Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-11-23 Bd Comm minutesr i� QA Vt-r :;I:'UT" 3 Idavor' o (Out!, :'1q)loymcnt t'rc;-rnx: Poard Eem.bers Present: Jac C"i?G '.!o vcr, `'0::: le", Ted _ Soya_ 3en,lam_•1, ., .,, no Jolaa :on, Joan Jen1c Staff Present: Peg i':c_ilroy, Gre , Bi'oR:wol.l, Sandy Steven-_ Linute0 Of the previou0 mcetin,- '.sere �. ".: y`�I'O V+�:, by t::e b,,a d. Old 3usincss lT.ew Office Location: Eavor's tout: :.131 move rOm the ii.1CiP osfice to 217 =silington on Rovelniler 1, St is leased to I•iY P by iiancen Insurance Co, i;i1r0T.,;i: fiscal year 1904. The rent, which includes all utilities, is :.;120/mo. until July 1, 1933 when it increases to •.;130/mo.. Jean Bott, the previous occupant, donated a desk and a set of shelves for the office. The board annroved the nevi office location. United 'aav liearinrr: Jack discussed the United 'aay Budget Hearing that was he d on October 22. lie thou ht that the NY 3P presentation 4ierit ':cell, ho'aever, he did not know if the 50-50 match mor job development in the private sector erasunderstood Uy everyone. Peg suggested that a letter be sent to United ''lay's Planning Committee to clarify the private sector 50-50 match. Board Members: The board discussed the possibilit"es of finding someone to fill the vacancy on the board. I;ew Business: MY -3P Newsletter: Board members were given the first official 1!YE!' newsletter. Po, -,set this letter un and it will be published on a month!.y basis. !"YEP 'Jorkslions: The first workslhop for the students in the program will be held on Thursday, Octobei� 23 at the Iowa G'ity Public Library. Bob Biller from Gant 'aoor: Area Education Agency twill be the guest speaker. Program 3enort: 'pi .YEP has already received and processed 60 appli- cations tnis year. So far, 30. students have been placed at different jobsites around the cit -r. Of these 30 , 20 are male (67q ) and 12 are female 1947 141CRor ILMED BY J 1 JORM MICRbLAB 1 CEDAR RAPIDS • DES t4019ES I r 2 Also, 14 are':iinoritics (4Tj), 9 have been on the program before (30;0), and 21 are new to the program (70ii). Reasons for placement are as follow, 21 have been nlaced due to income eligibility (70%), 8 have placed due to handicaps (2750), and 1 due to potential high school dropout (390). 0; the 60 that applied, 5 were ineli.7ible; 3 over income guidelines and 2 that were too old for the program. Summer IYC: Peg reported to the board that an 8 wee], summer IYC program will be operating•iiext summer. Requests for pro- posals will be available in December. Board members were seriously interested in the possibility that PIMP participate in this program next summer. Next Board Meeting ',Jednesday December 8, 1982 at q PIS Respectfully submitted, KE(' BINL C-11- Greg Bromwell, Assistant Director I -lark ',leaver, Secretary/Treasurer Mayor's,Youth Elmnloyment Program i I i i i 1 r MICRorILMED BY j JORM MICR6LA9- j CEDAR RAPIDS •DES t401AES I r MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 29, 1982 4:45 P.M. CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Vanderhoef, VanderVelde, Harris, Barker MEMBERS ABSENT: Slager STAFF PRESENT: Jansen, Knight, Boyle, Frantz, Behrman FINAL ACTION TAKEN: 1. V-8226. The application submitted by Dean A. and Phyllis J. Fitzgarrald for approval of a special use permit pursuant to Section 8.11.02.13 to allow parking within 32.8 feet of the Ralston Creek bank for the property located at 520 E. Washington Street was granted, providing that signs are posted warning people who park there of the potential flood hazards. 2. V-8227. The application submitted by Mary F. Spitzer for a variance To Section 8.10.26.I of the Zoning Ordinance for the property located at 922 S. Summit Street to permit the existing garage to be remodeled so that the entrance fronts on the alley was denied. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: Harris called the meeting to order at 4:55 p.m. Knight called the role. Harris outlined the procedures to be followed by the Board of Adjustment. Harris requested that the minutes of August 4 be placed on the agenda for October 6, 1982. VARIANCE ITEMS: V-8226. Public hearing on an application submitted by Dean A. and Phyllis J. Fitzgarrald for approval of a special use permit pursuant to Section 8.11.02.13 to allow parking within 32.8 feet of the Ralston Creek bank for the property located at 520 E. Washington Street. Knight reviewed the staff report, stating that the Board had acted upon this item at an October 22, 1981, meeting. As the applicant had failed to establish the proposed parking lot within a six month period, as required by Section 8.10.28.I, the variance previously granted to the applicant was no longer valid and a new application has been filed. Staff recommended that, as there were no changes in the facts involved in this case, the special use permit be granted. VanderVelde asked the location of the property in question. Harris explained. Bernard Campion, Rural Route 2, Iowa City, spoke in favor of granting the special use permit. Vanderhoef asked about the delay in the construction of the proposed parking lot. Campion explained that the subcontractors had not completed their work prior to winter and the special use permit had expired in the spring. Harris asked if construction would continue 194$ 1 FIIEROPILMED BY �• , JORM MICROLAS CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOVIES 7 � J v r C BOARD OF ADJU' 'ENT SEPTEMBER 29, _j82 PAGE 2 even though the property in question was for sale. Dean A. Fitzgarrald answered that it would. VanderVelde asked what the zoning of the area in question was and Harris replied that it was C2. VanderVelde questioned the hardship in this case. Knight explained that this was not a request for variance but rather a request for a special use permit; hardship did not need to be established. VanderVelde asked the criteria for granting a special use permit. Harris referred her to Section 8.10.02.14D. Harris asked Frantz if parking was allowed in the front yard of a C2 zone. Frantz explained that only if a building is set back 30 feet would parking in a front yard be permitted and referred the Board to Section 8.10.25.D3. Harris stated that, while technically the Board was not being asked to vary that aspect of this item, the building in question was not set back 30 feet. Both Frantz and Knight agreed that was true. However, Knight explained that there was no required front yard in a C2 zone, so technically, the applicant could provide ark' p ing up to the front lot lina No one spoke in opposition to this item. VanderVelde pointed out that City legal staff had previously had the opinion that there was no liability on the part of the City for injury if parking was provided in a floodway. She wondered if the current legal staff was of the same opinion. Jansen stated that he was not familiar With the previous legal opinion. VanderVelde mentioned that a recent decision of the Supreme Court on municipal liability may be applicable to this case. The Board discussed whether or not there were any provisions in the State Code regulating flood plain parking. Knight explained that there are provisions in the Code designed to control use of flood plain land. Knight stated that at the previous hearing regarding this item, the Board had felt that it would take a tremendous flood to wash cars downstream. VanderVelde noted that in the Ralston Creek Village staff report, it was stated that in a 17 -year flood the waters would be high enough to take cars downstream. Jansen wondered if it was th City to anticipate a flood situation and to warn Occup ants duty of the ants h car owners. Vanderhoef stated that the Board had answered the risk by or that Signs be posted warning parkers of the potential flood hazard. Vanderhoef pointed out that at the property in question there would be no overnight parking and the risk would be minimal during the day. On the issue of signs, Knight stated that previous legal staff had recommended not to require signs as that might increase the City's liability by taking responsibility for warning the owners of parked cars. Campion reminded the Board that the property in question would have a commercial use which would be open in the daytime only. Campion stated that if six inches of water was in aware the parking lot, most people would be the issue of carrying cars downstreait and would move their cars immediately. Campion stated that m was not likely to occur. VanderVelde stated that, while the comments were well -taken, her concern was that Ralston Creek had a history of flash floods. VanderVelde stated who that she would be in favor of requiring signs or notices warning people floods Parked dthere th that level werefnowdl shazard. alikely to happenndue to workadoneaon MICROFILMED BY JORM MICROLAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOVIES 19 q,? J r L BOARD OF ADJUF 'ANT SEPTEMBER 29, _.82 PAGE 3 Ralston Creek (i.e., North Branch Dam Project and Lower Ralston Creek project). Jansen stated that, in his opinion, it was curious not to require signs because it might assume liability when the issue may be adequate notice. Jansen stated that he saw no harm in requiring signs. Harris pointed out that the City itself has extensive parking at a comparable distance from the creek and in the same type of terrain as this property and no signs are required. VanderVelde asked Jansen to inform the Board at its next meeting on the question of municipal liability and any change in that. VanderVelde moved that the special use permit be granted provided that signs are posted warning people who park of the potential flood hazard. VanderVelde suggested that the sign be placed near the entranceway into the parking lot. Vanderhoef seconded the motion. The motion carried 3-1; Barker abstained. VanderVelde stated for the record that she had called Mike Smith at the Iowa Natural Resources Council for an opinion regarding the granting of parking within a floodway. Smith had indicated that it was a matter of right beyond the ten meters from the edge of the stream bank and routinely granted closer than ten meters. Jansen introduced Dick Boyle, First Assistant City Attorney, to the Board. Jansen stated that Boyle would be assigned to the Board of Adjustment, although Jansen would remain involved for the duration of the Home Town Dairies hearing. V-8227. Public hearing on an application submitted by Mary F. Spitzer for a variance to Section 8.10.26.I of the Zoning Ordinance for the property located at 922 South Summit Street to permit the existing garage to be remodeled so that the entrance fronts on the alley. Knight outlined the staff report, stating that the applicant is requesting a variance to the Zoning Ordinance to allow the existing garage to be remodeled permitting entrance from the alley rather than Summit Street. Knight explained that Section 8.10.26.8.3 requires that "where a garage is entered from an alley it must be kept ten feet from the alley line." The wall for the existing garage which is proposed to serve as the entrance is located approximately three feet from the alley. Knight stated that the applicant had raised the issue of safety in terms of backing an automobile onto Summit Street from the driveway. While staff believes that this is a concern, it is also an issue with the alley entrance. Knight stated that granting a variance in this case is contrary to the intent of the ordinance since the close proximity of the garage to the alley would result in inadequate visibility. Knight stated that the applicant's access is in no way restricted from the existing garage; there is nothing unique about the property nor is it possible to show unnecessary hardship. Further, Knight pointed out that a variance should not be granted because an alternative solution exists which accomplishes the same purpose and is within the bounds of the ordinance. If the the proposed new entrance were placed in a side wall, rather than the rear wall of the structure, the ten 1•IILRUC IUdCD BY JORM MtC ROIAB CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES ' 1948 r BOARD OF ADJUF 9NT SEPTEMBER 29, _j82 PAGE 4 foot requirement would not apply. Staff recommended that the variance be denied. Alan Spitzer, 922 S. Summit Street, spoke in favor of the variance. Spitzer stated that it was in the public interest not to have his family back onto Summit Street. Spitzer explained the problem existing at the corner of Kirkwood Street and Summit Street, with a bus stop four feet from the driveway. Spitzer explained that, particularly during the morning rush hour, a safety hazard existed because the people waiting for the bus blocked his visibility of oncoming traffic. Spitzer stated that, regarding visibility when backing into the alley, they planned to install mirrors in the garage. Spitzer argued that the proposed alternative was not much of an improvement regarding visibility and would require removing a Mountain Ash tree and installing considerable paving. Vanderhoef asked where the proposed plans called for a new door. Spitzer explained that a new door would be cut in the wall opposite the old doors. Vanderhoef offered a second alternative; Vanderhoef suggested that the garage be lifted and reset, using the present entranceway on Summit as the entranceway to the alley. Spitzer explained that he had been quoted a price of $1500 to do the proposed work and it would cost considerably more to move the structure. Vanderhoef stated that the distance of three feet from the alley concerned him because of the question of visibility. Mary Spitzer, 922 South Summit, stated that that was the reason mirrors were being installed. Vander'Velde shared the concern about the three feet, stating that using mirrors was not all that easy. VanderVelde expressed concern for a potential accident in the alleyway. Harris stated that it was difficult to find a unique situation or unnecessary hardship in this case. Spitzer appealed to public interest, stating that it was in the interest of the public not to have them backing out onto Summit Street. Mary Spitzer stated that there was a safety hazard when they backed out of their driveway and vehicles rounded the corner of Kirkwood onto Summit Street. Knight wondered if it were possible to create a turnaround so the applicant could pull onto Summit Street "head first." Spitzer submitted a picture of his property, stating that it was true that by paving a considerable portion of their yard a turnaround could be built. Vanderhoef moved that the Board grant a variance as requested. The Board discussed whether or not it was necessary for a Board member to vote in favor of a motion that was made or seconded by that member. No final determination was made. Barker seconded the motion. The motion failed by a 0-4 vote; the variance was denied. OTHER BUSINESS: Vanderhoef reported on a meeting he had with John Balmer and Marcia Slager. He stated that the City staff had brought to the attention of the City Council their concern that the Board tended to approve everything brought before them. Vanderhoef stated that it was neither his nor Slager's intention to put the Board into a "win -lose situation" with the City staff. L HICRO(1LMED BY JORM MICROLAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOI ES 19q? J J BOARD OF ADJUF ENT SEPTEMBER 29, 82 PAGE 5 VanderVelde stated that the Board should take the initial view that they deny variances. To grant a variance, the Board must hear something to convince the members that the three criteria defined by law exist. Harris stated that the way in which the Board interpreted those criteria differed from the staff, particularly regarding uniqueness and hardship. Knight clarified the issue, stating that staff had recommended that the four decisions from the September 1 meeting be taken to district court to get further case law and to clarify the interpretation of the statute. Harris stated that while the Deardorf case sets precedent for Iowa litigation, he does not take the narrow view that previous cases determine the Board's actions for all times. Boyle pointed out that the Deardorf case placed binding interpretation upon the Board regardless of their personal interpretation. Boyle stated that it was not the function of the Board to break new ground regarding interpretation; the Board was bound to live with the Supreme Court's decision. VanderVelde agreed, and stated that in her opinion, common law was as binding on the Board's actions as statutory law. Harris stated that he did not totally agree and noted that the Deardorf case was an extreme case which had resulted in an extreme response from the Iowa Supreme Court. Knight explained that the staff had felt that it was time to have the district court look at different cases and different circumstances to see if a similar response resulted. VanderVelde questioned whether the taxpayers of Iowa City wanted to pay for that kind of litigation. VanderVelde stated that if Deardorf was going to be redefined, one should be careful of what was going to be gained in clarity, for example, the issue of the difference between use and generic variances. Knight stated that the staff had disagreed with the September 1 decisions because unnecessary hardship had not been shown. Harris stated that regardless, the City Council has no jurisdiction over the Board. Knight agreed that the only body which could override the Board's decisions was the district court. Harris stated that even if clarification was found in further caselaw, there was no way the City could tell the Board that it must follow that. Knight agreed that the Board was a semi -judicial body and essentially autonomous. He explained that the staff's intent had not been to have the City Council pressure the Boardmembers. Harris pointed out that if there were no criteria set forth in the ordinance for granting, special use permits, the Board would have difficulty in denying as there was no basis for denial. Harris further stated that he had no objection to staff reports citing Deardorf's criteria, but it was up to the Board to determine if they were going to abide by those criteria. VanderVelde disagreed, stating that the Board could not come up with its own criteria. Harris argued that it was not the Board's function to keep the City out of litigation. Vanderhoef stated that there was no reason to have an adversary relationship with City staff. Knight explained that at issue was a question of interpretation. He noted that staff did not expect the Board to blindly take the staff's recommendation because new 1941? J MICRWILMED BY ' �• JORM MIC ROLAB ' CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOVIES i J r I I BOARD OF ADJU'`ENT SEPTEMBER 29, _.,82 PAGE 6 information was frequently brought in by the applicant at the hearing. Knight further noted that the staff report was a representation of City staff consensus. Harris stated that he objected to the use of the Deardorf interpretation because if it was consistently used, very few variances would be granted. VanderVelde stated that that was what the legislature intended; variances are for extraordinary cases. Barker stated that VanderVelde was wrong because if variances should not be granted there would be no Board of Adjustment. Barker explained that the reason a Board of Adjustment was created was because someone decided that there are some things in government that should not be left to the bureaucrats and politicians. Barker stated that the Board consisted of citizens of the community providing flexibility and a "human element." The Board of Adjustment was analogous to a jury. Vandervelde stated that even a jury was limited by the judge's instructions as to their authority. Barker stated that that was incorrect, they were limited by the law. VanderVelde agreed, and stated that, in her opinion, that is the law. Boyle stated that the City Council has the right to review the Board's actions to determine if they are fulfilling their obligations. Harris stated that the Board had independent identity from the City Council and acts under the provisions of the Code. Boyle agreed this was true but pointed out that the recourse of districtcourt existed if *k^ ^-��--=1 felt the Board was not upholding the ordinance. The meeting adjourned at 6:16 p.m. TaKen by: 'I&I�� _ Sara Behrman Minute -Taker Submitted by: Approved by: LF.. ,i 141CROEILMED BY JORM MICR6LAB ' CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOI NES v r MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 13, 1982 4:45 P.M. CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Vanderhoef, VanderVelde, Harris, Barker MEMBERS ABSENT: Slager STAFF PRESENT: Knight, Siders, Boothroy, Boyle, Behrman FINAL ACTION TAKEN: 1. V-8228. The application submitted by Ken and Janis Stults for a variance to Sections 8.1O.26.B.2 and 8.1O.27.A.1 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the applicant to maintain a tence and deck constructed around an above -ground pool was denied. 2. V -82O2 -V-8206. The application submitted by QuikTrip Corporation for variances to Section 8.10.35 of the Zoning Ordinance for stores at 955 Mormon Trek Boulevard, 123 W. Benton Street, and 25 W. Burlington Street to permit retention of illegal gas price signs was denied. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: Harris called the meeting to order. Knight called the roll. Harris explained that the Home Town Dairies, Inc. hearing needed to be continued to November 3, instead of October 20, Barker moved and VanderVelde seconded that the Home Town Dairies hearing be continued to November 3, 1982, instead of to October 20, 1982. The motion carried unanimously. Barker asked why the continuance was requested. Boothroy explained that the neighbor's attorney could not be present at the October 20th hearing and had requested a continuance. Harris outlined the procedure to be followed by the Board of Adjustment. VARIANCE ITEMS: V-8228. Public hearing on an application submitted by Ken and Janis Stults for a variance to Sections 8.10.26.8.2 and 8.1O.27.A.1 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the applicants to maintain a fence and deck constructed around an above -ground pool. Knight reviewed the staff report, stating that the applicants were requesting a variance to Sections 8.10.26, Permitted Accessory Uses, and 8.10.27, Fence Regulations, of the Zoning Ordinance to permit them to maintain a fence and deck recently constructed around an above -ground swimming pool. Knight explained that the wooden deck is, by definition, considered to be an accessory building and, because it is closer than MICROFILMED BY i JORM MIC RO10V I CEDAR RAPIDS •DES I•IOIMES i j Me J L BOARD OF ADJUS"ENT OCTOBER 13, 1� PAGE 2 three feet to the property line, it is in violation of the accessory building location requirements of Section 8.10.26. Knight also explained that, because the height of the fence is measured from grade, the fence is in violation of Section 8.10.27, which states that "no portion of a fence more than ten percent solid shall exceed eight feet in height." The existence of these problems was brought to the City's attention by a neighbor's complaint made September 1, 1982, and a stop work order was subsequently issued by the Building Inspector on September 2, 1982. Knight stated that the applicants had indicated that they were not aware that a building permit was required to construct the deck. Knight pointed out that the applicants claim a hardship will be imposed on them by requiring them to meet the Code; however, this hardship is self-imposed rather than a function of the enforcement of the ordinance. Knight stated that the applicants also claimed that bringing the structure into compliance will create a negative impact upon their neighbors as well as themselves; while this argument does have some validity, alternative screening techniques are available which would meet Code. Knight stated that granting a variance in this case would be contrary to the spirit of the ordinance since the Zoning Ordinance does not allow any structure other than a fence closer than three feet to the property line. Staff recommended that the variance to Sections 8.10.26.8.2 and 8.10.27.8.1 be denied. VanderVelde asked about the surrounding zoning of the property in question. Knight replied that the entire area was zoned RIB zones. Harris asked Siders if it had been his practice to include open air decks under the definition of a building. Siders stated that it was, because this was attached to the garage. Ken Stults, 1817 E. Court Street, stated that this open air deck was not attached to the garage. Siders stated that the Zoning Code Interpretation Panel had met and had decided that any structure over 30 inches in height was a building. Harris stated that it would be helpful for the Board of Adjustment to get copies of the Zoning Code Interpretation Panel's interpretations in writing. Harris expressed the concern that the Panel could set forth dimensional requirements not found in the ordinance. Siders and Knight explained the role of the Zoning Code Interpretation Panel as outlined in the Code. Harris stated he was troubled by the latitude ascribed by the group and that, while the definition of the building was not all that clear, the Panel was making legislative decisions. Boyle pointed out that the Panel was a body rather than one individual and that Section 8.10.28.H1A expressly provides that interpretations by the Panel are subject to review by the Board. VanderVelde asked if the Board had the power to overrule a decision of the Panel. Knight said that they did. Harris stated that that could only be done in reference to a specific case. Boyle referred to Section 8.10.26.B.2, noting that the language describing the distance a structure was permitted from the property line was somewhat vague. Boyle explained that he was not suggesting that the interpretation by the staff was wrong; just pointing out the wording of the ordinance. MI CROS I LI4ED BI JORM MICR6LA13 CEDAR RAPIDS DES M01,I[S l9 qF J r L BOARD OF ADJUr SNT OCTOBER 13, ISI. - PAGE 3 Barker asked Boyle if the Zoning Code Interpretation Panel was limited to definition of a building as given in the Zoning Ordinance. Boyle stated that they were. Barker stated that, had the deck been below 30 inches in height, it would not have been considered a building. Siders pointed out that Chapter 17 (Minimum Housing Standards) in the Housing Code regulates elevations over 30 inches. Barker explained that the Board needed to be sensitive to the fact that when something is called a building, a great number of ordinances are applicable to it. Siders stated that, in the Building Code, permits are not required for decks lower than 30 inches from the ground. Stults indicated that his deck was 44" above ground. Boyle referred to Section 8.10.27.E. relating to enclosures of pools. Stults indicated that his pool was completely enclosed. Barker stated that this deck was a building and that the 30 inch interpretation is a carefully considered one and not arrived at arbitrarily. Stults submitted photos of the deck and fence in question. Stults also submitted a statement signed by every neighbor surrounding his property in support of his variance, including the neighbor who had initiated the complaint. Stults stated that, while he understood that ignorance was no excuse, he had not realized that building a deck required a permit. stults stated that most of the deck would have to be torn down and reconstructed to remove it from within three feet of the lot line. Stults stated that the "spirit of the ordinance" in prohibiting buildings within three feet of the lot line was to allow enough room to permit maintenance of the fire access. stults pointed out that this was not needed in this case as the deck was built of cedar and wolmanized wood and therefore no maintenance was necessary and further, complete access was possible. Stults noted that the deck was not at all visible to the neighbors. VanderVelde pointed out that the fence was six feet high, but because it was four feet off the ground, it was considered to be over eight feet high. stults urged the Board to consider that a fence railing, and not a fence. Stults indicated that he could take down part of the fence or shorten it. He Stults stated that the deck was the major concern as it would substantially alter the appearance of the structure if the deck was torn down and the pool exposed. VanderVelde stated that the deck looked like a good structure and probably improved the value of the neighborhood. VanderVelde questioned whether the applicant had realized that when the deck was built the pool would no longer be portable. stults stated that that had not occurred to him. He explained that they had purposely not attached the deck to the garage and had thought that in this manner they would not require a permit. Stults wondered if the fact that no one could see the deck and that it did not hinder access rendered this a unique situation. VanderVelde stated that that was possible and wondered if, the Board agreed to permit decks to be built over 30" to be closer than three feet of the property line, that would set a precedent. Knight stated that no precedent would be set. Vanderhoef expressed the concern that removing the back portion of the deck would create a safety problem because the fence would then be directly adjacent to the fence. Vanderhoef stated that he felt this would create a hazard for children using the pool since it might be more 111CR0f IEIdED BY JORM MICR6LAB j CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES 19it8 J r I BOARD Of ADJUr 'ENT OCTOBER 13, 1' --- PAGE 4 difficult to get out of the pool. Siders pointed out that the pool was sold just as a pool without an attached deck and if it had been constructed that way, egress from the pool would be limited. VanderVelde asked if there was any way to shorten the height of the deck and Stults indicated that that was not feasible. Vanderhoef moved that the variance be granted as requested to Section 8.10.27.A.1. VanderVelde seconded the motion. Stults argued that, if the height of the fence was regulated to allow wind and light to a neighbor's property and the only light restricted was to their property, perhaps it would not be necessary to remove two feet from the fence. VanderVelde pointed out that there was nothing unique about that situation. Boyle stated that the point of the ordinance was not to allow wind to flow but to prevent stru-tures from being so high as to catch wind and to blow fences over. No one spoke in opposition to the variance. The variance failed unanimously. Vanderhoef moved to grant the variance to Section 8.10.26.8.2 which would allow the deck as constructed to stand. Barker seconded the motion. VanderVelde wondered how this variance could be granted as she was not sure whether hardship or uniqueness could be found. She pointed out that one could state that granting a variance in this case would not be contrary to the public interest. Vanderhoef stated that, based on the safety concerns, uniqueness could be found as well as hardship. Stults wondered if monetary hardship could be considered and Vanderhoef stated that that had been self-imposed. Harris stated that he was troubled by the ambiguity of the ordinance despite the fact that the Zoning Code Interpretation Panel had interpreted this. Harris noted that, if the intent of the ordinance was to state that structures could not be located closer than three feet to the property line, then the ordinance was poorly drafted. Siders stated that it had been the intent to restrict building in such a way as to allow no structures closer than three feet of the property line. Janis Stults, 1817 E. Court Street, wondered if a unique situation could be found due to the fact that the pool would be more attractive to the neighbors with a deck than without. The motion failed 1-2-1; Barker voted no, Harris and Vanderhoef voted yes, and VanderVelde abstained. The Board discussed whether or not it had the right to rule on the Zoning Code Interpretation Panel's decision that the structure be considered a building at this time. Boyle indicated that he was troubled by the procedural requirements for raising the issue. Siders stated that it was not the Board's function to interpret the Code; that is the function of the Zoning Code Interpretation Panel. Only if an applicant is aggrieved 19 Y? MICROf ILMED BY j JORM MIC ROLAB ' � CEDAR RAPIDS •DES M01YE5 i L' BOARD OF ADJU! =NT OCTOBER 13, 19�. PAGE 5 could it come to the Board of Adjustment. Harris pointed out that the issue was germane to this case although the Board had not specifically been asked to make a ruling. Siders expressed concern at the lack of public notice. Boyle stated that the ordinance appeared to have been drafted in such a way as to give the Panel an opportunity to render a decision and that whether this Board could request an interpretation or "briefs" by the parties regarding this issue was a question. Harris indicated that, after the Board had terminated all action under this set of variances, the applicant could file a petition raising the separate issue before the Board of Adjustment of the Zoning Code Interpretation Panel's decision. V-8202 - V-8206. Public hearing on applications submitted by Quik Trip Corporation for variances to Section 8.10.35 of the Zoning Ordinance for stores at 955 Mormon Trek Boulevard, 123 West Benton Street, and 25 West Burlington Street to permit retention of illegal gas price signs. (deferred from May 5, 1982 meeting) Harris read the formal statement of the Board's decision from the May 5, 1982 meeting and the memo from Knight indicating that the Planning and Zoning Commission did not wish to pursue this signage problem at this time. Knight stated that at the May 5 meeting, QuikTrip had pointed out that proposed Department of Agriculture regulations affected their posting of gas sign prices. Knight stated that these regulations had been adopted but the posting of prices had remained optional. Knight stated that the intent of the CBS zone in particular was to keep signs at a minimum. Siders noted that only one QuikTrip (25 W. Burlington Street) was in a CBS zone. Siders stated that most gas stations incorporate the price for the gas onto their free-standing sign. He explained that QuikTrip had two free-standing signs at two locations and that in one case, the signage was on a canopy, which was not allowed. Siders reviewed the initial variance request for VanderVelde's benefit. Phil Holden, 3030 Merle Hay Road, Des Moines, representing QuikTrip Corp., stated that they had not received anything from the Department of Agriculture except notification back in April, 1982 about having to post gas prices. Holden reviewed the various signage at the three stores, stating that two cubes on the gas island canopy existed at 25 W. Burlington Street, the same at 955 Mormon Trek Blvd., and two gas price signs were mounted onto the ends of the gas island canopy at the store at 125 West Benton Street. Vanderhoef asked if the cubes were removed and back-to-back signs were used instead, would the sign be in compliance. Siders stated that it would still be considered another free-standing sign. Holden agreed that the cubes themselves are illegal as there is no allowance in the sign ordinance for four-sided signs. VanderVelde asked if the 48 foot sign could be changed to incorporate the gas prices and Holden indicated that that could be done if necessary. Holden stated that the canopy itself was a structure and wondered why these signs were considered free-standing signs since they were attached to a building. Holden cited Section 8.10.35.I.L. on page 2553 of the 111CROT UMED By JORM MICRAi LAB' CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES. J BOARD Of AOJUF-*ANT OCTOBER 13, 15.._ PAGE 6 Zoning Ordinance. Barker asked if that would make the signs "facia signs" and Siders indicated that they could not be, as facia signs were one- sided. Barker moved that this item be deferred until an interpretation from staff was received as to what was allowed if a canopy was considered to be a structure. Harris wondered if the Board could move from the variance request to a request for interpretation at any point in the proceedings. Boyle stated that more information could be requested from the Zoning Code Interpretation Panel. Barker urged that the staff address this question in a staff report, including the question of what is a canopy. Siders stated that in two cases before the Board, the illegal cube sign could be considered. The motion died for lack of a second. Barker moved that the variance be granted as it applied to the cube signs. Vanderhoef seconded the motion. Vanderhoef asked how the signs relating to self-service and full-service were being treated. Siders indicated that nothing was currently being done as it had been hoped that the Planning and Zoning Commission would act upon such an ordinance. Barker stated that two kinds of problems were before the Board: 1) whether or not to grant the variance for the cube signs, and 2) the interpretation question. Harris again asked if a double -sided sign was one of the options under free-standing signs. Knight stated that it was, and noted that there were no provisions for four-sided signs anywhere. Barker withdrew his motion and Vanderhoef withdrew his second. Barker moved that a variance be granted as requested to allow the continued use of the existing four-sided signs at the QuikTrip stores located at 25 West Burlington and 955 Mormon Trek. Vanderhoef seconded the motion. The motion failed unanimously. VanderVelde moved that the variance be granted for the two signs on the canopy at the 123 West Benton Street store. Barker seconded the motion. Holden indicated that the reason permits were not obtained for these signs was due to the fact that they were considered an integral part of the structure. VanderVelde stated that the free-standing QuikTrip sign could be changed to allow prices. Holden pointed out that that would be an expensive, though not impossible task. Barker moved to call the question. Vanderhoef seconded. The motion to grant the variance as requested for the two signs at 123 West Benton Street on either end of the canopy failed 2-2; VanderVelde and Barker voted no and Harris and Vanderhoef voted yes. MIDROMMED BY JORM MICROLAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES ._ •. F I BOARD OF ADJUF _?NT OCTOBER 13, 19,_ PAGE 7 I Consideration of the minutes of September 29, 1982 was deferred. OTHER BUSINESS: The Board discussed whether or not there were opportunities to go "off the record" or into executive session at any time. Boyle stated that he would be happy to try to provide guidelines for the Board regarding on and off the record/open-closed sessions as well as how much information should be contained in the minutes. The meeting adjorned at 7:55 p.m. Taken by: sG^•�✓�fr. yc Sara Behrman, Minute -Taker /^1 Submitted by:� �1176uglas Bobthro Secretary Approved by: 4Jes Harris, Chairman I�r' �. 141CROFILMED BY JORM MIC R6LAB j I CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES ; {I T /1 I j r � r MINUTES SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 1982 1 P.M. SENIOR CENTER CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Coen, M. Clover, M. Kattchee, A. Arneson, G. Scott, J. Williams, L. Carlton MEMBERS ABSENT: None GUESTS PRESENT: Dave Munson, Housing Commission; Ruth Wagner, Ora Crites, Council of Elders; Merrie Martens, Graduate Coordinator of Project A.G.E.S. (Art, Growth, and Enrichment for Seniors) STAFF: B. Meisel, L. Benz, B. Murray ANNOUNCEMENT TO COMMISSION MEMBERS: Amendments to the By -Laws are separately attached. The original and amended versions are included. Please review the By -Laws. They will be voted upon at the December Commission meeting. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Gladys Scott called the meeting to order at 1:05 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of the September 9, 1982, Commission meeting were approved by consensus. Two corrections were made to the minutes of September 20, 1982: the heading stating Continuation of Business of September 16, 1982, shall be eliminated; the first sentence of the fifth paragraph on page one, insert "of volunteers" after the words "name list." The completed September 20th meeting were approved by consensus. UPDATE ON VOLUNTEER APPRECIATION: Hy -Vee will deliver the meal at 5:45 p.m. Two staff people of the Congregate Meal program will be on duty to aid in serving the meal for the Volunteer Appreciation Dinner. Mrs. Kattchee, Mrs. A. Arneson, and Mrs. B. Coen have volunteered to help serve. Mayor Mary Neuhauser and chairperson of the Board of Supervisors, Betty Ockenfels, will both attend. The meal will be served after the program. REVIEW OF BY-LAWS: B. Meisel explained that the By -Laws need to be reviewed regularly to remain vital. The Commission considered revisions in the By -Laws (see separate attachment). 1g4/9 \■ MICROFILMED BY j JORM MICR46LAB 1 1 CEDAR RAPIDS • DES '40INES � L r SENIOR CENTER _'1MISSION OCTOBER 7, 198, PAGE 2 UPDATE ON SENIOR CENTER: B. Meisel reported that according to contract the Senior Center were sent requests to submit Only one agency submitted a partial report concern was tabled until the November meeting. M. Kattchee left the meeting at 2:45. agreements, the agencies in an annual progress report. The discussion of this HOUSING COMMISSION SURVEY: Dave Munson of the Housing Commission staff was present and answered questions on the survey sent to 600 elderly within Johnson County. The 600 elderly were randomly selected from Heritage Agency on Aging mailing list of 5300 in Johnson County. This survey was devised to ascertain the potential demand for additional congregate housing and involved questions pertaining to physical and mental health, economic resources, social resources, and activities of daily living and mobility. In answering the question, "What services or agencies for elderly do you now use or would you expect to use," the highest percent of respondents said they do or would use the Senior Center. (Senior Center 62.5%, SEATS 56.6%, Congregate Meals 46.1%, AARP 40.5%, Elderly Services 27.5%) From the list of a little over 5300, Mr. Munson generalized that the potential clientele of the Senior Center is 3600 people. When the survey is written up, Mr. Munson will make a copy available to the Commission. SENIOR CENTER USAGE FIGURES: During the month of September there were a total of seven people in the Center between the hours of 2-3 on Saturdays; there were 27 people between the hours of 2-3 on Sundays. Total usage of the Center in August - 4,847. Total usage in September (a shorter month as the Center was closed on Labor Day) 4,747. At the Homecoming Parade, less then ten people used the Center's restoom. BRICK -BOUQUETS: B. Meisel reported there were many verbal compliments about the Center., COMPLAINTS: Handicapped Parking: There are requests for more handicapped spaces. (Currently two out of 36 spaces are for handicapped.) Bette does not feel more spaces are needed as there are drop-off areas for handicapped people, and more handicapped spaces would prohibit their use by other Center users. Sewing Machines: Complaints from people that the machines were too difficult to operate. There were two demonstrations which thoroughly explained operating procedures and techniques. The demonstrations were divided into simple use and the uses for more complicated designs. tucRorILMED BY JORM MICROLAB 1 j CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES 1945 7 J v SENIOR CENTER MMISSION OCTOBER 7, 19b� PAGE 3 No Smoking: A member of the Board of Supervisors thought the no smoking in the diningroom was possibly discriminating against smokers. Bette explained to the Supervisors that an older person who smoked had brought this issue to the Council of Elders. It was the Council of Elders' decision to continue the no smoking rule in the diningroom for health reasons. SPACE APPLICATION: B. Meisel is in the process of establishing a committee on student training and research comprised of University faculty and Commission members which would review the student space applications and make recommendations before the applications are presented to the Commission. A.G.E.S. (Art, Growth, and Enrichment for Seniors): Application by Merrie Martens, graduate student in Art. This application concentrates on visual arts and would involve a seven-month long project beginning in November at the Center. The project allows older people to appreciate visual arts through lectures, demonstrations, visits to galleries, and participation on a limited basis in studio activity. Three series are planned: photography, prints, and folk art. Commitment of funds from the University of Iowa's College of Education and offices of Student Services have been received for Merrie Martins' salary who will serve as a coordinator for all of the activities. L. Benz, Martha Taunton, Professor of Art Education, and Merrie Martens submitted a grant on September 23 to the Iowa Humanities Board to pay for stipends for presentations, and funds for supplies and equipment, and travel costs. The staff encourages the Commission to accept this application for several reasons: requests have come forth for art -related activities and this project would attract elderly who may have not previously participated in the Center. The hour- long sessions would be occurring once or twice a week in the morning, probably in the classroom. The exhibits will occur in the assembly room. The trips are planned to exhibits in Iowa City, Davenport, Cedar Rapids and West Branch. If the Humanities Board does not fund the application, the project will continue but on a lesser scale. G. Scott reported the majority of participants in her exercise class responded favorably towards this project. B. Coen thought this program fulfilled a great need. J. Williams moved to accept the A.G.E.S. space application; B. Coen seconded the motion. Motion declared carried (6 yes, 1 absent). A project proposal submitted by the Iowa Gerontolgy Project in cooperation with the University of Iowa's Office of International Education was reviewed. A series of four cultural festivals, one Sunday per month, on the many artistic aspects of culture in each of the parts of the world is being planned. This proposal requests funding from the Iowa Humanities Board and the Iowa Commission on Aging for a coordinator, and stipends for narrators. The program expects to occur between October 15 and April 15. MICROf ILI-TO BY JORM MICROLAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MINES 19 q9 J v r SENIOR CENTER 1MISSION OCTOBER 7, 1984 PAGE 4 The international students, faculty and older people will serve as resources for this program. J. Williams moved to accept this space application; M. Clover seconded the motion. Motion declared carried (6 yes, 1 absent). H space request was received from Margaret Stephenson of HACAP to use a room at the Center for one day in February to accept utility reimbursement applications. This would involve people of all ages coming to the Center to apply, since the program is open to all people who use utilities and fit into certain income categories. But, Mrs. Stephenson sees this one day as primarily a convenience to older people. M. Clover moved to allow the application for HACAP to accept applications for utility reimbursement in the demand office in the Senior Center for one day in February. A. Arneson seconded the motion. Motion carried (6 yes, 1 absent). Space application from a student to analyze why people use the Senior Center. L. Benz informed the student that such a request has already been approved for another research team which will begin later in October. This request is to survey user reaction to programs that have occurred at the Center and the program the Senior Center users would like to see occur. L. Benz suggested that the student develop a questionnaire to ask older people outside of the Center why they are not using the Center. M. Clover moved not to accept the application at this time but to give the student direction to pursue L. Benz's suggestion to do research on the question of why elderly people are not using the Center. A. Arneson seconded the motion. Motion declared (6 yes, 1 absent). REPORTS: Council of Elders: Ruth Wagner introduced Ora Crites, a Council of Elders member attending this month's Senior Center Commission meeting. R. Wagner reported that the COE has established three committees - program, publicity and outreach, and volunteers. The program committee has met several times to work on programs for outreach to areas outside of Iowa City. COE is still working on implementing the suggestion of providing daily coffee and tea on a cart in the lobby. COE also wants to find ways to convey the importance to senior citizens of signing in their number when they use the Center. COE made a decision to continue no smoking in the diningroom and wrote a letter to the person who had made that request, advising her of their decision. Would timing be better if COE and the Commission had meetings closer together? COE would like the Commissioners to consider this question. R. Wagner was concerned about possibly duplicating what the Johnson County Task Force does. G. Scott pointed out that the task force acts as a sounding board for the Heritage Agency on Aging which serves seven counties, whereas the Council of Elders' main task is to advise and promote the Iowa City -Johnson County Senior Center. A. Arneson commended the Council of Elders on the action they have been taking. The Commission congratulated the Council of Elders for taking hold of concerns of the Center and really working on it. MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR6LAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOP ES 19 5t? 1 P1 MA r SENIOR CENTER 'MMISSION OCTOBER 7, 19b - PAGE 5 Trip Survey: L. Benz reported the results from the survey indicate older people have a high interest in taking trips. She forwarded the survey results to the Rec Center. The Recreation Center organizes trips and tours as they have time. G. Scott will ask AARP if they could provide more trips in order to help meet the interest. J. Williams suggested it might be helpful if members of the Commission would talk to Recreation Commission members about sponsoring and organizing more trips for senior citizens. Meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m. Michael Kattchee, Secretary Minutes prepared by Barbara Murray. 111CROEILMED BY _l I --JORM MICR#LAB 1 CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES � I _ J 1949 �I v� S MINUTES HOUSING APPEALS BOARD OCTOBER 26, 1982 MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Karstens, Beth Ringgenberg, Goldene Haendel MEMBERS ABSENT: Mike Farrar, Al Logan STAFF PRESENT: Judy Hoard, David Malone, Kelley Vezina, David Brown, Larry Kinney, Michael Kucharzak SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION AND ACTION TAKEN: Chairperson Haendel called the meeting to order. Karstens made a motion to approve the minutes from the previous meeting; this motion was seconded by Ringgenberg. The motion carried. APPEAL OF LEOLA HOBBS Inspector Hoard reported that she conducted a licensing inspection at 1609-0911 East Court Street on September 1, 1982. The violation being appealed was Chapter 17-6.A. lack of required access. This concerned access to second floor dwelling unit that goes through the kitchen of the first floor dwelling unit. Mrs. Hobbs, the owner, wrote in her appeal that she has been renting this way for 32 years and has had no problems. She is renting to one person now. She requested a variance as long as she lives on the property. Karstens made a motion to grant a variance to Chapter 17-6.A, as long as the dwelling is owner -occupied. Ringgenberg seconded the motion. The motion carried. The next violation appealed was Chapter 17-7.A.(5) Interior partition, wall, floor, ceiling, and/or other interior surface not maintained such i that it may be kept clean and sanitary and where appropriate, shall be capable of affording privacy. The entry door to the second floor unit lacks a lock. Karstens made a motion to uphold Chapter 17-7.A.(5). Ringgenberg seconded the motion. The motion carried. APPEAL OF THOMAS REED Inspector Hoard reported that she conducted a licensing inspection at 114- 14'1 North Dodge on September 15, 1982. The violation being appealed was Chapter 17-5.I.(2)(a) Lack of required handrail. Hatchway door entrance to basement, steps lack a handrail. Mr. Reed's appeal request stated that the exterior door entrance in question is used solely by himself. He is the only person that possesses a key. In addition, he has installed a padlock on the exterior of the hatchway door making it impossible for anyone to enter onto the steps. 1950 1 111CROEILMED BY JORM MICR6LAB ' I I CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES � I i Housing Appeal 9oard October 26, 15.. - Page 2 Finally, the entranceway is very narrow and the brick side panels would make it difficult to install a guardrail and would further reduce the width of the entrance way. Hoard verified that a padlock was in place on the hatchway door. Karstens made a motion to grant a variance to Chapter 17-5.I.(2)(a) Lack of required handrail as long as the door is locked and the owner has the only key. Ringgenberg seconded the motion. The motion carried. APPEAL OF CHARLES GRUNEWALD Others present: Charles Grunewald. Inspector Malone reported that he conducted a licensing inspection at 509- 09h Brown Street, 2 Dwelling Units on August 31, 1982. The violation being appealed was Chapter 17-5.I.(2)(a) Lack of required handrail. There is no handrial on the first set of steps to the basement and no handrail on the second set of steps to the basement. Mr. Grunewald stated that the stairway in question is only 22" wide. It has a ledge that can be used as a railing. If he had to put a railing in, there would only be 18" left for steps. Karstens made a motion to grant a variance to Chapter 17-5.I.(2)(a) Lack of required handrail for both sets of steps. Ringgenberg seconded the motion. The motion carried. The next violation appealed was Chapter 17-7.I. Electrical system not maintained in good and safe working condition. The ceiling light fixtures throughout the basement have exposed electrical terminals. Karstens made a motion to uphold Chapter 17-7.I. Electrical system not maintained in good and safe working condition. Ringgenberg seconded the motion. The motion carried. The next violation appealed was Chapter 17-7.J. Plumbing fixture not maintained in good and sanitary working condition. The supply pipe to the water meter was leaking at the time of the inspection. Ringgenberg made a motion to uphold Chapter 17-7.J. Plumbing fixture not maintained in good and sanitary working condition. Karstens seconded the motion. The motion carried. APPEAL OF MARK HAMER Others present: Mr. Mark Hamer. Inspector Malone reported that he conducted a licensing inspection at 715 East Burlington on August 21, 1982. The violation being appealed was Chapter 17-5.N.(4) Lack of required 7' minimum ceiling height. The basement unit ceiling has been raised to 6111" 1.950 MICROF1LNED BY J JORM MICROLAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES r I I Housing Appea 9oard October 26, 1: -- Page 3 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 BARRY D. MATSUMOTO Others present: Mr. Matsumoto. Inspector Malone reported that he conducted a licensing inspection at 422 Melrose Court on August 27, 1982. The violation being appealed was Chapter 17-5.I.(2)(a) Lack of required handrail. Missing section of handrail, first set of steps up to the second floor. Karstens made a motion to uphold Chapter 17-5.I.(2)(a) Lack of required handrail. Ringgenberg seconded the motion. The motion carried. APPEAL OF BEN RITTGERS Others present: none. Inspector Malone reported that he conducted a licensing inspection at 616 East Bloomington on August 5, 1982. The violation being appealed was Chapter 17-5.N.(3) Lack of required minimum room size. Malone reported that he had measured Room 4 and it had 64 square feet. Ringgenberg made a motion to grant a variance to Chapter 17-5.N.(3) Lack of required minimum room size. Karstens seconded the motion. The motion carried. APPEAL OF LEON L. STEEL Others present: Mr. Leone Steele. Inspector Vezina reported that he conducted a licensing inspection at 603 East Burlington on August 24, 1982. The violation being appealed was Chapter 17-5.N.(3) Lack of required minimum room size. The northwest bedroom, second floor, lacks a minimum 70 square feet. Vezina stated that Inspector Malone had recently redrawn Room 4. The room measured 95 square feet. Karstens made a motion to dismiss violation Chapter 17-5.N.(3) Lack of required minimum room size. Ringgenberg seconded the motion. The motion carried. The next violation appealed was Chapter 17-5.N.(4) Lack of required 7' minimum ceiling height. The northwest bedroom has two ceiling heights at 6'3" and 6'8". Ringgenberg made a motion to grant a variance to Chapter 17-5.N.(4) Lack of required 7' minimum ceiling height. Karstens seconded the motion. The motion carried. 1950 ' 141 CROr IWED BY JORM MICR6LA13 ' L 1 CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES L J Housing Appea' 9oard October 26, 15.. - Page 4 APPEAL OF MARTIN GAFFEY Others present: Mr. John Gaffey. Inspector Vezina reported that he conducted a licensing inspection at 906 Dearborn on September 9, 1982. The violation being appealed was Chapter 17-5.N.(4) Lack of required 7' minimum ceiling height. The second floor bedroom has a ceiling height of 6'8". Karstens made a motion to grant a variance of Chapter 17-5.N.(4) Lack of required 7' minimum ceiling height. Ringgenberg seconded the motion. The motion carried. APPEAL OF DAVID LONG Others present: Mr. David Long. Inspector Vezina reported that he conducted a licensing inspection at 925 North Dodge on September 28, 1982. The violation being appealed was Chapter 17-5.N.(4) Lack of required 7' minimum ceiling height. The living room has a ceiling height of 6'10h". Mr. Long stated that the house was built that way a long time ago and it would be very costly to remodel. Ringgenberg made a motion to grant a variance to Chapter 17-S.N.(4) Lack of required 7' minimum ceiling height. Karstens seconded the motion. The motion carried. APPEAL OF AMOS BONTRAGER Others present: none. Inspector Vezina reported that he conducted a licensing inspection at 915 East Washington on September 14, 1982. The violation being appealed was Chapter 17-5.N.(4) Lack of required 7' minimum ceiling height. The south room in basement has a 6'9" ceiling height. Ringgenberg made a motion to grant a variance to Chapter 17-5.N.(4) Lack of required 7' minimum ceiling height, as long as the window is fixed. Karstens seconded the motion. The motion carried. APPEAL OF JOHN D. YODER Others present: none. Inspector Vezina reported that he conducted a licensing inspection at 7- 1/2 East Harrison on August 23, 1982. Several violations were appealed. Inspector Vezina read a letter from Mr. Yoder asking the Appeals Board to grant an extension for the violations he has not yet corrected until after May 21, 1983, when he will be out of college. Karstens made a motion to defer decision until November 9th so that Vezina could reinspect the property. Haendel seconded the motion. The motion carried. I 95o 111CROFILVED BY JORM MICROLA® j CEDAR RAPIDS - DES IMUNE5 J r V". TL, Housing Appeal^ Board October 26, V. Page 5 Ringgenberg made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Karstens seconded the motion. The motion carried. Meeting was adjourned. Goldene Naendel 141CROFILMED OY DORM MIC REIL A9- CEDAR RAPIDS DES NOIRES I 111516 MINUTES IOWA CITY HOUSING COMMISSION 1 NOVEMBER 3, 1982 MEMBERS PRESENT: Krause, Ringgenberg, Vander Zee, Logan, Haendel, Karstens MEMBERS ABSENT: Farran STAFF PRESENT: Kucharzak, Seydel, Flinn, Munson, Barnes, Keller, Hencin, Brown OTHERS PRESENT: Billie Marchik, Social Work Student RECOMMENDATIONS TO STAFF: 1. That David Brown contact other cities relative to criteria and fee schedules utilized for recording variances. 2. That David Brown contact the Bar Association regarding the feasibility of opening dialogue concerning a housing court or hearing officer. 3. That memorandum be sent to all department heads requesting copies of all memoranda, agenda and minutes impacting on housing. 4. That Housing Commission be provided copies of the Historic Preservation Ordinance. 5. That Planning staff draw up guidelines for additional funding for existing recipients of housing rehabilitation loans subject to review by the Housing Commission. 6. That Legal staff review the ramifications of contract sales, foreclosures, etc., before any changes in property ownership requirements for housing rehabilitation. r 7. That City Manager authorize Billy Marchik to assess the scope of need of emergency housing on a volunteer basis. 8. That Housing Commission members be polled by phone relative to proposed revisions in fee schedule for housing inspections. 9. That Human Relations staff provide copies of the draft Human Rights Ordinance prior to submission to Council. 1. Meeting to Order - meeting called to order by Chairperson Haendel at 3:40 p.m. 2. Minutes of meeting of October 6 and 11, 1982 - moved Lagan, second Karstens, that minutes be approved as mailed. Approved 6/0. 145/ iuCROFILMED Dr .J JORM MICRL AB 4El CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOMES r L IOWA CITY HOUSING CO"SSION NOVEMBER 3, 1982 PAGE 2 Housing Appeals Board - Karstens explained rationale for recording variances. Brown was questioned as to the legality of Commission recording such. Recommend we look into criteria, procedures and fee schedules other cities are using. Moved Krause, second Karstens, that we look into what other communities are doing to resolve this problem. Approved 6/0. Brown agreed to contact some other cities. Tenant/Landlord Problems - Haendel expressed her concern that there is no appropriate body to hear tenant/landlord disputes other than small claims court and raised the question of feasibility of Housing Board of Appeals serving in this capacity. David Brown advised that the problem is primarily jurisdictional in that most problems are covered under state law, and the Housing Appeals Board only has jurisdiction under the City Code. Following discussion, it was moved by Karstens, seconded by Ringgenberg, that the City Attorney write the Bar Association relative to the feasibility of opening dialogue concerning a housing court or hearing officer. Approved 6/0. 4. Discussion - Communications - Karstens expressed concern that the Housing Commission is not being kept properly informed of activity pertaining to housing related matters, and requested that a memorandum be sent to all department heads requesting copies of memoranda, agenda and minutes whenever such has an impact on housing. 5. Congregate Housing - Munson reported Task Force will be meeting prior to November 15 and again before Christmas relative to survey of and Central Junior High. Survey results should be completed and will be presented to a group of service providers. Access to Central Junior High was attained October 21 and facilities were examined with representatives of five architectural firms. Proposals due November 4 with a recommendation to be made next week. Historic Preservation Task Force - Keller advised that this Task Force completed its work and dissolved on June 30, 1982. Historic Preservation Ordinance goes to Council Tuesday, November 9, 1982. Commission requested copies of ordinance. CCN Report - Vander Zee reviewed CCN recommendations and asked for questions. Karstens questioned rationale for not allocating anything to Systems Unlimited, and was advised it was limited funds. She then questioned the duplication of services of Hillcrest Services and Independent Living with existing facilities, and was advised that though there may be duplication of services, the approach is different. Question was raised as to where Independent Living will get their funding in the future, and response indicated allocation was contingent upon their ability to come up with the expenses for the home, but not salaries. Further question was raised as to whether or not Hillcrest Services would pay back any or all of the money if allocated to them. Commission was advised that the money would not be paid back. IdiCROf ILMED BY JORM MICR6LAO CC D(tR RAPIDS DCS F101ACS J tr L IOWA CITY HOUSING COI SSION NOVEMBER 3, 1982 PAGE 3 7. Housing Rehabilitation Recommendations for change in guidelines - Barnes Barnes cited specific cases where persons have received rehab loans and now need additional repairs and presented proposed criteria for additional funding for housing rehabilitation. Moved Vander Zee, second Krause, that the Planning staff draw up guidelines for additional funding for housing rehabilitation. Approved 6/0. However, it was the consensus of the Commission that they have serious reservations regarding this, and that they wish to review the guidelines. Barnes presented recommended change in property ownership requirements for housing rehabilitation. Moved Karstens, second Krause, that this be tabled and that the Legal staff research the ramifications of contract sales, foreclosures, etc. Approved 6/0. Barnes presented case #10 at 1822 H Street. Moved Ringgenberg, second Karstens, that loan be approved. Approved 6/0. 8. Coordinator's Report - Seydel Section 8 Existing - Seydel reported 20 new applications presented for approval and one (#82-2801) denied. He reported assistance payments for 373 units November 1 and indicated this is a further decline, and that he anticipates additional declines until fair market rents are increased or the voucher system is implemented. Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation - Seydel reported he has talked with three additional owners, but they are not interested. Major objections to the program are the 15 year contract and the annual adjustment factor too low. Program is not financially feasible. Public Housing 22-3 - now in permanent financing. Public Housing 22-4 - Is now a project. Turnkey contract of sale signed October 29, 1982, in the amount of $969,706. Construction started November 1. 9. Hospitality House - Billy Marchik, a social work student, presented her ideas and concerns for emergency housing and indicated her willingness to devote five hours a week toward assessing community needs for emergency housing. Moved Vander Zee, seconded Karstens, that the Housing Commission recommends to the City Manager that Billy Marchik be authorized to assess the scope of need for emergency housing. Approved 6/0. 10. Housing Inspection - Kucharzak reported work continuing on new fel schedule, but should be completed next week at which time Housing Commission members will be polled on their opinion. Kucharzak reported on reassignments of Housing Inspectors as anticipated, and indicated he will still need the third inspector to coordinate new inspections and train firefighters as they rotate. VuckorlLMID ur JORM MIC ROL4B ' ' CEDAR RAPIDS DES 140IYC5 i 19 5/ I v \■ 1 v� IOWA CITY HOUSING C01""SSION NOVEMBER 3, 1982 PAGE 4 11, General Discussion - Seydel advised that the Human Rights Commission is discussing some changes that will affect housing. He indicated that he has asked the staff person to provide copies of the draft ordinance for Commission review prior to submission to Council. 12. Discussion Systems Unlimited - Karstens reminded Commission of their strong recommendation for funding the Systems Unlimited proposal and reaffirmed the belief that children should be provided for as well as adults. Commission concurred. 13. Adjournment - Moved Karstens, second Ringgenberg, that meeting adjourn. Approved 6/0. Adjourned 5:50 p.m. Approved: Goldene B. Haendel, Chairperson i i I / 195/ i.. MICRD11L14ED DY i DORM MIC RbLA B'] CEDAR RAPIDS •DES hID19E5 J LL - _ ._ r MINUTES BROADBAND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 1982 -- 4:00 P.M. CIVIC CENTER CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Ehninger, Terry, Madsen, Johnson, Eskin. MEMBERS ABSENT: None MEMBERS EXCUSED: None OTHERS PRESENT: Tiffany, DePrenger, ICPL; Anita Benda-Stech, former Minneapolis cable consultant; Forest Meyer, Doug Harold; Blough of Hawkeye; Doug Allaire of Access Iowa City (AIC). STAFF PRESENT: Shaffer, Brown. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL The BTC will be sending City Council recommendations on two ordinance amendments pertaining to the Required Extension Policy. These ordinance amendments include: 1) a definition of new housing area as used in Section 14-78(b)(1)(b) of Ordinance 78-2917, and 2) substituting the phrase potential subscribers for the word residents in the Required Extension Policy in the same Section 14- 78(b)(b). MATTERS PENDING COUNCIL -COMMISSION DISPOSITION: Government channel 29 cablecasting guidelines. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER: Meeting called to order at 4:10 P.M. MINUTES Madsen made one correction on page 3, line 2, of the word "required" which should be changed to the word "wired". With this correction accepted, moved by Enninger, seconded by Eskin, to approve minutes of September 7, 1982. Unanimously approved. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION AND FORMAL ACTION TAKEN: Terry reported he and Shaffer presented the Triannual Review Report, the Universal Service clause determination and recommended ordinance amendments to the City Council, all of which were well received by the City Council. Terry said the Council expressed a special interest in seeing more done with government channel 29 and following up on whether citizens of other communities making use of the Iowa City access facilities and services should help defray costs for their use of the same. Terry said although ATC had promised to send a letter responding to the BTC's request for adding CNN and a foreign language channel no letter has been received to date. Doug Allaire for Access Iowa City stated they had received no response to their telegram to ATC about access video equipment repair problems in Iowa City either. IM2 MICROS ILMED BY JORM MIC RQL4B I� i 1 CEDAR RADIOS DES MOIRES r L-' BROADBAND TELECOMMUN"ITIONS COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 1982 PAGE 2 Blough said Hawkeye is planning for a second studio at their office on Southgate Avenue to be used for programming production of their own for Channel 5 and as a backup access facility. Blaugh stated additional equipment items are being purchased to be prepared for many potential crises in access equipment avail- ability situations. The BTC unanimously passed two recommended ordinance amendments on the matter of the definition of a new housing area and the required extension policy. These include: 1) that the definition of new housing area as used in the required extension policy, Ordinance 78-2917, Section 14-78(b)(1)(b) be as follows: New housing area constitutes any newly built, rehabilitated or restored, residential or commercial unit (either single or multiple units or lots), which did not exist prior to April 18, 1982, and which is not currently serviceable by existing trunk. 2) that the word residents be substituted with the words potential subscribers in Section 14- 78(b)(1). The BTC also unanimously passed a motion not to discuss this issue any further until a written response from ATC stating their interest and/or concerns on this matter is received. The Subcommittee on Access Equipment agreed there should be supplied by Hawkeye a minimum of two portapaks which are available at all times. Johnson was appointed by Terry to discuss with Blough potential further recommendations or agreements on the matter of minimum equipment standards offered by Hawkeye. The BTC vice -chairperson election was tabled until the next meeting. Blough reported.Sterling Court should be wired and activated within the next few weeks, and that Hawkeye now has 10,300 subscribers. Blough responded in writing to Mr. Frank Chiavetta's letter and concerns. Shaffer reported five complaints over the last month, which are being resolved. Shaffer also completed the Triannual Review Report over the last month. Terry appointed Ehninger and himself to work with Shaffer on the BTS budget. Johnson discussed his work on a state-wide cable tv survey. ANNOUNCEMENTS Terry reported he and Shaffer presented the Triannual Review Report, the Universal Service clause determination and the recommended ordinance amendments to City Council, all of which were well received. Terry said Council's main emphasis was how the government channel 29 could be better and more fully used, and a concern that citizens of other communities are making use of the Iowa City access facilities and there is currently no reimbursement for this use from the other communities involved. Terry suggested other communities use of access facilities be a future agenda item for further discussion, and that a report be sent to Council in three to six months suggesting how the government channel 29 be used for more effective and public information purposes. Terry also said a response to the BTC's letter regarding receiving CNN and a foreign language channel in Iowa City had not been received from ATC and that the 45 days time, in which ATC's Thomison indicated a response would come, is almost past. Shaffer introduced Anita Benda-Stech, a cable consultant from Minneapolis, who is now a resident of Iowa City. Mrs. Benda-Stech has volunteered to assist on cable and access related projects in Iowa City. PUBLIC DISCUSSION Allaire from Access Iowa City indicated a response to their telegram to ATC regarding access equipment problems has still not been received. Allaire expressed concern over the access equipment being moved to Hawkeye's Southgate offices from the ICPL. Blough stated the equipment is not being moved to 141CRUIL14ED By JORM MICROLA13 CEDAR RAPIDS • DES •401YES f95�_ 1 J v r L BROADBAND TELECOMMUN'- 'TIONS COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 1982 PAGE 3 Hawkeye's offices, but is on occasion being used at their offices only because of a need for additional space. It will continue to be housed and checked out from the Iowa City Public Library. Eskin asked if a second studio would be put together at Hawkeye's offices. They are planning for a second studio, which would not be composed of any of the existing access equipment, but would be new equipment. This studio would be used by Hawkeye to produce programs for their channel 5 and as a backup access facility. Blough said any commercial production in the near future would be for commercial insert availabilities on the satellite services. Blough also said additional precautions are being taken to be prepared for production equipment problems before they arise, such as purchasing extra vidicon tubes for the cameras. Johnson added this was the same philosophy expressed in the subcommittee on equipment. The subcommittee wanted to establish minimum standards of equipment availability, which is what Blough and Hawkeye seem to be doing. Johnson commended Hawkeye's effort. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT ON DEFINITION OF NEW HOUSING AREA IN THE REQUIRED EXTENSION POLICY: Eskin reported this subcommittee has come up with a definition of new housing area that can be applied in the Required Extension Policy, so that it is clear what Hawkeye will be required to wire in terms of extending the cable service to new areas in Iowa City. When these new areas have to be wired, or the time frames within which they must be wired, has been determined in a previous BTC recommendation dated July 14, 1982 and titled "Required Extension of Cable Service to New Housing Areas and Newly Annexed Areas." Terry distributed another draft of this definition, written by himself, that integrated concerns expressed by Helling and Legal staff. This definition contained a distinction between wiring stipulations of those areas that are contiguous and those that are not contiguous to the existing network, and that the requirement of wiring commercial areas in Iowa City be deleted. Eskin asked Blough if contiguous and non-contiguous areas should be treated differently and why. Blough said contiguous areas (to existing trunk line) could, in most instances, be wired much sooner than non-contiguous areas, and that making such a distinction in this policy would be most helpful and more compatible with Hawkeye's needs and interests. Contiguous areas may be served within a few weeks by drops from existing cable, whereas non-contiguous areas may take nine months or more for new trunk construction. Brown expressed a concern for requiring the wiring of commercial areas in this definition. Blaugh said he was concerned that requiring Hawkeye to wire commercial areas may mean building a lot of cable plant that is useless, and that the other cable subscribers would end up paying for. Eskin said including such a stipulation would include and depend on, just as the requirement of wiring other areas, the request for service by a potential subscriber. Therefore, the plant would not be useless. Johnson made a motion that two recommended ordinance amendments be made to Council: 1) That the definition of new housing area as used in the Required Extension Policy, Ordinance 78-2917, Section 14-78(b)(1)(b) be as follows: New housing area constitutes any newly built, rehabilitated or restored, residential or commercial unit (either single or multiple units or lots), which did not exist prior to April 18, 1982, and which is not currently serviceable by existing trunk; 2) that the word residents be substituted with the words potential subscribers in Section 14-78(b)(1). Second by Eskin, unanimously approved. IdICROTILMED B1' JORM MICROLAG CEDAR RAPIDS • DES 1401!ES ►9901 1 t BROADBAND TELECOMMUNT"^TIONS COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 1982 PAGE 4 The BTC further discussed the inclusion of a density clause and the terms contiguous or non-contiguous in the required extension policy. Terry stated that the current density figure included in his draft of new housing area were there because: 1) ATC has stated an unwillingness to accept an extension policy without a density clause and 2) because a survey by Shaffer and himself on these matters revealed all other cities included a density clause in extension policy matters. Shaffer added that part of the confusion around the matter of extension policy is due to ATC historically not dealing with anything other than one extension policy in other ATC systems which in all of their cases included a density clause. The Iowa City cable ordinance calls for both an extension policy (policy drafted by ATC and agreed by the BTC and City Council) which pertains to how, when, and for how much units more than 200 feet from the existing network shall be wired, and for a Required Extension Policy (which is only partly defined in the ordinance and for which further clarification is being sought by the BTC) which stipulates when newly annexed areas and newly developed areas will be wired with cable. ATC has not returned an extension policy, thinking this was the only extension policy, as it is all of their other systems, (the policy recommendation to them made by the BTC contained a time and materials clause, and no density clause). Further, drafts to date of the required extension policy have also not included a density clause. Shaffer said that in previous meeting with Yutkin, he indicated he was aware of this difference, and also indicated that a written response to the BTC about ATC's concerns over the following matters would be forthcoming: 1) the need for including a density clause; 2) not wanting to include having to wire commercial areas; and 3) a need for a distinction between contiguous and non-contiguous areas in such a policy. Terry emphasized the written response to the BTC stating such concerns was necessary in order for the BTC to consider including, or not including, such stipulations. Shaffer said it is within the BTC's power to recommend their current drafts of the required extension policy including the timelines required for the wiring of new areas and and their definition of new housing area, given that no response has been received from ATC. Madsen made a motion not to address any further issues on the required extension policy, such as ATC's concerns or the inclusion of density clause, until such time as those concerns are received in writing from ATC. Seconded by Eskin. Unanimously approved. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT ON HAWKEYE'S EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENT AND REPAIR STATUS: Johnson prepared and sent a document summarizing the points covered and results of the subcommittee mecting. Madsen voiced dissent over the content of this report, stating she did not believe her views were well represented in it. Johnson and Madsen did agree that one agreement reached from the subcommittee was that Hawkeye should have minimally two portapacks (two cameras and two videotape recorders) available at all times for access users. Johnson expressed an interest in seeing a minimum quantity or standard of access production equipment always available for the community users. Johnson also said, according to what Blough said earlier about purchasing additional equipment items so that Hawkeye will be prepared for equipment breakdowns, that Hawkeye does indeed seem to be working in this direction as well. Terry appointed Johnson to meet and work with Blough on this issue and see if any further potential recommendations or agreements may be forthcoming. Kalergis submitted a response to Johnson's report that the BTC will address at their next meeting. 195A MICRO,' IU4CD Bt' �F JORM MIC ROLAB LI CEDAR RAPIDS - DCS '4018ES v BROADBAND TELECOMMUNTaATIONS C014MISSION — OCTOBER 19, 1982 PAGE 5 BTC VICE -CHAIRPERSON ELECTIONS: Moved by Eskin and seconded by Johnson to table this election until the next BTC meeting. Unanimously approved. HAWKEYE'S REPORT: Blough reported Sterling Court should be wired and activated in the next couple of weeks. Hawkeye now has 10,300 subscribers, which is approaching their March, 1983 goal. There is a backlog of installations due to the surprising level of increase in subscriptions. Blough indicated he has responsed to a letter the BTC and City Council have received by Mr. Frank Chiavetta. SPECIALIST'S REPORT: Shaffer reported five complaints over the last month. Most of them dealt with subscribers wanting to get their cable lines buried; one was about someone wanting to get service on Cardiff Circle. All of these are resolved or being resolved. Shaffer and Baily videotaped the Annual Board and Commission meeting. Shaffer completed the Triannual Review Report in the last month. Shaffer reported the Council responded very positively to the Triannual Review Report and thanked everyone involved for their efforts and work in producing it. Now Shaffer is working on preparing the budget for the BTS and the Program Division Statement. The last $4,000 from the NTIA (National Telecommunications Information Administration) grant Shaffer wrote one and one-half years ago, should arrive in the near future. These funds will be used to purchase video/access items for the Library's AV lab. This equipment can be used by all access producers. Shaffer will also be working on a written document illustrating the variety of uses and applications of access by many of Iowa City's community access users. Shaffer distributed the following documents and reports to the BTC (and each is available from the City Clerk's office): the Triannual Review Report; a memo from Helling to Council about Sterling Court; the BTS's MBO report; the new channel 26 political cablecasting guidelines; Johnson's report on the subcommittee on equipment; Dr. McFarland's letter to Shaffer about problems and suggested changes in access equipment procedures, repairs and documentation; Eskin and Terry's suggested drafts on new housing area definition; Shaffer's letter to ATC requesting specific financial information about Hawkeye. APPOINTMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON BTS BUDGET BY CHAIRPERSON: Terry appointed Ehinger and himself to work with Shaffer on the BTS budget. NEW BUSINESS: Johnson reported he is working on a cable TV survey that will cover all Iowa cities that have cable and cable companies in an attempt to document the status of and attitudes about cable in Iowa. 195a MICROC ILMED BY JORM MICROLAS j CEDAR RAPIDS DES FID1NCS L� v BROADBAND TELECOMMUNT-'-ITIONS COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 1982 PAGE 6 ADJOURN: Moved by Eskin, seconded by Madsen to adjourn. Unanimously approved. Adjourn- ment at 6:10 p.m. Respectfully submittt�t��ed, Willilliahaffer i Broadband Telecommunications Specialist f� MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR46LAB- CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOVIES I 1 j J 19 sa J� r MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 1982 7:30 P.M. CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Scott, Blank, Seward, Jakobsen, Baker MEMBERS ABSENT: Horton, Jordan STAFF PRESENT: Knight, Franklin, Boothroy, Boyle, Jansen, Behrman RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: 1. S-8221. That the application submitted by Paul M. Kennedy for approval of the final subdivision plan of Kennedy's Waterfront Addition, Part 1, located south of Stevens Drive along South Gilbert Street be approved subject to the following: 1) an agreement on Lot 6 that, prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant will finally subdivide Lot 6 (or present an LSRD); 2) submittal of an easement dedication for the drainage easement running over Lot 6; and 3) approval of legal papers. 2. Z-8216. That the amended 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 from R1A to R1B be approved. REQUEST TO CITY MANAGER FOR STAFF ASSISTANCE: 1. The Planning and Zoning Commission requests staff assistance for a proposed amendment to Section 8.10.25, Parking Regulations, of the Zoning Ordinance. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: Seward called the meeting to order. There was no public discussion of any item not on the agenda. Jakobsen amended the minutes of August 19, 1982 as follows: Page 4, bottom - Jakobsen stated that she has lived in the inner city for 2 years, but close to the inner city for 21 years. Page 6 - The name Eskin was misspelled. Scott moved and Jakobsen seconded that the minutes of August 19 be approved as amended. The motion carried unanimously. Jakobsen moved and Scott seconded that the minutes of August 30, 1982, be approved as circulated. The motion carried unanimously. SUBDIVISION ITEMS: S-8221. Public discussion of an application submitted by Paul M. Kennedy for approval of the final subdivision plat of Kennedy's Waterfront Addition, Part 1, MICROFILMED BY j JORM MIC ROLA B ' 1 j CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES i i 19saDa r Planning & Zoning CL ssion October 7, 1982 Page 2 located south of Stevens Drive along South Gilbert Street; 45 -day limitation period: 10/22/82. Knight reviewed the staff's report and clarified those deficiencies still remaining as being: 1) an agreement on lot 6 that, prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant will finally subdivide lot 6 (or present an LSRD); submittal of an easement dedication for the drainage easement running over lot 6; and approval of legal papers. Staff recommended approval subject to those conditions. Jakobsen asked about the status of the legal papers. Boyle stated that some had been reviewed but the platting of lot 6 and the subdivider's agreement were still needed. Boyle indicated there would be no problem approving this item subject to legal papers. William Sueppel, 122 S. Linn St., attorney for the applicant, expressed no objection to the conditions as stipulated by staff. Jakobsen indicated that there had been enough problems with legal papers in the past to warrant a deferral of this item until October 21. Jakobsen so moved. The motion failed for lack of a second. Scott moved that the application be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) an agreement on Lot 6 that, prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant will finally subdivide Lot 6 (or present an LSRD), 2) submittal of an easement dedication for the drainage easement running over Lot 6, and 3) approval of legal papers. Blank seconded the motion. The motion carried 4 to l; Jakobsen voted no. ZONING ITEMS: 1. Z-8216. Public discussion of an amended application submitted by Robert Lumpa for the proposed rezoning of certain property located in the south- west quadrant of the intersection of Rochester Avenue and Amhurst Street from R1A to R1B; 45 -day limitation period: 10/14/82. Knight reviewed the amended application, stating that the previous application had requested an R2 zoning; the amended application was requesting rezoning from RIA to R1B. Knight indicated that the amendment took care of all the staff's concerns and recommended approval. Baker asked if the purpose of the rezoning was to facilitate development in an area which would have an impact on the horseshoe trunk sewer system. Knight pointed out that this was not an application to subdivide but to rezone; the City Council has not yet devised a development policy for that area. Rod Perry, 3231 Lower West Branch Road, thanked the Commissioners for listening to their comments made in opposition to this item at the September 23, 1982 meeting. Jakobsen moved that the amended application be approved. Scott seconded the motion. Baker indicated that, while he would vote to approve the rezoning, he was reluctant to approve any development in that area. ig5z4.0 111LROEILnED BI' J L ` JORM MIC RbLAO CEDAR RAPIDS DES YIO I:JES i I Planning & Zoning Ct ;ssion October 7, 1982 Page 3 Jakobsen agreed, stating that it was time for the City Council to seriously address the problem and devise a development policy. The motion carried unanimously. 2. Public hearing on the proposed rezoning of the moratorium area which was established by ordinance and is known as the "College Hill Park/South Dodge Street Neighborhood." In his opening remarks, Seward explained that the Commission attempted to deal with this rezoning issue within the confines of the present Zoning Ordinance. He stated that the plan before the public was indicative of that approach and hopefully accomplished the Planning and Zoning Commission's goals and objectives. (See attached map.) Seward called the public hearing to order. Benjamin Chait, 918 E. Washington Street, spoke in favor of downzoning the College Hill area. Chait expressed concern at the increasing density of the entire area and cited parking and traffic problems as major concerns. Chait stated that the concept of RNC -20 zoning made sense and further deterioration and higher densities would be to the detriment of the neighborhood. Jakobsen asked if Chait was in agreement with the recommen- dation for rezoning for his property. Chait stated that he was. David Schor, 438 S. Dodge Street, expressed concern over the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation. Schor stated that he was concerned about the overall population of the neighborhood and asked how this recommendation would affect that issue. Seward explained that the number of people occupying a particular dwelling unit was related to the Housing Code. Seward explained that the recommendation would have the impact of reducing the potential density of dwelling units/acre but a significant amount of R3A zoning would be left in place. Seward explained that there should be positive results in the overall density of the South Dodge Street area. Seward stated that neighborhood meetings would be held to discuss the new Comprehensive Plan and that the adoption of that Plan would also have an impact on the area as well. George Swisher, 805 E. Washington Street, questioned the criteria for the Planning and Zoning recommendation. Swisher stated that a great deal of the area zoned RM does not presently contain the potential density of that zone; the Commission was leaving open the potential for the construction of several "50 -unit" apartments. Seward explained that currently some areas have been allowed to develop at a greater density than allowed by the Comprehensive Plan. Swisher wondered why the Commission had not recommended using the RNC20 zone. Seward explained that the Commission was reluctant to recommend a new zone when the new zoning ordinance was forthcoming. Swisher pointed out that if the Commission's proposal was not to take any more drastic steps than this recommendation due to the pending zoning ordinance, they were suffering under a delusion. He stated that by the time the City Council acts on that recommendation, several families will be gone and more older housing demolished. Swisher indicated that the proposed recommendation would do nothing for the neighborhood. 195 -aa 111CRDEILUED BY JORM MICRQLAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOMES J r Planning & Zoning Cc ssion October 7, 1982 Page 4 Tom Reasoner, 125 S. Lucas Street, stated that he found this proposal unacceptable and merely a continuation of the R3A policy. Janet Bywater, R.R. 6, Iowa City, spoke on behalf of the sororities in the area. Dona Faye Park, 816 E. College Street, an owner of 824 E. College and 121 S. Governor, expressed the desire to preserve the neighborhood. Park referred to an article which appeared in The Iowan, in which the author referred to part of this area as "our favorite residential neighborhood" in eastern Iowa City. Park expressed disappointment with the proposal. Jim Hawtrey, 534 S. Dodge, expressed the concern that the Commission's proposal was creating "spot zoning". Hawtrey expressed the concern that in ten years, more areas would revert to R3A. Hawtrey stated he was disappointed with the proposal. Kaye Burford, 113 S. Johnson, urged the Commission to consider the impact of high density in this neighborhood on downtown Iowa City's appearance. Burford urged the preservation of the neighborhood. Sherman Paul, 903 E. College, expressed dissatisfaction with the proposal regarding density. Paul stated that the proposal would increase, and not stabilize the density; that it did not respect the idea of "neighborhood," and was not democratic as it did not respect the neighbors' comments. Paul stated that the neighbors had explained at various meetings their interest to downzone the area and no other interest had been proclaimed. Paul questioned how the Planning and Zoning Commission could then arrive at such an injurious proposal. Dorothy Moeller, 623 E. College, expressed alarm at the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation. Moeller stated that no change was satisfactory which did not include the entire area and the only viable alternative would be to zone the area R3 or to institute the new RNC -20 zone. Moeller stated that she was pleased to note that the Housing goals in the Comprehensive Plan included the renovation of existing housing stock and the preservation of existing neighborhoods. Moeller urged that the heritage and the character of this area of the City be protected. Margaret Nowysz, 1025 River, responded to this proposal as follows: 1) with the exception of one sorority, every other sorority is located in an R3A block and this was unsatisfactory, 2) on East Washington Street, the majority of homeowners had signed a petition supporting downzoning. Nowysz wondered why this had not been recommended, and 3) police records have shown a high incidence of noise ordinance violations for that area. Nowysz stated that these problems needed to be addressed and that this proposal does not address them. Nowysz read the purpose of zoning regulations. She stated that the proposed plan fulfills none of those conditions and the Planning and Zoning Commission is bound to consider them. Nowysz stated that there was a real need to have an R3 area. Nowysz expressed amazement that, while no one has spoken in opposition to downzoning at any of these meetings, such opposition had been taken into 19 sa a nICROf MED BY �F JORM MIC ROLAB i ! CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOVIES i i Planning & Zoning Cc ssion October 7, 1982 Page 5 consideration. Nowysz also questioned the spot zoning effect of this proposal. Sue Dane, 704 Caroline Avenue, representing the sororities in the area, spoke in favor of downzoning. Dane mentioned several of the problems (noise, parking) in the area and urged that the Commission preserve an historic portion of Iowa City. Faye Strayer, 1 Forest Glen, also representing the sororities in the area, spoke in support of downzoning. Strayer supported those opposed to the proposal as presented, stating that the neighborhood already suffers from overcrowding and noise. Strayer urged that the neighborhood be preserved. Several questions were raised concerning the multi -family uses on the College Street block surrounded by Governor, Washington and Lucas Streets. The Commissioners discussed the issue of multi -family use of single-family dwellings. The aesthetic quality of several of the multi -family units was also debated. Seward pointed out that the Commission could not look at the actual design of the structure, but must deal with the criteria of density. Reasoner pointed out that the degree of density allowed resulted in various aesthetic problems. Seward explained the reasons for not recommending the RNC -20 zone, stating that it would be an amendment to the existing Zoning Ordinance. Seward stated that the present Zoning Ordinance should not be amended at this time because the new Zoning Ordinance was forthcoming. Swisher asked if there was any way to grandfather an existing use in. He urged that the area be kept as it is, but not expanded. Boothroy stated that that was the concept behind the RNC -20 zone. Moeller asked why the RNC -20 zone was not part of the recommendation. Seward stated that that option had not yet been ruled out, but pointed out that there was an increased likelihood that the City Council would implement the new Zoning Ordinance in a timely manner and not "piece -meal" adopt the Ordinance. Seward expressed reservations about amending an ordinance that was about to be superceded. He said the Commission felt that might have an impact on the expeditious passage of the new zoning ordinance. Swisher indicated that four or five old buildings could be lost before the new zoning ordinance was adopted. Swisher stated that it was ridiculous for the Planning and Zoning Commission to argue against the RNC -20 zone on procedural grounds. Seward expressed appreciation for the concerns raised by the public and stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission was working within the time frame established by the City Council for the moratorium. Scott stated that a letter had been received by Helen L. Gay, 506 S. Dodge St., registering opposition to the retention of R3A zoning in the area and supporting downzoning. Blank asked Jansen to explain the problems of rezoning the entire area R3 or RNC -20. Jansen stated that there was no difficulty with the RNC -20 concept. Jansen stated there were questions concerning the area designated 145acw IdICRUILnED BY J JORM MIC ROLAF3 CEDAR RAPIDS • DES blO IIVEs J Planning & Zoning Ck ission October 7, 1982 Page 6 as R2 between College, Washington, Governor and Summit Streets, and a possible spot zoning problem might exist there unless it was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Seward stated that it was consistent and the lots were continguous in that area. Jansen stated he could not hazard a prediction if the entire moratorium area was downzoned to R3. Jansen indicated that a property owner could challenge such action as the "taking of property." Blank asked why the RNC -20 zone would reduce the risk of litigation. Jansen stated that, while that was not necessarily so, the RNC -20 zone does reduce the number of nonconformities in the area. Boothroy stated procedurally the vote on the rezoning could be done tonight, as all public notice and hearing requirements had been fulfilled. Jakobsen stated that there were problems with amending the Comprehensive Plan and Jansen agreed. Baker thanked the public for their comments. Baker stated that the area needed to be stabilized and that there were problems with traffic, noise and the numbers of people. Jakobsen reported that she had received several telephone calls from a number of people urging downzoning. One was from George Woodworth, who stated that if most of Burlington Street remained R3A, he would request his property be zoned 113A. Jakobsen apologized for being so concerned with procedural items, but explained that there were 15 or so amendments to the Comprehensive Plan that have been delayed for the last 3 years and that these amendments needed to be considered as well. Jakobsen stated that, while it was easy to vote for the RNC -20 zone, a problem existed because that zoning had not been considered for any other part of the city. Jakobsen expressed support for the present proposal. Scott agreed with Jakobsen's comments, stating it was not fair to amend the Comprehensive Plan for this item when so many other people had been told they had to wait until the new zoning ordinance was adopted. Scott expressed the frustration that the Commisson had experienced with the lack of action by the City Council in moving ahead with the Comprehensive Plan and the new Zoning Ordinance. Scott explained that the reason the R3 zone for the entire area was unacceptable was because 44.5% of the total properties would become nonconforming. Scott stated that he thought this plan balanced the competing interests without creating a significant number of nonconforming structures. Scott said that the RNC -20 zone was a viable alternative classification for the entire neighborhood, but the R3 zone was not. Scott further stated that the timetable of the moratorium and the Council's commitment as relayed by Mayor Neuhauser to the adoption of the new zoning ordinance by mid-May of next year was critical in his decision to support this proposal. He said he did not feel that very much new construction would take place before that adoption. Scott mentioned that, while this was not an easy decision, he would support this proposal. 195.X, MICROFILMED 65 L�`.-,• I JORM MIC ROLA] J ! j CEDAR RAPIDS • DCS '4OIYE5 v� r L Planning & Zoning C — ission October 7, 1982 Page 7 Blank stated that she had had difficulty understanding why the RNC -20 zone had not been acceptable at this time. Blank indicated that she would vote to support adding more limitations on density in whatever way was feasible. Blank urged that the neighbors meet together and dissuade one another from "selling out" to developers. Seward cautioned that the adoption of the RNC -20 zones might create a delay in the adoption of a new zoning ordinance and would not stop all development in this area. The public hearing was declared closed. Baker moved that the Planning and Zoning Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council that they adopt the RNC -20 zone and apply it as they see appropriate. Boothroy pointed out that the City Council could consider this zone without the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation. The motion died for lack of second. Jakobsen moved that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the City Council the map as presented with the exception of two lots on the northeast corner of Johnson and Burlington Streets. Scott seconded the motion. Jakobsen explained that the reason for excluding those two lots was due to the property owners' specific request that they not be downzoned. Seward stated that, considering all the difficulties expressed, he was concerned that this proposal was not responsive to the neighbors' needs. Seward stated that, while the RNC -20 zone was not responsive from his point of view, it may be the medium by which the concerns of the community can be met. Seward wondered whether his position with respect to the delaying of the RNC -20 zone was realistic and stated that he could not continue to justify the procedural reasons not to consider it. Seward stated that he would vote against this proposal and urged that the Commission either look at more R3 zoning or the RNC -20 zone or consider the parking ordinance requirements. Baker stated that he would also vote against this motion. Scott expressed concern at the lack of unanimity among Commission members and the fact that the motion might be decided by a 2-3/3-2 vote. Scott suggested that the item be deferred until all seven members could be present. Seward stated that a meeting to consider the recommendation could be scheduled for October 14, 1982. Scott withdrew his second and Jakobsen withdrew her motion. Jakobsen stated that while she was willing to vote tonight, if the motion to defer was to consider the RNC -20 zone, then staff should be asked to consider other areas of the city for RNC -20 zoning as well. Scott moved that a meeting to reconsider the proposed rezoning of the moratorium area be scheduled for October 14. Blank seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. MICROFILMED BY CORM MIC REIL AB ! CEDAR RAI -IDS DES MOMES 05aw v r a Planning & Zoning c ission October 7, 1982 Page 8 The meeting recessed at 9:50 and reconvened at 9:55. 19 6 a aj OTHEROTHER-: 1• Consider requesting staff assistance for proposed amendment 8.10.25, Parking Regulations, to Section of the Zoning Ordinance. The consensus was to request staff assistance. 2. Consider requesting staff assistance for a proposed amendment 8.10.27, Fence Requirements, to Section of the Zoning Ordinance. The consensus was not to request staff assistance. 3• Consider requesting staff assistance for a Proposed amendment 8.10.35, Sign Regulations to Section of the Zoning Ordinance to provide Price sign. for a gas It was the consensus not to request staff assistance. I The meeting adjourned at 10:03 p.m. Taken by: Sara Behrma ,Minute- aker Approved by: -74,^ � '4 - Tom Scott, Secretary - ecretary 111CRUILI.1E0 BY JORM MICR#LAB ! ) 1 CEDAR RAPIDS DES I101AES 196aa., r I I MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 14, 1982 7:30 P.M. CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Scott, Jordan, Horton, Seward, Blank, Jakobsen, Baker MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Boothroy, Franklin, Jansen, Behrman RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: I. The Planning & Zoning Commission adopts and forwards to the City Council its recommendation for the Residential Neighborhood Conservation Zone (RNC -20). 2. The Planning & Zoning Commission adopts and forwards to the City Council the attached proposal for the College Hill/South Dodge Street Moratorium area. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: Seward called the meeting to order. There was no public discussion of any item not on the agenda. CO Seward explained that the Planning & Zoning Commission had reconsidered recommending the RNC -20 zone for the College Hill/South Dodge Street moratorium area. Seward explained that the RNC -20 zone seemed best to fit the development patterns of the area. Seward outlined the proposed recommendation (see attached map). Seward explained the significance of the residential neighborhood conservation zone (RNC -20) for the public's benefit. Seward indicated that the proposed densities were generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Emily Rubright, representing Alpha Chi Omega Sorority, 828 E. Washington Street, asked for clarification on the type of expansion which would be allowed for sororities under the proposed RNC -20 zone. Boothroy explained that the current level of density of the sorority would be "grandfathered" in; while there may be a problem adding additional living space, there should be no problem adding parking or other projects that would not increase the density. Rubright stated that many sororities were under pressure to enlarge due to the University's increasing enrollment. Rubright expressed concern that the level of high quality housing provided by sororities be allowed to continue. Boothroy stated that sorority houses would be regulated in the same manner as rooming houses under the RNC -20 zone. Rubright asked if sorority houses could be given a special status in the zoning ordinance. 195aa McRofl t-110 BY JORM MIC R0L4B ' I CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES i l/I r PLANNING & Z01 i COMMISSION OCTOBER 14, 19b2 PAGE 2 Jakobsen indicated that sororities on very large lots might be able to requirements might become more zoning ordinance. She said it might be expand. Jakobsen pointed out that parking restrictive under the proposed more feasible to purchase a new structure and convert it into an annex o rooming house. Rubright stated thatthe neighbors 9 as a sorority.uld not want that as it would not provide the same high quality s oke in favor of soror , ities in Dona Faye Park816 E. College Street, spoke be permitted to move into an area general, asking if a new sorority zoned RNC -20. it Seward stated that sororities would be a permted use under the RNC zone; they would have to conform to all regulations of the RNCa f as welI- . Kay Burford, 113 S. Johnson Street, thanked the City staff and the Commissioners for the time and energy devoted to this matter. be Seward stated that the appropriate procedure for the Commissionthe College to take action on the RNC -20 recommendation prior to acting Hill/South Dodge Street moratorium area rezoning. Scott moved that the Planning & Zoning Commission adopt and forward to the City Council a recommend;odan sefor condedethe motiontial Neighborhood Conservation Zone (RNC -20). special Boothroy briefly reviewed the changes of the errors zone to the provisions section and corrected typographical The motion carried unanimously. Jakobsen stated that it had been her goal to have zoned this area this density ordinance was before the for at least seven years. Jakobsen stated that she had though this goal would be reached when the entire zoning for months ed that she would have preferred to defer City Council. Jakobsen approval of this density Seward suggested that the southeast quadrant of the Jefferson and Johnson Streets intersection be included in the recommendation. Baker moved that the Planning & Zoning Commission adopt this proposal for the College Hill/South Dodge Street moratorium area and forward it to the City Council. Horton seconded the motion. public suggesting this proposal and thanked theressure on Baker thanked Seward for suBaker urged the public to P pressure on the for their interest and input,neighborhood meeting their the City Council, attend the upcoming are selling Comprehensive Plan and take into account to wham they property when they sell. it was difficult to recommend ng need for a new Seward echoed Jakobsen's comments, statingie "piecemeal" approach to the RNC --213 zone at this time insview ed coof tt atva"pieceme zoning the new zoning ordinance. Ig5aa MICROFILMED BY JORM MICROLAB I ' L? CEDAR RAPIDS + DES MOINES i j \1 ., L•.L, PLANNING & ZO ��G COMMISSION OCTOBER 14, Ibal PAGE 3 Seward stated that the Planning & Zoning Commission had struggled long and hard on this issue in the hopes of doing justice to the neighborhood. Seward remarked that the proposal was no one person's idea, but rather the consensus of all the Commissioners' views. Scott agreed with Jakobsen, explaining the reluctance with which the RNC - 20 zone was accepted at this particular time. Scott stated that one of the reasons for not wanting to piecemeal the zoning ordinance was because it removed a significant amount of political pressure from approving the entire zoning ordinance. Scott explained that he could support the recommendation because it addressed the desired goal of stabilization of the neighborhood and buffering around the College Hill park, diffused the emotionalism of the issue and allowed the Commission to forward to the City Council a decision decided by a majority of the Planning & Zoning Commission. Scott indicated that he was not totally happy with the recommendation, but guessed that maybe the competing parties weren't either. He said it was a good compromise. The motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Taken by: Sara Behrma Approved by: Tran Scott, S6cretary I MICROFILMED BY 1 JORM MIC RbLAB I. CEDAR RAPIDS DESMOIWS l 195 a a, L< MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 1982 7:30 PM CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Jordan, Horton, Seward, Baker Jakobsen MEMBERS ABSENT: Scott, Blank STAFF PRESENT: Boyle, Knight, Behrman RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL• I. V-8202. The application submitted by Mercy Hospital for the vacation of the west 60 feet of the east 160 feet of the alley in Block 47, Iowa City, Iowa, be approved on the condition that the City of Iowa City be granted a 20 foot easement. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: Seward called the meeting to order. Baker moved and Jordan seconded that the minutes of September 23, 1982, be approved as submitted. The motion carried unanimously. There was no public discussion of any items not included on the agenda. VACATION ITEMS: V-8202. Public discussion of an application submitted by Mercy Hospital for the vacation of the west 60 feet of the east 160 feet of the alley in Block 47, Iowa City, Iowa; file date: 9/2/82. Knight stated that the applicant, Mercy Hospital, was requesting the vacation of the easterly 60 feet of the alley located between the existing hospital building and Gilbert Street to permit them to acquire the right-of-way. Knight stated that the portion of the alley east of the request area was previously vacated on November 15, 1966 to allow the construction of the existing hospital building. The vacation of an added 60 feet will allow Mercy Hospital to control access to the parking areas to be located north and south of the alley and planned to service the new construction. The staff recommended that the vacation request be approved; however, an easement over 20 feet of the alley right-of-way must be retained to allow access to those public utilities located in the right-of-way. Seward asked if the location of the sanitary sewer had been resolved. Knight replied that it had not yet been resolved. Jakobsen moved that the vacation of the west 60 feet of the east 160 feet of the alley in Block 47 be approved on the condition that the City of Iowa City be granted a 20 foot easement. Baker seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. 195acu. MICROFILMED 01' J I JORM MICR46LAB 1 i CEDAR RAPIDS - DES MOUNES , i r L Planning and Zoning mmission October 21, 1982 Page 2 SUBDIVISION ITEMS: Public discussion of a proposed ordinance amending the subdivision ordinance by clarifying the language regarding issuance of building permits, adding a penalty section and permitting the final plat to include part of preliminary plat only upon Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation and City Council approval. Knight indicated that legal questions remained regarding this item and that they would be resolved prior to the next informal meeting. He recommended that the Commission defer this item. Horton moved that this item be deferred until the next regular formal meeting in November. Jakobsen seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS: I. Discussion with Bob Lumpa regarding proposed subdivision plat for a 1.4 acre tract located in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Rochester Boulevard and Amhurst Street. Knight stated that Mr. Lumpa was present to answer any questions or concerns the commissioners might have regarding this item. Seward stated that the platting of areas on the east side that would flow into the horseshoe sewer trunk was of great concern to the Planning & Zoning Commission and the City Council. Lumpa said he understood this concern, but explained that platting of his land should have been resolved several years ago. Seward asked if the property had been previously platted. Lumpa indicated that an application tc plat his property had been submitted in 1979 but a setback had occurred due to a question regarding the status of Lower Muscatine Road. Lumpa stated that his application for vacation of the street had been denied at that time and the issue had been tied up in court for a few years and only recently resolved. Jakobsen remarked that, while she was personally opposed to further platting on the east side, Lumpa could approach the City Council and ascertain their position on this matter. Lumpa indicated that if this issue was not resolved in the near future, further action would be taken by him. Baker agreed with Jakobsen's remarks, stating that he would oppose further platting on the east side. Baker stated that this was a problem which the City Council would have to address. Seward suggested that Lumpa either approach the City Council in an informal manner or submit a formal proposal to the Commission. Lumpa indicated that his main concern for this year was to get one house constructed. Knight indicated that Lumpa could build one home on the property and then subdivide the property at a later date. Lumpa expressed concern regarding requirements that he expend funds for the installation of utilities and pay taxes on the property while the City delays the subdivision due to sewer problems. 1� MICROFILMED B1' JORM MICROLAB- CEDAR RAPIDS • DCS NIOIYES 195.1a..) J I� S� J Planning and Zoning ^-mmission - October 21, 1982 Page 3 Knight stated that Lumpa could send a letter to the City Council asking for the opportunity to discus6 this matter; ultimately the City Council would have to determine by policy what would occur on the east side. 2. Public discussion of the Planning and Zoning Commission Program Division Statement. Jakobsen reviewed the revisions as suggested but indicated their preference to see a revised copy prior to voting. Jakobsen moved and Baker seconded that this item be deferred until the first formal meeting in November. The motion carried unanimously. }}}� 3. Consider requesting staff assistance for a proposed amendment to Section 8.10.25, Off-street Parking Requirements, on the Zoning Ordinance. This item was deferred until the next meeting. The meeting adjourned at 7:50 PM. Taken by: Sara Behrman. Approved John Seward, Chair 1 i 195aa.) j- MICROFILMED BY CORM MIC R46LAB J r I CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES � I i r L NOVEMBER 17, 1982 7:30 P.M. CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Scott, Blank, Seward, Baker MEMBERS ABSENT: Horton, Jakobsen, Jordan STAFF PRESENT: Knight, Keller, Boyle, Behrman, Boothroy, Jansen RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: I. The Planning & Zoning Commission recommends the adoption of the Residential Neighborhood Conservation Zone (RNC -20). The Planning & Zoning Commission recommended denial of the ordinance rezoning the College Hill/South Dodge Street neighborhood as amended by City Council. 3. 5-8222. That the application submitted by Southgate Development for approval of the preliminary plat and preliminary LSRO/PAD plan of Walden Ridge, located south of Westwinds Drive, east of Mormon Trek Boulevard, and north of the proposed Walden Road be approved. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: Seward called the meeting to order. There was no public discussion of any item not on the agenda. Scott moved and Baker seconded that the minutes of October 7, 1982, October 14, 1982, and October 21, 1982, be approved as printed. The motion carried unanimously. ZONING ITEMS: 1. Z-8218. Public discussion of an application submitted by Nagle and Furman, an Iowa General Partnership, for the rezoning of Lot 26, Lyon's Second Addition, located east of Van Buren Street, north of Bowery Street, west of Johnson Street, and south of Burlington Street; 45 -day limitation period: 12/2/82. Keller reviewed the staff report, explaining that rezoning was requested for one 9,000 square foot lot from C2 to R3A. The proposed rezoning was directly adjacent to another 9,000 square foot lot owned by the applicant and zoned R3A. Keller explained that the Comprehensive Plan recommended two different land uses in this area, with the lot itself being crossed by a boundary which allowed lower density residential to the north and higher density to the south. Keller stated that it was the opinion of the staff that the Planning & Zoning Commission could interpret the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations as not being specific to lot boundaries. Keller stated that rezoning would not be detrimental to the neighboring properties and that, therefore, staff would recommend approval. MICROFILMED BY j JORM MICR6LA© f CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES 195an. J M E''`;..ig,Jrj,,•�' MINUTES Fr PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION 1: it� NOVEMBER 17, 1982 7:30 P.M. CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Scott, Blank, Seward, Baker MEMBERS ABSENT: Horton, Jakobsen, Jordan STAFF PRESENT: Knight, Keller, Boyle, Behrman, Boothroy, Jansen RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: I. The Planning & Zoning Commission recommends the adoption of the Residential Neighborhood Conservation Zone (RNC -20). The Planning & Zoning Commission recommended denial of the ordinance rezoning the College Hill/South Dodge Street neighborhood as amended by City Council. 3. 5-8222. That the application submitted by Southgate Development for approval of the preliminary plat and preliminary LSRO/PAD plan of Walden Ridge, located south of Westwinds Drive, east of Mormon Trek Boulevard, and north of the proposed Walden Road be approved. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: Seward called the meeting to order. There was no public discussion of any item not on the agenda. Scott moved and Baker seconded that the minutes of October 7, 1982, October 14, 1982, and October 21, 1982, be approved as printed. The motion carried unanimously. ZONING ITEMS: 1. Z-8218. Public discussion of an application submitted by Nagle and Furman, an Iowa General Partnership, for the rezoning of Lot 26, Lyon's Second Addition, located east of Van Buren Street, north of Bowery Street, west of Johnson Street, and south of Burlington Street; 45 -day limitation period: 12/2/82. Keller reviewed the staff report, explaining that rezoning was requested for one 9,000 square foot lot from C2 to R3A. The proposed rezoning was directly adjacent to another 9,000 square foot lot owned by the applicant and zoned R3A. Keller explained that the Comprehensive Plan recommended two different land uses in this area, with the lot itself being crossed by a boundary which allowed lower density residential to the north and higher density to the south. Keller stated that it was the opinion of the staff that the Planning & Zoning Commission could interpret the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations as not being specific to lot boundaries. Keller stated that rezoning would not be detrimental to the neighboring properties and that, therefore, staff would recommend approval. MICROFILMED BY j JORM MICR6LA© f CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES 195an. J M L. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 17, 1! PAGE 2 Scott asked if the proposed rezoning would require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Keller stated that that decision was open to Planning and Zoning's interpretation. He explained that the Comprehensive Plan is intended to be used as a general guide to development. Knight pointed out that a similar interpretation had been made for a nearby lot (the Rosebud). Further, he indicated that the Comprehensive Plan recognizes this area as having "mixed uses. Knight explained that the Comprehensive Plan is not intended to be site specific, and in this case, it would be appropriate to find the requested rezoning to be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Mike Furman, 2305 Cae Drive, expressed his agreement with staff comments. He explained that the lot in question would only be used to provide parking for an apartment building to the north and possibly for one to the east. Seward asked if the proposed parking lot would be located in the flood plain. Knight stated that he was not sure, but that it appeared to be high enough that it was not. Seward asked how many units he was proposing, and the number of bedrooms which would be built in the proposed structures. Furman explained that there would either be 12 units with three bedrooms or nine units with four bedrooms. Furman stated that 20 parking places would be built on the lot in question. Scott asked if both lots were vacant prior to building. Furman explained that they were and briefly outlined the zoning history of the property. Scott asked if action could be deferred until the December 2nd meeting. Knight explained that it could. Scott moved that this item be deferred until the regular December 2nd meeting. Baker seconded the motion. Scott explained his reasons for deferring this item. He said that rezoning items should be dealt with when more Planning & Zoning Commission members are present, particularly when there may be a split vote. Seward expressed his support for the motion. He said he would like the other Commission members' views on the interpretation of not requiring an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. The motion carried unanimously. Seward asked Furman the results of his action before the Board of Adjustment. Knight explained that the item had been deferred. Public discussion of the Residential Neighborhood Conservation Zone (RNC -20). Knight explained that formal action needed to be taken to adopt the amended RNC -20 zone. Scott agreed that the final draft copy with certain language changes needed to be adopted. Scott moved the adoption of the Residential Neighborhood Conservation Zong (RNC -20). Blank seconded the motion. Scott reviewed the language changes as made by staff. Seward asked if 19 Sao, MICROF ILMED BY I .J i JORM MICR6LA6 ' CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES i v r PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 17, I PAGE 3 there was any public discussion The motion carried unanimously. SUBDIVISION ITEMS: There was no public discussion. 1. S-8222. Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Development for approval of the preliminary plat and preliminary LSRD/PAD plan of Walden Ridge, located south of Westwinds Drive, east of Mormon Trek Boulevard, and north of the proposed Walden Road; 45 - day limitation period: 11/26/82; 60 -day limitation period: 12/11/82. Knight reviewed the memo which stated that all deficiencies have been corrected. He also pointed out that an additional change which had been requested by the Fire Department regarding turnarounds at the end of the parking area had been provided. The staff recommended approval of this item. Blank moved that this item be approved. Baker seconded the motion. Scott questioned the meaning of the statement made by staff that the majority of their concerns had been ameliorated. Knight explained that the problem with the cul-de-sac versus the thru-street remained, but that the use of a cul-de-sac was an acceptable compromise. The motion carried unanimously. 2. Public discussion of the proposed ordinance amending the LSRD review procedures contained in Chapter 27 of the Municipal Code by placing a time limit on the final plan and adding language permitting lateral deviation of building locations under certain circumstances. Knight stated that this ordinance would make the provisions of the LSRD and LSNRD review procedures consistent. Knight explained that the additional language concerning a time limit and lateral deviation of buildings was currently included in the LSNRD provisions, but not in the LSRD provisions. Knight pointed out that the inconsistency had become apparent during the review of the Iowa City public housing project. There was no public discussion. Scott moved that this item be deferred until December 2nd. Baker seconded the motion. Baker stated that he wanted to read the proposed ordinance more thoroughly. Scott indicated that more Planning & Zoning Commissioner's input would be desirable. The motion carried unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS: 1. Public discussion of the Planning & Zoning Commission schedule for public hearings on the Comprehensive Plan Update. Baker indicated that he indicated that she would meeting. Scott stated that yet undetermined. Seward November 23rd hearing. would attend all the meetings. Blank be unable to attend the November 23rd he would most likely miss one meeting, as stated he would be unable to attend the 195a� 611CRUILMED BY JORM MICROLAB ' CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOVIES L 1 v r L PLANNING & ZONJNG COMMISSION NOVEMBER 17, 1 PAGE 4 Seward asked what the public notification process would be. Boothroy explained that there would be press releases concerning the public hearings and that coverage by the Press -Citizen had specifically been requested. Boothroy indicated additional changes in the public hearing schedule, stating that the meeting on November 23rd discussing the north area would be held at Horace Mann and that downtown/inner city area hearing would be held on November 30th in the Recreation Center, Room B. Planning & Zoning Commission information. Seward congratulated Baker on taking his comprehensive exams. Baker expressed disappointment that the Planning & Zoning Commission had voted on the application submitted by Apel, Miller and Moreland for the rezoning of certain property located at 505 Burlington Street (Z-8219). Baker stated that he was disappointed with the decision to approve the rezoning, stating that he felt his objection had not been given as serious a consideration as he felt it deserved. Baker stated that it seemed to be inconsistent to expand the R3A area without changing the parking requirements. Knight pointed out that Legal had raised an issue concerning the impropriety of denying an application based on a non-existent ordinance. Knight stated that the Planning & Zoning Commission should look at the application on its own merit. Baker expressed the hope that the ordinance amending the parking requirements would be forthcoming shortly. Scott explained that the decision to rezone was based in part on the proximity of the building to the central business district and the University of Iowa and the feeling that less parking was needed in this area. Scott stated that the Planning & Zoning Commission might wish to look at less restrictive parking requirements for property located close to the central business district. Scott stated that he agreed with Baker concerning more restrictive parking requirements in traditionally residential neighborhoods; however, the Commission should consider that certain zones allowing higher density might require fewer parking restric- tions. Baker stated that, while he was inclined to agree that property close to the central business district did not require as restrictive parking requirements, he was not sure that the line should be drawn at Van Buren Street. Scott pointed out that staff assistance had been requested regarding the proposed ordinance amending parking requirements. Boothroy pointed out that if new parking regulations were adopted prior to the issuance of a permit, the property at 505 Burlington Street would still be required to meet those requirements. Baker stated that he hoped the new ordinance could be adopted by January 1, 1983. Knight pointed out that that would probably be impossible. Baker suggested that February 1, 1983, might be more realistic. Scott agreed that that time frame seemed more reasonable. n ICROfILMED BY JORM MICROLA13 CEDAR RAPIDS • DES 1019ES 195acu J J PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 17, 1 PAGE 5 Baker further suggested that the staff should try to anticipate those items before the Commission which might generate a large amount of public interest, and place those items first on the agenda. Knight explained how items were positioned on the agenda. 3. Consider a City Council referral regarding the proposed rezoning of the College Hill/South Dodge Street neighborhood. Boothroy stated that the City Council had reviewed the recommendation made by the Planning & Zoning Commission regarding the College Hill rezoning and had suggested the following amendments: a. a change from RNC -20 and R3 to R2 at the entrance to the Woodlawn Historic District; b. a change from R2 to RNC -20 for property east of Summit Street between Washington and College Streets; C. a change from R3A to RNC -20 for some properties on the west side of Johnson Street north of Burlington; and, d. a change from R3A and R3 to RNC -20 between Johnson Street and Lucas along Burlington. Boothroy stated that the entire recommendation was being referred back to the Planning & Zoning Commission because these suggested changes were considered to be substantial. Boothroy explained that the Commission had -to either approve or disapprove of the ordinance as amended by the City Council. Seward asked if the City Council was asking for alternative recommen- dations or just a yes or no vote on the amended ordinance. Bootnroy stated that the City Council was requesting a recommendation on this proposal, however, nothing would prevent further suggestions from being made. The Planning & Zoning Commission reviewed each of the changes individually: a. A change from RNC -20 and R3 to R2 at the entrance to the Woodlawn historic district: Seward explained that this change was made by the City Council to make this area consistent with the rest of the Woodlawn historic district. Blank stated that she felt it was an omission on the part of the Planning & Zoning Commission to leave out this area in its original recommendation. Blank stated that she approved of the City Council's suggestion. Scott asked if three properties in this area had filed objection to that downzoning and Boothroy indicated that this was correct. Scott said that it seemed as if the City Council was motivated by a desire not to be sued when they redrew the lines 19 Sdw j, 111CRon LM10 SY J JORM MICROLAS I ! CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES PLANNING & ZONT", COMMISSION NOVEMBER 17, 1. PAGE 6 C. L. for rezoning in other areas; however, in this area, they did not seem to take that into consideration. Scott stated that he had no problem with this particular suggestion. Seward indicated that he supported the original recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Commission for the RNC -20 and R3 zone at the entrance to the Woodlawn historic district. Scott questioned the drawing of specific zoning lines to include or exclude specific properties on the part of the City Council. A change from R2 to RNC -20 for properties east of Summit Street between Washington and College Streets: Baker stated that he was less e felt he still could agree with the R2 designation was too rest need to create a buffer zone th to see that block zoned at R3 three houses south of College homes; if the rest of the area argument that the entire area the use of the R2 zone in tl density and preferred that t provide a buffer between the R 20 zones. Baker asked if th Boothroy stated that it would would be more appropriate recommendation. Seward asked there was none. Boothrov aoaii ithusiastic about this change but it. Seward stated that he felt rictive but felt that there was a ere. Seward stated he would like Scott stated that two out of sere being used as single-family was R2, then there was a strong should be R2. Seward stated that its area would not allow enough he entire area be zoned R3 to zone and the higher R3 and RNC - at would permit sororities and Baker agreed that the R3 zone than the City Council's f there was any public input and pointed out that the Commission was not being asked to make recommendations for additional amendments, but that they could raise their concerns during the first consideration of the ordinance. Boothroy pointed out that the existing density in that block was extremely low and there would be more opportunity for redevelopment in that block. Blank agreed that the entire area should be rezoned R3. Baker agreed that it should be rezoned R3, as long as rooming houses would be allowed. A change from RM to RNC -20 for some properties on the west side of Johnson Street north of Burlington: Seward explained that many of the City Council comments regard- ing this area were from the standpoint of retaining existing structures. Scott stated that many of the City Council comments revolved around the retention of some "nice -looking houses" and the elimination of higher density close to the College Hill Park. Scott proposed a hypothetical situation in which a house in this area burned down: Scott wondered if the property could be rebuilt as a nonconforming structure at its previous density. Boothroy stated that under the new zoning ordinance, a property owner would be allowed to rebuild the structure of a non- :atcRonuaED sr JORM MICROLAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES 10INES J L PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 17, 1 PAGE 7 conforming lot. Scott's questions stemmed from the amount of redevelopment which would be allowed under the R3A and R3 zone versus the RNC -20 zone. Seward stated that, on the basis of the C2 zone to the west, he had felt that a R3A extension would be appropriate in terms of buffering between the commercial and the lower RNC -20 and R3 zones. d. A change from R3A and R3 to RNC -20 between Johnson Street and Lucas along Burlington: Baker asked how the City Council could justify this suggestion. He asked why the density north of Court Street on Dodge had been raised to RNC -20. Scott explained that the City Council had appeared to want to retain the R3 zoning, but that the Council felt they were being too "lot specific" and shouldn't be. So, the entire area was then designated as RNC -20. Boothroy pointed out that the RNC -20 zone was a compromise. Baker stated that he did not object to the RNC -20 zone but did not understand changing the recommendation for the three properties west of Court on the east side of Dodge Street. Baker stated that the City Council might as well let each property owner vote on the rezoning. Baker felt that the area should stay R3. Baker also stated that on Lucas Street east of Dodge Street the zoning should be R3 as well. There was no public discussion. Seward stated that he had originally considered the RNC -20 zone with the R3 combination, but was not satisfied with either the City Council's suggestion or the original Planning & Zoning recommendation for this area. Seward stated that this particular area needed more work but recommended against the overall use of the RNC -20 zone. Blank deferred any opinion, as she would like to look at the area again. Baker stated that if it were to be zoned RNC -20, more R3 zoning should be left on the east and west sides or the original recommendation should be upheld. Seward asked that this discussion be sent to the City Council along with its recommendation in order to allow the City Council to understand the concerns raised by the Planning & Zoning Commission. Scott asked Jansen why these suggested changes had to be voted upon as a unit and not individually. Jansen explained that the changes had been sent to the Planning & Zoning Commission in the form of an amended ordinance and that the ordinance needed to be voted on as amended. There was some discussion of the confusion raised in the memo which stated that the Planning & Zoning Commission could endorse the changes or reject them, all or in part. Jansen again indicated that the changes had to be voted on as a unit. Boothroy stated that it was the intent of the City Council not to piecemeal these changes. The Planning & Zoning Commission had to make one recommendation and could make its concerns known about each change. MICROT IWED By JORM MICROLAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MDIAES ) 95acu J r PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 17, 1 PAGE 8 Seward stated that he was particularly concerned with the properties on East Johnson Street in area D. The only public comments expressed concerned meeting the deadline for the moratorium. Scott moved that the Planning & Zoning Commission approve the City Council's recommended changes for the College Hill/South Dodge Street neighborhood as an amendment to its original recommendation. Baker seconded the motion. Scott stated that the Planning & Zoning Commission and the neighbors had agonized over this rezoning and had come up with a compromise palitable to most of the people involved. Scott stated that this was done with purpose and methodology. Scott stated that he was not sure, especially regarding amendment d, that the suggestions made by the City Council represented much more than a consensus arrived at rapidly. Scott indicated that if the Planning & Zoning Commission did not have to vote on suggestions a, b, c, and d as a unit, he felt that they could reach an agreement on suggestions a, b, and c but not d. For that reason, Scott stated he must vote against the entire recommendation. Baker agreed with Scott's comments, stating that he wished he had had more time to discuss these suggestions. Baker stated that he could agree with suggestions a, b, and c but not d. Blank indicated that she would also vote no. Seward stated that he regretted that there was not a full Commission to discuss these suggestions. The motion failed 0-4. The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Taken by: Sara Behrman, Minute -Taker. Approved by: Tom Scott, Secretary 111CR0(ILMED B1' i JORM MIC R0L4B CEDAR RAPIDS DCS MOINES ' l 195aa J