Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-11-09 Bd Comm minutesMINUTES OF THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE IOWA CITY MUNICIPAL AIRPORT COMMISSION'S PROPOSED MASTER PLAN October 27, 1982 Members Present: Saeugling, Tiffany, Schmeiser, George Member Absent: Redick Staff Present: Zehr, Wright Mr. William R. Reeves represented L. Robert Kimball 6 Associates, the consulting engineering firm which prepared the Master Plan. The meeting was held in the Council Chamber of the Iowa City Civic Center. Chairman Saeugling opened the meeting at 7:40 and noted attendance. He introduced Commissioner Schmeiser, who presented a summary of the portion of the Master Plan which deals with the activities at the Iowa City airport at the time the study was made for the proposed Master Plan, currently, and as projected for the future. It was estimated that by the year 2000 flights in and out of the airport will have increasedby.87% over those in 1980. Instrument approaches are expected to increase 220% over 1978 by the year 2000. Commissioner George then presented a summary of the changes that are proposed in the plan in order to accomodate the estimated increases in usage. The improve- ments are planned in three phases, and were explained with the help of a short slide presentation. The first phase, from one to five years, will include increasing the clear zone for Runway 17/35 and building a taxiway to the approach to that runway, in order to keep aircraft from taxing on the active runway. A segmented circle will be installed to the west of the Terminal Building, which will help control air traffic. Phase II, the second five years, will include appropriate improvements to Runways 30/12 and 24/06. Phase II,'from 10 to 20 years, will see the acquisition of land which will be needed for the lengthening of Runway 24/06 in order to make it the preferred runway, and a MAZ lighting system. Commissioner Tiffany reported on the environmental aspects of the Plan and noise abatement concerns in particular. It is expected that the establishment of Runway 24/06 as the preferred runway will shift the noise pattern to the south and west of the city. The environmental impact of each proposed project will be reviewed by appropriate state agencies and the public before construction can begin. Chairman Saeugling then opened the meeting to comments from the general public. Mr. Dick McCort expressed the interest of Sheller Globe Corporation in the airport and stated their strong support of the upgrading and expansion of facilities to accomodate commuter service. Mr. Larry Eastwood, representing Advanced Drainage Systems, re-emphasized Sheller Globe's position and urged the Commission to move toward commuter service. /g73 111CAOP1LMED By L• JORM MIC ROLAB I J � j CEDAR RVIDS DES !401YES r W"'. Iowa City Municipal Airport Commission Public Hearing for the Proposed Master Plan October 27, 1982 Page 2 Mr. Richard Blum, of Henry Louis, Inc., pointed out the needs of small businesses for a viable airport facility and urged the Commission to pursue diligently the goals of the Plan. Manager Zehr read two letters in support of the Plan, one from Mr. Larry McCabe of McCabe Equipment, Inc., and one from Mr. John Staley, Senior Assistant Director of University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics. Chairman Saeugling called for additional comments from the public. There being none, he declared the public hearing closed and asked the Commission to further consider the Master Plan. Mr. Scheiser moved to approved the Master Plan, and Mr. George seconded the motion. All members present voted aye, and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:07 p.m. Recorder: Priscilla Wright N MICRoEILI.IED BY 1 � JORM MIC RfSLAB � CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES If 73 1 J r MINUTES RESOURCES CONSERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 1982 7 P.M. CITY MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Singerman, Hotka, Cox, Sheehan, Fett MEMBERS ABSENT: Gartland, Hamilton STAFF PRESENT: Helling RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL: None. REQUEST TO CITY MANAGER AND STAFF: None. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION AND FORMAL ACTION: Approval of Minutes: Moved by Hotka, seconded by Sheehan, to'approve the minutes of August 5, 1982. Motion passed 5-0. Iowa -Illinois Franchise Renewal Status Report: Singerman advised that the meeting scheduled for this date had been cancelled. No update report will be available until after another meeting of the Committee has occurred. Sierra Club Project: Singerman summarized the history, nature, and process of the Sierra Club Project for the benefit of Commission members who were unfamiliar with it. He indicated that invitations will be ready for mailing soon and the steering committee is presently preparing a list of persons to whom invitations will be sent. The cost will be $8.50 per participant. Invitations will be followed by a telephone call shortly after the invitations are mailed. Singerman stressed that a major goal of this project is to attract representatives from all community interest groups, for example, rental property owners, architects, financial institutions, the business and industrial community, etc. The Committee is using the Chamber of Commerce mailing list as well as considering any other individuals whose names are suggested by Committee members or other persons. A discussion of the Charrette process followed with Commissioners making suggestions regarding specific local interests which should be represented, possible facilitators for the Charrette, and various other considerations for enhancing the project. Singerman stressed that the Commission should meet before material is mailed to prospective MICADEILMED DY i JORM MICROLA13 CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES i 1? y 7 J r L. RESOURCES CONSERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 1982 PAGE 2 participants, or if this is not possible, that these materials should be reviewed by each Commission member before being sent out. The Commission agreed to meet in two weeks (September 16, 1982) for this purpose. Helling advised that he would be out of town and that other arrangements for minute -taking would have to be made. Other Business: Staffing of the Commission was discussed. Sheehan stated it was her understanding that a half-time energy coordinator for the City energy program would be employed, and that in addition a quarter -time person would be added to the planning staff to staff the Commission. Helling explained that the Council's decision was that both functions would be achieved with half-time equivalent staffing. Sheehan further indicated that she wished the Commission to have closer ties with the Planning Department. Melling advised that there would be no objection to placing this position in the Department of Planning and Program Development at some future time and that the Council had indicated this might be appropriate. Sheehan 'suggested that Commission members might monitor certain other Boards or Commissions within the City. Other members concurred and indicated their areas of individual interest in this regard. The Housing Commission meetings will be attended by Fett, Planning and Zoning Commission meetings will be followed by Sheehan; and meetings of the. Committee on Community Needs will be monitored by Cox. Singerman noted that it would be best for Commissioners to be thinking of other proposals for Commission activities which they would be willing to pursue and participate in individually as Commission members. He summarized the goals for FY84 and asked members to consider how these might be addressed. He also summarized prior discussions regarding suggestions from other Commissions. Brief discussion followed regarding the Des Moines Register article on the Ames Energy and Water Policy Plan. Sheehan offered to lend a copy of the Plan to any Commissioner who might wish to review it. The Wisconsin Solar Rights Bill was also discussed briefly. The next Commission meeting will be on September 16, 1982, at 7 p.m. in the Conference Room. The agenda will include: Sierra Club Project 2. Iowa -Illinois Franchise Update. Respectfully submitted, Dale E. Helling Toni Hamilton, Secretary micRorILMED BY JORM MIC RAIL AB i CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES 187y 1 J MINUTES RESOURCES CONSERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 1982 7:00 PM CITY MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Gartland, Hotka, Fett, Sheehan, Singerman, Hamilton, Cox MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: None SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION AND FORMAL ACTION: Sierra Club Project Information to be handed out to Charrette participants was submitted in draft form to Commission members to be reviewed and returned with comments to the Chairperson early the following week. Finalized informational materials will be mailed out by the Sierra Club. Approximately 120 invitations for the Energy Charrette were sent out on September 15, 1982 to potential participants involved with a variety of local interests including City government, community interest groups, businesses, industry, etc. Follow-up telephone calls will be made over the next few days by the Resources Conservation Commi3sion members to attempt to confirm participation.• A general discussion of the Energy Charrette followed. A consensus model will be employed for the Charrette to include: 1) discussion of priorities; 2) a vote on priorities; 3) a period of lobbying to change priorities; 4) a second vote to finalize the priority list. It was noted that participants were free to take part in the entire session or any portion thereof. Commission members will continue to recruit persons to serve as facilitators. There was also a general discussion involving the various news releases and information distributed to the general public. Iowa -Illinois Franchise Renewal Status The Resources Conservation Commission will hold a public meeting to receive input from citizens regarding Iowa City Community Energy Needs. This meeting will be scheduled for the last week of October or the second week of November and Nancy Sheehan will finalize the date and preliminary preparations. OTHER BUSINESS: The City Council will meet with the Chairpersons of all Boards and Commissions on September 22, 1982. Nancy Sheehan will represent the Resources Conservation Commission at this meeting. The next Commission meeting will be October 14, 1982. Respectfully submitted, Nancy Sheehan Toni Hamilton, Secretary n ICROEILMID BY JORM MIC ROLAB 1 � CEDAR RAPIDS DES M014E5 �� i I i , i i '1 lIII y� Committeeon Community Needs October 13, 1982 Page 1 MINUTES COMMITTEE ON COMMUNITY NEEDS OCTOBER 13, 1982 12:00 NOON IOWA CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY, ROOM A MEMBERS PRESENT: Bonney, Dodge, VanderZee, Becker, McGee, Leshtz, Hirt, Whitlow, Lockett MEMBERS ABSENT: Cook, Lauria (EXCUSED) STAFF PRESENT: Keller, Barnes, Kucharzak, Hencin, Milkman, Behrman COUNCILPERSONS PRESENT: None GUESTS: See attached list RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE HOUSING COMMISSION: 1. It is recommended that the Housing Rehabilitation Regulations be amended to permit additional funding for a housing rehabilitation project under the following conditions: If an emergency arises which makes a house not habitable within five years of the completion of the original rehabilitation, additional funds may be allocated to correct the problem up to a maximum of $15,000 (including the original rehabilitation cost). The owner/occupant of the house must be the one who receives the original rehabilitation grant or loan. 2. It is recommended that a change be made in Chapter 6, 3i, of the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program, to alter the housing rehabilitation regula- tions so that homeowners purchasing homes on contract (instead of with a mortgage) could be eligible for rehabilitation loans, provided the equity in the home would cover the amount of the loan. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: Bonney called the meeting to order. The minutes of September 1, 1982, were amended as follows: Page 2 - Insert the fact that planting on the Lower Ralston Creek project is scheduled for this fall. The minutes of September 1, 1982, were approved as corrected. The minutes of September 9, 1982 and September 13, 1982, were approved as circulated. There was no public discussion of any item not on the agenda. Reports on Board and Commission Meeting with Council: McGee stated that problems discussed at the Creekside meeting had been mentioned. rg�5 MICROFILMED BY JORM MIC RbLAB CEDAR RAPIDS •DCS td018E5 �7 i j Committe on Community Needs October 13, 1982 Page 2 Recommendations to Housing Commission: Milkman stated that there were two items that needed to be referred to the Housing Commission: 1) criteria for additional funding for housing rehabilita- tion, and 2) the request at the Creekside meeting on September 13, 1982, to alter the housing rehabilitation regulations so that homeowners purchasing homes on contract could be eligible for rehabilitation loans. Becker moved and McGee seconded that CCN recommend to the Housing Commission that the housing rehabilitation regulations be amended to permit additional funding for a housing rehabilitation project under the following conditions: if an emergency arises which makes a house not habitable within five years of the completion of the original rehabilitation, additional funds may be allocated to correct the problem up to a maximum of $15,000 (including the original rehabilitation cost). The owner/occupant of the house must be the one who received the original rehabilitation grant or loan. The motion carried unanimously. Kucharzak explained the reason homeowners purchasing homes on contract had not been eligible for rehabilitation loans. VanderZee moved and McGee seconded that CCN make a recommendation to the Housing Commission that a change be made in Chapter 6, 3i of the housing rehabilitation loan program so that homeowners purchasing homes on contract (instead of with a mortgage) could be eligible for rehabilitation loans, provided the equity in the home would cover the amount of the loan. The motion carried unanimously. Review of Program Division Statement: The consensus was to approve the statement as circulated. Discussion and Recommendations for 1983 CDBG Funding: Jesse Bromson, representing Independent Living, reviewed the request for CDBG funding. VanderZee asked if there were any changes in funding possibilities. Bromson explained that a private publisher's contract had been finalized and private funds were being sought. Becker pointed out that when applying CCN's requirements and criteria, Independent Living's request did not meet some of the criteria set up, in .particular funding. McGee pointed out that there was a significant change in the salaries of the three staff people over the three year time period and wondered if they were anticipating a new source of funding for salaries. McGee asked if it was necessary to have paid staff. Sheila Landfair, assistant coordinator of Independent Living, said that it was not necessary to have paid staff. She pointed out that the salary increase also represented an increase from half-time to full-time staff. Bromson stated that the program had proven it can operate within a limited budget. McGee stated that there was a discrepancy between revenue and expenses; there was no guarantee that Independent Living was going to meet expenses with paid staff. Landfair stated that it was possible to maintain the program at a lower level budget. Bromson again emphasized the program's success with a volunteer staff. John Feld, a member of Independent Living's board, assured the Committee that Independent Living could survive hard economic times. Hencin asked if 870,000 was /f %_1� i� 111CROFILMED BY JORM MIC ROIAB ' ! CEDAR RAPIDSD[S MOINES. L r L Committe on Community Needs October 13, 1982 Page 3 sufficient funds to purchase and rehabilitate a house. Landfair explained that, while they had originally looked at a six to seven bedroom house, Independent Living could function in a smaller setting. Bromson stated that private contributions were being sought and they had applied for several grants. McGee questioned the revenues from the hospital school and it was explained that the hospital school had•designated Independent Living as a program. VanderZee questioned why the present facility was not adequate for Independent Living. Bromson explained that there was no handicapped accessibility to the current facility, there was no kitchen, and the two rooms severely limited the various activities (classes, tutoring, office business) operating concurrently. Landfair explained that the program had looked into renting a kitchen and using church space but had found that unfeasible. Becker warned that, by acquiring a physical facility, Independent Living was coming dangerously close to duplicating services that Goodwill and Systems Unlimited were providing. Jim Rice, Independent Living board mdmber, stated that he had observed over 200 programs for developmentally disabled persons around the country and had seen no duplication of services comparable to what Independent Living provides. Bromson insisted that grievance procedures and the fact that clients are voted into the organization add to Independent Living's uniqueness. Bromson also stated that Independent living offers direct access to its clients. 'Landfair agreed that there was no duplication of services. CCN members voted on the relative priority of this proposal: High Medium Low 1 abstention The proposal from Shared Homes for Seniors (Family Life Homes) was reviewed: McGee wondered why this need could not be addressed by Congregate Housing. Tom Walz, representing Family Life Homes, explained why frail elderly people should not be in congregate housing. McGee wondered if congregate housing could be modified to serve people for a longer period of time. Walz stated that, while some modification could be made, the end result would be an institutional response. Walz stated that the program had received RCF (Residential Care Facility) approval and would receive state supported assistance of $450 per month per resident. Leshtz asked how the program differed from the state program of Family Life Homes. Walz explained that fewer people could be served and the RCF assistance made the difference. He explained that a lease could not be negotiated and a house needed to be purchased. Milkman asked the minimum downpayment that was needed and Walz explained that approximately $55,000 would be needed. He explained that this would be a pilot project. I•11CROrILMED BY JORM MICROLA6 , CEDAR RAPIDS • PGS !4D I9C5 1975 1 J L r L. Committe on Community Needs October 13, 1982 Page 4 CCN members voted on the priority of this project: High 1 Medium 6 Low 2 The members reviewed the funding request from Iowa City Hospice, Inc.: Mary Child, representing Hospice, explained that the funding request would be applied to the salary of a half-time executive/director. She stated that this director would be needed to ensure future funding. Child reviewed the savings garnered by the Hospice care as compared to Medicare. She pointed out that free office space was being provided by Mercy Hospitaal and visiting nurses would provide 24-hour care. Bonney asked if Hospice received the requested money from another funding agency, would they return the money received from CDBG funds. Child explained that long-range planning included hiring a full-time executive director and the program would most likely prefer to keep all funds. Leshtz asked if there was any chance that Hospice would be accepted as a provider by Medicare in the future. Child stated that there was a possibility. McGee wondered if this proposal met the criteria as established: CCN will not fund operating expenses. Hencin asked if Iowa City Hospice had requested funding from the City under Human Services funding, and Child explained that that was being done. Leshtz wondered if Iowa City Hospice foresaw any difficulties in having its office space provided by Mercy Hospital, and Child stated that there would be none. CCN members considered the priority of this item: High 5 Medium 1 Low 3 1 abstention The proposal from Systems Unlimited Group Homes for Handicapped Children was considered: Benny Leonard, representing Systems Unlimited, provided further information on per diem costs. McGee asked why the housing Commission had recommended $100,000 rather than $150,000. VanderZee explained that, although need had been demonstrated, the Housing Commission had felt that all three homes did not have to be built at once. He stated that the Commission had also wondered if alternative funding methods existed. Leshtz wondered if homes could be leased to provide the service. Leonard explained the difficulties in leasing homes. MICROEILKI) BY CORM MIC ROLAB j CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOVIES I 197S r Committe on Community Needs October 13, 1982 Page 5 Milkman pointed out an eligibility problem with this proposal as a HUD regula- tion stipulates that new construction of such homes cannot be funded. Milkman stated that HUD had been contacted and it was possible that this project could be handled as an economic development project. CCN members considered the priority of this proposal: High 4 Medium 4 Low 1 (1 abstention) The proposal from Hillcrest Family Services for a transitional facility for chronically mentally ill men and women was considered: Jane Hartman, representing Hillcrest Family Services, explained the funding request. Hartman outlined alternatives for funding: 1. Seed money grants: 25% down to purchase $43,500 20% to remodel 30,000 Total $73,500 2. Loan -lease -purchase: 15 -year loan of $180,000 with no interest to be repaid at $1000/month. The building will be sold to Hillcrest Family Services at the end of 15 years for $1. VanderZee explained the reason for these alternatives; if the home is purchased in the City's name, then when repaying the low interest loan Hillcrest Family Services could still be eligible for a per diem rate per resident. Hencin stated that the Housing Commission had been contacted by this group for some time and there was a special need for such a facility for men. VanderZee wondered what would happen if the program failed and Hencin explained that arrangements similar to the City's contract with the Domestic Violence Shelter could be made. The members considered the priority of this project: Alternative 1: Seed money High 8 Medium 1 Low 0 (1 abstention) MICROFILMED BY II JORM MIC ROLAB � CEDAR RAPIDS •DES Id01NE5 i i / 9 7.S r Committe on Community Needs October 13, 1982 Page 6 Alterantive 2: Loan lease High 1 Medium 0 Low 0 McGee asked if alternative sources for funding had been explored and Hartman explained that they had. Requests for CDBG funding by the River City Housing Collective was discussed: Dan Daly, representing the River City Housing Collective, explained why the program was needed and the advantages of purchasing another house. Daly stated that, while no restrictions are imposed, the collective is serving low income persons, handicapped persons and diverse ethnic backgrounds. Dodge asked the percentage of student members. Daly stated that between 80 and 90 percent of the members were students. Bonney stated that persons other than students could live here. CCN members considered the priority of this proposal: High 2 Medium 5 Low 2 (1 abstention) Hirt asked if CCN had a health committee. The next meeting was set for Tuesday, October 19, 1982 at 7:30 p.m. The meeting adjourned at 1:50 p.m. Taken by: Sara Behrman, Minute -Taker b8 M nICRUILMED By i 1 JORM MICR6LA13 CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES j I I J r LIST OF GUESTS PRESENT AT THE OCTOBER 13, 1982 CCN MEETING NAME Mary Child Jane Hartman Sandy Brennan Pat Krobler Tom Walz Karen Herzog Jesse Bromsen Sheila Landfair Jeannette Ockenfels Jim Rice Don Schaefer Nanette Secur Mike Kearney ADDRESS AFFILIATION 19 Ravencrest Dr. Hospice 313 N. Dubuque St. Hillcrest Family Services 85 N. Westminster M.S. W. student Box 1996 I.C. WMT Rm.317 Oakdale Hosp. UI -Family Life Homes 1041 Rienow Daily Iowan Rt.2, Box 15,Kalona Independent Living 714 N. Linn Independent Living 1906 Broadway Independent Living 228 S. Summit Independent Living 1517 Ridge Street Independent Living 617 S. Clinton Summit Hills,Coralville UI Urban Planning Student MICROFILI4ED BY ! ' JORM MICR#LAE] ' CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES I 1 /87,5 J MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING COMMITTEE ON COMMUNITY NEEDS OCTOBER 19, 1982 7:00 P.M. CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Hirt, Cook, Whitlow, Becker, Bonney, Lauria, Lockett, McGee, VanderZee, Dodge MEMBERS ABSENT: Leshtz STAFF PRESENT: Hencin, Milkman, Keller, Munson, Behrman GUESTS: Jane Hartman (Hillcrest Family Services), Karen Herzog (Daily Iowa), Sandy Brennan (Intern) RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: 1. CCN recommends the following allocation of 1983 CDBG funds: Project or Activity Recommended Allocation Housing Rehabilitation and Weatherization $165,000 Creekside Storm Drainage Improvements $100,000 North Dodge Area Sidewalks $ 27,680 *Independent Living Center $ 70,000 i Hillcrest Family Services Transitional Facility for Chronically Mentally Ill Adults $ 73,500 Assisted Housing Acquisition and Development $ 75,000 Congregate Housing $ 50,000 General Program Administration $102,170 I Contingency/Property Disposition $ 11,610 TOTAL $674,960 * CCN recommends that CDBG funding for Independent Living, Inc., in the amount of $70,000, be allocated subject to the following conditions: that Independent Living, Inc., clearly demonstrate that they will have an income in the next three years adequate to allow them to meet the costs of maintenance and operation of a house prior to its purchase, by July 1, 1983. If Independent Living, Inc., is unable to establish fiscal reliability, the $70,000 will be allocated to another project(s) after July 1, 1983. If �S I_ 141CROF ILI-1D BY i CORM MIC R46L4B t CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES ' r I J r I Committee on Community Needs October 19, 1982 Page 2 SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: Bonney called the meeting to order. Discussion of Citizen Participation Plan: Milkman explained the revisions in the Citizen Participation Plan. Becker stated that the changes made were reasonable. Whitlow asked if there would still be a public hearing on the 1983 CDBG funds and was told that a public hearing would be held November 9, 1982. Becker moved to recommend that changes be accepted to the Citizen Participation Plan as outlined. Whitlow seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Discussion and Recommendations for 1983 CDBG Funding: (see attached chart) Bonney explained that everyone had to vote for each item. Milkman stated that the same number of people had to vote on each project and that the projects voted on at the last meeting would have to be d if members would explain the reasons for a priority rating. Becker explained that a low priority redone. Lauria aske rating did not necessarily mean that the member did not approve of the project, and that many worthwhile projects would have to receive low o� medium ratings because of the limited funds. (Leshtz's votes were received prior to the meeting and included in the voting tabulations.) McGee asked if the proposal received from the River City Housing Collective could be made part of the assisted housing site acquisition proposal. VanderZee indicated that there was no reason why it could not be, but wondered if there were income guidelines for the residents. Lauria stated that he would be uncomfortable making that kind of recommendation without the group being looked at carefully and being given an opportunity to voice their support for such a proposal. The following priority was given to the River City Housing Collective proposal: High 1 Medium 5 Low Assisted Housing Site Acquisition and Development Priority votes: High 6 Medium 4 Low Congregate Housing Dave Munson briefly outlined the.project and discussed the results of a recent survey of the elderly in Johnson County. He stated that those who had indicated an interest in congregate housing were typically homeowners who lived alone, had a low to middle income, preferred retirement complexes, preferred a downtown location, and were willing to sell their homes to go into congregate housing. Lauria asked if Munson had looked at other, similar studies to check on the validity. Munson stated that similar surveys had not been done before on a local level.. Lauria asked what the requested money was for. Munson explained that the money would be funneled through the Congregate Housing Task Force and 187,5' j� 111CRDEILRED 3Y JORM MIC ROIAB LCEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES i r L Committee on Community Needs October 19, 1982 Page 3 would probably be used for site acquisition and design concepts. VanderZee stated that the task force did not anticipate additional money being used for further surveys, although a site feasibility study might be done. Dodge asked how many elderly would be affected by congregate living. Munson explained that there were 5,543 elderly persons living in Johnson County; close to 75% of those persons live in Iowa City. Dodge asked if a feasibility study had ever been done on the number of teenagers that had been made independent and the number of housing units available for them. Dodge stated that much of our subsidized housing was geared to the elderly. Hencin stated that the objectives of the congregate housing study/task force/workshop was specifically to look at a narrowly defined population of the elderly who were unable to take care of themselves. Hencin indicated that Dodge's question related to other specialized housing needs. Bonney suggested that Dodge request that staff get information on other subsidized housing for other population groups. McGee also stated that the CCN has never received a proposal for the teenage age group. Dodge requested staff assistance for information on assisted housing for teens (pre -18). Lauria expressed a concern that the River City Housing Collective had received a low priority because the budget was not known, yet CCN was now discussing funding the Congregate Housing project without knowing what the money would'be used for. Munson explained that this was a new program for Iowa City and it was hard to estimate the cost. McGee asked where the Congregate Housing Task Force expected to be this time next year. Munson answered that they hoped to have a specific site in mind and architects working on designs and options for financing. VanderZee argued that this project was close to the City and under the supervision of the Housing Commission and CCN, and would be carefully monitored. McGee expressed a preference for not just using the money for further studies. Hencin indicated that the funds would most likely be used for site specific design studies, property appraisals, and boundary surveys. Becker supported the proposal. Lauria questioned the charge by the City Council not to spend money. on human services staffing and asked how that related to funds requested like these going for "operating costs." Milkman explained that funds could be used to pay for feasibility studies, etc. Lauria questioned the criteria for determining what was a public facility or improvement and what was a neighborhood rehabilitation or conservation project. McGee explained that if the proposal originated in a neighborhood strategy area, that proposal would be considered neighborhood rehabilitation or conservation. Priority votes on Congregate Housing: High Medium Housing Rehabilitation and Weatherization 111CROIILMED B5 JORM MICROLAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES nOIAES Low 18 7,5' 1 J L•• r L Committee on Community Needs October 19, 1982 Page 4 Priority votes: High 11 Medium Housing Code Enforcement Low VanderZee stated that the Housing Commission did not recommend this proposal for CDBG and had suggested that the City cover all costs of Housing Code Enforcement. Lauria asked if this proposal originated through neighborhood concerns. Milkman explained that the project initially was used to revitalize the center of the City to preserve the older housing stock. McGee stated that the proposal for housing code enforcement had more recently come from residents of Towncrest Mobile Home Court in the Creekside neighborhood. Priority votes on Housing Code Enforcement: High 2 Medium 3 Low Storm Drainage and Creek Improvements Hencin reviewed the summary report entitled "Creekside Storm Drainage Improvement Project", dated September 1982. He indicated that there were three Problems in the Creekside neighborhood: 1) interior drainage, 2) creek flooding problems and 3) sanitary sewer surcharge. Hencin stated that the interior storm drainage improvements did not benefit any one property owner as the problem was confined to the streets, and the situation was not life threatening. He stated that creek improvements offered an array of benefits and pointed out the percentage of benefits to the neighborhood in resolving each of these problems. Lauria asked if these proposals were included in the three year Creekside plan previously allocated by CCN, and Hencin indicated that storm drainage improvements had not been included but creek improvements had been. Lauria reminded the Committee that the major concern of Creekside residents this year was with the sanitary sewer problem and that concern had been diffused when the (Waste Water Treatment) task force was set up. McGee questioned the benefit of the proposed pump station. She stated that the storm drainage improvements had been considered by CCN last year but CCN had been convinced by the city staff that the pump station would not alleviate the problem. VanderZee expressed skepticism at the amount of money involved with the storm sewer problem as it benefited a small number of people. Bonney stated that the area affected was more than just an intersection, but she was •also disturbed about the recommendation that a pump station be installed; conflicting reports had been received from the staff last year and the consultant who had written the summary report. Hencin stated that the pump station provides relief from the ten year flood and would address the street flooding problems seen this past summer. He suggested that the creek improvements be tabled unless funding became available. more RICROi ILIIED BY JORM MICR6LAS j CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES /?75 J Committee on Community Needs October 19, 1982 Page 5 Storm Drainage Improvements Priority votes: High 6 Medium 2 Low 3 Creek Improvements (Creekside) Priority votes: High 2 Medium 3 Low 6 Sidewalks (Creekside) McGee stated that the people in the neighborhood had expressed the desire to see the water problems cleared up,while response to the questionnaire last year had produced mixed results with regard to sidewalks. Priority votes on Creekside Sidewalks: High 1 Medium 2 Low 8 Street Paving (Creekside) Priority votes: High 0 Medium 1 Low 10 Property Disposition (Lower Ralston Creek) McGee asked if CCN had any choice in this matter and Hencin stated that they did not. Lauria asked what the money would be used for, and Hencin replied that the money would be used for property surveys, marketing appraisals, etc. Hencin indicated that the cost could be spread out over more than one year. VanderZee asked why the money could not be used from the assisted housing site acquisition fund, and Hencin replied that this project was not technically housing. Priority votes on Property Disposition: High 3Medium 4 Low 4 Sidewalks (North Dodge) Priority votes: High 8 Medium 0 Low 3 Self-help Pro.iects (North Dodge, Creekside Hencin stated that an intern had worked on this project last summer and it was not tied to any specific neighborhood group. Milkman suggested that this might be one way of organizing the Creekside area. Lauria recommended that if no one was willing to do self-help projects, the money revert back to CCN. McGee 111tR0EILFIED BY ' � JORM MIC RE/LAB � CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES , I 1875 J 5- r Committee on Community Needs October 19, 1982 Page 6 suggested that it would be best to have someone in the community do the organizing. Priority votes on Self-help Projects: High 3 Medium 2 Low 6 Rocky Shore Drive Bikeway Lauria stated that the City Council had indicated that they would take care of this project through other resources. The consensus of CCN was to remove this item from the list because the City Council had determined that they would take care of this project at their October 11, 1982, meeting. Willow Creek at Airport Priority votes: High 0 Medium 0 Low 11 jKirkwood Circle, street'surfacing and drainage Priority votes: High 0 Medium 2 Low 9 General Program Administration Hencin. reviewed the present staff level of the program and stated that there was a reduction of one position. VanderZee recommended that, since many projects funded for the coming year would be under the supervision of housing, perhaps a subcommittee could be appointed within CCN to gain a better understanding of the real staff needs in General Program Administration. The idea of forming a subcommittee to look General Program Administration will be placed on the next meeting's agenda. Priority votes on General Program Administration: High 11 Medium 0 Low 0 College Street Sidewalk Priority votes: r High 0 Medium 0 Low 11 1875 j" MICROFILMED BY i -JORM MICRbLAB .) t CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES I r L Committee on Community Needs October 19, 1982 Page 7 Hems ted Wall Priority votes: High Medium Low 11 The other items under Human Services had been discussed at the previous meeting on October 13, and the new priorities were set at this meeting without discussion (see attached chart). Milkman tallied the total number of points allocated to each proposal. The consensus was to eliminate all proposals receiving less than 20 points at this time. Becker moved and Lauria seconded that the proposal for Housing Rehabilitation and Weatherization be allocated $165,000. The motion carried unanimously. Hencin indicated that alternative costs for the General Program Administration would be $102,170. McGee moved and Cook seconded that the General Program Administration proposal be allocated $102,170. The motion carried unanimously. VanderZee moved and Cook seconded that $50,000 be allocated to Congregate Housing. McGee asked if the proj-'ct could include a unit or facility for the frail elderly which the Family Life Homes would serve. Milkman explained that different licensing policies prevented that. VanderZee further generalized studies be done with the funds but that stipulated that no the funding h used on site-specific design proposals. The motion carried 9-1; Lauria abstained. Lauria explained the reason for his abstention as being the fact that there was no way of knowing what the funding would be used for. McGee moved and VanderZee the North Dodge Street area Independent Living Center seconded that $27,680 be allocated for sidewalks in The motion carried 8-2; Lauria and Dodge voted no. about the way in McGee stated that she was supportive of the program but expressed reservations Independent Living, Inc. needs to demonstrate that they can h the budget had been dafford to. Shetmai tainaa center in a separate house, and wondered what guarantee CCN had that they would not come back for further funds. McGee suggested a six to nine months pledge campaign of supporters who agree to give a certain amount for three years to cover the maintenance and utility costs. Dodge stated there was a problem as she was not satisfied that Independent Living was not duplicating services. McGee pointed out that the main difference With the project was that there were was no intermediary care provided. Becker stated that what was missing from the Independent Living proposal was a "safety net"; Becker stated she was worried about their accountability. Lauria moved that Independent Living, Inc. be allocated $70,000 for purchase of a house. Whitlow seconded the motion. Lauria stipulated that the conditions would be that Independent Living, Inc. demonstrate that they will have an income in the next three years adequate to allow them to meet the maintenance and 111CROFILMED BY JORM MICR46LA13 CEDAR RAPIDSDES n101 AES 1,775 J r L Committee on Community Needs October 19, 1982 Page 8 operation costs of the house prior to its purchase, by July 1, 1983. The motion carried 8-2; Becker and Dodge voted no. VanderZee moved that $55,000 be allocated for Assisted Housing Site Acquisition and Development and $20,000 be allocated for property disposition. Lauria questioned that procedure, and Milkman agreed that VanderZee was not following the agreed upon procedure. Lauria stated that he prefers CCN allocate money according to priorities and when it rolls back, CCN can choose to put it into another one of their priorities. The motion failed for lack of a second. Lauria moved that $75,000 be allocated to the Assisted Housing Site Acquisition and Development. Cook seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. McGee moved and Dodge seconded that $73,500 be allocated to the Hillcrest Family Services Transitional Facility for Chronically Mentally Ill Adults. The motion carried unanimously. Storm Drainage Improvements Bonney asked who had changed their mind regarding the effectiveness of the pump station. VanderZee questioned if projects completed in the Lower Ralston Creek area had been taken into consideration when the Creekside report was done. Hencin indicated that the completion of the Ralston Creek South Branch Detention Structure had been taken into account, as well as other down creek projects. VanderZee stated that further input from the City Engineer would be useful. Bonney agreed that there were conflicting opinions. Lauria indicated that CCN could follow one of two choices: 1) allocate part of the money to the project and ask the City Council to find funds• elsewhere or 2) reprioritize all the proposals to come up with sufficient funds for the entire project. Lauria also indicated that, since this was an all or nothing proposal, CCN could vote not to fund it as not enough funds were remaining. McGee wondered if this project could be done over a period of two years. Hencin indicated that it was unlikely due to the nature of the project. McGee stated that there was a strong outcry from the neighborhood for using COBG•money for the storm drainage problems in the Creekside area. Lauria urged that CCN consider the next item on the priority list since not enough money was available to take care of this item. McGee moved that the problem be left up to Cicy staff and that no funds be allocated at this time. Dodge seconded the motion. The motion and the second were withdrawn after discussion. McGee made a new motion, moving that CCN allocate $100,000 for storm drainage improvements in the Creekside area; if it cannot be done for that amount of money, then the money should revert back to CCN for reallocation. VanderZee seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Property Disposition (Lower Ralston Creek) Hencin stated that $20,000 was needed for surveys, appraisals, and upkeep of the property but, if we assume the properties cannot be sold immediately, only part of that money would be spent in 1983. 11ICROEILMED DY JORM MICROLA9 CEDAR RAPIDS DES '401YES I? 7S 1 J T I 'tel P f L� i Committee on Community Needs October 19, 1982 Page 9 Lauria moved that CCN allocate the remaining amount of money to Property Disposition and any money not used in Property Disposition be used for the contingency fund. McGee seconded the motion. Laurie amended the motion to read that the $11,610 remaining be allocated to the contingency fund and that that money be allowed to be used for Property Disposition as necessary. McGee seconded the amended motion. The motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 10:•05 p.m. Taken by: Sara Behrman, Minute -Taker -,�=> JI 111CROf ILI•IEO BY i JORM MICR#LAH- - _f CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOIYES � � r i r r I I 1983 CDBG Proposals Proposal A. Neighborhood Rehabilitation Medium (2) 0 or Conservation 2 1.. Housing Rehabilitation a Weatherization 18 2. Housing Code Enforcement 3 3. Storm Drainage Improvements (Creekside) 3 4. Creek Improvements (Creekside) I 5. Sidewalks (Creekside) 15 6. Street Paving (Creekside) Ck.) 10 7. Property Disposition (Lower Ralston 4 8. Sidewalks (N. Dodge) 8 I 9. Self-help projects (N. Dodge, Creekside) B. Human Services 2 1. Independent Living Center 8 I 2. Family Life -Home 27 3. Hospice 5 4. Systems Unlimited I 1 5. Iowa City Residence for Women ' C. Low Income Housing Assistance 20 1. Assisted Housing Site Acquisition j 26 a Development 4 2. Congregate Housing 6Fn0 3. River City Housing Collective D. Public Facility or Improvement 1. Willow Creek at airport 0 3. Kirkwood Circle, street surfacing 11 and drainage E. Other 1. General Program Administration 2. College St. sidewalk 3. Hemsted Wall *No. of points for each vote. PRIORITY VOTES TOTAL High (3)* 11 Medium (2) 0 Low (1) 0 Points 33 2 3 6 18 6 2 3 25 2 1 3 6 18 I 2 8 15 I 1 10 12 I 4 4 I 21 8 I Q3 I 27 3 1 2 6 19 8 I 0 3 27 2 1 4 5 19 ---To- 4 I 1 6 2 2 I 5 4 20 6 I 3 2 26 6 4 1 27 6Fn0 28 5 18 0 11 11 3 33 11 / 8 7,!� 111CROFILMED BY i JORM MICR6LAB- 1 1 CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES / _ I r MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 1, 1982 -- 4:45 PM CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Vanderhoef, Harris, Slager, Barker. MEMBERS ABSENT: VanderVelde. STAFF PRESENT: Jansen, Franklin, Boothroy, Knight, Keller, Behrman, Frantz. FINAL ACTION TAKEN: V-8221. The application submitted by Barbara Hubbard for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance to permit a recently constructed six foot fence which extends into the required front yard to remain at 2104 Russell Drive was granted. V-8222. The application submitted by Penningroth Apartments for ianan to the Zoning Ordinance to permit the addition of two parking spaces existing parking lot located at 432 South Dubuque Street was granted. V-8223. The application submitted by David W. & Shirley A. Day for a . variance to the Zoning Ordinance to permit construction of an attached garage on each side of a duplex unit located at 318/320 Westminister was granted. V-8224. The application submitted by Systems Unlimited for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance to permit an addition to the existing structure located at 1802 Seventh Avenue Court was granted. g 3. 4. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: Harris called the meeting to order. Franklin called the roll. Harris outlined the procedure to be followed by the Board of Adjustment. VARIANCE ITEMS: V-8220. Public hearing on an application submitted by Samuel Fomon for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance to permit a reduction in the number of required parking spaces at 900 Orchard Street. Deferred from 8/4/82. Knight explained that this item, deferred from the last meeting, no longer required a variance. Upon reinspection by the Housing Inspector, it was found that there had been no change in use. The application for a variance, therefore, required no action by the Board. V-8221. Public hearing on an application submitted by Barbara Hubbard for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance to permit a recently constructed six foot fence which extends into the required front yard to remain at 2104 Russell Drive. 141CROF I L14ED 8Y JORM MICR4�LAB j CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES I 1876 1 J BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 1, 1982 PAGE 2 Knight reviewed the staff report, stating that the six foot fence in question extends four feet into the required front yard and exceeds the limit of four feet imposed on fences within a front yard. Staff felt that any hardship was self imposed and there were no unique features apparent which would warrant permitting a higher fence at this location. Adverse impact must exist as the Building Inspector had received a citizen's complaint about the fence. Staff recommended denial of the variance. Knight. suggested that the fence be reduced in height from six to four feet or moved back four feet. Barker asked if the building permit attached to the staff report was relevant. Frantz explained that this was an old permit which had been used to illustrate the plot plan of the property in question. Harris questioned the accuracy of the drawing. Knight explained that the fence did indeed extend four feet into the required front yard. Barker asked if the applicant used Crosby Lane or Russell Drive as their front yard. Knight replied that she used Russell Drive. Barker asked whether construction of a fence parallel to Russell Drive would be legal. Knight replied affirmatively. Knight indicated that a letter in support of a variance request had been received from Edward J. Dorpinghaus, 2120 Russell Drive. Barbara Hubbard, 2104 Russell, spoke in favor of the variance. Hubbard admitted that she had been in error when determining the front lot line; she did not realize that she should have measured 25 feet from behind the sidewalk. Hubbard argued that to reduce the fence to four feet was not practical as it would ruin the design of the fence. Hubbard explained that she lived alone and had a large dog; the four foot fence would not contain her dog. She further explained that she could not move the fence back four feet because the door from the garage into the yard was on the front of the garage. Hubbard stated that to move the fence back would therefore restrict exit from the basement. She felt this was a unique feature of the house. Hubbard stated that the cost of adding a door through the side of the garage would be prohibitive and a financial hardship. Hubbard pointed out that the front yard was quite large and the fence did not obstruct traffic. While Hubbard admitted being in error when measuring her front yard, she stated that without the variance she would have to get rid of her dog. Pat Fountain, 1411 Crosby Lane, expressed support for the variance, stating the fence was very nice and improved the property. Harris asked if Hubbard had thought the sidewalk line and property line were the same. Hubbard stated that she had. A letter in support of the variance was submitted by John and Mary Henderson, 2119 Russell Drive. Barker moved that the variance be granted so as to allow the fence as it exists to remain. Vanderhoff seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. V-8222. Public hearing on an application submitted by Penningroth Apartments for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance to permit the addition of two parking spaces to an existing parking lot located at 432 South Dubuque Street. /876 111CROEILMED 01' JORM MIC ROLA:) ' CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOIRES r L BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 1, 1982 PAGE 3 Knight reviewed the staff report, stating that the applicant was requesting a variance to both yard regulations and the location of parking space in yards. Knight stated that the applicant was requesting a variance to permit it to construct a ninth unit in what was originally proposed as an eight-plex. He noted that any hardship was self-imposed by the applicant's desire to achieve a greater use of the property than the size of the lot allowed. The applicants were faced by a common dilemma for a corner lot i.e. more space is necessary to achieve the same use to account for the double frontage requirements. Knight stated that granting a variance appears to be detrimental to the spirit of the ordinance and would permit a greater use of this property than other properties facing simila circumstances are permitted. The staff recommended denial of the variance. Harris asked if, on the basis of area per dwelling unit, the lot would permit nine units. Knight replied that it would. Harris asked what had originally been proposed for the area where the ninth unit would be located. Frantz stated that the area had been set aside for storage space. Larry Shaw, P.O. Box 5242, Coralville, manager for Penningroth Apartments, spoke in favor of the variance. Shaw stated that the additional unit was needed to make the apartment more profitable. Shaw stated that there would be no adverse impact on the surrounding area nor would the parking detract from the property. Shaw stated that only nine additional feet were being requested to allow for the additional parking spaces. Harris asked if 14 parking spaces were presently being provided. Shaw stated that 'they were. Slaeger asked what was considered to be the front yard. Shaw stated that the front yard was on Dubuque Street. Knight again explained the requirements of a corner lot and the change that resulted when the applicant requested the construction of nine units. Shaw explained that after obtaining financing, the applicant realized that the ninth unit was needed to make the building profitable; if the variance was not granted a hardship would be created. Harris expressed a concern that the Board was being maneuvered into a situation where hardship could be claimed by the applicant since a building permit had been issued on an eight-plex, which can meet the parking requirements, but the nine-plex now proposed requires additional parking in the front yard. Harris stated that there was a problem if this meant hardship would be assigned by virtue of the fact that the project was already underway. Knight stated that the staff felt that any hardship was self-imposed and based on the applicant's misjudgement of the necessary number of units. Mike Evans, P.O. Box 2602, Solon, builder of the apartments, argued in favor of the variance. Evans stated that the hardship was not self-imposed. Evans stated that they had discovered that instead of 20 feet in the side yard, a much larger area existed due to the width of the Harrison Street right-of-way. Evans stated that the original plans had been to put parking under the building, however, the applicant felt this would be less attractive and more costly. Evans argued that the area of the lot was adequate to support a larger complex but due to the parking requirements and the frontage required of a corner lot, only an eight unit complex had been planned. Evans argued that hardship existed if the apartment owners could not get their money's worth. Harris asked the / III CROr I UIED BY JORM MIC RE/LAB CCDAR RAPIDS • DCS '401'IES /87( 7 r L. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 1, 1982 PAGE 4 width of Harrison's right-of-way. Frantz explained that the sidewalk was close to the curb and that the City's right-of-way extended beyond that point. Barker asked when Evans had found out about constructing a ninth unit. Evans explained that a ninth unit had always been desired but no one had ever mentioned the possibility of obtaining a variance. Evans stated that plans had originally called for additional parking under the building. Barker asked Knight if he agreed that the right-of-way dimensions were as Evans stated. Knight said that they appeared correct. He then pointed out that this area was zoned R3B which is the highest density zoning in Iowa City and noted that this permitted maximum use of their property. Sister Jean Marie Brady, 11 South Seventh Avenue, administrator of the Catholic Grade School, expressed concern at the number of units in the building and the potential traffic hazard to the children of her school. Tom Kriz, 831 Southlawn Drive, president of the Catholic Board of Education, concurred with Brady's concerns. Kriz stated that the alley from Harrison Street was already heavily traveled and this particular unit's variance might affect other apartments in the area and set a precedent for front yard parking. Kriz expressed concern at potential safety hazards. Harris asked Frantz if the tree ordinance and other screening requirements were triggered if the variance was granted. Frantz explained that those ordinances were triggered at 18 spaces. Evans clarified that cars would not be backing out onto Harrison Street and traffic patterns would be no different than what other buildings have now. Brady stated that parking problems cxisted in the area as well and adequate parking should be provided. Slaeger stated that she was uncomfortable with the timing of this application. Harris stated that he was satisfied that there was no denigration of public interest with the exception of the possible increased traffic in the alley. He explained that while he was troubled by the timing of the procedure, he felt he could support the variance. Barker stated he could support the variance in light of the circumstances. Barker moved that the variance be granted as requested. Vanderhoff seconded the motion. Slaeger asked if there was to be any change in the frontage required for corner lots when the new Zoning Ordinance was adopted. Boothroy stated that there would not be. Harris asked if the new Zoning Ordinance was contemplating a different set of requirements for corner lots and Boothroy said no. Knight explained that the parking requirements would probably be increased. Vanderhoff stated that he could support the variance as there was nearly 30 feet to the street because of the extra right-of-way. Harris stated that he felt the applicant was trying to get nine units in at the last possible moment. Barker stated that he was satisfied that they had been attempting to build nine units for seven years and finally were advised by the building inspector that they could apply for a variance. He noted that he was not comfortable with the idea of people parking under the building. Evans stated that the area of the lot was big enough to support nine units and the problem was the side yard requirement. MICR011LMED BY JORM MICROLA6 CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINE5 1,?%6 1 J BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 1, 1982 PAGE 5 He explained that he believed corner lot owners were penalized and the value of the property made it too expensive to support only eight units. Harris stated that he did not agree with that argument as the value of the property was based on what was allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. Knight clarified the fact that, although the building inspector had guided the applicant to seek a variance, it did not mean that he supported a variance. The motion to grant the variance carried three to one; Slaeger voted no. V-8223. Public hearing on an application submitted by David W.. and Shirley A. variance Zoning Ordinance attached garageon each side of aduplexunit located constructionermit the edat 318/320 Westminster. an Knight reviewed the staff report, stating that the variance was being requested to permit construction of a garage unit at each end of a duplex. The duplex faces Westminster Street, but because the Zoning Ordinance defines the front lot line for a corner lot as " ..the shortest street dimensions...," it officially fronts on Court Street. The applicants, therefore, need a variance to both the front and rear yard requirements to permit construction of the two garages. Knight stated that granting a variance would permit the property to be used beyond what it's size permits and any hardship which exists therefore would be self-imposed. The yard regulations were probably the reason the garage was not constructed initially since the duplex was built after the regulations were in effect. Knight stated that the intent of requiring permanent yard areas was to guarantee a minimum amount of open space, assure fire safety, provide visibility needed for traffic safety and create adequate sight lines between adjoining houses. Granting a variance which overrides the intent of the ordinance appears to be contrary to the spirit of the ordinance. Knight stated there was nothing unique about the property and negative impact might be caused by the increased amount of lot coverage, the decrease in sight lines and decreased visibility for vehicular traffic. Knight noted that the applicant would be permitted to construct a detached garage in his rear yard which would be within five feet of the rear property line - closer than that currently proposed. Knight stated that this appears to point out a problem in the zoning requirement as it currently exists and the proper means of resolving this problem would be through amendment of the ordinance. The staff recommended that the variance be denied. David Day, 320 Westminster, spoke in favor of the variance. Day stated that the property was being returned to the rel market within a year and the ed rages rental would further improve the property. Day stated that being prevent om constructing the garages would be an injury because of the Iowa winters. Day reviewed the various alternatives for constructing the garages on either side of the duplex stating that the alternatives would permit coverage of more of the lot with buildings than what was presently being proposed. Day argued that the garages would not decrease the visibility of vehicular traffic. Day stated that none of his neighbors had protested this variance request and Knight confirmed that. No one spoke in opposition to the variance. Harris stated that the front yard alignment on Court Street appeared to him to be closer to the street than 25 feet and, therefore, the proposed garage would A into that alignment. Harris wondered when the existing buildings not protru e L 1-0ICROEILNED BY JORM MICROLAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES /F76 1 J r L: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 1, 1982 PAGE 6 had been constructed. Frantz replied that they had been constructed in the late 60's (after 1962). Frantz stated that the front yard depth on Court Street was 25 feet. Harris suggested that it was more nearly 20 feet. Knight stated that while that was possible, it was irrelevant to this case because the houses were built under the existing zoning ordinance. Knight agreed that not having a garage was a difficulty but, not a hardship and pointed out that perhaps that problem should have been addressed when the building was constructed. Harris stated that the problem was still how to treat a side yard in a corner lot. Slaeger moved that the variance to Section 8.10.23 be permitted so the attached garages at each end of the duplex could be built. Barker seconded the motion. The motion carried three to one; Barker voted no. The meeting recessed at 6:21 and reconvened at 6:27 PM. :- M. Public hearing on an application submitted by Systems Unlimited for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance to permit an addition to the existing structure located at 1802 Seventh Avenue Court. Keller reviewed the staff report, stating that, in order to comply with the State of Iowa Department of Health regulations regarding the licensing of adult facilities, two of the rooms of the existing building must be enlarged. The building is being coverted from a juvenile facility 'to an adult facility and under existing regulations the applicant is required to provide larger bedroom areas. The proposed construction would bring the corners of the garage and the house within two feet of one another for a distance of approximately five feet. Keller explained that the Zoning Ordinance provisions for the proximity of garages to houses was created so that fire safety, building and ground maintenance could be carried out. While fire safety would probably not be a problem in this situation, building and ground maintenance may be. Keller stated that the applicant currently received a reasonable return on his property but there would probably be no negative impact on the neighborhood if the facility expanded. Keller pointed out that a letter had been received which expressed concern in the neighborhood as to the possible reuse of the building I f not leased by Systems Unlimited. Barker asked if the letter had expressed concern over the change in use and Keller stated that the conversion from a juvenile to an adult facility did not concern them. Staff recommended not, granting this variance on the grounds that no hardship could be found to exist and the spirit and intent of the zoning regualtions regarding accessory buildings was only partially met and addressed in this case. Benny Leonard, representing Systems Unlimited, spoke in favor of the variance. Leonard explained the purpose of the program stating that it served the mentally and physically handicapped. Leonard reviewed the regulations of the Department of Health. Leonard stated that the present facility could only serve three adults, which would not be feasible. Leonard outlined various alternatives that had been considered by Systems Unlimited, stating that the present proposal was the only feasible one. Leonard indicated that Systems Unlimited intends to stay in the facility. Barker moved that the variance be granted as requested. Slaeger seconded the motion. The motion carried three to one; Barker voted no. nICROf ILMED By JORM MICROLAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOVES 187(0 J r L' BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 1, 1982 PAGE 7 V-8225. Public hearing on an application submitted by Home Town Dairies, Inc., for a variance to the yard requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for property located at 1109 North Dodge Street. Franklin stated that the staff recommended approval based on the information presented at previous hearings. Franklin stated that it was determined that a hardship was imposed by the ordinance since the production volume seemed to exist prior to the ordinance adoption. When considering the issue of public interest, Franklin stated that testimony by the applicant had indicated that the noise generated by tractor trailers would remain the same. While the staff report concurred that it is questionable whether the public interest would be served by granting the variance, staff was unable to evaluate if the proposal would exacerbate or ameliorate the noise situation. William Meardon, attorney for Home Town Dairies, Inc., submitted a transcript of the previous hearings as recorded by a certified court reporter. Meardon also submitted a plat which was filed in connection with the LSNRD for the dairy. Meardon asked Jansen to advise the Board whether the transcript was admissible as evidence. Jansen indicated that the transcript was indeed reported by a certified court reporter and there was no problem with it being inaccurate. Jansen stated that while the evidence was not under oath some of the evidence was expert testimony by engineers and the health department officials. Jansen indicated that the admission of the transcript would make it unnecessary to have that evidence given over again. Meardon asked if the Board wished Meggett to give evidence regarding the change in the overhang placed to protect the proposed loading facility. Barker stated that that was not part of the issue. Harris stated that no request for clarification was needed at this time. Meardon stated that, as Meggett's previous testimony from the two hearings was in the transcript, unless further questioned, he would not go further at this time. Richard Zimmermann, representing a group of persons opposed to the variance, expressed concern at the admission of a transcript. Zimmermann stated that his clients had come to have a hearing and Home Town Dairies had an obligation to establish hardship. Zimmermann argued that there were serious deficits in the evidence at the last proceeding, at which his clients were not represented. Zimmermann objected to the procedure of accepting the evidence and asked that Home Town Dairies bear the burden of showing hardship and let the public ask questions. Zimmermann asked Franklin what data had been gathered to show whether or not the hardship was self-imposed or ordinance imposed. Franklin answered that, according to the applicant's statements, production volumes requiring additional cooler space had occurred prior to the adoption of the yard requirements to which the variance was being requested. Zimmermann asked the date that the burden was discovered and Franklin stated that she did not have specific data to substantiate when the concerns regarding production were raised. Zimmermann asked if the minutes of the Board of Directors had been reviewed. Franklin stated that she did not know the content of any such minutes but the letter from the plant manager attached to the staff report indicated that concerns had been raised prior to the adoption of the pertinent yard requirements. M ICROS IWED 01' JORM MICROLAB CEDAR RAPIDS • 0B :•IDIIIES 1974 1 J r L BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 1, 1982 PAGE 8 Zimmermann asked for data concerning the hardship to this company relating to the configuration of the building and wondered if any other configurations had been considered other than the one proposed. Franklin stated that the architect's testimony at the past hearing had indicated that alternatives had been looked into and rejected. Harris stated that the Board had asked for more information in the form of plans to explore the issue of hardship and had accepted the argument that the grounds for hardship had been established. Zimmermann argued that it was difficult to determine hardship without numbers; for example no profit -loss statements had been submitted. Zimmermann stated that costs of moving equipment or alternative configurations within the present property boundaries were needed to determine hardship. Zimmermann again objected to the submission of the transcript of past hearings and requested that Meggett and Johnson, the architect, answer questions about the planning process, such as who did the planning; what were the alternatives; had a two-level storage system been evaluated? Zimmermann asked Meggett the relationship, if any, with Mid-America Diarymen. Meardon stated that Meggett would not.answer questions relating to the corporate structure as they were not relevant. Zimmermann argued that they were relevant to the question of the extent of hardship. Vanderhoff indicated that hardship existed because the health inspector had indicated that the dairy would be shut down if a cooler storage area was not built. Zimmermann asked Meggett if alternatives to this configuration which would require a variance had been looked into. Zimmermann asked Meggett what the production volume through the plant was in the last ten years. Harris stated that Zimmermann was addressing the question of the definition of hardship, indicating that if the financial health of Home Town Dairies and its parent corporation could absorb the necessary costs of alternatives then there was no hardship. Zimmermann stated that data was not available as to the alternatives and the cost of those alternatives. Zimmerman also stated that the question of whether problems occurred prior to or after 1974 was relevant to the issue of self- imposed hardship. Zimmerman asked Meggett for production figures. Meggett stated that he could not give figures by date or discuss how profitable the business was. Meggett stated that it was true that the requirements for additional storage were a result of increased volume of business. Zimmerman asked if the need occurred after 1975. Meggett stated that the problem had occurred before then. Zimmerman asked Meggett what action had been taken before 1975. Meggett stated that the information contained in the attached letter indicated discussion by the Board of Directors. Zimmerman asked the context of that discussion. Meggett did not answer. Meggett asked if written instructions to Mr. Johnson on which to base his planning were available. Meggett stated there were no written. instructions and Mr. Johnson had been engaged to study the problem and had come up with the present recommendation. Zimmerman asked several questions about the production level and the cost of alternatives to the present proposal which would not require a variance. Meggett stated that they had tried to locate the cooler in different areas but none of the alternatives had lent itself to a good operation. Zimmerman stated that Meggett was not prepared to answer, or did not want to answer questions under advice of counsel. Zimmerman stated that it was difficult to get the data that the Board needed to make a decision. MICRD(ILMED BY JORM MICROLAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DCS MOPICS J87G 1 J r L BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 1, 1982 PAGE 9 Harris asked Jansen the procedure to follow in relationship to requesting new testimony. Jansen stated that the Board was a judicial body and the amount of evidence requested was up to the Board. Jansen stated that the Board could not make a decision based upon insufficient evidence. The use of the transcript would introduce no change in evidence and the applicant had stated that no new evidence was to be presented by them. Jansen stated that the Board was now confronted by the fact that the opponents, not previously represented by counsel, wished to open a new hearing. Harris agreed there was a dilemma, stating that the Board was at liberty to determine if the transcript was sufficient or if new evidence was warranted. Jansen concurred but said the testimony given previously had been found acceptable by the Board. Zimmerman argued that he had not known the transcript would be introduced as evidence and had come believing that a new hearing and a new application would be discussed. Barker stated that it seemed as if the Board was in the middle of a "adversary proceeding". The Board could not order the applicant to produce new evidence if they wished to introduce only the transcript. Jansen agreed that the Board could neither subpoena witnesses nor compel testimony; that fact would have to be weighed in reaching a decision. Harris stated that the Board had jurisdiction to decide what evidence they wished to hear. Zimmerman stated that the public would like the opportunity to have a hearing and had raised the questions based on their feeling that the hardship was self-imposed. Barker stated that the Board was dealing with certain limitations. If the party requesting the variance submits evidence which is accepted by the Board, the normal procedure would be to solicit comments from opponents and to develop information. Barker stated that he did not know if the right existed to cross examine. Jansen stated that the rules did not confer the right of cross examination on the Board. Jansen stated that the Board was an "evidence receiver" of information usually presented in the form of layman testimony. Jansen stated that if Zimmerman wished to use the hearing as a forum for adversary proceedings, it was at the Board's discretion to lay down the rules. Harris stated that the question before the Board was the degree to which new information would be requested in light of the fact that this was a "de novo" hearing. Zimmerman argued that he was not trying to turn this into an adversary proceeding or forum. Zimmerman stated that they were trying to obtain facts they felt the Board needed to make a rational decision. Meardon stated that the transcript had been introduced for one purpose only; to save a lot of time. Meardon stated that, as far as his client was concerned, if the Board had certain questions on the issues raised by Zimmerman, the hearing should be continued to another date on which this item is the only one on the agenda. Meardon asked what the specific questions would be and stated that he believed there was currently enough evidence for the Board to act. Meardon suggested that any financial data was not going to be submitted in the absence of a directive from court. Meardon stated that the Board should have had some kind of policy which permits the continuance of a variance which expired without setting a new hearing, particularly where the issue is identical. Zimmerman indicated that he represented Anthony Frey, Andrew Isserman, and Davis. IdILRUf ILIdED ar JORM MICROLAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES NUI IES / 8'76 1 J r L BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 1, 1982 PAGE 10 Slager stated that she did not feel comfortable with the submission of the transcripts at a meeting at which action might be taken, especially as there were two members on the Board who had not participated in the past hearing. Slager stated that, if she was to take the transcript as evidence, she would need time to read it. Vanderhoef asked why the variance had elapsed. Meardon explained that after the appeal period was over, the City staff had determined it was necessary to obtain approval under the LSNRD (this issue is currently under litigation). Meardon stated that plats had been submitted, but that six months had not been long enough to draw up specifications and plans for the LSNRD. Jansen stated that his opinion of the tree ordinance applicability to Home Town Dairies' LSNRD had been written within the past 60 days. Jansen stated that a request had been received by Home Town Dairies to extend the variance period. Barker raised a concern that the entire episode would be repeated. Meardon indicated that the question of whether it was necessary to submit an LSNRD was in litigation. Harris asked when that would be settled and Franklin stated that City Council approval of a Planning and Zoning recommendation to approve the LSNRD was awaiting action of this Board. Meardon suggested that the Board adjourn and allow the applicants to obtain the answers to their questions. Harris stated that the Board should adjourn and continue at a later date to give the members time to study the• transcript. Harris asked what kind of information the Board would request. Barker stated that was an extremely important point as he was willing to request information that the Board wished the applicant to provide, but would actively resist this Board's proceedings from becoming adversarial in nature where one side is forced to produce information the other side wants. Jansen agreed that was a valid distinction, stating that the Board was a factfinder and not a judge. Barker stated he would welcome written requests for the Board to consider specific information. Anthony Frey, 15 Caroline Court, expressed the concern that the public would be required to produce questions in writing to the Board prior to the meeting and urged that, while guidelines are good, extemporaneous questions from the public should be encouraged. Harris stated that the Board would not prevent the public from asking particular questions. Harris stated that that could not be done until all members had read the transcript and moved that this item -be postponed until the next meeting. Barker suggested that the Board ask the public to submit requests for additional information at the next hearing, then consider and vot which information would be relevant, and then have another hearing and make its decision. Jansen stated that the issues were very important to both sides. Strong financial issues were at stake involving property values and the spectre of litigation. The City's role is to advise the Board as to the legal points and not to be advocates of either view. Jansen stated that he thought this was a "de novo" situation. Jansen stated that he was uncomfortable at not having all five members with equal knowledge. Jansen urged that this not become a courtroom proceeding, stating that witnesses are not subjected to cross examination and should not be. Jansen stated that it was the Board's prerogative to indicate what type of evidence they would be interested in considering. Barker withdrew hfs original motion. Barker then moved that this matter be deferred and continued until the next regularly scheduled meeting at which time the Board would hear from any interested party concerning the nature, extend and quality of the evidence which those parties believe the Board should consider in making i M CROI IUIED BY I . J JORM MICR6LAH CEDAR RAI'IDS • DCS MOINES / F 74 MI J r BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 1, 1982 PAGE 11 their decision on the pending application of Home Town Dairies, Inc. Vanderhoef seconded the motion. Harris emphasized that the meeting would be a hearing but no decision would be made. Barker stated that the hearing would be limited to receiving requests for data which the public felt the Board should request; the Board would then consider the lists and advise the public and the applicant on what they wished to hear about. Harris stated that the presumption was that the Board had the Power to determine what evidence it wished to hear. Barker stated that there would be no attempt to limit people as to what they wished to present but they must avoid an adversarial proceeding. At the final hearing, everyone could present what they desired. The motion carried unanimously. Jansen stressed the importance of having all five members present at the next hearing. The meeting was scheduled for September 15 at 4:45. Barker moved that there be a waiver of public notice since this was a continuation of an existing application. Slager seconded the motion. The motion carrried unanimously. The minutes of August 4, 1982 were deferred. The meeting adjourned at 8:19 PM. Taken by: Sar Behrman,, Minute Taker Submitted by: �\ . \.,,. i; �,. Douglas B othroy, Secretary Approved by: /876 1 fli CROMMED 61' I JORM MICRQLAB- J j CEDAR RAPIDS • DCS 1401NES I � r ■. • 4 MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 6, 1982 4:45 PM CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Vanderhoef, Harris, Slager, Barker MEMBERS ABSENT: Vandervelde STAFF PRESENT: Franklin, Siders, Behrman FINAL ACTION TAKEN: None. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: Harris called the meeting to order. Behrman called the roll. Barker moved and Slager seconded that the minutes of August 4, 1982, be approved as circulated. The motion carried unanimously. Vanderhoef moved and Barker seconded that the minutes of September 15, 1982, be approved as circulated. The motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE ITEM: V-8225. Public hearing on an application submitted by Home Town Dairies, Inc., for a variance to the yard requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for property located at 1109 North Dodge Street. Harris stated that counsel for Home Town Dairies, Inc., has requested a continuance to a future date to enable Mr. Johnson, architect for Home Town Dairies, Inc., to attend. Franklin stated that October 20,. 1982 was an acceptable date agreed to by both parties. Barker moved and Slager seconded that this item be continued to a meeting scheduled on October 20, 1982, at 4:45 PM. The motion carried unanimously. Barker asked if a meeting for October 13 was still scheduled. Franklin answered affirmatively. Slager indicated that she would be unable to attend the October 13 meeting. The meeting adjourned at 5:03 PM. Taken by: :;� 1=�,• r' 1ara(8ehrman,\Minute Tak r Submitted by: Doug Boo ro 7 Secretary 60 Approved by: 'm Harris, Chairman 1776 IncrsonLaED BY JORM MIC RbLA CEDAR RAI'1 DS DES td014ES � I 1 MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 23, 1982 7:30 PM CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS C, MEMBERS PRESENT: Scott, Jordan, Blank, Seward, Jakobsen, Baker, MEMBERS ABSENT: Horton STAFF PRESENT: Franklin, Boothroy, Jansen, Knight, Behrman RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: Z-8215. That the application submitted by Tom Lepic and Gerry Ambrose for the proposed rezoning of certain property located at 603 S. Dubuque Street from C2 to R3B be approved. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: Seward called the meeting to order. The minutes of August 19 and August 30 were deferred. Scott moved and Jordan seconded that the minutes of September 2, 1982, be approved. The motion carried unanimously. There was no public discussion of any item not on the agenda. ZONING ITEMS: 1. Public hearing on the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments and rezoning of a moratorium area which was established by ordinance and is known as the "College Hill Park/South Dodge Street Neighborhood." Seward explained that the Commission would make its formal recommendation on this item at the October 7, 1982 meeting. Seward outlined the various alternatives that the Planning and Zoning Commission was considering as a satisfactory solution for this area. Jeff Cox, 112 S.. Dodge, property owner, spoke in favor of rezoning the moratorium area to R3. Cox spoke of the dramatic deterioration of the peace and quiet in this neighborhood due to the acceleration of construction and the high density population. Cox stated that the neighborhood had reached its "saturation point" and urged that the construction of large apartment complexes be halted. Cox emphasized that he was not "anti -student". Sherman Paul, 903 E. College Street, homeowner, expressed his concern over the destruction of a neighborhood via the increasing high density of people. Paul stated that the removal of a few single houses had significantly transformed the quality of life. Paul spoke of the social cost of high density, such as congestion, noise, litter, trash and vandalism and spoke of the future cost as being drainage and sewer problems, police protection and blight. Paul urged that the area be rezoned to R3, stating that urban blight could be ameliorated by policy. George Swisher, 805 E. Washington Street, urged the Commission to take into consideration the lack of parking spaces in the area. Swisher stated the sorority houses and converted houses did not provide adequate parking. /877 MICROFILMED BY J JORM 1%AICR6LA13 CEDAR RAPIDS • DES "MOINES r L-. Planning and Zoning Commission September 2j, 1982 Page 2 Swisher asked the commission to consider parking requirements based on the number of bedrooms rather than lk parking spaces per unit. Swisher expressed pride for his neighborhood, stating that he liked students and liked the vitality of his neighborhood and did not want to be forced out by overcrowding. Swisher stated that as an owner, he has as much right to enjoy his property as those developers who had bought land in the R3A area on a speculative basis. Swisher urged the rezoning of the property to R3. Kim Merker, 726 Iowa Avenue, property owner, urged the Commission not to turn Burlington Street and Iowa Avenue into student ghettos. Merker stated that parking problems, noise, and harrassment were problems in the neighborhood and continued high density in the neighborhood would be a disaster. Seward pointed out that the issue was the rezoning of the R3A area and the issue of Iowa Avenue and Burlington Street would be resolved at neighborhood meetings. Merker pointed out that high density in the moratorium area would lead to the same problems in the Iowa Avenue neighborhood. Jakobsen clarified the fact that the zonings being considered by the Commission were to be no higher than the present R3A. Merker asked if there was any plan for off-street parking based on one parking space per bedroom. Seward explained that the new zoning ordinance has alternatives to the- parking requirements and the Commission would be evaluating them in greater depth in the new future. David Shor, 438 S. Dodge Street, property owner, expressed support for the title "College Hill Park/South Dodge Street Neighborhood." Shor stated that the issue of high density had brought the neighborhood together. Several meetings had been held to discuss various concerns in the neighborhood. Shor stated that both he and his neighbors had invested a lot of money in their homes. Shor expressed concern at the increasing amount of apartment construction in his neighborhood and the resulting increase in traffic. Shor expressed preference for rezoning the area to R3, even though 40% of the structures would then be non -conforming. Shor stated that the neighborhood could not continually expand without changing its character. Shor questioned the alternative of rezoning to the Residential Neighborhood Conservation Zone (RNC -20) and asked if it was the Planning and Zoning Commission's judgment as to whether that was a viable alternative. Seward read into the record a letter received from Dorothy Moeller, expressing support for the adoption of the RNC -20 zone as an alternative. Seward stated that while the Planning and Zoning Commission empathized with the neighborhood they must also be concerned about the impact on the apartments that any downzoning might have. Seward explained that the RNC - 20 zone would allow development in the area to a density of approximately 20 du/acre, which would be some where between what was presently allowed by the R3A zone and the R3 zone. Shor asked how many people could live on his lot (50 by 160) if the RNC -20 zone was adopted. Seward stated that the number of people per unit was regulated by the housing commission. Seward stated that approximately 4 to 5 units could be built on Shor's lot. Swisher stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission should consider the fact that 6 people could live in three bedrooms. Seward explained that the Planning and Zoning Commission was not overlooking that aspect of the situation. MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR6LAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES 1777 t r L. Planning and Zoning Commission September 23, 1982 Page 3 Cox stated that he could see no reason not to zone the entire neighborhood R3. Cox again stated that the neighborhood had reached a saturation point and further construction of apartments must be stopped. Linda Yanney, 726 Iowa Avenue, student and renter, stated that she enjoyed living in the neighborhood because of the quality of the neighborhood. Yanney pointed out that student enrollment would be dropping in the near future. Yanney wondered who the developers expected to live in these apartments when this became the case. Yanney urged the neighbors not to blame students, because high density did nothing for their "quality of life". Seward stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission was certainly not blaming students. Margaret Nowysz, 1025 River Street, property owner of 103 S. Governor, 631 E. College, and 215 S. Bodge, spoke in favor of rezoning the moratorium area to R3. Nowysz stated that there was a real demand for older type housing. Nowysz reported data on the construction -of duplexes and multi- family homes in Iowa City from 1978 to 1982, stating that 85 new multi- family units, 157 new buildings, and 916 new units had been constructed in that time. Nowysz stated that higher density zones impacted on adjacent areas and lower density zones and spoke of the necessity for a "buffer zone". Nowysz stated that an unfair burden had been placed on her neighborhood. Nowysz further stated that these new buildings had not been designed to aesthetically blend into the neighborhood. Nowysz stated that the future indicated a dramatic drop in student enrollment and this was a poor time to consider anything other than R3 zoning. Nancy Seiberling, Penn Township, stated that while she does not live or own a home in this area, her activity in Project GREEN,has contributed to the attractiveness of this area. Seiberling urged that any new buildings constructed in this neighborhood respect the path and the historical nature of a neighborhood. Jakobsen stated that it had never been a function of the Planning and Zoning Commission to make any statement on aesthetics. Jakobsen stated that no statement would be made deeming one design better than another and the Planning and Zoning Commission was not about to take that stand at this time. Seward asked if there was anyone present to speak from the neighborhood north of College Street and east of Governor Street. No one responded. George Woodworth, 226 S. Johnson, in rebuttal to Jakobsen's remark, stated that the Board was sensitive to monetary values but was blind to aesthetics and historical attitudes. Woodworth stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission had "tender feelings" toward developers but not toward home owners. Woodworth urged that everthing be zoned R3 and pointed out discrepancies in the map. Woodworth stated that zoning was to protect families from noise etc. and asked that this area be rezoned R3 until such time as an adequate ordinance regarding parking spaces was formulated. Woodworth stated that the entire situation was "ridiculous" and the area was as dense as it should get. Nowysz pointed out that while the Planning and Zoning Commission was not delegated the responsibility of making design decisions, the Comprehensive Plan mentions the preservation of neighborhoods and homes of an historic nature. Jakobsen stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission was on record as supporting the historic preservation ordinance. Nowysz stated that one could not be supported without the other. HICRor IUIED BY JORM MICROLAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES / r7 7 J Planning and Zoning Commission September 23, 1982 Page 4 Cox expressed support for the diversity of the neighborhood, stating that the issue was not aesthetic but that peace and quiet would be achieved by zoning the neighborhood R3. Dona Faye Park, 816 E. College and owner of 824 E. College, expressed support for the sororities in the area. Park urged that the neighborhood be preserved. Baker stated that while the Planning and Zoning Commission had no control over aesthetics in the neighborhood, there was more to aesthetics than the design of buildings. Baker stated that cars parked bumper to bumper were a part of the aesthetic impact of a neighborhood and the Planning and Zoning Commission did have control over density. Blank thanked everyone for the large turnout, stating that loyalty to one's neighborhood makes for a strong city. Seward .stated that a specific recommendation would be discussed at the October 7 meeting and a decision would be rendered by the City Council by December 26, 1982. Jakobsen pointed out that it would take an extraordinary majority of the City Council to either approve the rezoning to R3 or to change any recommendation made by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The meeting recessed at 8:15 and reconvened at 8:25. Z-8215. Public discussion of an application submitted by Tom Lepic and Gerry Ambrose for the proposed rezoning of certain property located at 603 S. Dubuque Street from C2 to R3B; 45 -day limitation period: 10/13/82. Knight• outlined the staff report, stating that rezoning of the property in question should not have a detrimental impact on the adjacent property given the surrounding zoning of C2 and R3B and other types of uses in the area. Staff recommended that the rezoning request be approved. Baker asked the difference between zoning the area R3B and R3A. Knight explained that the property was adjacent to an R3B zone, and rezoning R3A would be spot zoning. Baker asked if there was any objection to rezoning the entire area R3B as proposed in the Comprehensive Plan. Knight explained that the rezoning request dealt only with an individual piece of property and that there might be serious objections from the commercial property owners in the area if these properties were rezoned to a residential zone. Knight stated that both applicants were on vacation. Blank asked how many units would be allowed on the lots. Knight stated that the R3B zone permitted approximately 58 dwelling units per acre, although no one really developed to the maximum density allowed by the R3B zone. Baker asked if different front and side yard requirements would be triggered by the rezoning and Knight stated they would not be. Jakobsen moved and Jordan seconed that this item be approved. The motion carried unanimously. 3. Z-8216. Public discussion of an application submitted by Robert Lumpa for the proposed rezoning of certain property located in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Rochester Avenue and Amhurst Street; 45 -day limitation period: 10/14/82. IF77 11ILRO(1LMID BY �F JORM MIC ROLAB I j CEDAR RAPIDS DES MO19ES r' Planning and Zoning Commission September 23, 1982 Page 5 Knight stated that the applicant was requesting a rezoning of a 1.4 acre tract from R1A to R2. The property is currently undeveloped and lies directly to the north of existing single-family residential development in an RIB zone. Knight stated that the density permitted in an R2 zone was greater than the two to eight DU/A recommendation made by the Comprehensive Plan and would require an amendment to the plan unless the applicant could guarantee that the development density would be less than eight BU/A. Knight pointed out that the proposed new zoning ordinance would reduce the minimum size requirement for PAD's to one acre and that use of a PAD could minimize any negative impact which might be created by differing densities. However, this alternative would not be available until the proposed new zoning ordinance is adopted. The staff recommended that the rezoning of this property to R2 be denied. Rod Perry, 3231 Lower West Branchi Road, spoke in opposition to the rezoning, stating concerns which included property devaluation, parking problems, increased traffic, snow removal problems, safety of children, sewer and water problems. Perry submitted a petition signed by 57 persons and expressed agreement with the staff's position. Perry read from a prepared statement. (Petition and statement accepted as part of the minutes.) Jansen stated that the petition was in legal and proper form but would need verification. Jakobsen asked if the signatures of property owners within 200 feet of the property were on the petition. Perry stated that all the surrounding property owners were listed on the petition and stated he would be glad to underline them. David Hardinger, •409 Amhurst, expressed opposition to the rezoning. Hardinger stated that rezoning at this point would be premature as the Comprehensive Plan was now under study. Hardinger stated that potential problems with sewer and water would exist if the rezoning was granted. Hardinger also expressed the concern for safety hazards and increased traffic. Richard Hollis, 3351 Lower West Branch Road, spoke in opposition to the rezoning. Hollis stated that such a rezoning would act as a precedent for duplexes in the area and would change the neighborhood from the stable single-family residences to a higher density housing. Hollis spoke of the negative effect on City services such as fire, police, transportation, water and sewer services, and urged the Commission to stop the "creeping change" in the neighborhood. Marie Ormond, 414 Amhurst, spoke in opposition to the rezoning. Ormond stated that she would be disappointed if multiple zoning occurred as this was not the time nor the place for duplexes. Melvin Koenig, 3333 Lower West Branch Road, spoke in opposition to the rezoning. Koenig pointed out that his neighborhood would be the "gateway" to that addition and expressed concern over the traffic hazards and congestion that.would be caused. Knight explained that the Commission would probably take action on this item at the October 7th meeting. Baker asked if there was any reason why action could not be taken immediately. Both Scott and Jakobsen stated that the reason a vote was not scheduled for this evening's meeting was due to r /8» �. nICROEILMED BY JORM MIC ROLAB -- I CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOVIES 7 r Planning and Zoning Commission September 23, 1982 Page 6 concerns expressed by three neighbors who attended the informal meeting, and felt that not enough neighbors could be contacted about the proposed rezoning. Knight stated that the Commission could take action tonight. Schnittjer stated that the applicant might wish to amend his application to RIB and preferred that the decision wait until the October 7th meeting. Jakobsen moved that this item be deferred until October 7th. Scott seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-1; Baker voted no. Baker stated he was opposed because he wanted to resolve this issue this evening.. The Commission asked the staff to place this item first on the agenda for October 7. SUBDIVISION ITEMS: 5-8220. Public discussion of an application submitted by the City of Coralville for review of the final subdivision plat of Lot 1, Rocca Subdivision, located in Coralville's two-mile extraterritorial jurisdiction, east of the "line of jurisdiction" established by agreement and approximately two miles north of the Iowa City corporate limits; review deadline: 10/4/82. Scott moved that, in accordance with the action on the preliminary plat, the Planning and Zoning Commission forward to the City Council no recommendation regarding this item. Blank seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. The members of the Commission also expressed their appreciation to Coralville at having the opportunity to look at all developments even if they choose not to comment. OTHER BUSINESS: Planning and Zoning Commission Information: Seward reported on his action at the Commission's and Committee's chairpersons luncheon. The meeting adjourned at 9:43 p.m. Taken by: Sara Behr Approved by: Tom Scott, Secretary Ir%% It j MICROFILMED BY -J JORM MICR46LAS J I CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MINES 1 I r MINUTES HOUSING APPEALS BOARD OCTOBER 12, 1982 8:30 a.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Karstens, Beth Ringgenberg, Goldene Haendel MEMBERS ABSENT: Mike Farran, Al Logan STAFF PRESENT: Mike Kucharzak, Judy Hoard, David Malone, David Brown, Sherri Patterson SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION AND ACTION TAKEN: Chairperson Haendel called the meeting to order. Ringgenberg made a motion to approve the minutes from the previous meeting; this motion was seconded by Karstens. The motion carried. APPEAL OF BEN RITTGERS: Others present: Jim Keeling Inspector Malone reported that he conducted a licensing inspection at 616 E. Bloomington on August 5, 1982. The violation being appealed was Chapter 17-5.N.(3) lack of required minimum room size. This concerns Room N4 which appears not to have 70 square feet. When Malone attempted to measure the room he was not allowed to by the.owner, Mr. Ben Rittgers. Mr. Keeling, the building manager, related that the room has been rented for many years and suited the needs of the tenant. He also mentioned that it was not too far short of 70 square feet. Karstens made a motion to defer action on this appeal until accurate measurements could be taken. Haendel seconded the motion. The motion carried. APPEAL OF GREG THAYER: Others present: Greg Thayer Inspector Malone reported that he conducted a licensing inspection at . 1153-55 Hotz Avenue on August 9, 1982. The violation being appealed was Chapter 17-5.N.(4) lack of required 7' minimum ceiling height. 'This concerned the ceiling height in the west second floor unit which has a ceiling height of 6'9". Mr. Thayer pointed out that the building had been remodeled and passed the building inspection at that time. 111CRonuaED BY JORM MIC REAL AB ! CEDAR RAPIDS DES I-0DI:IES I ; i 18-79 ff r MINUTES HOUSING APPEALS BOARD OCTOBER 12, 1982 PAGE 2 Karstens made a motion to grant a variance to Chapter 17-5.N.(4) lack of required 7' minimum ceiling height. Ringgenberg seconded the motion. The motion carried. APPEAL OF HELEN GAY Others present: none Inspector Hoard reported for Inspector Vezina in his absence. He conducted a licensing inspection at 506 S. Dodge on July 27, 1982. The violation being appealed was Chapter 17-5.E. lack of required lavatory basin within the room containing a toilet. This was cited incorrectly on the violation letter as 17-5.F. This concerned a first floor bathroom which lacks a lavatory. There is a kitchen sink in the adjoining room. Ringgenberg made a motion to grant a variance to Chapter 17-5.E. (as amended) lack of required lavatory basin. Karstens seconded the motion. The motion carried. APPEAL OF MR. AND MRS. JOHN ZUG: Others present: none Inspector Hoard again presented this case for Vezina. He conducted a licensing inspection at 215 Ronalds on August 10, 1982. The violation being appealed was Chapter 17-5.I.(2)(b) lack of required guardrail, concerning the southeast roof area of the southeast bedroom of Apt. 4. Karstens made a motion to uphold Chapter 17-5.I.(2)(b) lack of required guardrail. Ringgenberg seconded the motion. The motion carried. APPEAL OF GARY WATTS AND NEIL HUMBLE: Others present: Gary Watts Inspector Hoard reported that she conducted a licensing inspection at 944 E. Davenport. The owner of the property at the time of the inspection was Neil Humble. The property has since been sold to Gary Watts. The violation appealed is Chapter 17-5.N.(4)(a) lack of required ceiling height for room with sloping roof. This concerned the east bedroom, second floor with a ceiling height of 617". Ringgenberg made a motion to grant a variance of Chapter 17-5.N.(4)(a) lack of required ceiling height for room with sloping roof. Karstens seconded the motion. The motion carried. MICROrILMED BY JORM MIC REIL AB j CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES 1 r M1 L MINUTES HOUSING APPEALS BOARD OCTOBER 12, 1982 PAGE 3 APPEAL OF LINDA HART: Others present: Linda Hart Inspector Hoard reported that she conducted a licensing inspection at 1100 N. Dodge Street on July 26, and August 9, 1982. Four violations are being appealed, the first being Chapter 17-5.E. lack of required lavatory basin. Apt. 1, bathroom contains no lavatory. Ms. Hart pointed out that there is a sink in the adjoining room, the kitchen, not more than four steps from the bathroom. She also mentioned that there was no room for a sink, without doing major reconstruction which would be very costly. Karstens made a motion to defer any action on this appeal until a contractor's opinion can be obtained as' to the feasibility and cost of placing a sink in this bathroom. Ringgenberg seconded the motion. The motion carried. The next violation appealed was Chapter 17-5.K.(3)(a) lack of adequate mechanical ventilation concerning a toilet room in Apt. 4 which lacks a system of mechanical ventilation. Ms. Hart explained that there were no outside walls to this toilet room and it would be difficult to vent. She mentioned that it was a good sized room and didn't require any ventilation. Ringgenberg made a motion to uphold Chapter 17-5.K.(3)(a) lack of adequate mechanical ventilation. Karstens seconded the motion. The motion carried. The next violation appealed was Chapter 17-5.M.(1) lack of required electrical outlets. This concerned two apartments. In Apt. 1 both the east and west bedrooms lacked the required second convenience outlet. Ms. Hart stated that these rooms have been rented many years in this condition, and that the rooms were situated such that another outlet is not needed. Karstens made a motion to uphold Chapter 17-5.11.(1) lack of required electrical outlets. Ringgenberg seconded the motion. The motion carried. Apt. 3, convenience ouelets are 9'8" distance apart, lacking the required minimum distance of 11'2" apart. Ms. Hart pointed out that this was not a health and safety factor as the outlets were only lacking a few feet of the required distance. le 7$ MICROFILMED BY ,J j JORM MOCR4/LAO CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES �I I MINUTES HOUSING APPEALS BOARD OCTOBER 12, 1982 PAGE 4 Ringgenberl, made a motion to grant a variance of Chapter 17-5.M.(1) lack of required eletrical outlets. Karstens seconded the motion. The motion carried. The last violation appealed was Chapter 17-5.I.(2)(a) lack of required handrail. This concerned a set of stairs to the basement on the west side of the building. The rental units are on the east side of the building. Ms. Hart pointed out that the doorway to the stairs is locked at all times and she is the only person with access to the keys. Karstens made a motion to grant a variance of Chapter 17-5.I.(2)(a) lack of required handrail with the requirement that the door always remain locked and the owners have the only access to the keys. Ringgenberg seconded the motion. The motion carried. APPEAL OF ROBERT SMITH: Others present: Robert Smith Inspector Hoard reported that she conducted a licensing inspection at 220 River Street on February 8 and 24, 1982. At that time she cited Room 9 for lack of required minimum room size. She related that Mr. Smith was not aware of the appeal procedure and is now requesting that this appeal be heard. The Board agreed to hear the appeal. Hoard stated that the room contained 68.57 square feet, lacking the 70 square foot minimum. Mr. Smith related the fraternity needed the use of this room in order to fulfill the budget. Karstens made a motion to grant a variance of Chapter 17-5.N.(3) lack of required minimum room size. Ringgenberg seconded the motion. The motion carried. APPEAL OF MARTY LANTZ . Others present: none Inspector Hoard reported that she conducted a licensing inspection at 128- 2A E. Davenport on July 20, 1982. The violation being appealed is Chapter 17-5.N.(4) lack of required 7' minimum ceiling height. This concerned a third floor bedroom in the second floor unit with a ceiling height of 6'9". Karstens made a motion to grant a variance of Chapter 17-5.N.(4) lack of required minimum ceiling height. Ringgenberg seconded the motion. The motion carried. MICROFILMED BY J j JORM MICROLAB 1 j CEDAR RAPIDS • DES M014ES r MINUTES HOUSING APPEALS BOARD OCTOBER 12, 1982 PAGE 5 APPEAL OF CALVIN KNIGHT: Others present: none Hoard pointed out to the Board that Mr. Knight had specifically requested that all materials and notice of this appeal be sent to his attorney as he would be unable to make it for the hearing. She had some reservations about presenting the appeal without he or his attorney being present. Attorney David Brown stated that Mr. Knight and his attorney had adequate notice and therefore the Board was allowed to hear this appeal. Hoard reported that she conducted a licensing inspection at 715 N. Linn on August 12, 1982. The first violation appealed was Chapter 17-5.J.(1) lack of required natural light. This concerned a bedroom in Apt. 4 which lacked the required minimum ten square feet of natural light. Mr. Knight's written appeal stated that it would be very expensive to expand the window and that he felt the amount of natural light was adequate. Karstens made a motion to uphold Chapter 17-5.J.(1) lack of required natural light. Ringgenberg seconded the motion. The motion carried. The next violation appealed was Chapter 17-5.M.(1) lack of required electrical outlet. The first three subsections of the violation letter are being appealed. The first appeal concerns the southwest bedroom in Apt. 1. The convenience outlets are 10'6" distance apart lacking the minimum required 11'6" distance apart. Mr. Knight's written appeal stated that he felt there was no benefit by moving an outlet one or two feet. Ringgenberg made a motion to grant a variance of Chapter 17-5.M.(1) lack of required electrical outlet. Karstens seconded the motion. The motion carried. The second subsection concerns Apt. 2, the east bedroom convenience outlets are 6'8" distance apart lacking the minimum required 11' distance apart. Karstens made a motion to uphold Chapter 17-5.N.(1). Ringgenberg seconded the motion. The motion carried. Subsection "c" concerns the southwest bedroom in Apt. 2, the convenience outlets are 9'6" distance apart lacking the minimum required 11'6" distance apart. r MICROFILMED BY j JORM MIC R(i/L AB j CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES i i It" r L MINUTES HOUSING APPEALS BOARD OCTOBER 12, 1982 PAGE 6 Karstens made a notion to uphold Chapter 17-5.M.(1). Ringgenberg seconded the motion. The motion carried. The last violation appealed was Chapter 17-6.A. lack of rquired access. This concerned three apartments: 1, 2, and 3 - where the access to the bathroom was through a bedroom. Hoard pointed out that the Code had changed since the units were last inspected. She read both applicable Code sections reflecting the change. The Board decided to address each apartment individually. Karstens made a motion to grant a variance of Chapter 17-6.A. lack of required access concerning Apt. 1, as long as the unit remained owner - occupied. Ringgenberg seconded the motion. The motion carried. The Board discussed possibilities for alterations in order to correct the violations in Apts. 2 and 3. Mr. Knight's written appeal stated that structural modification was not feasible. He stated that the existing floor plan is original, safe and acceptable to the tenants and did not pose a health and safety problem. Karstens made a motion to defer action on Apts. 2 and 3 until photographs of the present floor plan could be obtained. Ringgenberg seconded the motion. The motion carried. APPEAL OF ELINORE PETERS: Others present: none Inspector Hoard reported that she conducted a licensing inspection at 819 Iowa Avenue on August 13, 1982. The violation being appealed was Chapter 17-5.M.(1) lack of required electrical outlet. This concerned Room 1C where the convenience outlets are 7'5" distance apart, lacking the minimum required distance of 11'4". Mrs. Peters' written appeal stated that due to the layout of the room the outlets were in good usable positions. Karstens made a motion to uphold Chapter 17-5.M.(1) lack of required electrical outlet. Ringgenberg seconded the motion. The motion carried. Karstens made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Ringgenberg seconded the motion. The motion carried. Meeting was adjourned. J/ Goldene Haendel 4 141 CROF I U410 B1' t JORM MIC ROLAB CEDAR RAPIDSDES '4019[5 OW11, Erb r I I MINUTES IOWA CITY HOUSING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6, 1982 MEMBERS PRESENT: Haendel, Karstens, Ringgenberg, VanderZee, Farran MEMBERS ABSENT: Krause, Logan STAFF PRESENT: Seydel, Flinn, Barnes, Hencin, Munson, Kucharzak RECOMMENDATIONS TO CCN 1. Housing Rehabilitation - The Housing Commission recommends to CCN that Housing Rehabilitation receive $165,000 with explanation of possible changes that may come up next year. 2. Housing Code Enforcement - One Full-time Housing Inspector. That there should be a more appropriate source of funding. 3. Assisted Housing - Site Acquisition. The Housing Commission recommends that $75,000 for Site Acquisition and Development be retained. 4. Congregate Housing - It is recommended that $55,000 be allocated for Congregate Housing. 5. Systems Unlimited - 3 Group Homes. The Housing Commission recommends that $100,000 be allocated to Systems Unlimited for construction at this time. 6. Iowa City Residence for Women (Hillcrest Service) - The Housing Commission recommends the project insofar as we recognize the need within the community, but does not recommend an amount since the amount and kind of money needed is not clear at this time. 1. Meeting to Order - The Meeting was called to order by Chairperson Haendel at 3:40 p.m. 2. Minutes of Meeting of September 1, 1982 - Moved by VanderZee, seconded by Ringgenberg, that Minutes be approved as mailed. Approved 4/0. 3. Housing Rehabilitation - Barnes presented request for Forgivable Loan at 1815 H Street. Moved by VanderZee, seconded by Ringgenberg, that forgivable loan be approved. Approved 4/0. 4. Review & Recommendations on Use of Community Development Block Grant Funds for Housing Projects in 1983 - Hencin distributed brochures on CDBG Program. Hencin presented proposed three year budget and advised of decrease in actual dollars available this fiscal year. He �g79 MICROFILMED V L� JORM MICR4�LAB � CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES � J r L' Iowa City Housing Commission October 6 and 11, 1982 Page 2 distributed a list of this year's requests. The Commission reviewed each request item by item. 1. Housing Rehabilitation - Kucharzak and Seydel discussed proposed changes at the federal level in the Housing Rehab program. m/s/p VanderZee, Karstens, 5/0 that the Housing Commission recommends to CCN that Housing Rehabilitation receive $165,000 with explanation of possible changes that may come up next year. 2. Housing Code Enforcement - It was the consensus of Housing Commission that there is a definite need for three full-time housing inspectors to maintain the housing stock in this community; however, it is believed that there would be a more appropriate source for funding this position. m/s/p Karstens, Ringgenberg, that Kucharzak discuss with Council the possibility of increasing fees and funding this position from general funds. 5/0. It was agreed this should be placed on November Agenda for further discussion at that time. 3. Assisted Housing Site Acquisition and Development - Commission discussed the number of new units being produced by Assisted Housing and the fact that money is being returned to the program for further utilization. m/s/p Karstens/Ringgenberg 5/0 that the Housing Commission recommend $75,000 for Site Acquisition and Development be retained. 4. Congregate Housing - m/s/p VanderZee, Ringgenberg 5/0 that $55,000 be allocated for Congregate Housing. 5. Congregate Housing - Munson presented the initial results of the survey on Congregate Housing. Conclusions - the largest percentage of elderly respondents were low income homeowners who live alone but would be willing to sell to live in a Congregate facility. First preference was for a large complex downtown with second choice being a large complex in a neighborhood of Iowa City. Final Analysis and report should be ready by November meeting. Haendel commended Munson for his outstanding work on the survey. Commission discussed the survey results and affirmed the fact that the Congregate Housing Program should remain within the City to assure best utilization of the dollars and the largest number of persons served. The Central Junior High feasibility study is awaiting authorization from the Iowa City School District. 6. Coordinator's Report - Seydel reported Housing Assistance Payments on 380 units in October in the amount of $66,777. 52 new applica- tions were submitted for approval. Seydel advised that we have heard new fair market rents are to be published in the near future. IdICROfIUIED BY JORM MIC ROLAB� I CEDAR RAPIDS DES I4019ES I /f 7f r Iowa City Housing Commission October 6 and 11, 1982 Page 3 Section 8 - Moderate Rehabilitation - Seydel reported he is meeting with the Apartment Owners Association next month. He has two interested persons at this time. 22-3 Public Housing - No problems. Going into permanent financing. $55,000 under projections. 22-4 Public Housing - Seydel presented revised plans. 7. Letter of Commendation - Haendel reviewed letter of commendations of Lyle Seydel, thanked him for all his efforts, and advised that a copy would be going to the City Manager and City Council. 8. General Discussion - Kucharzak distributed proposal of social work student desiring to work on emergency housing. He asked Commission to review and place on Agenda for November meeting. 9. RECESS - Meeting was recessed at 5:30 p.m. until 8:15 a.m. Monday, October 11. MINUTES IOWA CITY HOUSING COMMISSION OCTOBER 11, 1982 MEMBERS PRESENT: Haendel, Karstens, Logan, Ringgenberg, VanderZee MEMBERS ABSENT: Farran, Krause 1. Reconvened at 8:20 p.m. Monday, October 11, 1982. 2. Hencin introduced Jane Hartman of Hillcrest Services and Benny Leonard of Systems Unlimited. 3. Review and Recommendations on Use of Community Development Block Grant Funds (CONTINUED): 1. Systems Unlimited Group Homes. Benny Leonard of Systems Unlimited explained that the total cost of building three homes for severely handicapped persons would cost between $525,000 and $550,000 of which Industrial Revenue Bonds could cover 75% of costs, thus necessitating the request for $150,000 seed money. Karstens' questioned whether there were other grant monies that could be utilized for some of the costs, but was advised by Leonard that their search had revealed no such funds available. Karstens questioned whether the project could be completed in phases. While Commission affirmed the desirability of funding the entire program and recognizing the limited dollars available, they recommended a reduced amount at this time thinking perhaps the project could be completed in phases. /g7 9 MICROFILMED BY J JORM MICR6LA13 1 j CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES i r I I Iowa City Housing Commission October 6 and 11, 1982 Page 4 Moved by Karstens, seconded by VanderZee, that the Housing to UnlimitedCommissiorecommends fora this is allocated be time. mitedApproved 5/0. Systems 2. Iowa City Residence for Women - Hillcrest Services. Questions were raised of Jane -Hartman of Hillcrest Services relative to their funding and relationship with churches. While they are allocated monies from Methodist Church and United Presbyterian Church, there is no direct control; however, should they go out of business, properties would revert to the Methodist Conference. Approximately 60% of their clientele is from Johnson County and 30% the result of Psych Hospital's presence in the community. The commission affirmed that this is a need in this community, but alternate sources of funding and payback need to be explored. It is suggested that Jane Hartman of Hillcrest Services secure additional information and provide it to CCN prior to finalizing their recommendations. Moved VanderZee, second Karstens that the Housing Commission recommend the project insofar as we recognize the need within the community, but does not recommend an amount since the amount and kind of money needed is not clear at this time. Approved 5/0. 4. Adjournment - Moved by Karstens, seconded by Ringgenberg, that meeting be adjourned. Approved 5/0. Adjourned 9:20 a.m. Approved by: Goldene B. Haendel, Chairperson MICROFILKED BY i JORM MICF16LA13 .J 1 � CEDAR Rnrtos • o[s woules ' i 1879 ,` L MINUTES IOWA CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 28, 1982 4:00 PM ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Bartley, Bovbjerg (arrived 4:45), Cavitt, Drum (arrived 4:30), Grimes, Gritsch (left 5:30 PM), Lyman (left 5:30 PM), Zastrow MEMBERS ABSENT: Wallace STAFF PRESENT: Eggers, Spaziani, Craig, Jackson OTHERS PRESENT: Forsythe, G. Benz, M.L. Huit, and members of University of Iowa Public Library's class President Zastrow called the meeting to order 4:05 PM. Minutes of the regular meeting of September 30, 1982 were approved. Grimes/Gritsch. Disbursements for October 1 and October 15, 1982 were approved. Bartley/Grimes. The Director reported on the following: The Gift Fund procedures have been revised so that we can get a more accurate figure of what funds are earmarked for a special project. There are five categories: Memorial Gifts, Special Projects, Board approved projects, Library materials budget supplementary funds (by fiscal year) and reimbursables. By monitoring the balance in all these, we can total the designated funds and subtract from the City's monthly balance for the gift fund to get a more accurate unencumbered balance. 2. We received an estimate from CLSI on the cost of a backup processor and disk drive for the computer system. It is the staff's recommendation not to purchase. The cost ($64,500) is too high; it does nothing to enhance the daily operation of the system; there is no absolute guarantee that it would function when the main system is down; we no longer have state-of-the-art hardware and therefore additional hardware seems like an unwise investment. 3. Annual letter to parents is being prepared. It has been revised according to the Board's direction at the August meeting. It will be sent to all parents through the local schools in November or December. In addition, we will include a copy in the packet of materials givemrto parents getting new library cards for children in the 6th grade or below. 4. The remote listening stations are in operation for a trial period. Continuation of the service will depend on the ability of the staff to absorb the additional traffic at the AV desk. The new video board at the AV desk has reduced questions and impatience among those waiting to view movies on video cassettes in the building. MICROf ILMED BY I JORM MICR6LAB J 1 ! CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MONES L r L. Board of Trustees Meeting Page 2 5. Use of the Library on the first four Sundays in October nearly matched the average rate of use during the first quarter of FY83: more items check out, a few more people into the building, fewer telephone calls, fewer information questions per hour (but only one instead of two people to handle them). We expect it will gradually get busier, peaking in February and March and then falling off again in April and May. This month City water bills carried a message about the library to emphasize that the library was now open on Sunday. 6. The banned books exhibit has probably drawn more interest than any display the Library has every had. It was prepared with assistance from the American Library Association. Newspapers and radio stations in Cedar Rapids had features on it. 7. The City's Legal Department has ruled that the Iowa Consumer Credit Code does not apply to libraries and therefore we are able to add a surcharge to user accounts to offset collection fees. While the code expressly prohibits libraries from exacting fees for the use of materials, "late fees" are to be determined by the Library Board. 8. The sloped glazi.ng in the entry vestibules continue to leak: We will have a meeting soon with the architect and general contractor to agree on a plan to correct the problem. 9. The FRIENDS netted about $4500 at their book sale on October 22-24. The Library garage proved to be an adequate storage area for one year's collection of materials and it was much easier moving them from the garage than from distance storage areas. 10. The Cable Commission Chair, Bill Terry, has appointed himself and Flo Beth Ehninger to work on their budget for FY84. We will need to work with these people on the Library's share of the franchise fee. President Zastrow reminded members of the importance of attendance and on-time arrival at Board meetings. There have been several times lately when only a bare quorum has been available to start a meeting. Members who cannot attend or who will be late should call the President, the Director, or the Library office. Zastrow reported on the Iowa Library Association meeting held in Des Moines October 20-22. He felt most programs were excellent and the meetings for Trustees were much improved over last year. As a member of the ILA Legislative Committee, Zastrow will attend the annual planning meeting held at Springbrook State Park, November 6 and 7. Bartley, Drum, Lyman and Foundation Coordinator Pat Forsyth reported that the auction plans are all in place, 50 items will be auctioned, over 130 people will attend the pre -auction reception, and the foundation has raised nearly $10,000. Planning Committee Chair Carolyn Cavitt led a discussion on the Preliminary Report of the Planning Committee. Staffinembers reviewed various parts of the report and pointed out possible service implications. The Board was asked: "Do they agree with the substance of the report?" "What direction do they wish to give the Planning Committee for Phase II of their work? "Do they feel items N1 and N2 in the charge to the Committee have been satisfactorily completed?" I11CROrILMED BY JORM MICR6LAS ' CEDAR RAPIDS • DES'QVIES. �r& J r L' Board of Trustees Meeting Page 3 After discussion on both specific recommendations of the report and general issues (quality services versus smaller service delivered quickly; definition of "current user"; appropriate balance between serving current users and informing non-users of available services) it was decided that more discussion time was needed. The Board decided to take no formal action until November and to attend the next scheduled Planning Committee meeting on November 9, at 6:30 PM. An agenda will be mailed by November 3. The Board unanimously approved a resolution thanking the four retiring Planning Committee members (John Bowers, Rachel Richardson, Sally Johnson, and Sandra Bokamba Lockett) for their contributions to the work of the Committee. Grimes/Drum. Committee members Ellen Caplan, Pat Keller, and M.L. Huit have agreed to continue through Phase II of the process. The FY84 fee for library services to rural Johnson County was considered and approved. Bovbjerg/Grimes. The basic formula is the same as that used since FY77 although it was revised in FY82 to include a surcharge for debt service and to use a five year sliding average for the County's share of circulation. It was also pointed out that the formula is based on historic data and the annual fee would be higher if the formula was based on current figures. The Director reviewed the FY83 first quarter report noting that all FY83 goals except the number of volunteer hours were met or surpassed during the first quarter. Many key service indicators are even with or higher than those for the same period a year ago. This is remarkable since FY82 first quarter included the first weeks the library was open and it was thought those rates of use would not occur during "normal" periods. Two identifiable trends: substantial decrease in the use of children's materials; substantial increase in use of adult non-fiction. September use was up 6% to 13% for some indicators, so library use has not yet leveled off. The dates for the November and December Board meetings were approved. They will be on the third instead of the fourth Thursday, November 18 and December 16. At 6:00 PM on a roll call vote, all members still present (Bartley, Bovbjerg, Cavitt, Drum, Grimes and Zastrow) voted to adjourn to executive session under Section 20.17(3) of the Iowa Code which exempts strategy meetings of public employers or employee organizations from the provisions of Chapter 28A. The meeting was tape recorded on a cassette labeled Executive Session, 10/28/82. Otheres present: Eggers. The Board returned to public session Bartley adjourned at 6:20 PM. Lolly EggT, Re 9 Mer and on a motion by Grimes, seconded by 111CRUIEMED B5 JORM MICROLAB ! CEDAR RAPIDS DCS MOINES HE 1 J r MINUTES IOWA CITY RIVERFRONT COMMISSION OCTOBER 13, 1982 7:30 P.M. CITY MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Knight, Fountain, Boutelle, Johnson, Sokol, Lewis, Horton MEMBERS ABSENT: Cleland, Oehmke STAFF PRESENT: . Franklin RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: The Riverfront Commission recommends that the wording of recommendation M4 of the Peninsula Area Study in the Comprehensive Plan be revised to read: 4. Reservation of open space along the Iowa River should be required according to the specifications of the River Corridor Overlay Zone. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: Knight called the meeting to order. The minutes of July 7, 1982, were reviewed. A change is necessary on page 2, paragraph 7, in the sentence "Knight asked about the road leading to River View Heights."; River should be changed to Twin. On page 3, Fountain requested that the reference to the boat ramp at Napoleon Park should be changed to read "a good site." On page 2, Johnson expanded upon the discussion of the placement of an article in the newspaper Roadways. She stated that since she would be leaving the Commission she would write the article now and hold it for spring publication. Franklin reported on the review that she and Cleland had done on the riprap project at the Baculis Mobile Home Court. It was moved by Horton and seconded by Johnson to approve the minutes as corrected. Landowners Options - Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation Booklet Sokol recommended that the booklet entitled Landowners Options was a good explanation of conservation easements. He expressed support for the Natural Heritage Foundation and its work. Knight questioned whether the Foundation worked closely with the organizations listed at the back of the booklet. Horton stated that he was aware of a working relationship between the Heritage Foundation and State preservation groups. The Commission decided that this book would be an appropriate informational tool for the City Council. /M MICROEILIIED BY JORM MICR46LA I I I CEDAR RAPIDS DES 1101NES L I J L MINUTES IOWA CITY RIVERFRONT COMMISSION OCTOBER 13, 1982 PAGE 2 Discussion of Peninsula Area Std The Commission discussed the area study as presented by Franklin. It was pointed out that the recommendations of the Stanley Plan for a buffer around the peninsula area were endorsed in the area study. Some discussion followed as to the need to express more strongly a desire on the part of the City to reserve open space along the Iowa River. Johnson moved and Horton seconded a revision to the wording in recommendation N4 of the Peninsula Area Study. The vote was unanimous to change the wording to "Reservation of open space along the Iowa River should be required according to the specifications of the River Corridor Overlay Zone." Report on Commissioners' Annual Meeting with Council and the Special Session with Council September 27, 1982. Sokol reported that at the annual Commissioners meeting he had pointed out the Commission's continued concern for construction of the Rocky Shore Drive bikepath. He stated that the reaction of the Council had been positive and that it appeared that the Council would attempt to find funding -for the bikepath. He also stated that there had been favorable discussion relating to the use of conservation easements. Knight reported on the meeting between the Commission and the City Council on September 27th and stated that much of the same material as reported by Sokol had been discussed with the Council. Knight stated that she felt that the bikepath project was viewed favorably by the Council. Boutelle questioned whether the utility poles along Rocky Shore Drive would have to be moved since to put in a trail with the poles as they are currently located would create a hazard. Franklin responded that the plans drawn up for the bikepath included the removal of the poles from the west side of Rocky Shore Drive to the east side of Rocky Shore Drive. A comment was made that the dangers inherent in the Rocky Shore Drive area now would be increased with the opening of the stadium and the reopening of the Finkbine bikeway. Franklin stated that at a recent City Councilmeeting, the Committee on Community Needs had been informed by the Council that they need not consider the Riverfront request for funding for the Rocky Shore Drive bikeway since that funding would be found locally. Franklin stated that the application to CCN from the Riverfront Commission had not been withdrawn. Horton stated that he felt the Commission should not withdraw their application for funds: Lewis moved and Boutelle seconded a motion to send a statement to the City Council commending them for their commitment to the bikeway. t� MICRDTILnED BY JORM MICROLAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MDINES '•a L MINUTES IOWA CITY RIVERFRONT COMMISSION OCTOBER 13, 1982 PAGE 3 Discussion of Program Division Statement Franklin explained the content of the Program Division Statement and its purpose. Sokol moved and Fountain seconded that the Program Division Statement as'submitted to the Commission be approved. Consideration of a Representative to the Parks and Recreation Commission Franklin informed the Commission that the Parks and Recreation Commission had been unable to find a member of the Parks and Recreation Commission who would be able to also serve on the Riverfront Commission. She suggested that the Riverfront Commission and the Parks and Recreation Commission investigate the possibility of a reciprocal agreement in which one year the Parks and Recreation Commission would send a representative to the Riverfront Commission and the following year the Riverfront Commission would send a representative to Parks and Recreation. She pointed out that the current by-laws of the Riverfront Commission called for a representative from Parks and Recreation to be a voting member of the Riverfront Commission. However, a by-laws change or a new enabling resolution was possible. Several members expressed reservations about sending a representative to Parks and Recreation. Fountain questioned whether a person who represented the county on the Riverfront Commission should go to Parks and Recreation Commission meetings as a Riverfront Commission representative and vote on issues which pertained to parks within Iowa City. Other Commissioners who represented other bodies - the University and Planning & Zoning, expressed a similar reluctance. Boutelle stated that many of the concerns of the Parks and Recreation Commission were issues which did not necessarily concern the Riverfront Commission and that to send a representative to all of the Parks and Recreation Commission meetings would mean that the Riverfront person would be involved in areas which were outside the purview of. the Riverfront Commission. She suggested that the staff people for the two commissions be responsible for informing their respective commissions of issues which were of concern to both groups. Lewis endorsed this idea and stated that a six month trial period might be appropriate. The consensus of the Commission was to leave the liaison between the two groups to an informal structure maintained by the staff people; this system would then be evaluated after a period of time to see if it was working out. Napoleon Park Site Trail It was suggested that the riverbank area at Napoleon Park be evaluated for a possible riverbank nature trail. A field review of the area was suggested.as the first step in looking at the possibility of such a trail. / MICROFILMED DI' i 1 JORM MICROLAB 1 CEDAR RAPIDS • DES 1401NE5 J r I- ,; 3' MINUTES IOWA CITY RIYERFRONT COMMISSION OCTOBER 13, 1982 PAGE 4 It was suggested that the Parks and Recreation Commission be invited to undertake this review with the Riverfront Commission. The staff was directed to extend an invitation. The time set for the field review was October 19th at noon. OTHER BUSINESS: Boutelle responded to a statement made by a guest included in the July 7th minutes of the Commission meeting which referred to pollution of the river by the University. She stated that the University does not pollute the river and that testing of the water quality is done on a regular basis. The Commission decided that the next monthly meeting would be the appropriate time to elect a new Chair for the 1983 period. Adjournment at 9:15 p.m. Minutes submitted by Karin Franklin. MICROFILMED BY !� JORM MICR#LAB .� CEDAR RAPIDS • DES 1.1014[5 i ISOF/ 1 F