Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-08-31 Bd Comm minutest INFORMAL BOARD MEETING TUESDAY, AUGUST 3, 1976 7:30 P.M. DIRECTOR'S OFFICE PRESENT: Buchan, Bezanson, Farber, Moore, Hyman, Kirkman, Newsome, Ostedgaard, Richerson ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Eggers The meeting was held to discuss various aspects of the building program and was chaired by David Kirkman, Building Program Chairman. Items discussed: The informal council meeting of August 2 and the hiring of a land marketing consultant attended by Moore and Newsome; Hyman's report on the discussion of the library site at the July board meeting of the Chamber of Commerce; The need to find viable uses for the present building; The possible use of this site for a new building; The city's 5 -year Capital Improvement Program and other bond issue referendums tentatively scheduled for FY '77 and '78. Kirkman reminded the Board of unfinished items which need action or decision soon: Rohlf/Board meeting with City Council; FRIENDS subcommittee on a new building; Fact sheet updates; the decision to pursue foundation funding; the development of a slide/tape program as outlined by Hyman and Moore; the site decision and its relationship to urban renewal objectives, downtown redevelop- ment, and the need for a new facility generally. The Board requested the Director to pursue a date for a joint meeting with the Council and consultant Rohlf this fall. The Board is interested in seeing the slide show of architect Douglas Barker on the design development of the Corte Madera (CA) Branch of the Marin County Public Library as an example of how a building grows from the written program and early design ideas to a completed building. Director Eggers reported on the two library building conferences she has attended recently: "Planning Public Library Buildings," May 19-22, sponsored by the Minnesota State Library; and "Meeting Library Building Space Needs," July 15-17, sponsored by the American Library Association. Eggers and Richerson reported on their visit to seven suburban public libraries in the Chicago area June 17-18. The seven libraries were all in comparable sizedcommunities and were recommended as the best library buildings of this size in the Chicago area by the American Library Association. Meeting adjourned 9:50 P.M. 0 MINUTES MAYOR'S YOUTH EMPLOYMENT BOARD JUNE 28, 1976 TRINITY EPISCOPAL CHURCH 0 MEMBERS PRESENT: Carter, Schreiber, Holzhammer, Williams, Johansen, and Barber. MEMBERS Stockman, Kaefer, and Lahr. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION AND FORMAL ACTIONS TAKEN: The Chairperson read the minutesof the last meeting and all members present approved them. The contract between the City of Iowa City and the Mayor's Youth Employment Program was reviewed and discussed. The Board approved the contract. Discussion was also heard concerning the M.Y.E.P. budget for this year. The board raised questions concerning the Summer CETA Program. The three components of the program were explained --employment, career exploration, and recreational --enrichment activities. A final report of the summer program will given at the board's next meeting. The next board meeting is tentatively scheduled for Monday July 26, 1976 at 4:00 p.m, Joan Van Steenhuyse 1 A_j1 7 3 MINUTES IOWA CITY PLANNING AND ZONING CO141ISSION AUGUST 16, 1976 -- 7:30 P.M. CITY MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Ogesen, Jakobsen, Kammermeyer, Lehman MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Cain, Blum, Vetter Schmeiser RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL: To approve 5-7620, final plat of Mt. Prospect Addition, Part 3, located east of Sycamore Street and north and west,of Mt. Prospect Addition, Part 2, and Fair Meadows Additions, respectively. REQUESTS TO THE CITY MANAGER FOR INFORMATION OR STAFF ASSISTANCE: None LIST OF MATTERS PENDING COMMISSION -COUNCIL DISPOSITION: 1. 72-04. Board of Adjustment Appeal Amendments. 2. P-7317. Creation of a University Zone (U). 3. P-7410. Creation of a Mobile Home Residence Zone (PMH). 4. P-7403. Revision of M1 and M2 Zones. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION AND FORMAL ACTIONS TAKEN: Chairman Ogesen called the special meeting to order to consider the following subdivision item: 5-7620. Mt. Prospect, Part 3, final plat submitted by Frantz Construction Co., Philip Leff, Attorney. Located north of Mt. Prospect Addition, Part 2, east of Sycamore Street and west of Fair Meadows Additions. Date filed: 7/23/76; 45 -day limitation: 9/6/76. Don Schmeiser, Senior Planner, indicated that all the necessary revisions to the final plat and the legal papers had been made. Commissioner Jakobsen noted that the Staff Report had indicated that this subdivision would have no effect upon the drainage in the Ralston Creek Watershed but expressed concern with the inherent problems with continued development in the Snyder Creek Watershed unless storm water retention provisions were adopted. After further discussion, a motion was made by Jakobsen, seconded by Kammermeyer, to recommend to the City Council approval of 5-7620, 0 • -2- Mt. Prospect, Part 3, final plat submitted by Frantz Construction Co, located north of Mt. Prospect Addition, Part 2, east of Sycamore Street and west of Fair Meadows Additions. The motion carried unanimously. With no further business, the meeting adjourned on a motion by Jakobsen, seconded by Kammermeyer. J e Ja obs en, Secretary J MINUTES IOWA CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 1976 -- 7:30 P.M. CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Ogesen, Jakobsen, Lehman, Kammermeyer MEMBERS ABSENT: Cain, Blum, Vetter STAFF PRESENT: Schmeiser, Geshwiler, Child RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL: 1. To recommend rezoning the following various contiguous tracts of land all in Bryn Mawr Heights Addition south of Bryn Mawr Heights, Part 7 to south corporate limits of Iowa City: a.) that the Planning and Zoning Commission initiate the rezoning of Parcel 1 from R1A to R2. b.) that the Planning and Zoning Commission initiate the rezoning of Parcel 2 from RIA to R3. c.) to approve rezoning Parcel 3 from RIA to R3. d.) to approve rezoning Parcel 4 from R1A to R2. e.) that the Planning and Zoning Commission initiate the rezoning of Parcel 5 from RIA to R2. f.) that the Planning and Zoning Commission initiate the rezoning of the southern area of Parcel 6 from R1A to R2, and the rezoning of the northern area of Parcel 6 from R1A to RIB. g.) to approve rezoning Parcel 8 from R1A to RIB. 2. Not to approve an Ordinance creating Section 8.10.40 of the Municipal Code of Iowa City, Iowa, which would establish regulations for the planting and preservation of trees. 3. Not to recommend adoption of the Tree Planting Plan as an element of the Comprehensive Plan of Iowa City, Iowa. 4. To adopt an ordinance establishing additional powers for the Board of Adjustment so that they may adjudicate appeals relating to tree regulations. 5. Not to recommend adoption of an ordinance repealing sections of the Forestry Ordinance (3.38) and amending same in order to make consistent the requirements for the placement of trees in the Forestry Ordinance (3.38) and the Zoning Ordinance (8.10). • 0 -2- nc ucJIJ lU THE CITY MANAGER FOR INFORMATION OR STAFF ASSISTANCE: 1. That consideration of S-7623, Village Green South, preliminary'. plat, submitted by Village Green South, Inc., located east of Dover Street and south of Parkview and extending south to the Rock Island RR R.O.W. be referred to the Parks and Recreation Commission for their review and comment. 2. That an opinion be given by the Legal Staff as to whether the City has the authority to implement a proposed ordinance establishing require- ments for subdividing lots into two parcels. LIST OF MATTERS PENDING COMMISSION -COUNCIL DISPOSITION: I. 72-04. Board of Adjustment Appeal Amendments. 2. P-7317. Creation of a University Zone (U). 3. P-7410. Creation of a Mobile Home Residence Zone (RDJH). 4. P-7403. Reivision of M1 and M2 Zones. • -3- SUNIMARY OF DISCUSSION AND FORMAL ACTION TAKEN: Ll Chairman Ogesen called the meeting to order and asked if there were any additions or corrections to the minutes of the meeting held on August 5, 1976. A motion was made by Lehman, seconded by Kammermeyer, to approve the minutes as written. The motion carried unanimously. Z-7609. Consideration of rezoning various contiguous tracts of land, all in Bryn Mawr Heights Addition south of Bryn Mawr Heights, Part 7 to south corporate limits of Iowa City. Instigated by Planning and Zoning Commission. Rezoning is from R1A to RIB, R2 and R3 as follows: Parcel 1 -- R1A to R2 Parcel 2 -- R1A to R3 Parcel 3 -- RIA to R3 Parcel 4 -- R1A to R2 Parcel 5 -- R1A to R2 Parcel 6 -- R1A to R2 - southern area R1A to RIB - northern area Parcel 7 -- R1A to RIB - recommended for approval 8/5/76 Parcel 8 -- R1A to RIB Date filed: 7/2/76; 45 -day limitation: waived. Chairman Ogesen explained that the subject request had been discussed at the August 5, 1976 Pf,Z Commission meeting and that residents of the area had expressed concern about the subdivision's impact on Ernest Horn School and the effect apartments and duplexes would have on -the single family. residential neighborhood. Chairman Ogesen noted that attempts were made by the Staff to meet with the School Board to discuss the adequacy of elementary schools in the southwest area of Iowa City. Don Schmeiser, Senior Planner, indicated that the Superintendent of Schools appeared very sympathetic and appreciative of being kept informed about PF,Z concerns but he did not feel it was essential that the Commission meet with the School Board: Chairman Ogesen explained that residents of the area had met with the applicant and agreed to a revised proposal. Because the revised plan is substantially different than what was originally requested, Chairman Ogesen explained that thePU Commission would initiate rezoning some of the parcels according to the revised zoning scheme. , Commissioner Jakobsen complimented the area residents and the developer for arriving at an agreement. Dennis Saeugiing, Engineer, expressed appreciation for the neighborhood input and cooperation. A motion was made by Kammermeyer, seconded by Lehman, to recommend that the Planning and Zoning Commission initiate the rezoning of Parcel l from R1A to R2. The motion carried unanimously. SE A motion was made by Kammermeyer, seconded by the Planning and Zoning Commission initiate RIA to R3. The motion carried unanimously. s Jakobsen, to recommend that the rezoning of Parcel 2 from A motion was made by Kammermeyer, seconded by Lehman, to recommend approval of rezoning Parcel 3 from R1A to R3. The motion carried unanimously. A motion was made by Kammermeyer, seconded by Jakobsen, to recommend approval of rezoning Parcel 4 from RIA to R2. The motion carried unanimously. A motion was made by Kammermeyer, seconded by Lehman, to recommend that the Planning and Zoning Commission initiate the rezoning of Parcel 5 from RIA to R2. The motion carried unanimously. A motion was made by Jakobsen, seconded by Lehman, to recommend that the Planning and Zoning Commission initiate the rezoning of the southern area of Parcel 6 from R1A to R2, and the rezoning of the northern area of Parcel 6 from R1A to RIB. The motion carried unanimously. A motion was made by Kammermeyer, seconded by Lehman, to recommend approval of rezoning Parcel 8 from R1A to RIB. The motion carried unanimously.. Z-7611. Application submitted by Heritage Systems, Scott Barker, Attorney,. for rezoning a tract of land, R3A to PC. Located on 800 block of West Benton Street across the street and slightly east of Seville.Apartments. Date.filed: 7/26/76. 45 -day limitation: 9/9/76. Chairman Ogesen briefly explained the intent of a PC (Planned Commercial) Zone and noted that the subject request would provide for a neighborhood shopping center oriented to pedestrians. Margaret Bonney, 1021 Wylde Green Road, expressed opposition to the request and stated that it would be unwise to locate a commercial establishment next to the Roosevelt Elementary School. She said that a neighborhood shopping.. center in the subject location would create another problem for the school and that the "children should come first". Chairman Ogesen stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission was concerned about a potential increase in traffic next to the school and had discussed a need for some type of traffic and pedestrian control. Mr. 0. Gingerich, owner of property directly east of the subject property, objected to the proposed development for the following reasons: (1) the property surrounding the area is almost completely developed and it would seem improper to change the zoning, (2) the shopping center would generate much auto traffic, and (3) the shopping center would adversely affect bicycle 0 0 -s- traffic and school age children walking to and from school. Mr. Lance Levis, 1015 West Benton, representing his.father who owns property to the west of the subject property, objected to the proposed development for the following reasons: (1) The development would increase traffic, create more noise in the neighborhood, increase pedestrian traffic across their property, and possibly increase vandalism. (2) The developer plans a 30' access on to the driveway that now serves as a back parking lot for Hillsboro Apartments. (3) The planting of five trees would not provide an adequate buffer. (4) A more definite statement is needed as to what kind of shops would be permitted, and (5) 7 -Eleven Food Stores are prone to robberies. Mr. Francis Hamit, commercial real estate broker for the proposed center, stated that an independent marketing survey indicated that many people in the subject area felt the center would be a valuable addition to the neighborhood. The project, he said, would be a quality project of 'unique design and appearance and would provide people on the west side of town a place to shop for their everyday needs without having to drive or ride across town. Ms. Vicki Hughes, 905 W. Benton, objected to the proposal and expressed concern about traffic and the elderly, and stated that 7 -Eleven Food Stores are not competitive as far as prices are concerned. John 'Jack' Doyle, 1135 Wylde Green Road, also expressed opposition to the proposed development. Chairman Ogesen encouraged the neighbors to meet with Mr. Hamit and indicated that he would prefer deferral of the request until Commissioners had an opportunity to further consider the information and until a full Commission could be present. A motion was made by Lehman, seconded by Kammermeyer, to defer until the next PU Commission meeting consideration of Z=7611,application submitted by Heritage Systems for rezoning a tract of land, R3A to PC, located on the 800 block of West Benton Street.across the street and slightly east of Seville Apartments. Commissioner Kammermeyer stated that the proposed plan is a very nice proposal but he would prefer another location. Commissioners Kammermeyer and' Lehman expressed reservations about the potential impact on 'West Benton Street traffic, pedestrian traffic and Roosevelt School. Commissioner Jakobsen indicated that she wished further information regarding how the center might fit in with the previous comprehensive plan for the area. The motion for deferral carried unanimously. 5-7622. Heritage Square, a Planned Commercial (PC), Large Scale Non -Residential Development (LSNRD), submitted by Heritage Systems, Scott Barker, Attorney. Location - refer to Z-7611 above. Date filed: 7/26/76; 45 -day limitation: - 9/9/76. -6- A motion was made by Jakobsen, seconded by Kammermeyer, to defer until the next PF,Z Commission meeting consideration of 5-7622, Heritage Square, a Planned Commercial (PC), Large Scale Non -Residential Development (LSNRD), submitted by Heritage Systems. The motion carried unanimously. S-7623. Village Green South, preliminary plat, submitted by Village Green South, Inc., Charles A. Mullen, Attorney. Located cast of Dover Street and south of Parkview and extends south to Rock Island RR R.O.W. Date filed: 8/3/76. 45 -day limitation: 9/17/76. Commissioners suggested the desirability of providing additional land (approximately 100' instead of 40') for a buffer. Dick McCreedy and Jerry Hilgenberg, applicants, expressed concern that the increased amount of open space would present a financial hardship. Mr. Schmeiser questioned whether it would be legally possible to deny a preliminary plat on the basis of inadequate green space. He pointed out that the open space area would be maintained by the City's Parks and Recreation Department and he suggested the advisability of receiving comments from the Parks and Recreation Commission regarding the proposed development. A motion was made by Kammermeyer, seconded by Lehman, to defer consideration of S-7623, Village Green South, preliminary plat, submitted by Village Green South, Inc., located east of Dover Street and south of Parkview and extending south to the Rock Island RR R.O.W., and to refer the subject request to the Parks and Recreation Commission for their review and comment. The motion carried unanimously. Comprehensive Plan Items: 1. A resolution adopting a Tree Planting Plan as an element of the Compre- hensive Plan of Iowa City, Iowa. 2. An ordinance creating Section 8.10.40 of the Municipal Code of Iowa City, Iowa, which would establish regulations for the planting and preservation of trees. 3. An ordinance establishing additional powers for the Board of Adjustment so that they may adjudicate appeals relating to tree regulations. 4. An ordinance repealing sections of the Forestry Ordinance (3.38) and amending same in order to make consistent the requirements for the placement of trees in the Forestry Ordinance (3.38) and the Zoning Ordinance (8.10). The following people spoke against the proposed Tree Planting Plan: 1. Lyle Miller, Lyle W. Miller Co., Inc. 2. Jim Clark, Clark Construction Co. I-] -7- 3. Dick McCreedy, McCreedy Construction Company. I. Irvin Pfab, American Home and Land Corporation. 5- Ed Lucas, attorney. 6. Glenn Siders, Building Inspector, City of Iowa City. 7. .ferry 11ilgenberg, realtor. Following are Plan: some of the reasons given for objecting to the Tree Planting I. The proposed Tree Ordinance would add to the cost administration costs. of lots and increase 2. Trees, planted as proposed, may not provide shade for houses. 3- People who want trees will plant them. 4- Requiring people to plant trees is an infringement on personal freedom. 5. If the City wants trees planted, the City should provide trees at a low cost to new homeowners. 6. If trees are planted according to a specific plan, they will look "stereo -typed". Mr. McCreedy asked if the City Forester supported the Tree Planting Plan and Ordinance. Mr. Rick Geshwiler, Senior Planner, stated that the City Forester felt the City should not require private property owners to plant trees. Mr. Geshwiler indicated that the Ordinance could be enforced with minimal addedeffort by City Staff and would allow homeowners a wide range of choices of trees. The Ordinance, he said, would help encourage ecological diversity and a better balanced ecosystem, would help remove dust from the air, cool . homes in the summer and improve the visual environment. Glenn Siders, Building Inspector, questioned who would enforce the Ordinance. Mr. Geshwiler, explained that enforcement would be the responsibility of the Public Works Department and the details would be worked out administratively. Carol McCrone, 1223 Seymour, expressed appreciation for the proposed Tree " Planting Plan and Ordinance and urged the Commission's favorable consideration. After further discussion, a motion was made by Kammermeyer, seconded by Section 8.10.40 recommend the to the Municipal Code Co ncilOf approval of an Ordinance creating regulations for the Alantin and y, Iowa, which would establish Planting preservation of trees. Commissioner Kammermeyer stated that he would vote against the motion and said he felt the Ordinance would be an infringement on the personalrights and activities of the homeowner. Attached to these minutes is a statement concerning Commissioner Kammermeyer's vote. Commissioner Lehman said he would also vote against the motion and stated that single family home requirements would only speed up by a year or two what would occur anyway and it wou"red tape', City. Id add a great deal of _ p for the Chairman Ogesen stated that he favored requiring tree plantings in large parking lots but would prefer to exclude single family homes and small parking 0 lots from regulation. In its present form, he said, the Ordinance is nearly unworkable and unenforceable. Commissioner Jakobsen stated that site would vote in favor of the motion. She said that many individuals do not plant enough trees and termed the Ordinance a first step in the right direction. Problems can be worked out and/or the Ordinance could be amended, she said. The motion failed to carry by a 1-3 vote (Jakobsen voted in favor of the motion; Ogesen, Lehman and Kammermeyer voted against the motion). A motion was made by Kammermeyer, seconded by Lehman, to recommend adoption of the Tree Planting Plan as an element of the Comprehensive Plan of Iowa City, Iowa. The motion failed to carry by a 1-3 vote (Jakobsen voted in favor of the motion; Ogesen, Lehman and Kammermeyer voted against the motion). A motion was made by Kammermeyer, seconded by Lehman, to recommend adoption of an ordinance establishing additional powers for the Board of Adjustment so that they may adjudicate appeals relating to tree regulations,. The motion carried unanimously. A motion was made by Jakobsen, seconded by Kammermeyer, to recommend adoption of an ordinance repealing sections of the Forestry Ordinance (3.38) and amending same in order to make consistent the requirements for the placement of trees in the Forestry Ordinance (3.38) and the Zoning Ordinance (8.10). The motion failed to carry by a 1.-3 vote (Jakobsen voted in favor of the motion; Ogesen, Lehman and Kammermeyer voted against the motion). Consideration of proposed ordinance establishing requirements for subdividing lots into two parcels. Mr. Ed Lucas, attorney, objected to the proposed ordinance for the following reasons: 1. The proposed ordinance would hurt innocent people and would not "catch the big guy", 2. Home Rule provisions do not give authority to the City to implement such an ordinance, and 3. The ordinance needs additional legal staff review. Mr. Irving Pfab, representative of American Home and Land Corporation, said that if the City is to control development within its boundaries, the proposal would seem to have some merit and should be seriously considered. A motion was made by Kammermeyer, seconded by Lehman, to defer consideration of a proposed ordinance establishing requirements for subdividing lots into two parcels and to request an opinion from the Legal Staff as to whether the City has the authority to implement such an ordinance. The motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned. J/11ne J co sen, Secretary A STATMENT CONCERNING Y.Y VOTE ON 7 E_ TREE PLANNING ORDINANCE John Kammermeyer I am reluctantly voting no on the presently proposed Tree Planning Ordinance. I basically am in favor of an ordinance encouraging or requiring tree planning, especially around apartment and commercial developments and in parking lot areas. However, I cannot support the present ordinance as it is written. Firstly, concerning individual family residences, I feel that the presently Proposed ordinance is too demanding and restrictive and would in some instances Place an undue burden on the individual home owner. Based on the present require- ments and formulation in the ordinance, the average single family dwelling would be required to plant four to five trees on the lot and the average corner lot would be required to have anywhere from six to ten trees. This is certainly more trees than many people would desire on their individual lot and works an undue hardship on corner lots. In addition, I feel this is an unnecessary infringement on personal rights and activities of the individual home owner. There also is a problem concerning the individual who owns a lot which is zoned for single family residence and has woods on it, but who is not planning to build on that lot. Even though there are many more trees on the lot than would be required by the ordinance he would be unable to trim down any of the excess trees for personal reasons with- out first obtaining a building permit. In summary I think the provisions as applied to individual residences are unnecessarily restrictive, tend to infringe on personal rights and freedoms, and would be difficult at best to enforce. I personally feel that we should either eliminate single family residences from the ordinance, as in the vast majority of cases home owners do plant more than adequate tree cover, or have some very simple requirements perhaps similar to FHA standards which would require a minimum number such as two or three trees single family dwelling lot. to be planted on any private Secondly, concerning apartment and commercial developments, I bascially am in favor of tree planting requirements for apartment and commercial developments as well as large parking areas such as is outlined in this proposed ordinance. However, the requirements as they now stand in this ordinance would work an undue hardship on very small apartment developments and also small business establishments, and might make it difficult for these small apartment or commercial developments to have adequate parking space on their land and also meet the tree planting requirements. Therefore, I think it would be reasonable to exempt or reduce the requirements for apartment and commercial developments below a certain size. In summary, if changes similar to those ideas outlined above would be incor- porated into an ordinance such as this I would be able to support it, but at the present time I will have to vote no on this proposed ordinance.