Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-03-30 Bd Comm minutes' MINUTES_ CITY PLANNING AND 7.0NING COMMISSION V • IOWA MARCH 18, 1976,-- 4:00 P.14 - M.CIVIC C IvICCENTER COUNCIL'CHAMBERS PRESENT: Cain, Jakobsen, Larew, Madsen, Hines MEMBERS MEMBERS Ogesen, Blum STAFF_ PRESENT: Schmeiser, Boothroy, Child RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL: Z-7508, aPPlication submittMr. Jim'McFa11 and south ed by, 1 1. Not to'approve a trat of land on lndustrial Park fr maeCliZonerto Mr.im--Jackely southtofrStreb southc an M1 Zone. lat, Bel Air Addition, 'final p 2. To approve S-7527, Sixth Addition to City Higetat tio mentsSchool west of First Avenue and north of deedsfor� the following subject to the,incluaion`of Lots 10 through 16: herein by accepting this deed and conveyance benefits or The grantees that no objection shall be made d to on First agree for the construction of sidewalk This shall be binding assessments -' Avenue abutting said Lot to the east. • on the grantees and their heirs and assigns. Scale Residential 5-7604, revised preliminary and final Large Lot 23 of MacBride 3, To approve Planned Area Development plans and replat=of Street and north of Calvin and Addition, Part 1 located east of Westgate Court. ; INFORMATION OR STAFF ASSISTANCE:, RE UESTS TO THE CI Y MANAGER FOR on of are a report on the applicatisound That the City Staff pre P going into an 1. zoning principles of a Planned Area Development Bingle family residential. arca that is, at least.in part, a fron k the and ecreation bwh©[clandeivedthe clarification CommissionawouldRrecommend 2, That Commission concerning Hill Park. purchasing as an extension of Hickory be received from the Engineering Staff regarding the in coincderatlon 3. That n report plum Avenrove Acresus extension'of-Seventh Avenue. north of Rochester by of S-7505, preliminary plat submitted of Rochester Avenue)_• (vie. 1700 block on -north side -- _ whatever he City Staff provide staff ass istaand/or not of P67. 4; That t - procedures are .necessary -for. the posting Developments. consideration of Planned Area • _2_ LIST OF MATTERS PENDING COMMISSION -COUNCIL DISPOSITION: • - 1. 72-04. Board of Adjustment Appeal Amendments. 2 •P,-7317. .Creation5of a;;University�.Zone;(U) _f t 3. a: Mobile, Home Residence, Zone (RMH) : ..P-7410...Creation;of - - 4 C-7405..-,Objectionsito prohibited and non-conforming.;signs Council, referral;,. 11/6/74, ,c� 5. ;Revision:;of MlIand•M2 Zones ; ,P„7403. 1 SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION'�AND FORMAL ACTIONS.TAKEN and Acting,as(Chairperaon,ECommissioner;Cain called.;thI m.-1ng;toror-e.._., asked-if.j there;were,•,-any,additions- or_.Corrections.to'-the ,minutes of the,; meetingjheld;on,March;4, 1976..,,.,A motion,was-made�by-,Jakobsen,,seconded, by Hines, to,approve;ihe,minutea as written. iThe�motionjcarried ; unanimously..,,:: ;{Fit, Z-7508. r_Application,submitted by Mr. Jim McFall, and Mr.=,Jack Shubatt T,.7; to rezone.a_tract•,ofland_onjSouth-Riverside Drive.-immediately}south I - ' of-Streb South Industrial.Park from_"a Cl Zone to-anMl.Zone; date;filedg -10/28/75;•45-day limitation:-.' waived; referred to Riverfront Commission: 11/20/75 Mrattorney representing thetapplicants;_expressed annoyance _ --Tom.Cilek; that only. recently „notice;;was;received from-,the,City_Engineer that f „ -sewerage facilities problems exist with sanitary . .He stated that';the application for rezoning was;filed laet'October.,and felt.=any+passible,,• problems should have been brought to their, attention earlier. Mr. Cilek ,? hastened -to add, thowever, that+ sewaget.problems1aretnot,zoningjproblema. He gave;a b;ief-.presentation to -the Commission and state& reasonatjwhy he fel t''favorable_consideration;;Should;;be•givenito;rezoning;the; subject,,,•<. property,,.to,,Kl. The formal,;written.ipresentation is,,attached to{_theser , _ minutes.'a:n,.,:, ; Mr:.•Jerry.Lovelace,,.attorney appearing on;,behalf;of-,DpyiOjBaculislwho_ .,:.. owns:the}mobile:,home�)court;adjacent-to,the,aubjecti;property,,apoke?against the;;proposed;;.rezoning;and.,stated-:that;an;aMl-Zone,would;allow,�uaes;nextl3.- to a residential location.,,,He,;added,that.,an Mlszoning classificat,yquld allow businesses to operate 24 hours per, day which would be very detrimental - to the residents living in the area. Chairperson;Cain;.asked if.it}would„be,appropria[e ,to consider the City ; Engineeri,s concern with:,aanitary-..sewerage,-facilltiea as.,areason;Lnotjto; ;;rezoneithe;.property;,or notjto develop;,thej;subject,area;E Don •Schmeiaer, _ Senior Planner, stated that the City Engineer's intent was a concern for development of the 'property_. - A motion.was_,made byxJakobsen,t,aeconded by Madsen ;,to.,recommend�toNthe ;. City" -Council approval;of,,Z 7508, application -sub McFall;and': JackrShubatt;?to.,rezone,a tract-of;,;land•on;,South.Riverside,Drive ,mmediately south of Streb Soutl,Industrial Park;ifrom a_ C1 Zone to an ;Ml Zone` • . i ,. t:•s .t <r 1 alt G, t_ -3_ ed' Commissioner Jakobaen stat'tha N`she would-voteingainat'thte motion because of, lack of adequnta'�acreeningifdr`the 'trailer' .cou tl:^{Commisaioner'`Madaen indicated tliat'he'iwould also%vote-,against'the motion.{ Commissioner' Hines questioned whether the proposed changea'in4the-Mt'zones would include the subject property.Mr. Schmeiaer stated`'that"the'provisione�)would give complete protection to the mobile home court -and -referred to the regulations outlined in the November'.18, 19.752Staff�Repor[i___,j ?r: Chairperson' Cain', asked when%the draft of-'the%revised�indusirialazones`a= would be,completed.7 Mr. -Schmeisertstated �'that'he'=:was`; hope fulifthis- 1 r r> could'-be=completed-in approximately ones-month:i__Commissioner'_Cain':+ !`4.^ expressed 'egret=that=applicantslhad had'to'wait-7for:,`such'�an5extended Yd period of time• for the study;; Commissioner Hines pointed out":that'7:'. ..,-,'} two staff opinions had been to deny the applicationas..submitted.,__ _ 'Mr. Cilek<stated•that'•the=best use of!the sub ec&i ro err .•, ' j P P yi"would be,forz _• industry and"noted=that=the area'thad'-traditionally'been�industrial== i): _ rather than commercial. 10, J(+.. -.:Commissioner Larew questioned what action was taken to protect the\'trailer. court when consideration was given to the rezoning of Streb;South Industrial _ Park: =''Chairperson•Cain statedlthat some`requirements had been incorporated to protect the'river;-= but not? to- protect the'inobi'le''home'icourt. '1, ,: . ; +:, - The motion failed to_carry byla 0 S vote: of r t. :i ;E, •' Commissioner Hines noted that fthe-app1ica tion' for"rezonin was'denied-, B' with; the-exp_ectatiorOthat"a"revision:of '- -W the �f completed'in4the immediatelfuture,=•and-he'extended'2an'invitaiion to thel applicants totireturn``withxanothertapplicationrwhen'that study•would'bei_. ' ' completed. -- _ Mr.'Cilek cautioned `againsmaking'sthe regulations`ao•strict',•,especially .":when considering -requirements setback= 'thatLitswould'Ideny`use'=of'-thePa"n T property " Cfiairpe ion- Cain�suggested 'the`poasibility=of"apealing=,toi:f: p "the'Board'of`Adjustment in'"cnse`of'a`hardship. •t--' ,•'_ ! 3 '!`:"c,.�,e^i- " Z-7604. Application submitted by Home Town Dairies,to rezone the north 84,Eeet of Lot=14;•St Matthias; Second -Addition located+'eaetrof:Prairie- du Chien'Road;'west of;StitClementIStreet`randFinoithi`of-North Dodge!*_v: >; Street�fromtan'R2 Zone'to,at+CH`+Zone;,date�filed: 3/1/76;1.45=day>limitation: 4/15/76.'- z _ , A motion was made by-Larew, seconded by Jakobaen, to defer action on Z 7604;Iapplication submitted ,,by Home -Town Dairiesltodreione'the0north t= 84 feetiof Lot ``14,`Stl Matthias; Secand Addi[ion'ilocated4eastiofu'3- _ =Pr-irie_idu'Chien Road;l,wesEl-of St Clement)Street,'and<inorth�of�North',.'. Dodge Streetlfrom an R2'-Zose' to'-a"CHrZonet'-'Thet,rationale for!deferral`%� was based on insufficient notice of -rezoning. The motion carried unanimously. �., -4- S-7527.`'Sixth Addition to Bel Air Addition, Final Plat. -West of'Ftrst Avenue, -and north of! City, -High 'School 'AthleticFie Ido Submitted "by;"Town' City Development Company,'.Edward Lucas,, -Attorney. Date ffled +''12/1'/75; 45-day,:limitation:' s waive&. ><' ` i t _ Chairperson Cain suggested that a written note of thanks be.extended to the Legal- Staff.,4or,+.theirr opinion' regarding+'sidewalk' assessments>to •"F ' - - the Sixth Addition to :Bel Air; Addition.-• . '. +r'': "=r-= • F' •z t`=' ` ` A motion.wasrmade byiHines',i seconded=by"Madsen,: tol recommend'tos the`City Counci'L'appfoval of_,S-7527,;:Sixth Addition; -:tor Boil ''Air:`Addition ,= Final ^•> Plat, ;:west•of`First, Avenuerand City, High ":School` Athletic Field`,t}subject° to •the.inclusion oftithe:-following,statements •in deeds`,'forilots •10'through -Theo grantees; herein by accepting. thia'. deed: and''conveyance ='_.• ' ' agree;that.no objection shalt be made' as' t6'benefits`or ani a9sessmentsrforIthe:construction!ofKaidewalk+onIFirst�Avenue'" +abutting: said: Lot -tor the- east: -'- This • shall-, be binding+ on --? • { •'' 4 [he.granteesI and -their -heirs; and[ assigns. •`_z _ = ` Commissioners asked :that special note be -made of the following: - ='- 7� • :i If,the City,agrees=,to>theaanguage7st4ited'Fin'deeds-for lit WO! Lots:10:ithrough 16; procedures.-shouldibe,implemented so; that-, the>Citycwodld'have :notations. made'=for•its'own - F==:records;ofrany:covenants not to testi the assessments `.•'r- tThis would',be a<poeaible benefit; to the:City ifhin!the- future there -would arise some question in regard to the•'+ ? _" assessments. - The motion carriedeunanimously. - '? _ r_ :t, ' .--.:.Y!. • �:,_Y(i? n. -,j3, �,l:1: S-7604.; Revised preliminary. and,final'Large Scale::Residentialiand� ., .. ' Planned Area Development plans and:.replat:`of'Lot 23:of Ma cBriderAddition, - '- - Part 1 -located east of Westgate Street and north of Calvin` Court;' date filed:t` 315/76; _45 -day limitation: 4/19/76: _' .3`1=(t. - ..1 L -.- I 1Ci+7 . r sT. r e'.._ 3 - :F_td -' Mr._Schmeiser. stated,that.the.proposed 'plans :had.boien reviewed-byithe' ', ' Legal Staff and', found acceptable.. ,,. r;t F}. ? -. A motion wasemade'by.Zarew;_:seconded�by.iJakobsen,•-to recommend-tocthe approval:oS-7604; revised�preliminaryrand �final targe7gxji City 'Council ; f Scale' Residential and Planned Area Development plans<ands'replat=of r='i`"b " Lot 23 of MacBride Addition, Part l.located.east of Westgate Street - and ",north -of .:Calvin';Court.* ;The zmotionicarried unanimously: -,mC� ., ;.-. t 1: i% _:. � ( : 'i -'7_i' +II L.:_.i h t1, ., ...= .t .F._� ? t.{�, i 1N i,•-: S-7603. Preliminary Planned Area Development plan 'of Village Green -Addition, Part 6 located south of American Legion Road, north of; Village _g_ Road, • and east of Village Green Boulevard; Council referral: 3/9/76. ' -Chairperson Cnin;explained:that:the subject:;request had .been: approvedr.J -„by',the-.P&Z Commission on, -February, 19.,,_1976, but:had;.been rreferred,:back 'P&Z to the Commission by. the City. Council because ,residents. of:ithe urea were not aware of the proposed plans. Mr. Tom Cilek,.attorney•;representing._the.,Village Greem Homeowners ri Association, stated that the_Boardnof,Directors•of�the,.Homeowners := Association had met and voted to oppose.the proposed development. He also:stated had' been, circulated•:and a - aignatvres•were>obtained in)o itsdd;developmly•42.,:,r. : � opposition ,to: the, "proposed. development.. , , n'% - He indicated,that!approximately;33.,propertycownershad not been contacted. ;7,Mr.C,Cilek explained that the ;property.-owners'were::concernedlabo ut--the es deviation from the original -plans for the area. He stated that many .�: people had purchased ,homes 'with the idea that the area would remain as single-famil y.reaidential,zoning:r;He>atated that-propertyrownera were now ;concerned- that,the,proposed; PAD: would.-increaseidensity which would!,result.in?parking�problems-and;lowering•property;values.-[e_He pointed out;:thatrthe.proposed developmentiwouldiallow.two:apartment buildings to be located.within.20'r;ofian-iexistingsingleifamilylresidence. He urged denial of theapplication. „ `b i -4r,1',L•arr :': a: 5 ,_ fes..=•i.*.oJ Mr. David Cahill, realtor and property owner in the subject area, stated - that he had;sold many;homes;in-thegarea,andshad•relied-on information ' -contained in -.a -brochure putt;outiby::the Iowa:City Development Company • ,` which Indicatedsthatitbe subject•area,would'.be.tsingle:,familyiresidential zoning. He;statedrthat he,,lived across the _streetefrom>the?proposed apartment unitssand wouldiconsider4such developmentatol:devalue:ahis property. Mr. Joe Brennan, 1038 Village Green Boulevard, expressed opposition`to the application and stated that there were'{otherlareas[of'ithe City:-: available for apartments and townhouses Mr., _Spivey,Bedfgrd..,- -Daryl _6 Court, stated that his home was purchased with the knowledge that the area would'remain a inglet,family.reaidential andnfeltithe-proposed,PAD=-v wouldnconflict:with.the interests!ofsadjacentihome -owners.,'' +. .,n ri .iF Ms.-JanetjHieber, 921 Juniper; stated that:her.property issilocated _s .22 approximately300' from the proposed development and expresaed concern -about, increased -.traffic.b She7statedrithat,:as�-manyr'asi.30eto:40 ears.;,,: . have been driven across their, lawn to enter•rAmericaniLegionisRoad. "I ....i She explained that the south end of Juniper Drive is barricaded and, therefore, ; there. -is not through taccess i.to rAmerican.:Legion-Road: ' ,She..: ;_ expressed concernraboutrthe;safety:ofcher=firmly:when-vehicles are:, tJ''. driven _across,.thesyard.-;,t t,.;.:c,f •,• t F_.! __._f ,_..t. Commissioner Hines:asked;iwhat standards :exist to est''ablish:-suitabiltty�:, fora good development. Mr. Schmeiser stated that 8..10.20 of.-,-_ -.Sect __tqn the Zoning Ordinance outlines guidelines fora Planned Area Development. tF 1A Jo fI1;;l. b 4'3: ,[+. ,.i:u:J/: _. -7- Mr. Tom'Cilek,'`Chairman of'the Parks"and=Recrea'tion'Commission;4:'state-d'•' that the Parks=and'Recreation Commission''had'just'completed a five=year' plan 'wh - _- ch recommended the purchasem ,,of'additional`-park'land's Land'to -IM be'considered'for`pprchase?bp the Commission wouldlbe°l and 'to�'the _north' of the''existing Hickory Hill=Park,�'or`-the undeveloped landladjacentt=I- to HickoryHill Park which is owned by Windsor Heights, Inc.`- - :.-Commissioner`Cain'notea that'the'Parks 'aind Recreation: Commission-hid' • - expressed opposition to the extension of-Seventh -Avenue north of _- "Rochester Avenue. Commissioner'Madsen stated that' the' •P&Z'Commi�sion'had, to'be'conceined' with access in`determiningyapproval or'denial'of"'the`preliminaryfPAD- `submitted by'Plum'Grove`Acres: After further discussion, a motion was made_by Madsen, seconded by Hines, -, to defer action on'5'7505;""17501Rochester" -- preliminary platy(vic. 1700'b16ck ori'north'side'ofiRoches ter"AvenPAD '.`submitted='b`y Plum ='q Grove Acres`,'_Inc.;"and_'request theafollowinginformation::''(1)°a- =`` o -clarificationfrom the Parks and Recreation Commission asI'to'the. "= ` land they would recommend purchasing as am extension of Hickory Hill Park;'and'(2)-a'report fromrthe Engineeriiig'Staff'�iegardirig'the')n3' extension-of Seventh Avenue north of"Rochester'Avenuea Ther motion carried unanimously Commis'sioners=urged:'the Parks'and'-Recreation'Commission-to'give;ti mely'`E consideration' to' their"'request forl'information'and'reque`sted that one %_+ or two3representatives of the'-Parks'land'Recreation-'CommissionvstEend the Aprih 1"1976'''P6Z' Commission meeting. " - `` ' '- =,i -- } A motion was'made' '•by Madsen ""seconded-'by-Hines, to'6request=the''City=` •* - Manager'to'provide''staff aesistance'in"establishing"whatever-procedures are necessary'for the`=posting- and/or =notification-of'P&Z considerationf) of Planned"Area'Developments. The,=motionFcarriedr;unanimoualy. . The meeting adjourned. dor✓ 3S/^. _ Dona idISchmeiserrfor Jane"Jakobs'rn Secretary • • _3_ underway for several years. The same reaction as'was expressed by the staff to this request was expressed when the first Streb .. rezoning request , was made in 1973. We would submit that certain of the deflciencfes an of M1 zone cited .. -;; a• in the staff report can b- minimized or eliminated. The lot line setback problem could be resolved in part by retaining the'C1 zone;along.a 5' to 10' strip along the southern and eastern boundaries of the subject property, although the staff recommendation would be excessive in view of the narrow width of the property. • Insofar as screening is concerned, the applicants are more11 than willing to screen the subject property from the adjacent mobile home park: The- hescreening screen ingproblem was resolved in connection with the Streb_property, which also borders the mobile home 'park for a substantial distance; and can be resolved here. Regarding the emission of pollutants, we must be cognizant of the area of which we are speaking.Of course, Section 8.10.18 controls-these problems to a reasonable extent. Also, the size of the tract,;when compared to the other M2 and M1 tracts in the area,, is insignificant, and smoke, dust, noise and odor from these other tracts, if any, does not stop at those boundaries. Under numerous cases from low a and other` jurisdictions,.zoning has been held to be a "balancing of interests,, between the subject property -4- owner, on one hand, and the public, on the-other. In balancing these interests as to the ,subject property, we see a property which cannot practically be used ordevelopedby its owners for other than uses permitted under the Ml zone, because of its: size and location. On; the other side of; the scale, no practical; substantial or compelling reasons. for rejecting this application have been advanced I urge the comnission`to remain consistent with the approaches taken in the Streb and Protein Blenders rezonings, and recommend rezoning the subject property to Ml. .: _ ? • � . f ar ance in Section 8 10.24E of the Zoning Code to permit -the -construction`o`a"duplex"on au1 of at B07 E. Fairchild with less width than re wired+ deferred:"2/4'/76: Mr 'Jay_:Honohan, attorney representing the applicant; Ms Kathryn Mulligan, ' submitted to, the Boar`d`membera a copp'of the proposed buildin " ` g{plans 'forte a two=,unit townhouse.; He indicated'[hat'the`'plans`s'ubmitte'd'wouldrbe used if the ,variance was granted. Mr. Honohan also -submitted to:the ,Board "members -,an estimate of the coat of construction-of `Ehe proposed building`' and stated that`adeq'uate parking apace would be provided �r i _ Mr''`Honohan stated that hardship was created;by the adoption`oflthe Zoning.:`, Ordinance,!'aod the fire amplified the. haidship He statedthat rMa:' Mulligan would only be! able to''realize maximum financial return if an R2 use cou'l'd be constructed On`the proper[ Board member Park questioned whether other duplexes were located on'40' lots in the subjectarea "Mr. Honohan stated that other,buildin'gs are'`usedf'�' as duplexes'which are loca ted `on`40'"lots Board member'—' Biide.note`d�ttiat prior"to tha- re,`-there'were three separate.'sources 'of I revenuegoing' to Ms Mulligan fromthesubject property and, therefore, if a;:duplex could - be'constructed ;'=the use would basically --re main''the''same.°McBride indicated' that he had some difficulty accepting the following in order'�torg..... the. variance: "the plight of the owner is,due to unique'' circumstances and - not to ;the general conditions in the neighborhood which may -:reflect,,, unreasonableness of the Zoning Ordinance itself". Mr.-Honohan=stated-.that the fire itself was a -unique circumstance. Mr. Gary -Aitchison', -805` Fairchild, `stated ' that -his' -objection' at -the Febroary • 4th Board of Adjustment meeting was in regard to _parking. He, stated that r - r " ` MINUTES ,' • IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH3,_1976 --. 3:3,0 P.M. CIVIC`CENTER"COUNCIL-:CHAMBERS' d _ MEMBERS PRESENT: Malcolm, McBride, Park jj_ 17 ..c 4 MEMBERS ABSENT- '' Goedken _ - 1.v! ni f STAFF'PRESENTd Kraft, 'Child a z_• . LIST OF'MATTERS'PENDING"BOARD'DISPOSITION "' _ " - - ---None SUMMARY OF'DISCUSSION'AND'FORMAL ACTION TAKEN. Acting as Chairperson," Mr' Malcolm to called the'meeting order -and asked` if `'there `were `any"corrections''or`'additions =to"the 'minuie" 'of- meeting heldonFebruary4,--1976 A motion ;was made "by Park, seconded by McBride,tto approve the minutes as written 'The motion "carried unanimously. 1 a ; A22lication-submitted by- Ma{'-Kathr`vn Mu111Ran for -'a 'V ar ance in Section 8 10.24E of the Zoning Code to permit -the -construction`o`a"duplex"on au1 of at B07 E. Fairchild with less width than re wired+ deferred:"2/4'/76: Mr 'Jay_:Honohan, attorney representing the applicant; Ms Kathryn Mulligan, ' submitted to, the Boar`d`membera a copp'of the proposed buildin " ` g{plans 'forte a two=,unit townhouse.; He indicated'[hat'the`'plans`s'ubmitte'd'wouldrbe used if the ,variance was granted. Mr. Honohan also -submitted to:the ,Board "members -,an estimate of the coat of construction-of `Ehe proposed building`' and stated that`adeq'uate parking apace would be provided �r i _ Mr''`Honohan stated that hardship was created;by the adoption`oflthe Zoning.:`, Ordinance,!'aod the fire amplified the. haidship He statedthat rMa:' Mulligan would only be! able to''realize maximum financial return if an R2 use cou'l'd be constructed On`the proper[ Board member Park questioned whether other duplexes were located on'40' lots in the subjectarea "Mr. Honohan stated that other,buildin'gs are'`usedf'�' as duplexes'which are loca ted `on`40'"lots Board member'—' Biide.note`d�ttiat prior"to tha- re,`-there'were three separate.'sources 'of I revenuegoing' to Ms Mulligan fromthesubject property and, therefore, if a;:duplex could - be'constructed ;'=the use would basically --re main''the''same.°McBride indicated' that he had some difficulty accepting the following in order'�torg..... the. variance: "the plight of the owner is,due to unique'' circumstances and - not to ;the general conditions in the neighborhood which may -:reflect,,, unreasonableness of the Zoning Ordinance itself". Mr.-Honohan=stated-.that the fire itself was a -unique circumstance. Mr. Gary -Aitchison', -805` Fairchild, `stated ' that -his' -objection' at -the Febroary • 4th Board of Adjustment meeting was in regard to _parking. He, stated that r - r " ! T -2 ; Mr. Barber had shown him the _proposed site plans and he was :agreeable to the plans. Board members asked the City staff to`-comment on the proposed application _ fora variance. Dennis Kraft, Director of the Department`'of Community, - Development, stated that the; staff's recommendation was' that `the",appli,— cation be denied on'the basis that the plight of the ,owner is no`=due ._ to unique circumstances but conditions whi66'are prevalent in'-the"-- n they-neighborhood.- neighborhood. -He noted that such conditions..in the neighborhood.may .. _,4111 Z reflect the unreasonableness of the"Zoning'Ordinance itself:' ". "" Board member Pa stated that because the size of the proposed lot is prevalent in the area, she "did not think the Board.,could grant thea} „• ... - variance. She cautioned that'-1f the-variance were-to-be-granted,'other ' -people would probably,:requeat,,similar,variances.­Sheindicate1.d that it would seem;,more appropriate to`seek a change in.;the Zoning Ordinancel,A _ ,Board member Malcolm,stated that heiwouldlprefer to-see people livejin ' _.., a newer, better home than one which was in a dilapidated condition.' ; Park stated that the fire in,question did not seem major'-enough.-to`.`"" warrant'-tearing down,the previous;building.t She.indicat­11ed,that the ,r building could probably have been fixed in orderrto yield a_reasonable '; financial return She"stated that`jshe felt the Board did not-,have-she power"to grant-the variance Ms Park asked-Mri Kraft to�5comment on-the-' situation.,Mr Kraft;:stated that.the Staff ;had rendered their opinion • ' and.:felt the recommendation.,to be vaiid 4H �,staied ,that. the judgment and decision AA was now ,up V` .11 Board of Adjustment. Att A motion was.made by, McBride, seconded by Park, to approve;the application, submitted by Ms. Kathryn Mulligan-for a variance in'Section .8 2024B of the Zoning-.Code to:permit the construction of a'duplex on a•lot at, 807 E.-Fairchild with leas width than contingent upon,the building. ,required,, plans-being used ae_submitted_, Board members�cited,the following to substantiate-the granting of-the variance the uniquenesa,of the. case because of thescharacter of-the locality and.,the fire, and 'that public ` interest would be served by improving the neighborhood. Board Park suggested that—the—Bo' d recess-for a period of _five -member minutes A motion wae_made_by McBride and seconded by ,Park to _reconvene-. ; [he meeting,after a..five minute recess The :motion carried unanimously j,. ' After the recess, a vote was j Malcolm .yes, McBride yes, Park yes; ,taken Goedken-absent:, d ' The variance .was granted All V-7601. Application submitted by Mr-2 Thomas fi •n er' for a variance in Section 8.10.25D.l.of .the Zoning Code; date submitted: -2/13/,76::,, - -3- Mr. Angerer;explained that he had requested the variance to permit the. location of four parking spaces within the front yard of [a lot at 518 ' and 520 West Benton Street.; At the present time,; he said,,there-"are two parking spaces._in the front yard of the'subject lot where's`duplex is located. He said he would like to widen,the area to accommodate parking four 'cars and would landscape the area with limestone, shrubs', and retaining " walls: Mr: Angerer:also stated that he would put tile-under-the"sidewalk- for the purpose of draining water out to the street .10 Board member Park said that Mre. Cleo Maraolaie was vehementl to the request. Mr. Steve Bianco, attorney representing Mra.yMarpose stated that if the.driveway`were aolais, to be widened and the existing contours_ of the land cut away, there would be potential for furtfier,�erosion'and"' the character of the 'adjoining property would be altered., Also- four parking apacea would greatly extend the unt amo of.concrete. Mr. :Bianco noted that the CityCouncil had passed an ordinance in 1974 banning within the front g parking yard and stated that Mr.-Angerer. should be- " required to. adhere`to this regulation. He also noted that the Staff had reco=ended three parking spaces instead of four. Mr. Bianco -stated, that there was not sufficient evidence to grant the'.variance for _fourparking spaces. Board member Malcolm asked if Mrs Marsolais would accept the situation if erosion problems could be;eliminate'd. Mr . Bianco replied • - would not. that'she Ms. Anna Mae Vaughn, 512 West Benton, expressed support for Mr. Angerer in his request for the variance. Board members asked the City Staff to comment on the subject request. Mr. Kraft stated`that it was the Staff's opinion that the existing two parking spacea_were ' inadequate and'pointed out that the applicanE's plight is unique to the propertyecause of topography of,.the land and because off-strthe eet. parking is :not allowed on West Benton Street. He also noted that the, Staff recommended three, parking spaces;. instead' of four. Three parking spaces would. -be the` -minimum': number_ of spaces required if the property was located in an R2 -Zone, lie'aaid. ` Mr. Angerer stated that he was seeking permission for four parking spaces to accommodate four -the _ automobiles owned by, -himself and -his tenants. A motion was'made by McBride,` seconded by Park, to grant the applicatio n submitted by Mr. Thomas R. Angerer for a variance in -Section 8.10,.25D.1 .. of the Zoning Code to allow four parking apacea on;the following conditions: 1) thatla tale system be constructed,which :would be adequate'to `divert water to the street and which would ' ' eliminate''an Possible 2) that the City's Building'Inspector would inspect the work -sixomonths a- fter Ordinance. completion of construction forconformanceto the City's .Zoning Board members explained that the variance was being granted on the -basis that the subject • property is uncommon;_to other lots `in the area and' -there is sufficient evidence that a hardship exists. s ':. McBride yee;,Park-yee, Goedken absent �. ' _ A vote was taken Malcolm -yea_; The variance was granted. _ deferred until the next Board ofAdjustment Election of officerswas meeting. The_meeting adjourned. It Sherry Chid, for,', ` Donald Schmeiser,,'_Secretary , r , } 1 t i r • MIMJI'I:S - CCl m'rGG ON COMAIlIN I-IY N -EDS MARLII 18, 1976 - <7:40 P.M. IOWA CITY'COUNCIL cTUWBERS MDIBGRS PRISM': Horace Amidon, Bob Conley, Kristina Nielson, Jim Hall-,' James Potter," Andrea Hauer MEMBERS ABSUNT: William M.'Kinnamon, Claudia Dalrymple, Florence Stockman, ,lune Davis, Cary Askerooth, Robert Hibbs, William M. Dennis, Ira Bolnick,:;David Hintze, Mark Janiuk - CITY STAFF PRI:SGM7 M. Paul Alexander, Vicki Brei OTI MRS PRI S1:NI': Abigal Van Allen and .James Ilarris from Old Brick R)Qulisr FOR STAFF ASSISTANCE 1. Recommendation by consensus for staff to send a letter to IM) to : encourage the adoption of the;proposcd"riles and regulations • contained in the March 1, 1976, Federal Register. ' 2. To obtain a large map of Ralston Creek area for future meetings. SLINMARY OF DISCUSSION AND FOIAU\LACIJONS TAKEN • _ Chairperson.Conley called the meeting, to order. :The completed (ICDA-CDBG` application and William Dennis, report'were'distributed.. A'motion was made _ by--Niclson that minutes or the February 26 and March:2 meetings; be approved. It was seconded -by. Potter with the motion carrying unanimously. > Nielson -made a motion that this meeting continue no later. than 2: Q0 p.mi_ It was seconded by Hall.' Motion carried unanimously. Chairperson Conley indicated that after talking.with Bob Hibbler;;of Goodwill Industries it appeared that the Mc -T'oo°building may not be y feasible for a neighborhood resource center. fiewillobtain more inform- ation concerning this in the near future. -_There was a recommendation by consensus that staff encourage IUD to adopt the proposed rules and regulations contained in the March 1,, 1976, Federal Register.. -These rules would broaden the possibilities of the neighborhoodrehabilitation, ' March 16, 1976 � dnmes H. Potter, INWNN� ' Committee on Community Needs ' Oniversity Of ,Iowa Fns t. HA 11 - W614 Iowa City, Iowa Penr dim, He are happy to hear that the 'Committee, on Community Needs' has recommended $500 for use towardthe developmentofNorth Market Square Park. Indeed, this amount of money will be helpful and we thank you for it. However, we are, sure you are aware that park improvements are costly. For example, a survey on playground equipment, which we recently conducted, shows thnt even the simplest pieces can coat as much as several hundred dollars individual]y,`-and collectively several pie of equipment can reach a rather • high financial sum. _ As such, if tis not possible at .this time to allocate any additional funding above :and beyond the-$5CC,,we would appreciate your keeping North `Market Square Park in mind for further funding'. Thank you for whatever consideration you can give to this request. SSl/incerely, y/ ex t, Tom Neuzil, Pres North Side Neighborhood Association - Francis R. Lalor, Principal ,I Horace Mann School nn� LIBRARY -BOARD OF TRUSTEES INFORMAL MEETING MARCH 11, 1976 " _ DIRECTOR'S OFFICE _ MEMBERS PRESENT: Buchan', Bezanson, Farber, Kirkman, Newsome, Ostedgaard, Richerson MEMBERS ABSENT: Hyman ` OTHERS PRESENT: Eggers, Spaziani President Farber called the meeting to order at 7:40 P.M. The meeting -was an informal discussion of the first draft of the library building statement as submitted by consultants -Robert-H:;-,Rohlf-.and ,Frank E." Gibson. Thestaff will meet with Rohlf to go over suggested changes and additions before a • second draft is produced and given to the Board to review. ' The meeting adjourned at 9:30 P.M. V�C'1 - .4ey - - Vivia Buchan, ec Page 2 March la, 1976 Council The Commissi Council ?Roger Huntlsa in:must aPProve -pan any recommendations before_goingxto the d`be done"�n Aprii, but not by April 1;:1976. _a- rt;ar` land'with-houses Tlie'Commission'doesn t fletailed itemized on ,it,°nor `do they`; have a} firm, people if it has,to`be done o a t:r f h' .commendation to Gi Milkman mentioned taking t e r on the subj"ectxand indicated that" it7wouldn't hurt or 1 -ask whati,the cuss it with iBeil'in;`'alsol Fahr mentioned that°Berlin would probably _ -= what you see`happeninBIto the laiid�atathi`s I $2,000 rrasnfor.;"Hunt stated'jthat you need to know how you want to use -that lana;' so a plan should be developed telling OOO and also for time. Fahr_stated_that hg would go to Berlin. and ask ,for the $Z, legal- help:` Brand moved''and=Lindberg con the Riverfront Cmmnission request the additional funds regiured_to amend, the contract according to a letten'I f received from Stanley Consultants dated March'1;'1976: nl`"O o a Roger Hunt pointed out that the recommendation under Phase ua was me prepare River_Management ated intthe-letter ce WhSch wouldtnaley..Consultantsinclude lhadlindiccateed thatetheys other elements --stated basis. At this time, the Staff does not have would do the additional work fore -the: amount indicated or on an hourly Milkmanstated that it hanges on timing. ;Consultants, or have it time to do it. Therefore, the question is whether or not to put it or to have years, at which -time the Staff nsultantsk with nStanley oind out that the ordinance •done now, largely by Stanley should be prepared as soon as _possible. Milkman stated that she believes the City --Should be also feels this is an urgent matter. Fahr asked if the $200,000 of H:C.D.A. funds could be put to this purpose�e ilkmaDistrict tOrdin ncthat e e. Don schmeis asle stated g t " eligible -for the River_Manag ,and Zoning Commission was working on .comp he believed that the Planning - ending list _but,. Zone ordinance and getting of in ComPleting proposed_lJniversity e�nent'Ordinance, is as far as that Commission is`concernoaosed River D'ptrict Manag that,ordinance'and feels that the proposed more urgent. * Lindberg moved and Bassett seconded that, in accordance with the recommendation in page 59, the Riverfront Commission Phase 1I of the Iowa River Corridor Study, p_g recommend immediate preparation and inactment of a River Corridor Management by i Development Block Grants be District Ordinance. It further recommefd that 'ri funds as authorized is - park S709 Section 570.200, Number 13, erformed immediately used to; prepare such an ordinance. If this work cannot be p outlined by City Staff, ,the Commission recommends acceptance 1976.of . PrUnanimous. in a letter from Stanley Consultants dated March 1, hone conversation he had had with Jim Narveson of, know Horton reported on a telep Commission.' Mr. Narveson called-wanting;ees was Johnson County Regional Planning liaison personnel from other ag if the Phase II busines"about wanting Dint someone to really: serious.- Horton :assured him. that the•Commissosition tolapP� t.som Hunt pointed out.that he -did not believe it was JCRPC�s Pllinan' act `as luau on. Hunt felt he Cartmission should go; out and recruit someone ma act important to get a liaison with because -i • c heir behalf, someone. respected and listened to in their comummity. . felt the Conservation Commission is the most future funds they will have the power over •' ` r o IX o Minutes ' Page -2 yr. March 18, 1976 • Council. The Commission must approve any recommendations before going to the Council' Roger Hunt aaid the plan should'besdone m Aprsl, but"not by Apri131,=1976. The Commission doesn't'know'the5legal!implications'of buying lthat land:with houses on'it; nor do'they haveaa firm,'detailedLitemizedi estimate of�the`cost,of mo ing�i�. people `'if ` it has! tofi be done Milkman mentioneditaking-the recommendation torCity'Manager'Berlin for his opinion" on'the=subj'ect:and indicated that'it=wouldn't hdrtlfor Chairperson Fahr; to dis`-f cuss"it with':Berlin; also: Fahr'mention-ed that°Berlin would probably ask what ,the $2,000 was 'for:"`-Hunt stated t}iat you'-need to know how-you".want ,to use that land,' so a. plan should be developed telling what you`'see'-happening-to-the land at•tlii's'; time. Fahr_stated„thatahe.would go to Berlin`and,ask:for the.$2;000 and also for. * legal•helps-'Brandrup movedsand-.Lindbbig-seconded that the=Riverfront`Camnission request --the additional,funds-required to -amend. contract accord�ng`to a letteri received from-Stanley Consultants dated`March`-1; 1976: -'Unanimous Roger Hunt pointed out that the recommendation.under Phase II was to prepare a - River Management District Ordinance which would include visual elements as well as other elements` tated in the letter. Staley Consultants had;indicated.that they would do the additional work for the amount indicated or on an hourly. basis: Milkmanstated that it hanges on At this time, the Staff does not have time to do it. Therefore, the question-is whether or not to; put it-off for a;few years, at ;which time the Staff ;could work with Stanley Consultants, or to have it • done now, largely by Stanley Consultants. Hunt pointed out that the ordinance should be prepared as soon as possible. ' Milkmanstated that. he believes the: City, els this is an urgent matter. Fahr aske also feed if the '$200,000 of•H:C.D.A. funds could e st to this purpose Millanan"stated that the H..C.D.A' funds should be eligible; for the-River;-Management District-Ordinance.;-Don Schmeiser statedthat he believed that the Planning and Zoning Commission was working -on; completing__ proposed University Zone; ordinance and;.getting it off of their-pending`n list as' far as _that Commission-is'concerned, it sees' no particular; uemencOrdinance is g that ordinance and feels that the proposed River District Mang more urgent. *-Lindberg moved and Bassett seconded that, in accordance with a recommendation in Phase 11 'of the Iowa River Corridor Study-, page 59,.the Riverfront Commission zed by recommend immediate preparation and inactment of a River Corridor Management District Ordinance. It further recon ends that H.C.DrADeve o eads,: ast B1ock1Gra is be Park 570, _Section 570.200,' Number 13,-6f the;Comnunity Pm :this work cannot be performed iimnediately used to; prepare`_such an ordinance. If by City Staff, the Commission recommends acceptance of the proposal as outlined in a Getter frau Stanley Consultants dated March 1, 1976. Unanimous• with Jim Narveson of the Horton reported on a telephone conversation he had had w Johnson County Regional Planning Commission. Mr. Narveson'called wanting .to=know ifas the Phase Il busines about wanting;,liaison_personnel from ;other,ageog.er- un really'serious Horton assured him that the-Commission is serious...?Roger Hunt pointed out that he�did not; believe it was_JCRPC's position to appoint someone ,t0 • act as liaison. Hunt felt the commission should go out and recruit someone to in-their . behalf, someone respected and:listened to in>their cammmity. felt the.Consery is the most important to get a liaison with because whey will have the power over future funds. minutes • Page 3 March 18, 1976 z, ,., c: t- ande�dsmembezI r _, 'Council that would request an_exp t the City, A recwlunendation to . three me+nbers,from+Johnson,Couna so g was also, Brandrup mentioned_,gettin was;,discussed outside of IowaCity� a y" on the,r�'. one, memberfrom.Cora1vi11e:;Gettingipeople,from then arose of whether they could•,actually,be but voting members questions discussed, would bIe allowed on the Commission -as __-Lindberg stated they Commission and whether Council _, the,, matter.. furthert,with the ,City :;i need Fahr plans;ito,,pursue --through..' out areas, we_also ,theirorepresen that since the river -,passes nt teComnlssi.onp.'' 1t thai Marianne,Millanan pointed .ut a,C verfron tation:,v frau the ,-. to mightibe::necessary .change ,it c Johnson,County RiveXfront,.Camnission _ 8, 1976 at 3 00 p m n t` �r meeting is scheduled for Thursday,rApril } The,'next regular } m lfian:., at 4 45,p , sir:; v Bassett moved and Thayer seconded ad7oiuiunent r n , f J -- , t I S�< i,(, - ill'• `'� 1 J iu F . F li. ,I z JF} YA -d_ -, .� x� .- j r � _ SiV _ �.,Nit, ' t r � 1 I .,C L 7 a possible,,reorganizaiion'of a the'staff ''Swm responded if=Outreach=were to ,c,9 V • be handled properly, itiwould be' to use'full time position5,-not)hal£ ime, tiecauscpeople„responsible'.for these positions would remain w ingifull- time iE the'y'werc'”-to be 'effective,: Ne'clarified-that-76e director'st.respon ,^_; sibilities-would folloW-`the job description previously--given-•to,.the Committee -i Approximately.ZO.p.ercent of the director' time -is directly involvedwith Outreach work ;Bra y,felt'only-therpercentage of, time the'directorispent.on Outreach should 'be_ftmded"by the City ."'Shabilion1indicate3`that the:'budget.r_ was put together for the Outreach Program only; however,. thel'director:'s )ob ?- responsibilities were not limited to an 8:00 to 5:00 job. Swaim indicated U.A.Y. applied for United they under the assumption that they would be used as match funds -to-attract other money to the program. Some of the dir- ector's;time would be spent with this function. 'Bray expressed concern about ; funding the director's salary at the level represented if the'director:would not be, spending 100 percent of his time in the Outreach Program. Swaim stated the statistics for the-U.A.Y. program at this .time.. Cilek indicated that he has problems with the present -salary -levels of the staff. :Purington agreed with Cilek, indicating, however that he did notknowwhich level would.be appro- =priate. Swaim indicated, that the board' -accepted this.budget. "Schabilion indicated -that if the budget were scaled down, the staff would have to be scaled down also, therefore, cutting the services. Swaim felt that the board was upset by cutting the 'other programs that were involved with U.A.Y. Cronin moved to accept the revised U.A.Y. budget for FY_77 for the Outreach Program. Swaim seconded the motion. -In favor of the motion were Kelley, Cronin, Swaim, Shabilion. Opposed, Bray, Smithey, Burns, Cilek, Wolf; Purington. • Motion failed 4 to 6. ,Bray:supported changing the position from a director _ to -a coordinator; retaining one Outreach worker and an aide. He felt_the _Outreach worker should be involved with P.S.4 population and assist with the other youths at the Recreation Center. 'Purington read', Flinn's letter which stated she supported funding U.A.Y. in the future and negotiating a contract,= for services. She indicated that outside evaluation -should be anintegral part of the 'cont ract. She also supported negotiating .contracts with PALS ;and m and funding the Interagency' Newsletter. Mayor's Youth Employment Progra Bray moved to fund the Outreach Program in the amount of $23,000 from City _-funds. U.A.Y. would .seek $2,500 funding from United Way. Burns seconded the motion. Bray felt the salary for the coordinator should be $8,600,,ihe Out- reach worker $7,200, and an aide $1,560. Schabilion moved to amend the motion to include two aides at $1,560;.plus,$2,SOO:from the City because thefunding= from United Way was in _question. This raised the funding level to"$24,560. :. 'Kelley supports having an extra aide and seconded the, amendment Those in favor` -of the amendment were Purington, Kelley, Schabi lion,,Cilek, Cronin, Swaim and wolf.Opposed, Burns and Smithey. The amendment passed. In favor of the motion.to fund the Outreach Program at,a level of $24,S60,were Purington,-Kelley, Bray, Smithey, Burns, Wolf, Cronin and Cilek. Abstaining, Schabilion and Swaim.Motion passed. Swaim would like to encourage young people to; participate in the Newsletter.' Kelley indicated that`,she-was trying to do just that,;and will work"closely with the coordinator from'Mayor's Youth and U.A.Y. to achieve this goal. -=Bray moved to recommend funding the Newsletter in the ,amount `of $540 annually, :`:.', • $4S a month. Purington seconded the motion. Notion passed unanimously. Cronin moved that the City legal staff be directed to. prepare contracts for each of:the`three programs and the Newsletter. Swaim seconded the motion. The motion:; passed; _unanimously. " Puri ngton_ urged the Council, and' to develop independent mechanisms for evaluating tabihtyt of the: youth tions: programs that would.' be':able` to'haiidle;'future questions of.;fimding,. �hablion-moved ' x the Council and th-at ;a broader b__ this recommendation°be.for`warded'fo' system of Kelley_,seconded the;motion evaluatbe' e'v� elf o 'ed' .I 7otpsunnimously • ,;Them., I The Committees business J i S ' :making recommendationsfto, the Council regarding' x having concluded, not meet not meet in`the future. .._ iw th the Ad Hoc Youth Services Committee will _ .. _ , � r _ I t r f I ti e