screen the front of the structure and lessen the impact of the inadequate setback. Furman stated that the Andersens have plans for some plantings between the sidewalk and the garage. Furman stated that this mistake was the first in 75 houses he has built and suggested that the opposition expressed in the letter may be due to another incident entirely. Woito asked where the Berndts lived in relation to this property and was told they lived east one lot, kitty-corner to the property in question. i i MICROFILMED BY f ' JORM MICR/6LAB CEDAR RAPIDS DES 1401NE5 i 7 J r I I BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 13, 1982 PAGE 3 Andersen stated that a house was being built in the center of a double lot just west of the property in question; this would further decrease any impression that the house in question was out of line. Harris asked Furman to describe the topographic elevations of the property in question. Harris asked if Furman had experienced difficulty in laying out the house with respect to the topography and Furman explained the difficulties of laying out the house on a curve. Barker moved that the variance be granted as requested. Vanderhoef seconded. Harris reminded the members that concurrent opinions of three members were needed to pass the motion as Slager was abstaining. Barker stated that the manner in which the error was discovered was very significant and tantamount to an accident. Barker stated that, considering all factors, this was an appropriate situation for a variance. The motion carried unanimously; Slager abstained. V-8209. Public hearing on an application submitted by Howard and Mary Villhauer for a variance to Sections 8.10.21 and 8.10.23 of the zoning ordinance to permit the structural alteration of a building in a way which increases its degree of non -conformity at 711 E. Bloomington Street. Knight stated that the applicant is requesting a variance to two sections of the Code: one pertaining to the extension of a non -conformity and the second to the yard requirements. Knight stated that a permit had been issued to replace the roof and, upon inspection by, the building inspector, it was discovered that the applicant was also increasing the size of the attic room and, in effect, adding a story. Knight stated that the house is listed in the City's files and on the building permit application as a "single family dwelling" and therefore, the inability to make this room habitable would not create a reduced rate of return. Further, there is nothing unique about the case and therefore hardship does not exist. Knight noted that granting a variance would probably not be contrary to the "spirit of the ordinance" due to the existence of a ten foot easement along the property line. However, he pointed out that the applicant could purchase five feet of the neighbor's property Covered by the easement to alleviate the non -conformity status. The staff recommended denial. Harris questioned the use of the word "easement". Knight stated that the easement is included in the deed of the adjoining property. Knight pointed out that two letters and a petition had been submitted in support of the variance and stating that the "attic" room had been rented in the past. Mary Villhauer, 622 E. Jefferson, expressed support for the variance, stating that the house had belonged to her parents and had been inherited. Villhauer stated that the roof was in poor condition and that the upstairs had been rented as an apartment prior to its purchase as a home by her 141CRof ILMED BY r I �• i JORM MIC RdLAB- 4 CEDAR RAPIDS DES 14DIRES r i I r BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 13, 1982 PAGE 4 parents. Villhauer expressed the intent that the home would not be anything but a single family dwelling and, by adding space to the attic room, two nice bedrooms would be available for use. Villhauer stated that the new room would not be rented out as an apartment. Harris asked if Villhauer knew of the easement and Villhauer replied that her father had told her about it. Harris asked if Knight knew if the eaves of the house extended over the side property line. Knight indicated that he did not know. Jerry Rogers, contractor for the roofing job at 711 E. Bloomington, stated that while the eaves probably extend about six inches over the lot line, they originally were about twelve inches over the lot line and must have been non -conforming at that time. Harris pointed out that the issue of extending the nonconforming aspect of the building was an important aspect of the request. Jay Patrick White, 330 S. Clinton, attorney for the contractor and in behalf of the applicants, spoke in favor of the variance. White pointed out that the City's policy regarding the nonconforming use of this property was inconsistent; this property is in an historic part of town and the improvements enhance rather than detract from the historic character of the neighborhood. Vanderhoef asked White the details of the easements. White stated that he was not familiar with the particular easement in question. Knight pointed nut that, while the zoning ordinance restricts the property owner from adding to the attic room, they were not restricted from replacing the roof. Rogers stated that the upstairs would be worthless if the original walls were put back; the addition merely makes the house into a suitable single family dwelling. Howard Madsen, 703 E. Bloomington, expressed support, stating that the improvements would look very attractive when completed. Madsen lives on the west side of the property. Howard Villhauer, 622 E. Jefferson, expressed support, stating that more suitable living quarters for a better single family home was the intent of the alterations. Harris wondered if there was a way to increase the ceiling height in a conforming manner so as to respect the side yard requirement. Villhauer described the interior of the home. Woito wondered if the total square footage of the proposed structure was the same as previously. Rogers stated that the total square footage has remained the same; only the cubic size has been increased. micRDEILMED BY I 1 JORM MICRbLAel � CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES f IIn M 1 r BOARD OF ADJUSIPIENT MAY 13, 1982 PAGE 5. Harris asked if the building inspector had thought only the roof was being replaced and Kucharzak replied affirmatively. Harris expressed concern at the ease with which the problem could have been resolved by the applicants. Harris asked Rogers if he had been aware of the problem. Rogers stated that he had no knowledge that increasing the ceiling height was considered as an increase in the degree of nonconformity. Barker wondered how much the project was supposed to have cost. Kucharzak stated that the price listed on the building permit was $5,000 and was marked as an alteration. Vanderhoef moved that the variance be granted, stating that the spirit of the law would be served in granting this variance. Slager seconded. Harris asked Madsen the purpose of the easement. Villhauer explained that it was an access easement which had been there historically for the delivery of coal. Harris expressed reluctance at supporting the variance, stating that the ordinance is explicit about not extending non- conformity. Slager stated uniqueness existed in that: a) the house was platted long ago, and b) the neighboring house would never be closer than ten feet to the subject property. Slager stated that the variance would not be contrary to the spirit of the ordinance and Harris agreed, but stated it would have been so easy to solve the problem in another way which would have avoided the need for a variance. White stated that the variance would have been needed even if the alternative solution had been implemented and Woito stated that that was correct. Both Harris and Knight disagree with Woito. Woito stated that the lot was non -conforming as well as the building. The motion carried unanimously. Knight stated that the lot was conforming. Woito pointed out that the application cited Section 8.10.22 - regarding a non -conforming lot, and wondered whether or not Section 8.10.21.C.2 applied. V-8210. Public discussion of an application submitted by Domino's Pizza Inc. for a variance to Section 8.10.25 and 8. 10.40 of the zoning ordinance to vary the parking requirements and the tree regulations at 527 S. Riverside Dr. Keller pointed out that the applicant was requesting a waiver of parking and tree planting requirements. Keller outlined the parking spaces currently available as well as the traffic situation and hours of operation of the various buildings on the property site. He noted that the proposed parking plan would create a hazardous situation. Keller stated that compliance with the tree ordinance would impose no hardship. The staff recommended denial. 141CRorILMED By � JORM MICROLAE3 J � CEDAR RAPIDS DES IgoINES 104 1 J r �� LIF..... rt BOARD OF ADJUST14ENT MAY 13, 1982 PAGE 6 Harris wondered if there were any restrictions on parking spaces 10 through 14, imposed by the railroad embankment. Keller stated that there may be certain physical limitations due to the embankment. Bruce Gibson, representing Domino's Pizza Inc., spoke in favor of the variance. Gibson submitted a new improved design of parking spaces. Keller stated that this design was drawn by the Planning Department and, while it alleviates the turning, exiting and entering problems, still limits the number of parking spaces provided. Gibson explained that the applicant did not need more than ten spaces, stating that Domino's was not a normal carry -out operation, since 91% of its operation was delivery. Gibson supported his arguments with statistics regarding the percent of total business which was carry -out and stated thathigh volume stores average 5 spaces. He pointed out the uniqueness of this type of operation. Gibson argued the need for such a service so near the dormitories, stating that if Domino's was denied the variance for this site, they would virtually be banned from doing business in Iowa City. Gibson stated that the customer area in the store was only 3 to 4 feet deep, and would not hold more than 10 people. Gibson stated that, if necessary, they would comply with the tree regulations. However, he pointed out that it was his understanding that if no additional parking spaces are required, neither would trees since this is an existing parking lot. Agnes Leu, 1421 Grand Avenue, expressed opposition to the variance request, citing personal past problems with the City over parking as the main reason for the objection. Leu expressed concern that a private street would be used by Domino's for access to their property. Harris stated that private use of that street was available to the house behind Domino's and both were owned by the same person. Gibson verified that, as tenants, they would have the right to use the private drive. Marcie Roggow, 304 E. Burlington, realtor for Domino's, expressed support for the variance. Roggow stated that Domino's would be using a private entrance into its parking lot. She emphasized that no food would be eaten in the store at all. Roggow also expressed support as a member of the Area Development Committee of the Chamber of Commerce, stating that the City tries to welcome new business into the area, urging the Board to consider the added revenue, jobs, and improvements to the property. Tim Flynn, manager and part owner of the Hungry Hobo, 517 S. Riverside Drive, spoke in opposition. Flynn expressed the concern that there might be overflow from Domino's parking lot into their lot. Vanderhoef wondered if Flynn was concerned with overflow from the delivery fleet or customers, and Flynn replied both. Woito asked if there was every overflow from the Hungry Hobo into Domino's lot and Flynn replied that there was none, to his knowledge. MICROFILM BY i f ' JORM MICR6LAO - I j CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES J r BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 13, 1982 PAGE 7 Dana McMahon, 304 E. Burlington, realtor, expressed support for the request, stating that the busy hours for Domino's would be over the supper hour and later, while the busy period for the Hungry Hobo was the lunch hour. McMahon stated that delivery people would provide their own transportation; there was no delivery fleet. Leu again expressed opposition. Harris wondered if Domino's had the right to dig out the railroad embankment to provide parking and expressed dissatisfaction because the property owner was not present. Barker suggested that Domino's be treated as the virtual owner, stating that it was not significant that the title owner was not present. McMahon wondered at the concern over the railroad embankment, since Domino's had shown that the present number of spaces was sufficient and no further spaces were needed. Gibson stated that the problem over the number of needed spaces arose from a misconception of Domino's business under the category of uses. Gibson stated that, in various states, Domino's is considered to be a bakery. Gibson stated that, although the spaces shown in the design could be established, they were not needed and therefore, it was not relevant to discuss the issue of the railroad embankment. Harris expressed alarm, stating that it was offensive to him that a plan had been submitted to the Board which could not, in fact, be implemented. Gibson expressed concern at Harris' remark, and McMahon stated that no attempt to mislead the Board had been made. Roggow wondered if a variance could be granted to one-half the amount required - 24 spaces - but not less than half. Harris explained that the Board does not feel bound by the 50% limit and could reduce the required parking by more than 50%. Harris noted that Domino's has tried to show that 12 spaces is more than adequate. Vanderhoef wondered if the total square footage applied to the entire building or just the customer space when calculating the number of spaces needed per square foot. The members agreed that this could be considered a carry -out business. Knight wondered how many employees there would be other than the pizza deliverers. Gibson stated that there would be 3 or 4. Leu asked where they would park and Gibson replied that they would park on the side of the building on gravel. Gibson stated that during the peak period, they would have no more than 8 drivers per hour, and that they would be on deliveries most of the time. Vanderhoef moved that the variance be granted, requiring that only the paved parking area for 11 spaces and 3 additional spaces on Riverside Court, be required for a total of 14 spaces. Barker seconded. M ICROrIL1119 BY t JORM MICROLAIS CEDAR RAVIDS • DES MOIYES r BOARD OF ADJUSINENT MAY 13, 1982 PAGE 8 Slager stated that, according to Gibson, no more ,spaces were needed. Harris disagreed, stating that possibly 7 or 8 delivery persons could be parked at any one time. Harris pointed out that no hardship had been shown. Slager stated that this property had unique physical aspects. Vanderhoef stated that hardship existed in asking them to provide 24 spaces for a restaurant with 4 chairs, which actually doubled their national standards for parking requirements. Gibson stated that Domino's had been involved in a year long search for a site near the dormitories. Harris stated that the applicant has demonstrated an unwillingness to use the rest of their lot to accommodate parking. Gibson stated that the business has lost $1,300 per month since the first of the year due to these problems. Harris explained that this type of hardship was self-imposed and not recognized by the Board. Vanderhoef wondered whether a variance, if granted, would apply only to this user and Woito replied that it would run with the land. Barker pointed out that Domino's leased the entire building and might, some time in the future, have a sit down pizza section with the same number of parking spaces. ' Harris stated an unwillingness to grant the variance. Gibson suggested that Domino's be considered something other than a carryout restaurant. Woito pointed out that the Board had agreed it was a carryout restaurant. Woito suggested that the variance could be limited by recording the variance and limiting it to a carryout restaurant; but that would neither be enforceable nor binding. Gibson stated that the owners of Domino's were opposed to sit down restaurants. The motion carried 3 to 1; Harris voted no. Barker left. The Board recessed at 7:15 and reconvened at 7:20. V-8211. Public hearing on an application submitted by Trivial, Inc. for a variance to Sections 8.10.26.8.1 and 8.10.26.8.2 of the Zoning Ordinance to vary the location of an accessory building at 2220 F Street. Knight stated that the applicant was seeking a variance to the sections of the Code regarding the location of accessory buildings. Knight stated that construction was well underway because a building permit had been issued based on a site plan which did not show the main structure on the lot. When a site visit was made by the inspector, the applicant was told to stop work but proceeded nonetheless. Knight argued that any hardship was self-imposed and that there was nothing unique about the lot or the circumstances involved. Knight further argued that granting a variance would be contrary to the spirit of the ordinance. The staff recommended denial. nICADEILMED BY JORM MICROLAB- CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES i I 10 1 J r BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 13, 1982 PAGE 9 Vanderhoef wondered if the accessory building would be allowed if the lot was considered to be commercial rather than residential. Knight stated that it would. Knight and Kucharzak cited Sections 8.10.25.40.8.1 and 2 and 8.10.23.7, stating that accessory building locational requirements state that accessory structures cannot be closer than five feet in either zone. Tom McDonald, 6h S. Clinton, attorney for the applicant, questioned his client's violation of Sections 8.10.26.8.1 and 2 of the Zoning Ordinance. McDonald took exception at the analysis of the event as described in the staff report, stating that the applicant was never told not to build. On April 19, 1982, the applicant had received a "second" stop work notice and had stopped work, but there had never been a first stop work order. McDonald stated that the structure was 75% completed when the stop work order was issued. McDonald wondered about the analysis of "reasonable return" in a staff report; stating that he was unaware that a property owner was required to choose which type of use he would have, commercial or residential. McDonald argued that the structure would not be detrimental to the neighborhood as properties to the rear consisted of a bar and a parking lot. McDonald stated that the applicant's hobby of restoring antique cars required additional storage. McDonald also noted that the City has refused to allow two vehicles in the partially completed structure to be removed; a brace holding up the trusses blocks the entrance. McDonald argued that the staff recommendation for denial of the variance was based on vindictiveness and claimed the applicant was never told to stop work until the "second" stop work order had been issued. McDonald stated that the City had a complete site plan on file from when the applicant had built the original garage. McDonald stated that in his opinion, his client had complied with the City's rules and therefore he asked that the variance be granted. Kucharzak agreed that the microfilm records had revealed another site plan, although it was not true to scale. Kucharzak provided information from conversations with Dick Frantz, the staff member who conducted the on-site inspection and Glenn Siders, who issued the permits and stop work order. Kucharzak agreed that no first written stop work order had been issued because staff had reached an "understanding" in the field to stop work. Stop work order #2 was based on the feeling that Siders had verbally issued stop work order #1; Siders had not revoked the permit in order to save the applicant another filing fee. The permit was later revoked because the applicant thought it was a license to proceed. McDonald pointed out that the matter before the Board was that the garage had begun under a valid permit; all else was heresay. McDonald claimed that the reasons for the denial were invalid. Knight stated that the tests used to determine hardship were established by case law in Iowa and reiterated that there was nothing unique about the topography nor circumstances. 111CR0EILMED BY JORM MICROLAB � _CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES lma 1 J r BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 13, 1982 PAGE 10 Harris stated that the two issues of nonconformity were not addressed when the building permit was issued and the applicant had proceeded with a valid permit. Kucharzak admitted that Siders had been negligent in not reviewing the file prior to issuing the permit. Harris wondered if the City was in the position• of having issued a building permit, and then discovering its mistake and revoking the permit. Kucharzak stated that Siders had realized that. there was an error on the entire site and had advised the applicants to seek a variance on March 31, 1982. Frantz had suggested to the applicant that he talk to Siders about the error found. Harris wondered why the applicant, informed of the problem, poured the slab for the garage. McDonald stated that a valid permit was in effect throughout and, if the City had felt there was a violation, it should have taken action. Woito-asked if the permit would have been revoked if an official stop work order had been issued. Kucharzak said not necessarily as they inform applicants of appeals available to them prior to revoking permits. Applicants are informed of problems and advised to discontinue work until an appeal is filed. Slager asked if a stop work order revoked a permit. Woito stated that it did not; the applicants would be entitled to another hearing by the Board on the basis of the revocation. Woito stated that this Board must determine whether the permit is valid or should be valid. That the building inspector did not revoke the permit on the spot is irrelevant to the procedure. Woito stated that the revocation would be subject to appeal by this Board and is not an issue before them now. Harris stated that ambiguity existed in the ordinance concerning residential uses in a CH zone, and the use of R3 requirements in that case. The members discussed the distances between existing structures. Slager moved that the variance be granted. Vanderhoef seconded. Harris stated that both the City and the applicant are at fault. Harris expressed a willingness to support the motion, stating that the hardship had been created and there was some misunderstanding on the part of the City and ordinance concerning a residential use in a CH zone. Vanderhoef wondered about the definition of primary use of the lot. Kucharzak explained that the residential becomes the principal use because it cannot become an accessory use. The motion to grant the variance carried unanimously. V-8212. Public hearing on an application submitted by Allen N. Thomas for a variance to Section 8.10.23.A of the Zoning Ordinance to permit construction of a single family house in the required 25 foot front yard on lot 13, Tower Court Addition. 11x4 111CROr ILMED BY _1 J + JORM MICR#LAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES I r BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 13, 1982 PAGE 11 Knight presented the site plan and reviewed the case. Knight stated that hardship exists because the lot is topographically unique as well as economically infeasible to build on under existing zoning requirements. Also, no damage would be done to the spirit of the ordinance if a variance was granted. The staff recommended approval. Harris asked the applicant if there was a sewer easement on the lot. Alan Thomas, 510 6th Avenue, Coralville, stated that there was not. Knight stated that the applicant had not requested to build an excessively large house, in which case the hardship would be self imposed. Henry Fox, 1009 Tower Court, while neither for nor against the variance, had several questions. Fox stated that two lots with similar problems had been filling in an attempt to raise the level of the lots. Fox wondered if a precedent would be set and these other two lots could apply for a variance as well. Harris stated that the Board desired to be reasonably consistent and if the cases were similar, a precedent might be set. Fox stated that granting the variance would visually affect the appearance of the circle. Some lots would be set well back from the street, while others would be close to the street. Woito stated that the Board makes its decisions based on the facts and circumstances of each case and its decision does not apply to other properties. Woito stated that each case is judged individually and therefore no legal precedent is set. Fox wondered if the covenants for the property could be overruled by the Board and Woito stated that the they could not; that was a matter of property law. Vanderhoef moved and Slager seconded that the variance be granted. Fox raised the question of private covenants regarding the 25 foot setback. It was pointed out that the variance would only waive the zoning requirements, not any private covenants. The motion to grant to the variance carried unanimously. The Board established that there would be a quorum on May 20. Kucharzak expressed the staff's confusion at several of the Board's decisions; in particular V-8209, in which a nonconforming use was extended. Kucharzak wondered under what power or authority that expansion of a nonconforming use was granted. Kucharzak expressed concern over several of the Board's decisions regarding signage as well. Harris stated that the power to grant a variance was not limited to the wording in the City's ordinance but based upon State statute and case law as well. Slager expressed the feeling that the staff had no choice but to 1116RDEILnED BY "CORM MIC ROLAEI j � CEDAR RAPIDS DES I401tJES i rI BOARD Of ADJU., MENT MAY 13, 1982 PAGE 12 recommend either for or against because they must follow the letter of the law. Woito stated that the Board must weigh equity between the literal enforcement of the Code and the circumstances involved in each case and decide accordingly. The meeting adjourned at 8:56 PM. Taken by: Sara Behrman q Approved by: /%A614 �`- . F uglas Boothroy, Se&etary 1 Id ICROf ILI•fE0 BY 1_.1 ... "JORM MIC R#L AB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOVES Ii 1 i