Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-07-01 Bd Comm minutest;on for Outreach Office 311 N. Linn St. C P.O. Box 892 J Iowa City. Iowa 52240 (319) 338.7518 a G) ' A Q for yo\P0 Board Meeting — Wedn'esday, April 16, 1980 I''E-CEIVED JL'i( 9 3:1980 Synthesis Studio " 104 E. Jefferson St. Iowa City, Iowa 52240 (319) 351.3720 Board Members Present — Nina Ilamilton, Mary Larcw, Al Bohanan, Paul McCue, Mark-ITMc1!seder Dennie Hedgen, Selma Connors, Judy Kelley, IHanne Ilierholzer Board Members Absent: Neal Morris, Jessie Henry, Jan Lown, Roberta Patrick, Jeff Schabil.ion Staff Present: Jim Swaim, Chuck Hollister, Peg Mclslroy, Jim Llniski, Pat Itigateg Craig Wunderlich Agenda Introduction of !fork l;rlaeder: Mark Cgelsndedfas introduced as a new board member. Minutes of March Meeting : The March minutes were passed. Financial Reports The financial report was given and approved. j Quarterly Report: Tho quarterly report was discussed, Paul moved that they be passed, )krone seconded, and the motion was agreed to. Director's Report: Jim gave the director's report; Center East is consider— ing re—doing the whole basement and there is a chance that Synthesis will have to move next year. Staff members have been riding with Iowa City i and Coralville Police. Jim stated that he has gained some knowledge of the situation between young people and police by doing no. Jim also talked of a video workshop on youth rights. Old Business: The open house was act for May 1st, Hanne and Paul volunteered to help with it. The insurance was briefly discussed. Dennie discussed what the Synthesis Committee had done, members of the committee made comments, and the board discussed what was said. New Business: Keith Goxmezano, John Murray, and Mace Braverman are being considered for the board, panne will be submitting her resignation next month because site is going to Denmark. John Murray, 12, in being considered as a replacement for her. Hanne mover! that Mace be asked to join the board, Paul seconded, the motion was carried. A nomination committee of Judy, Hanne, And Paul will decide who the new candidates for positions will be. There sae no further business so the meeting was adjourned at 8:50. //97 MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR+LAB CEDAR RAPIDS - DES MOINES i Outreach Office 311 N. Linn St. P.O. Box 892 Iowa City, Iowa 52240 (319) 338.7518 Dn for J-0 Synthesis Studio 104 E. Jefferson St. Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Ah• (319) 351.3720 for Yo`)�� Board of Directors fleeting Wednesday, April 169 1980 Continued 2 The nest board meeting will be Wednesday, May 218t, 19e0 at 7x00 pm. MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR+LAB CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES Outreach Office 311 N. Linn St. P.O. Box 892 Iowa City, Iowa 52240 (319) 338.7518 Dn for J-0 Synthesis Studio 104 E. Jefferson St. Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Ah• (319) 351.3720 for Yo`)�� Board of Directors fleeting Wednesday, April 169 1980 Continued 2 The nest board meeting will be Wednesday, May 218t, 19e0 at 7x00 pm. MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR+LAB CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOINES MINUTES ^ !� BOARD OF DIRECTORS MTEETING 3 1980 RECElV�D IU1; ? /// UNITED ACTION FOR YOUIH MAY 21, 1950 MiWERS PRESENT: Al Bohanan, Neal Morris Dennis Hedges, Mace Braverman, Jessie Henry, Judy Kelley, Mary Larew, John Murray Jeff Schabillon MEMERS ABSENT: Selma Connors, Mark Egleseder, Nina Hamilton, Jan Lown, Roberta Patrick, Paul McCue STS PRESENr: Jim Swaim, Jim Elniski The meeting was brought to order at seven p.m., Mazy was asked to take minutes. K May introduced to the Board two new manbers, Mace Bravennan and John Murray. r Al read a letter from Hanne Hierholzer submitting her resignation. Harare will be missed by the Board and Staff, she has made great contributions to UAY. She leaves us for a years sojourn in Sweden The minutes from the April 16 meeting had not been prepared, they will be approved at our next meeting. The Finance report was discussed and unanimously approved. Jim elaborated upon the Director's report which was received for April, 1980. OLD BUSINESS Jim explained the problems with the ratings given UAY for Workers compensation Insurance. A great deal of time appears to have been spent trying to get a correct rating and clearing up the audited premium dispute. NEW BUSINESS 1. Mace moved, Jeff seconded and the Board approved Greenwood and Crim to do the yearly audit. This audit will not include tax forms as Peg is prepared to do these. 2. The City Contract was discussed and the possibility of changes reviewed. No changes required. 3. Jim would like to move Synthesis to 311 N. Linn. There are many pros and cons connected with this idea. He was asked to explore the idea in depth and report his findings to the Board in June. 4. A proposed budget was presented by the Budget Committee. After much discussion, it was approved unanimously. 5. Al announced the proposed slate of officers for the June election: Dennis Hedges President Paul Mc Cite Vice -President Jan Lown Treasurer Selma Connors Secretary Next meeting June 9, 1980 at 7:00 p.m, Respect ull tted, r/Ma� Larew MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR+LAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES 1117 IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION June 12, 1900 Iowa City Civic Center Members Present: Dieterle, Saeugling, Phipps, George Member Absent: Redick w Staff Present: Zehr, Woito Others Present: Mayor John Balmer, Gene Msciocchi (American Energy Solutions) Dick Blum, Roy Postel (Daily Iowan), Sue Young (KXIC) Chairman Dieterle opened the meeting at 7:35 p.m. and deferred consideration of the previous meeting's minutes because the three members of the commission who were present at the beginning of the meeting were not all present at the May meeting. She, instead, asked for the presentation of the month's bills by Mr. Zehr, who explained the bills briefly. Mr. Phipps moved for approval of the biils as presented; second by Saeugling; all voted aye, and the bills were approved for payment. Commissioner George having joined the meeting, Dieterle then asked for approval of the minutes of the May 8th meeting. There were no corrections. George moved for approval of the minutes as presented; second by Saeugling; all voted for approval. Manager Zehr began his reports by introducing Mr. Gene Masciocchi, of American Energy Solutions, who asked the commissioners to consider leasing 10 acres of airport property to his company for the purpose of building a plant to produce 5 million gallons of alcohol per year from grain, to be used for gasohol. The company has established contacts in the field to sell the alcohol, and predicts that In the future the ratio of gasoline to alcohol will move to 80120. They would build an 18,000 square foot building with a capital investiment of $8,000,000. Iowa coal would be used for fuel, and the plant would meet EPA standards. Mr. Saeugling expressed Interest in the plan; Chairman Dieterle voiced reservations about the advisability and feasibility; Mayor John Balmer said he doubted the City Council would be in favor of such a plant, since Iowa City has always favored only clean, light Industry. Mr. Blum expressed doubt that the Planning Zoning Commission would see fit to alter the zoning requirements to accomodate such an industry. Attorney Woito advised the commission to remember the liability that would accompany leasing the land instead of selling it. George moved that the issue be tabled until further information could be mother d; sed. cond by Phipps; George, Phipps, and Dieterle voted aye; the Phipps moved that the Chairman appoint a committee to work with the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission to learn what type of industry would be desirable for the available airport land; second by Saeugling; all voted In favor; tna motion passed. Chairman Dieterle appointed Phipps and Saeugling to the ;:ommittee, 1W MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR+LAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES A 1 Iowa City Airport Commission June 12, 1980 Page 2 Returning to the agenda, Zehr presented preliminary drawings of airport parking lot improvements. lie asked for a resolution to set a public hearing on June 26 for the plan to remove the existing curb and add an additional 10 feet of parking space, for a total of 28 vehicle spaces at a cost of $15,000. George moved to approve a resolution to set the public hearing for June 26 at 7:30 p.m.; second by Phipps; all voted in favor. Since Secretary Redick was absent, George moved to appoint Phipps as acting secretary for the purpose of signing the resolution; second by Saeugling, motion passed unanimously. Mr. Zehr distributer) copies of a letter from L. R. Kimball and Associates, along with a map which will be used to depict recent Commission plans to the consultants. Zehr and Dick Blum, representing the Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission, will meet with the consultants on June 23 in Kansas City to update the Master Plan. Zehr then presented a plan for installing 90 reflector markers along the runways to delineate night taxiways for pilots. The commission approved this plan by concensus. Zehr then reported to the Commission on the completion of the Improvements to the office space in the old United hangar building. The new roof , heating and cooling, interior improvement and carpeting totaled $14,417.63. The 1,600 square feet of office space can be rented, Zehr feels, for $800 per month. An ad has been placed in the local newspaper. The only interest expressed to date was by Joanne Neuzil for a real estate office and an agricultural library, which would be federally funded. Addressing the Capital Improvements Fund, Zehr presented a plan for a large 4 -unit steel hangar by Erectatube which, with an it -foot extension, could accomodate the University helicopter and McCabe, plus space for an airport maintenance shop and office. The cost for this building (Insultated and with wiring to the doors) would be about $01,000. The same facility In a pole building by North Liberty Buildings would be about $93,000. Phipps offered a motion to authorize Zehr to obtain specifications for the 4 -unit all - metal building; second by George; all voted in favor of the motion. Zehr asked for authorization to contact a consultant for help with the engineering specifications. George moved to authorize Zehr to consult Howard R. Green at a cost not to exceed $4,000; second by Phipps; motion carried. Zehr then apprized the commissioners of a potential financial shortage of about $20,000 in the finishing of the proposed hangar building. The possibility of borrowing this money, if necessary, was discussed. Zehr then asked for permission to move to Item (i) on the agenda, since Mr. Blum needed to leave in order to attend another meeting. Blum presented new zoning proposals which will probably be enacted by the Planning and Zoning Commission in the fall, and which will affect future developments of airport property. Fie asked the commissioners to study the proposals and convey their opinions to the Plan,•;ng and Zoning Board. MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR+LAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES /!9t Iowa City Airport Corpmission Page 3 June 12, 1980 Returning to Item (g) of the Agenda, Zehr presented a letter from the Iowa City Flying Service which requested permission to build two quonset- type storage hangars, to be amortized over a 40 -year period. Discussion indicated a willingness to investigate this possibility, along with the re- negotiation of the present lease. Phipps expressed a concern for aligning this proposal with the Master Plan. Zehr was Instructed to respond with a letter indicating that 40 years seems to be too long an amortization period, and the hangars and location of same must conform with the Master Plan. Finally, Zehr asked the Commission for letters of authorization for the various organizatlons to participate in the Fourth of July Aviation Day at the airport. George offered the motion; second by Phipps, motion carried. Chairman Dieterle presented a letter and statement of account from Doane Agricultural Service. Phipps reported he is still investigating the possibility of sod farming on the airport property. George commended Zehr for his work toward installation of reflecting markers on the runways. Saeugling moved for adjournment, second by George; the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Priscilla Wright, Recorder MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR+LAB CEDAR RAPIDS - DES MOINES MINUTES IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 8, 1980 4:30 PM CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Harris, Baldus, Bartels, Vanderhoef MEMBERS ABSENT: Conlin STAFF PRESENT: Boothroy, Charbon, Ryan, Woito, Siders, Frantz SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: Harris moved and Bartels seconded that Baldus preside over the meeting. Motion passed unanimously. Baldus then called the meeting to order and called for a consideration of the minutes of February 14, 1980. Bartels and Harris seconded that the minutes be approved as circulated. Motion passed unanimously. Variance Item: V-8001. Public hearing on an application submitted by Hawkeye CableVision for an exception provided in Section 8.10.28H.2a to the Zoning Ordinance to permit a cable TV tower. Boothroy explained an overhead showing the original site, the site which was approved, and the site where the tower was constructed. Boothroy further explained which site was approved and why. Boothroy stated that the staff's recommendation was to grant the special exception on the condition that the tower be centered within a 100 by 100 parcel and entirely enclosed by a security fence. Boothroy indicated that the staff felt that the present location does not measurably alter the conditions considered by the staff in its original recommendation. Boothroy stated that there had been no objections from Hy -Vee or consolidated properties regarding the site where the tower had been erected. l Board member Baldus stated that he wanted to know what happened from the time !I the decision was made to the time the tower was constructed at its present location. Glenn Siders, Senior Building Inspector, explained what material was required for the building permit to be issued and that everything required \ had been provided. Baldus asked Siders if the legal description provided for the building permit was consistent with the Board of Adjustment's decision. Siders replied no. Baldus then asked Siders when the discrepancy between the legal description and the Board's decision was noted. Siders replied that the discrepancy was found after a complaint from a citizen regarding the location of the tower. //V MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR#LAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES Of MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR+LAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES Board of Adjustment April 8, 1980 Page 2 Baldus then asked how much of the tower was constructed at that time. Siders replied the entire tower. Bartels asked who made the determination that the tower was located in the wrong area. Siders replied the City Engineering Department. Baldus asked if it was customary when a building permit was issued for an inspector to visit the site and verify the location. Siders replied no, that to be one hundred percent sure it would require a survey crew to go out and survey the area. Siders also stated that he felt it was not the City,'s responsibility but the duty of the owner or applicant or both. y; Bartels asked at the time that the plumbing and electrical inspection were made if there was indication of the location error. Siders stated that what the Inspector had was a log sheet, which was provided at the time the plans ;j were reviewed. It was not an on-site inspection. 5 Harris asked Siders if a legal description of the parcel on which the tower would be erected was submitted at the time of the application for a building permit. Siders replied no. 9 Harris asked Siders if he had a copy of the Board's decision and if a copy had been submitted with the application by the applicant. Siders replied that he ' had a copy and the applicant had a copy at the time the application was made. Harris asked if at the time of the application if there was any discussion of the site designated by the Board of Adjustment. Siders stated that he had asked the applicant if he understood the Board of Adjustment's decision and that they would need a legal description for that parcel. f Harris asked Siders who submitted the application. Siders replied it was Alvin Hood. Baldus asked Siders if it was customary for his department to examine the _ legal description to see if it conforms with the plot plan. Siders replied that on most meets and bounds descriptions they do not. Baldus then stated that it could have easily been checked with the Board's decision. Siders stated that the approved plot plan had not been drafted to scale. Boothroy requested Richard Frantz to explain to the Board his actions regarding the subject case. Richard Frantz, Building Inspector, stated that he had gone out to inspect the tower due to a citizen's complaint and finding it to be located approximately 100 feet off the approved site, he issued a stop work order. Baldus asked Frantz how much of the tower was up. Frantz replied that the entire tower was erected. Bartels asked if the engineer on the site had any plans. Frantz replied that he thought that they had surveyed the site but nothing was said at the time. Harris asked if the legal description was checked when it was noted that the tower was obviously in the wrong area. Frantz replied that he did not take the legal description with him, just the site plan attached to the Board's decision. Of MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR+LAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES --IN Board of Adjustment April 8, 1980 Page 3 Chuck Mullen, attorney for Cablevision, stated that to understand what happened, background information would be needed. Bill Blough, Area Manager for Hawkeye CableVision, was responsible for the location of a tower site to receive the off -air TV system. With that in mind, Mr. Blough got in contact with Mr. Charles Barker the owner of the tract of land on which the three sites were located. It was negotiated between Mr. Blough and Mr. Barker that Hawkeye CableVision would lease site A for the location of the CableVision tower. After the negotiations with Mr. Barker, Mr. Blough made an application to this Board for a special exception under the Ordinance. Resulting from the first hearing, Mr. Blough decided some compromise would have to be made. Mr. Blough went back to negotiating with Mr. Barker requesting a modification in the lease agreement to expand the tract of land the tower was to be located on and also to allow them to move the tower further north and further east. There was no disagreement between Mr. Blough and Mr. Barker that the tower would be located somewhere near where it is now located. At this point Mr. Blough was called to Denver for a company meeting. Mr. Blough realizing that he would not be present at the next hearing assigned the job of representing the company to Al Hood. Mr. Blough realizing that Mr. Hood had not been present at the prior meeting with Mr. Barker gave Mr. Hood an update on the project. Mr. Hood then made some assumptions which were incorrect. Mr. Hood assumed the plat which the objecting adjoining property owners presented was correct, in fact it was not. It locates site A approximately 50 feet north of where it actually is. Mr. Mullen stated that someone had drawn site A in the wrong place. Mr. Hood then misunderstood a letter dated November 30th in which Mr. Barker states his agreement which was to expand the tract of land to 100 feet by 100 feet. Mr. Hood reads the letter and decides that Mr. Barker consented to relocate the tower 100 feet north and 100 feet east of where it was to be located in site A. Mr. Hood further assumed that it would be located in site A furthest away from Hy -Vee since it would be the closest structure. This was site C which Mr. Hood thought was an acceptable alternative to Mr. Barker when it was in fact not. At the second meeting Mr. Hood came in with a plot plan showing site C as the site approved by Mr. Barker and CableVision. In fact it had not been approved by Mr. Barker. After the Board's decision to approve site C, Mr. Blough returns to town and is advised by Mr. Hood that the exception had been granted. Mr. Hood then makes an application to the City for a building permit. Mr. Hood is told by the Building Inspector that he needs to attach a legal description. Mr. Hood then returns to Mr. Blough and asks him for a legal description which Mr. Blough constructs based upon his agreement with Mr. Barker. This legal description was 100 feet by 100 feet which was roughly site B. This was the site Mr. Blough believed was approved. Baldus asked if Mr. Blough and Mr. Hood had read the order and site map attached from the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Mullen stated that Mr. Blough made a copy for his file and forwarded the original to the Denver office. Mr. Hood was well aware of what the order read, and was in agreement with that. Baldus asked Mr. Mullen is the map he referred to as the map submitted by the objecting neighbors was attached to the Board's order. If it was, what way would he explain that the map was in error. Mr. Mullen explained that site A on the map was mislocated. Baldus then asked how this related to the source of error. Mullen replied that the only way that he thought Mr. Hood got Site MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR+LAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES //9y Board of Adjustment April 8, 1980 Page 4 C 200 feet away from Barker's south property line was by takingsite A as the Then moving north from original correct site, when in fact it was incorrect. the northeast corner of that site A as shown on the original plat 100 feet north and 100 feet east, that would put him roughly in the center of site C. Baldus stated that what this statement meant was that Mr. Blough never connected up with the relationship between the land that was leased (site B) and the location of site C. He never noted that they were inconsistent with r each other. Mullen replied no. Baldus asked Mullen why the tower was not built in tract B. Mullen replied that there was an attempt to build it within tract B but no engineer was hired to The exactly order was issued. Mullented the thateheRrecommended �to cablevision that work they acquire an engineer to exactly locate all the tracts involved, to locate { the tower on the site, and to dimension that tower from the existing structures as they existed in the area. That engineering firm was MMS a Consultants. Mr. Mullen stated that cablevision has admitted that they made mistakes and were now applying for another special exception. Mullen further explained that the tower at its present location was still no safety hazard to the adjoining property owners. Mullen also stated that site A and site B had not been rejected at the first two meetings, it was that site C was chosen to be the appropriate site. Mr. Mullen felt that the approval of site B was not inconsistent with the approval of site C. Mr. Mullen stated that if this site was not approved, that the company would remove the tower at a cost of approximately $50,000. That cost was not including any underground work that would have to be removed if Mr. Barker insisted. Another site would have to be chosen because Mr. Barker will not allow the tower to be in site C. Baldus asked if any of the neighbors who objected at the original hearings were objecting to the present site. Mr. Mullen replied that he had no way of knowing if they did, but he assumed that they probably would object. Baldus stated that in order to approve this location, the board would have to disregard the objections of the neighbors. Mullen stated that the Board should take an objective role in the decision which is, to decide if this is an appropriate place to locate this tower. Mullen further stated that the staff recommended that this site be approved for a special exception. Baldus asked if the cablevision had offered Mr. Barker any more funds for the other location. Mr. Mullen replied that this had not occurred as of yet, Baldus requested Mr. Blough, general manger of Hawkeye CableVision, explain how the tower came to be located on the site not approved by the Board. meeting. BloughMr stated Bloughthat stated had that made at the time therehad application beenat the fist a couple rof unanswered questions. One was the structural integrity of the tower and the other was the Board's uncomfortable feeling with the location of the tower within site A. Between the first hearing and the next, which was December 5, Mr. Harris sent a sketch showing where the Board would like to see the tower located. Mr. Blough then took the sketch to Mr. Barker and Mr. Barker then MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR+LAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES Board of Adjustment April 8, 1980 Page 5 decided that he could not relocate the tower to the location on the sketch. He then asked if Mr. Barker would allow them to extend the tract an additional 50 feet east and 50 feet north. Mr. Barker agreed, but he would allow no more than that. Mr. Blough explained that he was then called away to an employee benefit meeting in Denver. Mr. Blough felt confident that the person he put in charge could handle the situation. Mr. Blough stated that he gave Mr. Hood an update on the situation and left for Denver. Upon his arrival back from Denver, he was told that the Board approved the special exception. Mr. Blough stated that at the time there was no mention made that the location was different from what he had agreed with Mr. Barker. Mr. Blough stated that on December 17, he received the official public notice of the Board's decision. Mr. Blough stated he did not look at it, but had his office manager make a copy for his file and send the original to Denver. Mr. Blough stated that he knew there was a thirty day waiting period. During this waiting period, Mr. Blough had Mr. Hood apply for the building permit. Mr. Hood then told Mr. Blough that the building inspector had asked for a legal description. Mr. Blough supplied Mr. Hood with the legal description that Mr. Barker had supplied him. Mr. Blough then called in the construction y crew. After the tower had been partially erected, Mr. Blough received a call from his crew stating that the City had issued a stop work order. Mr. Blough 1 stated that had he realized the tower was being erected in the wrong 7 location, the tower never would have been built. Bartels asked Mr. Blough if when he heard that the special exception had been I granted, if he thought the Board approved site B. Mr. Blough replied yes. Baldus stated that there are neighbors who object. Those neighbors had a set of expectations that came from the Board's decision which was based on the reliance of the cablevision's staff. Now these people are injured and one alternative to tearing down the tower is to negotiate a settlement with these people. Baldus then asked if this had been considered. Mr. Blough replied no. Anthony Frey, property owner to the west of Mr. Barker, stated that the distance from the center of the tower to his property was 281 feet. Mr. Frey then stated that the distance from the center to Mr. Barker's residence was approximately 270 to 275 feet. Mr. Frey then indicated that site C is on a relatively flat plain and would contain the tower if that tower did fall, however, site B has a 20% slope and it would be possible for the tower to fall on his land. Mr. Frey then stated that his home was zoned residential and not commercial. Mr. Frey felt that residential property indicates occupancy at all times. Mr. Frey stated that Hy -Vee could alert persons during a threat that the tower may fall. Frey. then stated that there were possibly three lots on his property that would be threatened by this tower. He asked that the Board delay action until financial negotiations could be tried. Ryan stated that the Board does not have the right to approve or deny a particular site on the financial settlement. Ryan said that they could table the action for a later date. Steve Kriz, property owner to the southwest of the tower, stated that the tower now stands closer to his property than to Mr. Barker's house. Mr. Kriz also stated that if Mr. Barker was to gain financially, he could also assume more responsibility. Mr. Kriz would like to see the tower moved. Of MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR+LAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES /-, Board of Adjustment April 8, 1980 Page 6 Mr. Mullen wished to make clear that he knew of no financial compensation given to Hy -Vee or consolidated properties. Harris stated that one could look at it two ways: 1) that Hawkeye Cablevision was unskilled, therefore, we should be lenient; 2) that they are highly skilled and should have been more aware of the difficulties. Harris stated it bothered him that they had not taken into consideration the negative impacts on the neighbors who were not receiving any benefit from the towers installation. The Board's decision to approve a special exception for Parcel C was consistent with this. Vanderhoef stated that the only people objecting were the adjacent property owners and for the reason that the tower was ugly not because of a safety hazard. The only property owner affected by the safety hazard would be Hy - Vee and they have not objected to the location of the tower. Bartels stated that after viewing the tower she felt that there was no more negative impact from this site than the site approved. Baldus stated that he was in agreement with Dr. Harris' statement that this Board had expectations made by them to the adjoining property owners. Baldus further stated that the justifications and explanations for these errors were not enough to persuade him to change his mind about the location of the tower. Bartels moved and Harris seconded that discussion be deferred for twenty-one (21) days until all parties could get together and discuss other alternatives. Motion passed unanimously. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned. Prepared Approved by: Zis A. Charbon e rr k -Ty ist Donald chmAiser" Secretor to Iowa City d of Adjustmen MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR+LAO CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES Of MINUTES COMMITTEE ON COMMUNITY NEEDS MAY 7, 1980 12:00 NOON ROOM A RECREATION CENTER MEMBERS PRESENT: Hall, McCormick, Bonney, Pecina, Amidon, Draper, Johnson MEMBERS ABSENT: Barker, Haldeman, Jones, VanderZee STAFF PRESENT: Milkman, Schmeiser RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL Recommendation to the City Council that the vacant position in the Development Programs Division be filled as expeditiously as possible. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION AND ACTION TAKEN The meeting was called to order by Chairman Hall who then asked if there were any additions or corrections to the previous minutes. It was indicated that the first full sentence on page two should be changed to read as follows: "-- the Lower Ralston Creek Project could be completed--." McCormick moved and Pecina seconded that the minutes be approved as amended. Unanimous. Bette Meisel, the Senior Center Coordinator, presented a status report on the new Senior Citizen's Center, explaining the various elements of the project. Burger Construction Company submitted the lowest bid ($1,256,000) and was awarded the contract. She indicated that construction would commence next week and that it would take 15 months to complete. The revenue sources and budget breakdown were identified. Mr. Draper asked what revenues would be used to support the operation of the Center after it is completed. Ms. Meisel stated that an attempt will be made to secure an equal share of funding from the City and County. Entitlement funds could perhaps be used if.necessary. Mr. Pecina requested information concerning the planning and operation of the facility and role the staff will play. Ms. Meisel explained that prior to the Center becoming operational, six months of planning for the facility is required. She indicated that much of that time is involved in handling paperwork, working with the architect, coordinating the various activities, obtaining public input through meetings with the public, and organizing meetings. Marianne Milkman, Planner/Program Analyst, explained that the CDBG project directors are in attendance to present and explain the various projects with MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR+LAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES MINUTES COMMITTEE ON COMMUNITY NEEDS PAGE 2 which they are involved, to indicate which projects have gone well, and to suggest recommendations concerning future projects and the implementation thereof. Dick Plastino, Public Works Director, presented a status report on the Ralston Creek projects. He emphasized that the South Branch dam will not correct the flooding problems along Ralston Creek. He mentioned that the biggest problem is the acquisition of land for the Hickory Hill dam, which will require approximately 18 to 24 months to obtain, and suggested that the committee request that the City Council proceed as rapidly as possible to acquire the parcels. Basic to the problem has been the vacancy of a staff position in the Development Programs Division. He also suggested that a priority list for other Ralston Creek Improvements be prepared. Larry Chiat, Development Programs Coordinator, presented a status report on d the Urban Renewal project and construction on identified parcels. Ms. Milkman asked if other developments in the downtown area had been identified for future CDBG projects, to which Mr. Chiat replied that none has been. proposed and that future considerations for redevelopment of the downtown would depend upon financial limitations. Mr. Draper asked when the Urban Renewal project would be completed. Mr. q Chiat indicated that the present project would be completed within the next zp two or three years but that there must be continued attention to the downtown to maintain a viable central business district. F Mike Kucharzak, Director of Housing and Inspection Services, reporting on the housing inspection program, mentioned that the program was running well primarily because of the staff available to make the inspections. He stated that unfortunately, however, the inspection staff was being decreased which 1 could have negative ramifications. He also mentioned that the housing rehablitation program was very successful and that last year was a banner year. He stated that the rehab loans were being paid back and that most of the people served were composed of the elderly. Finally, he indicated that the City was approximately at the half -way point on curb cuts for ramped sidewalks but that the reconstruction of sidewalks had not commenced. He suggested to the Committee that all CDBG projects be laid out in an efficient manner before proceeding and that capital improvements be proposed early in the process so the public can realize the good of the projects. ? Roger Tinklenberg, Energy Cnordinator, reported to the Committee that time and money allocations caused delays in the establishment of an energy saving program. Anticipated cost savings through identified conservation measures were being determined as part of the overall program. Mr. Draper asked whether there is coordination with the private sector, particularly the Iowa -Illinois Gas and Electric Company. Mr. Tinklenberg stated that as such there is little coordination with the Iowa -Illinois Gas and Electric Company but that referrals were accepted. He went on to mention that there was considerable coordination with other City projects such as MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR+LAEI CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES !`1 MINUTES COMMITTEE ON COMMUNITY NEEDS PAGE 3 housing rehabilitation. Mr. Draper suggested that the Iowa -Illinois Gas and Electric Company be involved as they have the resources available. Ms. Milkman asked what other activities were involved as part of the project, to which Mr. Tinklenberg indicated that the building heat loss scan is continuing -- a very worthwhile activity. Mr. Johnson asked why the City did not contract with persons equipped to perform a heat loss scan, to which Mr. Tinklenberg indicated that it was too expensive. Dennis Showalter, Parks and Recreation Director, gave a brief report on the Hickory Hill Park shelter. He indicated that matching Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service funding could not be obtained but that other sources u, of funding would be investigated. Don Schmeiser, Acting Director of the Department of Planning and Program Development, presented a status report on the new proposed zoning ordinance. He mentioned that it has been a long drawn out process for several reasons. He stated that the development of the Zoning Ordinance was a responsibility charged to the staff who developed the Comprehensive Plan. The staff failed in that responsibility and at a time when the staff level was adequate. He indicated that since then, however, the ordinance was relegated to him as the only resource person capable of completing the ordinance. He emphasized that such problems would not occur in the future if adequate time were allocated for such projects at the onset, a detailed work program were mandated, and project directors were then held accountable for failing to produce. Pat Keller, Planner/Program Analyst, gave a summary report of the problems he had observed in the implementation of CDBG projects. He stated that basically because of the "red tape," projects get drawn out. The key is outlining the projects well enough in advance prior to implementation. He also indicated that many times the City is too receptive to public opinion, particularly after projects are well into the implementation phase, which results in further delays. ! Bruce Knight, Planner/Program Analyst, also gave a report mentioning the sproblems taffturnove observed v in hC was amajor problem and that some projects. Hindicated i continuity is lost. at He also mentioned beforebeginning h thatacoordination with otherpdepartments should beginoin the preplanning stages, and that the design phase should occur before coming to the City Council with a suggested proposed project. He suggested as a course of action, that the staff present proposed projects to CCN and that if the CCN gives preliminary authorization to proceed with the projects, the staff work out a detailed program to present to CCN for final consideration as to the projects' merits. Finally, he noted that delays in the implemenation of projects occur when changes to the projects continually happen. MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR(�LAB CEDAR 111111 • DES MOINES lado MINUTES COMMITTEE ON COMMUNITY NEEDS PAGE 4 Ms. Milkman handed out a memo from Jim Hencin (CDBG Program Coordinator) on the status of the Spouse Abuse Program. The main problem for this project was that the staff level was insufficient to implement the project. Mr. Draper asked why students as interns couldn't perform a lot of the work. Ms. Milkman replied that the projects are programmed over a long period of time. The use of interns, who work for a short period of time, results in a problem of coordination. She mentioned that interns are used for specific portions of projects. Ms. Milkman reported on the status of the Riverfront improvements. For the projects approved by the City Council, CDBG funding was used as a local match for other revenue sources. She recommended use of the CDBG funds in this manner for projects in the future. Upon completion of reports by project directors, Ms. McCormick questioned whether monthly progress reports should be used as a means of determining whether projects are progressing according to schedule. Mr. Schmeiser replied that more would be gained if at the onset a detailed work program were developed by project directors with specific project dates. It is then imperative that project directors be held accountable for failing to meet target dates. Reports should then be submitted to CCN with the reasons and justification for such failures. In relation to the concerns expressed by Mr. Plastino in proceeding as rapidly as possible to acquire the parcels necessary for construction of the Hickory Hill dam, a motion was made by Draper, seconded by McCormick, to recommend to the City Council that the vacant position in the Development Programs Division be filled as expeditiously as possible. The motion carried. With no further business the meeting was adjourned on a motion by Johnson. MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR+LAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES Jaea