HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973-05-08 Bd Comm minutesMINUTES
Iowa City CATV Committee
April 23, 1973
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ehninger, Russell
There were seven others present for the meeting. The minutes of April 16, 1973 were approved as distributed.
There was no public discussion.
The Committee discussed the time of this meeting and motion was
- made by Bill Hubbard, seconded by ,Dick Blum that the Committee
meet, on Tuesday evenings at 7:30 P.M. for period of time. It
was pointed out that the meeting of the Committee would need to
be .subject to- the -availabilit of the room, pending on the schedule
of the City Council meeting. The motion passed five to two.
The Committee discussed the statement that had been circulated by
the Chairman entitled, "Should Iowa City Have CATV and ,When?"
Dick Blum made the motion; seconded by Hugh Cordier, that the
statement be approved as distributed. After a brief discussion,
the Committee voted in favor of the motion by a vote oflfive to two. '
The next item on the agenda was a discussion of public access.
The importance of this facit of Cable TV'was stressed.
The Committee, took the following actions relating to access:
1. The Committee voted seven to zero to approve the basic
philosophical statement, "If CATV is to fulfill its
potential as a broadband communication system, there must
be wide use of the access channels. To this end, the
Iowa City ,CATV Committee believes it is important that the
City do everything within its power'to assure a wide use
of the access channels."
2. By a vote of six to one, the Committee indicated,"We believe
it may be wise to set up a non-profit corporation or a similar
body to assist the public access channel (s) and to assist
other access channels upon request"(Hugh Cordier indicated
that he might wish to make a minority report on this matter.)
3. The Committee then turned its attention to a discussion of
the best ways of financing access broadcasting. The
Committee voted five to two in favor of the feeling that
we need a means of guaranteeing finances for access.
• In discussion the various methods of finance, the Committee
expressed itself in the following ways:
a. All seven favored financing access broadcasting through
grants from interested foundations, etc., and public
contributions'.
Iowa City CATV Con• tee •
Minutes
• April: 23, 1973
b. Five of the seven members felt it appropriate to
request contributions, from the educational and
governmental units and for a share of the franchise
'fee to be used for this purpose.`
c. The Committee divided to whether or not it would be
wise to establish a two or three percent fee to be
reserved for public access funds if, -such were per-
missable.
d• The Committee did not favor requiring the franchise
Operators to designate a specific amount of funds to
be available for access broadcasting:
4. The Committee expressed its belief that there needs to be
an active program of education, a training program for
citizens,
.and minimum standards including knowledge of
equipment established for those using the access equipment.
5., The Committee discussed the use of porta-paks and that it
should be the responsibility of the system to maintain the
equipment and provide batteries and tape and that a;,form-
ula.should,be worked out to provide for the system making
J. available an increased number of porta-paks in light.of .
the use received. The Committee was divided as to whether
twelve.was appropriate to begin with four porta-paks or with
twelve.
6.. The Committee expressed its opinion that the four.basic
rules used by'the Catch Forty-four, Program in Boston
had merit. Those four basic rules are:
a. Don't attack identified private persons, unless they.
have become 'publicly 'associated with the issues being
discussed.
b. Don't use the time to initiate violence.
C. Don't use language or jestures that people would consider
indecent or profane:
- d. Don't use the air time to appeal for money or promote
commercial ventures.
7. The Committee felt that it was unwise to use a bold dis-
claimer, front and end of the access program. It was the
feeling of the Committee that this could best be handled
by a signed statement.
8. The Committee discussed -whether or not we should have one
or two public access channels. The Committee was divided
in its thinking of this matter.
The 'Committee _turned its attention to the next item on the agenda
for the next meeting. It was suggested by the Chairman that our
Iowa City CATV Commtee •
-Minutes
April 23, 1973
• next meeting be a discussion of forms of ownership. It was
recognized that there would be strong differences of opinion on
this issue. ,The Chairman reported that the advice that: had been
shared with him by representatives of Foster, Associates, was
that there was little value in doing an economic: feasibility study
on municipal ownership. For example, if you were going to rule
out this alternative on philosophical and political reasons. Thus,'
it was proposed that prior to proceeding with further discussion;_
that we discuss this basic issue.There was general agreement to
this proposal and the Chairman will issue a: news rolease concerning
this meeting when clearance has been made concerning the use of
the Civic Center facilities.
There followed a discussion of the role of consultants in relation
to the Committee. The feeling was reiterated that we do not wish
a consultant to become the basic decision -maker, but that we desire
to use a consultant: to assist us in making wise decisions and;pro-
viding us with the necessary data for intelligent decision making.
Although the ,question was raised as to whether or not the discussion
Of ownership should await an economic` feasibility study, it was
the general feeling, of the members of the Committee that we should
proceed next week to discuss the question of.ownership.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.M.
595 '
• ' MINUTES
Iowa City Charter Committee
April 24, 1973
MEMBERS PRESENT: Meardon, Cain, Corrigan, Welt, Ringgenberg,
Knight
MEMBERS ABSENT: Davidsen, Baldus, De Counter
Staff Present: Rosenstein
Chairman Meardon called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M.
Mr. Corrigan moved that the minutes of April 18, 1973, be approved
as read. Mrs. Cain seconded and the motion passed four for and one
against with Meardon, Cain, Corrigan, and Welt voting
Ringgenberg voting against. for and
Discussion centered around some wording c
as submitted boncerning equal opportunity
Corrigan.
employment y Mr. Rosenstein and requested by Mr.
Mr. Corrigan moved, that the section 2.08 (E) include
the following provision: "All appointments.and promotions of City
employees shall be:made according to merit and fitness. All
persons shall have equal opportunity to obtain and hold employ
ment with the City,of Iowa City,` -and to advance' therein. The
Cityof Iowa City shall put forth maximum '
discriminatory equal employment opportueffort to achieve nonnities for qualified persons."
wording
Mr. Welt seconded the motion. Mr. Rosenstein stated that this
in just a rough draft and that the 'legal implications of,.
such a clause should be closely studied. Mr. Rosenstein also
stated that it was important to include a phase that would indicate
that employment decisions were to be made on the basis of the
Person's qualifications.Discussion followed with Mr. Meardon
suggesting ,the following wording: "All appointments and pro-
motions of City employees shall be made according to job-related
qualifications and be consistent with non-discriminatory and ,equal
opportunity employment policies., Mr. Corrigan withdrew his
original motion and moved the above wording. Mr.
and the motion passed unanimously. Welt seconded
Mr. Corrigan moved .that the first sentence of Section 2.08 (F)
should read, "The City Council shall provide for the compensation
Of City officials and employees." 'Mrs. Cain seconded.
Rosenstein suggested that the Committee might want Mr.
separate
the equal employment opportunity clause from thisto se
, but the
Committee felt that ,they should be combined for the time being.
The motion carried unanimously.
Mrs. Cain moved that the Charter Committee adopt Section 2.09,
• which reads, "The City Council shall determine its own rules
and maintain records of its proceedings. Mr. Knight seconded
and the motion carried unanimously.
Mrs. Cain moved that Section 2.10 should read, "The City Council
s
r-
Iowa City Charter Committee
Minutes -April 24, 1973
• Page 2
shall fill a vacancy occurring in an elective City, office as
provided by state law." Mr.Welt seconded. This provision
is a shortenedversion of state law and the sub -committee on
the Mayor and City Council felt it should be included in the
Charter as.a means of clarification to: the public even though
it was not legally necessary. The question was called and the
motion passed five for and one abstaining with Mr. Corrigan
abstaining.
Mr. Ringgenberg moved that Section 2.11 should read, "Passage
of an ordinance, amendment, or resolution requires an affirmative
voter of a majority of the. Council, members." The motion was
seconded by Mrs. Cain. This section is also from state law
and is being placed;"in the Charter to clarify this to the public.
The motion passed unanimously.
Discussion was held on whether to include in the Charter the
requirement Ghat a quorum of the Council is a majority since it
is in state law. r'Mrs. Cain stated that this would fall under
the provision of the.Council setting its own rules and pro-
cedures. Mr.'Meardon stated that it was important to be sure
thatthoserules and procedures provided by state, law be in
effect under a Charter.' Mrs. Cain moved that Section 2.09 be
amended as follows: "The City Council shall determine its own
rules and maintain records of its,. proceedings consistent with
state law." Mr- Knight'seconded'and the motion passed unanimously.
Section 2.12 (Prohibitions) was deferred and the sub -committee
on the Mayor and City Council.was'requested to review these.
Discussion next turned to Section IV, The City Manager, and Mr.
Meardon distributed a draft of this article by the sub -committee
on the City Manager.. Mr. Corrigan moved that Section 4.01
read as follows: "The City Council shall appoint and provide
for the compensation of a City Manager who shall be administrative
head of the City' Government. In making the appointment of City
Manager, the Council shall consider only the qualifications and
the'fitness.of the ,person without regard to political or other
affiliation. During tenure, the City Manager: shall reside within
the City of Iowa City, Iowa." Mrs. Cain seconded and the motion
passed unanimously.
Discussion next centered around Section 4.02, Oath and Bond. Mr.
Ringgenberg moved that Section 4.02 not be included in the Charter.
Mr. Corrigan seconded. Mr. Meardon stated that the effort of this
motion would be that the Manager may not have to execute a bond.
Mr. Corrigan stated that such a small bond as presently executed
is rather insignificant and is not a deterrent. Mr. Ringgenberg
• stated that this was not essential so in order to keep the Charter
as simple as possible, it should not be in the Charter. The
motion to omit Section 4.02 carried four to two with Cain and
Meardon voting against the motion.
1.0
tavored the Council appointing the Manager Pro -tem. Mr.
Ringgenberg, Mrs. Cain', Mr. Knight, and Mr. Corrigan indicated
they favored the Manager appointing the Manager Pro -tem. Mr.
Knight, Mr. Corrigan, and Mr. Meardonindicatedthat.the Manager;
should appoint the Manager Pro -tem with the Council having
the right to change this appointment. This subject was deferred
until Wednesday's meeting.,
On Section 4.04, Mr. Meardon stated that there was a'difference
between resignation and removal and that the Manager should get
the rest of a month's salary if removed by Council. Mr. Corrigan
stated that he favored an appeals process for the Manager to,pro-
tect him from arbitrary action. If there was not an appeals
process, he favored that more money be provided upon removal.
Mr. Meardon stated that if there is going to be a removal, it
-
should be able to be done quickly and without dividing the City
into pro -manager and anti -manager camps. He further stated
that allowing quick removal':was a basic tenant oftheCouncil-
Manager plan.. This section was deferred.
Discussion next centered around Section '4.05, Duties of the
City Manager." Mr. Meardon stated that since a Charter is a
separate form of government, it is necessary to specify what
duties the"Manager will have. Discussion was'. held -on Whether
a 'detailed description of the City Manager's duties should be
put in the Charter or whether there should be one broad general
paragraph. It was felt that there was no way of writing one
paragraph that secured the necessary duties for the Manager
and informed the public of what the Manager does.
Mr. Corrigan stated that Section 4.05, Paragraph 14 should read,
"To see that the business affairs of the City are transacted
in an efficient manner and that accurate records of all City
business are; maintained and made available to the public."
This would', remove the reference to 'modern and scientific methods
because it was anachronistic. The Committee agreed to this
change.
Mr. Rosenstein suggested removing the phrase, "by ordinance," from
the Section 4.05, Paragraph 15, which reads, "To perform such
other and further duties as the Council by ordinance may direct,
at all times having the right to present recommendations and pro-
grams to the Council and to participate in any discussion by the
Council of any matters pertaining to the duties of ;the Manager."
Mr. Meardon stated this paragraph would give the Manager the
right to participate in discussions, except for something in
which he is not concerned. Mr. Corrigan stated that this provides,
that the Manager may have duties other than the ones provided
in the Charter. The Committee agreed to delete the words, "by
ordinance."
Mr. Meardon stated that the power to administer oaths would
allow the Manager during an investigation of the City administration
to put one of his employees under oath and to administer other
oaths. Mr. Corrigan stated that would be intimidating to the '
employee. Mr. Meardon stated that since the Manager was the one
who was directly accountable to the Council, he should be able
to thoroughly investigate the administration. Mr. Corrigan
moved to delete Section 4.04, Paragraph 10, whiMr.ch Corrigan o
administer oaths." ,Mr. Ringgenberg seconded and the motion
tied three for and three against with Corrigan, Ringgenberg,
and Welt voting ,for and Knight, Meardon, and Cain 'voting
against. This paragraph was deferred until Wednesday's meeting.
Mr. Ringgenberg stated that Section 4.05 should read "The duties
of Manager
g include,"rather than,'"shall be." The Committee
agreedtothis.chang
g
Mr. Corrigan asked what "to actively control .the police..." would.
mean since there is. now a Director of Public Safety. Mr. Meardon
stated that this should be reviewed legally. Mr. Rosenstein
stated', that what, this does is allows the Manager to directly run
the Police Department and to givedirectorders when necessary.
On Section 4.06, Mr. Corrigan moved that the words, "attending
the polls," be removed from the sentence, "The Manager shall not
participate in any election held for the purpose of electing
members; of the Council except for attending the polls and
voting if the Manager is a qualified elector'of.the City:" Mrs.
Cain seconded. This change would prr from
ohibit `the Manage,
being a poll watcher: The motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Rosenstein stated that the Charter Committee should
decisions on what format it wanted to use in presenting
to Council.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 P.M.
, 0
make some
the Charter
• MINUTES
Iowa City 'Charter Committee
April 25, 1973
MEMBERS PRESENT Meardon, Cain, Corrigan, De Counter, Baldus,
Knight
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ringgenberg, Davidsen, Welt
Staff Present: Rosenstein
Guests Present: Fred A. Russo, Jr., 201 1/2 6th Street, Coralville,
Gordon Jacobs, 606 S. Johnson
Chairman Meardon called the meeting to order at 4:00 P.M.
Discussion was held on whether to place.Sections 4.01, 4.03, and
4.04 dealing with the, appointment of the City Manager in Article
II, which deals with the Powers of the City Council. Since there
was no, motion made these sections were left in Article IV. r'
Discussion was held on Section 4.03, Manager Pro -tem, as to
who should.,appoint this, position. Mr. Meardon stated that the .
thr
ee options ..were: 1) The City Manager appoints:, 2) The City
Council.appoints.,'3) The 'city Manager appoints with the Council
being able to remove that,person and appoint, someone else. The
general feeling of the Committee was that the Manager should
appoint this person with the Council having the power to approve
or disapprove. The sub -committee on the, City Manager was requested
to draft the appropriate language'. Mr. Meardon stated that this
section should provide for the Council appointing the Manager Pro -
tem if the.Manager_is unable, to make the appointment.
Discussion next centered around 'Section 4.04, Accountability _and
-
Removal of the City Manager. Mr. Corrigan stated that he favored
including a procedure which would give the Manager'a formal appeal
to assure against arbitrary action. Mr. Meardon stated that there
should be no restrictions to a quick dismissal of a Manager because
a Manager serves at the pleasure of the Council, and if they say go,
that's it. The Charter Committee agreed that there should be no
hearing process for removal of the Manager. Discussion next centered
on providing severence pay for a Manager who is dismissed.
Members of the Committee expressed that there should be a reverence
pay ,provided so that the Manager would have some financial security
if he were removed by the Council. Mr. Corrigan moved that ,the
Charter should provide that a Manager removed by the Council
should receive not less than two months pay. Mr. Bal'dus seconded
• and the motion carried five for and one against with Mr. De Counter
voting against the motion. Mr. Rosenstein asked if it should be
specified in the Charter that removal was by majority vote of the
whole Council in addition to stating that the Manager served at
the pleasure of the Council. Mr. Meardon stated that this would
not be necessary since serving at the ,pleasure of the Council
Iowa City Charter, Committee
•
Minutes
-April ''25,;1973
Page 2
•
inferred removal by a majority of the whole Council.
Mr. Meardon next went through Section 4.05, Duties of the
City Manager, stating the changes that had been made at the
April 24, 1973 meeting. Discussion turned to Section 4,05,
Paragraph 10, which gives the Manager the power to administer
oaths and which was deferred from the Charter Committee meeting
of April 24, 1973., Mr. Meardon stated that Mr. Corrigan's'
fear was of self-incrimination of an employee when the Manager
made an investigation but that this type investigation was
separate and distinct from criminal action. Mr. Meardon stated
that anyone who had the power to compel the attendance of
witnesses should have the power to putsomeoneunder oath.
Mr. ,Meardon "stated that if a Manager put a guilty man under oath
and did not give him the Miranda warnings, none of the information
could be used in criminal prosecution. Mr. Baldus stated that
this clause doesn't give the Manager the power to interrogate
an employee under oath. Mr. Baldus moved that Section 4.05,
Paragraph 10,
To administer oaths," be stricken.. Mr. Corrigan
seconded and the motion was defeated two for and four against
With Knight and Corrigan voting for and Baldus, Meardon, Cain,
and De Counter,votingagainst.
The Charter Committee decided to delete the first sentence in
Section 4.06, Ineligibility, Prohibited Acts, which reads,
NO member of the,Council shall be eligible for appointment'
by,the,Manager 'to any office of the City or any department
thereof while a'member of the City Council." The reason for
removing this prohibition was that it would be covered in
Section ,2.12, Prohibitions.
The Charter Committee decided to rewrite the second sentence
of Section 4.06 to read, "The Manager shall not participate
in any, election for the purpose of electing members of the
Council except for voting provided that this prohibition shall
in.no way limit the Manager's duty to make available public'
records as provided by law and this Charter.".r The reason
this was changed was to assure that the Manager would be able
to provide information to every Council candidate requesting
that information. Mr. Baldus stated that the Manager should also
be prohibited from participating, other than voting, in initiative
and referendum elections.
Section 2.12, Prohibitions on the City gouncil. Section 2.12 (A)
and (B) were deferred until a redrafting of them by the sub -committee
on the City Council. Mr. Baldus stated that 2.12 (B) and (C)
were designed as anti -patronage clauses and were very important.
Mr. Meardon stated the basis of the proposal on limiting inter-
ference was to have the Council strive to make all approaches to
the 'staff through the City Manager. Mrs. Cain stated that
leaving Council the power to make inquiries and investigations
with the staff could be so broadly interpreted that anything
could be termed as an inquiry or investigation. Mr. Baldus
Iowa Cit •
y Charter, Committee
Minutes -April 25,'1973
Page .3
stated that this problem could be solved by adding the require-
ment that inquiries be authorized only by formal motion of .the
Council,, Mr, Baldus stated that this'is a statement of spirit
and there could be informal arrangements made but that the
Manager, should be able to say that the 'Council is violating
this proposal. Mr. Gordon Jacobs, 606 S. Johnson, stated that
the, Council should have direct access to information and that the
Manager should not be able to use the control of information as
a power base. Mr. Meardon suggested the following provision for
Section 2.12, (C), "No Councilmember shall interfere with the.
supervision, direction, or control of any City officer or employee
appointed by or under the control of the.City Manager except ,
through the City Manager," Mr, Baldus moved this wording, Mr.
Knight seconded, and the motion carried unanimously.
The meeting was adjourned,
MINUTES
IOWA CITY HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION
APRIL 23, 1973
The Iowa City Human Relations Commission met in.regular
Session on Monday, April 23, 1973, at 8:00 P.M. in the
Conference Room (Community Development) of the Civic
Center:
MEMBERS PRESENT: Donald Hoy
Sharon Mellon
Arthur Walker
Mori Costantino
Phil ,Jones
Dick Braverman
MEMBERS ABSENT: Paul Neuhauser
Harriet Coty 1.0
Bud Means
Minuces of the March 19, 1973.meeting were unanimously
approved.
CORRESPONDENCE TO COMMISSION
Don Hoy reported that he had received'a communication invit-
ing members of ,the Commission to participatelin the,Symposium
on Women and Public Policy being held at the Iowa Memorial
Union on three Saturdaymornings. during. May. :Mori'Costantino
stated: hat'ahe Commission should ur urge
per-
sonnel to also attend these Sessions. MorioCostantinopriate ythen
moved, seconded by Sharon Mellon, to urge appropriate mem-
bers of the City staff and administration to attend this
conference. Said, motion was unanimously adopted.
The Chairman also reported that he had received a letter from
United Way, concerning a program for training individuals in
various, agencies who; ordinarily as part of 'their jobs, pro
vide referral information to the public: He also reported
that he, had received a letter from Neil Thomas of the Inter-
national Association of Human Rights Agencies, announcing a
Conference in Denver, Colorado, from April 30 to May 4. He
pointed out that this conference was a training session on
equal employment.opportunity, and the fee was $100.00. He
also stated that he also received from Mr. Thomas information
regarding the International Association of Human. Rights Agencies.
Mori Costantino»stated that the Commission should investigate
the services of this agency and make a determination as to
whether, the local Commission should join.
then requested 3 The is agent was
ested Y
:• it
to obtain more information on this agency and
submit it to the Commission.
M I N UTI-%S
•IOWA C1'1'Y HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION
APRIL 23, 1973
PAGE 2
The Chairman next reported the<Commithat he had received a letter fromations
ssion should f
the City Attorney containing recommendas to procedures
Theollow
, letter stated that Prior to entering a closed session.
Bo into motion to the Commission must adopt an a
o closed session, state the reasons-forrtheiate
closed session, and a roll ca1T vote must be taken and recorded
in the minutes. He also pointed out that the Cit
had stated that a motion to enter Y Attorney'
by a two-thirds vote, a closed'session must carry
Mori'Costantino then brought up the subject of developing
annual reports for the Commission, bearing in mind the'education-
al role of the Commission. She su
of the the
should contain cases descriptions andted that the uincludert
more details on the complaints that have been received.. She
Pointed to .the Cedar Rapids Human Rights Commission'Annual
Report, and distributed
members. "She suggested that t is thisubs report to
Annual
near future b he Comm that this subject be taken up in the
y the Commission.
:REPORT CONCERNING.REVIEW OF IOWA CITY PERSONNEL SYSTEM
The Chairman stated that Mark Schantz, Braunschweig, -Susan Scheid were ,present to add additional information to the
reports which the 4� and
Schantz then distributed at the last
Braunschweig meeting. Mark
copies of written material which Tim
g and Susan Scheid had compiled following the
Commission meeting last month. He also stated that he
to add' some; information to what had been wished
He then pointed out that classification systemstmustobfar.
designed
With no intent of discrimination.
classification s If there is an intent in a
adequate grounds
of discrimination, there are more than
g for a violation of Title VII. ,.He also
stated that alleged; women in the Iowa Cit
systemlare'at the lower end of"the classification scheme, this on
can be used to support the inference that there
discrimination � this
di the Cit ' and at that point the burden of roof shifts
Y to show. that there proof shifts.
is not intent to discriminate.
Mark Schantz then continued that if there is
discriminate, if will be no intent to
in effect at the time. The Equal given to the personnel
role at this y Act can la Policies
Point. He mentioned that it was difficulttodetermine what exactly equal work is, but the law states that
if it is substantial)
skill; and responsibility,
same job on the basis of effort,
• If the Y. the same pay range is required.
job is not really the same but the qualifications are
similar the conclusionand is really that the
jof
did 'equal-pay is not required under the EqualsPayeAct. Hent
Point out, however, that there may be,a substantial
question of policy in terms of ,the differences within pay,
,x �Ev,}.�."r ,�arlkyN-�r r,�"slyd r .�✓r �r >y Y"�3 f't `vu�✓..• � Sir .>r..�iw" " �, ,':i �f sz,.b 5 r 7 r,G r;t ° i+,; 4i , .0 r ,:rux. ;sr;y,.
,.
MINUTES
IOWA CITY HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION
•
APRIL 23, 1973
PAGE 3
even though there is some question as to the legal require-
ments. If there has been ,past discrimination, there is a
question ofpolicy as to correction of that situation. He
pointed out that a study had been completed within the last
few years by a law student for Cedar Rapids City employees
where a pattern of discrimination was alleged, similar to
the Iowa City situation. The study, had concluded that one
of the explanations for a discriminatory pattern was the
concept of a "going rate" for making pay decisions. He
stated that Title VII is not clear on this policy, and
that the Commission may want to review this study for further
information.
Susan Scheid then briefly discussed.further information which
she had, obtained since the.last-Commission meeting. ,She';.
stated that she looked into the problem of using pregnancy,
or arrest records as a factor in making' -job ,decisions. She
stated that the pregnancy problem.in terms of court cases
shows that the courts have been split on the 'issue of using
pregnancy as factor..in'decisions..! Some courts, have allowed
this- factor for some kinds of positions and 'other courts
have not. There seems to be times when pregnancy can be used
with a dependency on the phrase, if required by, business
necessity."
She also stated that, in .terms.of arrest records as qualifying
factors in employment, the courts have generally found that
there, is a disparate impact on Blacks,in the use of
_these
records. In the EEOC language, there is 'a "chilling effect"
upon the Black person when the question of arrest record is
included in the application form; but there are no court
cases which establish a precedent. Generally, the court
cases seem to say that if there is a very heavy, record of
convictions,, it would be reasonable to use this fact in reviewing
the employability of an individual. However, use of a record'
of minor violations for screening would,be frowned upon by
the EEOC. Court cases, however, are `very open and undecided
in this area.
Mark Schantz then suggested that another area not yet dealt
with is the subject of Affirmative Action and requirements
involved. He stated that the research has not yet dealt with
any information in this area, and that the Commission should
give him direction as to further research in this area or
others.'
Clara Oleson was present and at this time asked several questions.
•
In 'response to some of the questions, Mark Schantz that
,stated
it is true that the American system has created a pattern of
male -dominated 'obs and female -dominated - correspond-
le dominated 'obs and 'the corres and
jobs, p
ing
ing differentials. The Equal Pay Act does not have the force to
Eju:iaj.ly nigher
levels in the organization, and obviously, the law has been
effective in combatting many discriminatory practices.
Mori Costantino then reported that she.had visited with
Charles Clark, Regional Director of the EEOC from Kansas
City, Missouri, concerning possible technical assistance to
the Commission and, in fact, employers of the Iowa City.
community. She stated that Mr. Clark had told her that
technical assistance would be available to the Commission
in terms of information and guidance. She stated that the
Commission should request assistance from the EEOC if this
is indeed the case and ask them to set up a session with
the Commission. She also suggested that other employers
might 'want to be included as .part of such a visit by the EEOC
to Iowa City. The Chairman then appointed ori Costantino
to investigate further this possibility and to draft an
invitation to Mr. Clark to come to Iowa City.
Phil Jones left the meeting at this time.
Mori Costantino also suggested that as per her conversations
with Mr. Clark, the complaint against the City will be investi-
gated soon by, the EEOC, and, therefore, she felt ,that the
information contained in that investigation should be presented
to the Commission in a closed session. In this way, the City'
could let the`Commission know of actions being proposed. The
Commission consensus was, in terms of further direction to
Mark Schantz, that the Commission would wait one more month
until their next meeting in order to further discuss what
further directions should be given.
REPORT ON EEOC CONFERENCE HELD IN CHICAGO
The Chairman stated that a memo had been sent to the City
Manager concerning the Conference that he, Mori Costantino,
and Jim Hess had attended, and that the memo contained
recommendations for immediate action in the area of Affirma-
tive Action. He stated that the Commission might wish to
recommend to the City Council these three actions which
needed to be implemented immediately, -Sharon Mellon then
moved, seconded by Art Walker, to recommend the following
three items to the City Council for early implementation:
1. Immediately conduct a complete validation study
on all test requirements for all jobs. This study should
include written tests, job qualifications, physical, education-
al, and experience requirements, and the interview procedure
(including the receptionist, interviewer, advertising, inter-
MINUTES
IOWA ,CITY HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION
• APRIL.23, 1973
PAGE 5
view setting, application forms, etc.). This should be
started as soon as possible.
2. Immediately develop and adopt goals and timetables
for the implementation of affirmative action programs. and
hiring of minority employees. These ,goals should include
numbers of minorities to be hired, testing validation,
advertising programs, on-the-job training programs, and
related,goals. Goal setting requires a determination of
the number of persons available in a job pool for each
particular job, the number of those who are minorities,
and the number of jobs expected to be open. The goal would
be based upon that computation. If the pool for a particular
job is 100 and 50 of that pool are Black, and ten openings
are anticipated, the goal would be to hire five Blacks.
3. Immediately commence _a documentation of why the
person hired, was hired and.why-the minority persons apply
ing,were rejected. ',If such a documentation cannot be made
on the basis of merit, then the City should consider as a
policy:°giving selective preference to a minority.
Said motion was unanimously adopted.
Mori Costantino then discussed the importance of
indicating why minorities who had applied were not selected
for the particular position in affirmativeaction reports.'
Dick Braverman also pointed out that data should be obtained
on minority make-up of the community so that judgments can
be made in 'terms of affirmative action efforts, and needed
was, an effective system to identify applicants as to whether
they were members of minority groups or females (other than
visual check).
DISCUSSION ON REVISIONS IN COMPLAINT INVESTIGATION PROCEDURES
Mori Costantino,and Dick Braverman pointed out that improve-
ments needed to',be made in complaint and investigation pro-
cedures. They pointed out that one of the recent complaints
had taken 27 days for investigation, and ways need to be found
to improve this time delay. Don Hoy suggested that this entire
subject be deferred until a future meeting when the whole area
Of Commission procedures could be fully developed, and considered.
The, Commission then asked :Mori Costantino to develop ideas as
to procedures which should be implemented, and decided that
the next meeting would be devoted to discussion of procedures.
• The Commission also asked her to work with Paul Neuhauser on
this subject since he has done some research regarding the
proposed Memorandum of Understanding from the Iowa Civil
Rights Commission. The Commission also asked that she include
in her report to the Commission ideas on appeal procedures,
George Garcia, member of ,the Iowa Civil Rights. Commission,
was present to discuss this matter and stated that the
Proposed agreement would benefit both the State and local
Commissions. It would operate to allow the State Commission
to refer complaints which originate in Iowa City to the local
agency for investigation and action. He stated that the State
is overloaded and now has a backlog of about six months. He
also stated that many cases.from Iowa City are sti11 being
filed with the local Commission. The,proposed.agreement-
would-'allowthese;' complaints to be investigated by`the, local
agency. The, Commission.questioned the procedures as stated
in the Memorandum. of Agreement'in terms of the 'State
Commission's power to control local procedures. George
Garcia stated that procedures are normally included in these
agreements with local agencies around the State, since many
local agencies are not staffed or competent to come";up with
their own procedures. The State therefore,, when developing
these agreements, stipulates the procedures which should be
followed, and will, even offer training to local investigators.
Don Hoy stated that the local Commission procedures are
different in terms of investigation than the State Commission
procedures, but that the possibility of referral was very
desirable. Also needed in the Memorandum of Agreement would
be a clause to enable either party to dissolve the, agreement
with appropriate notice. The Commission consensus was that
there needed to be more research and discussion in terms of
investigative procedures which would be required under the
agreement." George 'Garcia -stated that he would send 'copies of
the State procedures to the Commission as soon as possible for
their review and that a member of the State Commission staff
would, be present at the.next Commission meeting to further
discuss the proposed Memorandum of Agreement. The Secretary
then suggested that the City Attorney should also review and
provide recommendations on this proposed agreement. Don Hoy
also suggested that the Commission should recommend any final
agreement to the Council for actual implementation, since the
Commission is simply advisory to that body.
Mori Costantino, however; suggested that this agreement be
signed with the State immediately and that the local Commission
• come under the agreement now. She then moved, seconded by
Dick Braverman, that the Commission sign the agreement with
the Civil Rights Commission. Said motion failed with Mori
Costantino voting yes, and Sharon Mellon, Dick Braverman,
Art Walker, and Don Hoy voting no. The Commission then
MINUTES
• IOWA, CITY HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION
APRIL 23, 1973
PAGE 7
requested that the City Attorney be invited to attend the
next meeting for discussion of
this proposed Memorandum of
Agreement:
Sharon Mellon then moved, seconded
by Dick Braverman, to go
into closed session to discuss
complaints of discrimination
which have been brought to the
Commission. Upon a roll call
vote, Art Walker, Don Hoy, Dick
Braverman, Sharon Mellon,
voted yes, and Mori Costantino
further business
voted no. There being no
to come before
was adjourned at 10:30
the Commission, the meeting
Secretary
' Minutes •
111annirr9 and Zoning Commi::nion
• April 2G, 1973 - 4:00 p.m.
Iowa City Council Chambers
MEMBERS PRESENT: Madsen, Galiher, Og
Beasley esen, Henry, Davidson
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mulford
STAFF PRESENT: Kraft, Wollmershauser, Lambert, 'Child
Chairman Madsen 'called the meeting to order and asked if there
were any corrections to the minutes of the April 12, 1973 meeting.
Mr: Galiher recommended that the first sentence in'the ,third
"paragraph on page 2 be changed to read "Mrs. Duffy" instead of
"Mrs. Snider."' It was moved by Mr. Galiher, seconded b
Ogesen, that the minutes be approved as corrected.
carried unanimously. Y Dr.
The motion
It was moved, by Mr. Galiher, seconded b Dr.
,1973 special 'meeting be a
Y Oesen
minutes of the April 17, that the
written. The motion carried, unanimously. PProved as
Z-2304. Request for rezoning,
for
parcel on fe to R2, by R. L. Richardson
southeast corner of the intersection of Sixth Avenue ,and
fi Street.
Date filed: 3/21/73. 45 -day limitation: 5/5/73.
Mr. Robert Jansen, attorney representing Mr. Richardson, stated
that he would like.some clarification on the status of the last
.Staff Report, dated 4/26/73,
recommended a (An earlier_Staff Report, dated 4/12/73,
approval of the request.) He_explained -that he was
somewhat confused by the terminology and ;logic used"in the last
Staff Report and was, therefore, objecting to the Staff's recommen-
dation of denial of the request. Mr. Jansen urged that the
Commission grant the request in sp
made by the Staff. it of the recommendations now
Mr. Jansen explained that the lot in question, roughly BO''x 170'
is located adjacent to and abutting the Rock Island tracks at
the intersection of 6th Avenue and H street. ,
vacant and it would seem unlikel The lot is
lot would ever be used for an Y' he said, that this presently
zoning would allow. - Y Purpose other than for whatR2be consistent with He indicated that this use, if allowed, would
c-ies and would seem unfair discrimst ination againsttheapplicant, he said,
to not allow the requestsgranted. it
Property to be zoned R2.
Chairman Madsen explained that a second StaffReporthad been
Prepared at the wishes of the Commission for the Purpose of
establishing Planning and Zoning'policy toward buffer zoning
in the subject area.
• Dr. Beasley indicated that the
not seem Particularl matter additional densit y did
Y relevant and stateto d that he was most
-2 -
impressed with the lack of o
inclined to favor, the pposition.
reasons against it. petitiHe-Personall
on, he said, for lack of any felt
anypressing
Mrs.:Davidsen stated that she would Oppose
of the increase in density that an R2onin i re
would
allow. Shesaid'she quest because
and best use did not feel R2 zoning would hbe the is ahighest
of this land.
It was moved
Yt was and ed by Dr. Ogesen, seconded by Mrs.` Davidsen, to
RIB to R2, b City Council denial of the request for rezoning,
y R. L. Richardson, for a parcel on
the southeast
corner of the intersection of Sixth
Avenue and H Street.'
Mr. Henry indicated that
for therezoning Past Commission majorities
now would recommend acertain property have ,voted
P Y in the area and a denial
reversal ,of this trend. This could mean:
I. A change in policy resulting in the cessation of buffer
zoning in this area, or
2.
fi continuation of the Previously
aPPlicable only. to those trian ulart�lished polic
abutting the Rock Island ROW; �ar Parcels i Y� but
_mmed— Latey
Mr. Henry further stated that he was
the Staff Report while at the same time aware that it would aof
to be?a p persuaded that
the logic appear
reversal of past 'action.
The motion for denial carried 5_ PPear
1, with, Dr. Beasley dissenting.
Z-7305. Request for rezoning,
for a Parcel onthe for astrez side,of2-to CB, by The Kelley
and Washington Streets. Gilbert Street between CCollege
5/13/73. Date filed: 3/29/73.
45 -day limitation.
Mr. David Poula
attorney re
that a rezoning was requested
Kelley Cleaners
Several years ago, quested due to a change indicated
Put aparkin g '`he said; the Cit g Of
entire g lot, across the streety �f Iowa City decided to
area was zoned C2. He street
from the Civic
that the C2 zone re that the Center. The.
construction of quires and limits Kelley main concern is
the 4,800 s a l -story, -2,400 s Y Cleaners to the
the4,quare feet whi h the Kelley
foot structure
building would be impossible y Company owns). Aor story
be enough parking. Therefore he said, because there would not
Of the City, the j under the rules and re
• 2,400 square feetparking requirements would limit them utotthe
s
building because . The
re site seems to lend itself to.a
is a sharp grade drop at that 2 -story
location.
-3- /
• Mr. Poula indicated that the City decided when they were building
their parking lot that the Kelley_ Company, then appraised at
$198,000, was too expensive to acquire. Since ,the City., declined
to buy the property on March 21, 1972, Mr. Carter Kelley wrote
to Mr. Robert (Doc) Connell,'a member of the City, Council,stating
that they were interested in selling the property to the City
Of Iowa City because it was their understanding that sooner or
later the City would buy the property. At that time Mr. Kelley
stated that 'the 'Company wanted to make plans for the future and
indicated that the building was not exactly suited to 'their
future 'plans. He indicated that Mr. Kelley had suggested they
negotiate a final purchase price amenable to both Kelley Cleaners
and the City, but that the Kelleys never heard from the City in
regard to what their intentions were.
It was after the fire, Mr. Poula said, when the City Attorney;
Mr. Jay ttonohan, wrote to Mr. Poula stating that the City would
like to purchase the property for $42,000. (This, Mr. Poula
pointed out, was considerably lower than the $198,000 appraised
value.) The Kelley's, however, were contacted after the fire
Y Potential buyers but because of the building site size of
2,400 square feet, the prospective buyers were not interested.
because>.of tliese offers, he said, the Kelley's began investigating
what they could build there and discovered "to their horror" that
they couldn't build much of anything. That, he said, is why
Kelley Cleaners applied for rezoning.
Mr. Poula stated that Kelley Cleaners does not care if the City
buys the property, but if the City doesn't buy it, then they
wish to proceed with their business and use the property in
a reasonable fashion.
Mr. Poula further indicated that, given the City's apparent intention
to condemn and purchase the property, this case would seem to be
a "classic example" of a conflict of interest and urged the
Commission to consider the rezoning request on its own merits.
Chairman Madsen stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission
is not seeking acquisition and; therefore,'is`not showing a
conflict of interest. He further stated that he didn't 'care
for the implication that the Commission would act out of conflict
and pointed out that the Commission wants to do what is in the
best interests of the City as far as rezoning matters are concerned.
He said that the Staff makes recommendations to the Planning and
Zoning Commission, but the Staff does n
dations. ot make the final recommen-
Dr. Ogesen stated that it was his understanding that there were
some proceedings toward condemnation of this property. Mr. Poula
said this was erroneous, that there were no condemnation
proceedings at this time. (Mr. Dennis Kraft, Director of the
Department of Community Development, indicated that the City
Council had authorized the City Attorney, Jay Honohan, to begin
condemnation proceedings. Mr. Poula indicated that he had not
Mrs. Davidsen stated that from time to time the Commission has
had to; pass on certain documents. She questioned whether the
Civic Plaza proposal included this particular building. It
was her feeling, she said, that the Commissiongave their
acquiescence to the proposal which included this building.
Chairman Madsen indicated that essentially the Commission
recommended implementation when they favorably considered the
Civic Plaza request.
Mr. Galiher suggested that this is a larger,question than just
'the subject property: It would seem if this area were to
be approved, then the doors are going to be open for the
other four or fiveparcels contiguous with lthe 'area to also
be rezoned. Rather than just look at this particular property,
he said, we must ,look at the entire block. Dr. Ogesen rein-
forced Mr. Galiher's position.
It was moved by Mrs. Davidsen, seconded by Mr. Galiher, to
recommend denial of the request for rezoning',"C2 to CB, by the
Kelley Company, for a parcel on the east side of Gilbert Street
'between Coll and Washington Streets:
After further discussion, the motion carried, 6-0.
Z-7307. Request for rezoning, R1B to R3, by F. E. Tisinger,
for a'
parcel at 812 Second Avenue. Date filed: 4/9/73. 45 -
day limitation: 5/19/73.
It was moved by Dr. Ogesen, seconded by Mr. Galiher, to defer
this request. The motion carried unanimously.
Z-7308. Request for rezoning, R1A to"R1B, by Plum Grove Acres.
Mr. Bruce Glasgow suggested that this request be discussed
along with the ,Court Hills -Scott Boulevard Addition, and it was,
therefore, moved down on the agenda.
Z-7309. Request for rezoning, R1B to R2, by Schintler Bros.,
for a parcel on east side of Woodside Drive between Woodside
Place and Oakcrest Street. Date filed: 4/11/73. 45 -day limitation:
5/26/73.
It was moved by Mrs. Davidsen, seconded by Dr. Ogesen, to
recommend to the City Council denial of the request for rezoning,
R1B to R2, by Schintler Bros., for a parcel on the east side
of Woodside Drive between Woodside Place and Oakcrest Street.
Dr. Ogesen stated that this area had
(February 1972) by the Staff in the "Zoning uStud
ysly eforen SR3pled
District Southeast of University Heights:" A for
of that study was that the area containing the subject
property be rezoned to R2.
by the neighHowever, because of the opposition
bors, the rezoning request was dropped.
Mrs. Davidsen indicated thatheropposition was not only
becauseof
the increaea the opposition by the neighbors but because of
the
density where traffic circulation was already
Poor. Chairman Madsen stated that to rezone the individual
one lot request for R2 at this time would constitute spot
zoning.
The motion for denial carried unanimously.
Z-7214. Request for rezoning, R1A to pC, for a tract o
on southeast corner of ;Sf land.
Date originalycamore Street and Highway 6 Bypass.
ly filed (RlA to C2):,6/14/72. Date revision
filed: 9/17/73. 45 -day limitation 6/1/73.
Chairman Madsen indicated that the Staff recommended deferral'
butexpressed a willingness to listen to any discussion of
the proposed request.
Mr. Marvin Christensen, representing General Growth Properties,
urged the Commission to take action as soon as possible.
Several property owners near the subject area spoke against
the rezoning. Some of their objections were:
1• There would be an obvious increase.in traffic.
2• The: Urban Renewal program can meet any future commercial
needs in the City.
3. Many people bought homes in the area with the understanding
that the area would remain_a single-family area.
4. The Iowa City area already has three major shopping centers
which provides an adequate market for the community.
5. There would be a decrease in property values.
6. Another shopping center would be environmentally unsound
as much of the area would be paved over with asphalt and
concrete, which gives off a great amount of heat.
7. The growth of Iowa City is closely related to the growth of
• the University of Iowa and, because of decreased enrollment,
the City cannot expect to see the same growth it has seen
during the past decade.
8. It would ruin the downtown area as a shopping place.
is i i
-6
• A petition was submitted bearing the signatures of ap roximat
186.residents of the neighborhood who objected to thep ely
rezoning.' Proposed
Mr. Marvin Christensen told the Commission that General Growth's
economic feasibility report provided figures to indicate a
market for additional commercial space in'IowaCity. He
Pointed out that some of the consequences if the request
were to be approved would be:
1. Tax relief to the property owners as a result of the
tax revenue the shopping center would generate.
2. Employment for approximately 400
time people. full-time and 150 part
3• An increase in property values.
4•Shoppers will shop in 'Iowa City rather than make major
Purchases in other cities.
5. Keen competition would be a result and the consumer would
be the beneficiary.,
6. The elderly would be more apt to use the shopping center.
Mr. Philip A. Leff,attorney representing General Growth,
asked for an informal indication of how the Commission might
vote on the rezoning request.
Mr. Galiher indicated that he probabl
approval of y would not recommend
'the Yequest',even though some of the discrepancies
might be rectified. Chairman Madsen stated that the
Commission should wait to indicate a position until all
information' and resolutions_ would be made of the disputed
Points in General Growth's reports.
After further discussion, it was moved by Mr. Galiher, seconded
by Dr. Ogesen, that the request be deferred for rezoning, R1A
to PC, for a tract of land on southeast corner of Sycamore
Street and Highway 6 Bypass. The motion carried unanimously.
Dr. Ogesen Pointed out that the Planning and Zoning Commission
is made up of a group of individuals who give a substantial
amount of time and effort in determining whether zoning
requests are what is best for the City of Iowa Ci
he said, the overall view may seem in conflict wtith thf
Attimes,
of some of the people, but that the Commissionereling
re responsive to the people and try to ds all try determine what rezonto
ing
• requests are for the best interests of the whole community.
Attorney Bill Meardon indicated that he would submit a letter
to the City Clerk for the purpose of waiving the 45 -day
limitation.
Z-7308. Request for rezoning, R1A to R1B, by Plum Grove
Acres (vic. East Court Street north of an extension of
Raven Street) and to be known as Court Hill -Scott Boulevard
Addition, Part I. Date filed: 4/9/73. 45 -day limitation:
5/24/73.
After a brief discussion, it was, moved by Dr. Beasley and
seconded by Mr. Galiher to recommend approval of the request
by Plum Grove Acres. The motion carried unanimously.
5-7304. Court Hills -Scott Boulevard Addition, Part I,
preliminary plat, by Plum Grove Acres. Date filed: 4/9/73.
45 -day limitation: 5/24/73.
It was moved by Mrs. Davidsen, seconded by Mr. Galiher,,that
the request be deferred for the Court Hills -Scott Boulevard
Addition, Part I, preliminary plat, by Plum Grove Acres:
The motion carried unanimously:
S-7305. Penny Bryn, Part II, final plat (vic. south of West
Benton Street and west and south of Kathlin Drive). Date.
filed: 4/4/73. 45 -day limitation: 5/19/73.
It was moved by Mr. Galiher, seconded by Dr. Ogesen, to
recommend approval of the Penny Bryn, Part II, final plat,
subject t,; the removal of, the one sanitary sewer easement
from the final plat. The motion carried unanimously.
Chairman Madsen stated that the, letter from the Reverend Roy
Wingate has been noted and he explained that there is a sub-
committee working on parking and related problems.
Chairman Madsen indicated that he had talked with the City
Manager relative to Mrs. Davidsen's attendance at a course
in Dallas, Texas, sponsored by the Southwest Legal Foundation,
on the ',legal 'aspects of zoning and subdivision development.
• The meeting adjourned.
Henry, Secre ry
U
LEPOF
//)/�//'/ �((! /' f ir.7.. ; ~ Zr�{t'�s• �k'�Qh 1. (I '„ r I i V �.a//r -� .
1 �ff,/ •{I ,��. I �\4�'�% Vl, r 4. .. � •1/�t1''y� , r � �/w.' �� � � ��itil 1 �• `
,�j' d �1 Il ilr'y. . h. 7 7�rQ N 4•• , r /i w r w w
` �r t��': ..i '• .r �tirr74 •.,e�d�, /Y.u'�7F i. �.` ��r'+��•I •�hq! �% fig./, 1, i
1fR'
tog
�KA;Wlf
.,r/ w I �1�, . i/•. y7.%yi /afyS'.�,��,.Ax Lm a' I + .+. �l//�d�i M1 Lrf '�
.. ,� .--,Y•...+.r:�.'�./. ../ ��I�/�,/� x.41 Ii f '1 .
the Stiff hes been requested to conduct ia special study of the
area ixvtween:First Avenue, Sixtil Avenue, H Street, and the
right-of-way. of the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacif-
ic Railroad.
The objective of this study is to examine the merits of a possible
"buffer" zone along the C.R.I.&P: Railroad right-of-way, as well
as to determine just what type of,buffer, iF any, would appear
most appropriate in this area.
History store of the
Stud area
Y y
i
The study area Comprises the southern boundary of the East
Iowa City Addition,.which was-platted^and developed upon the
grid streetsystem and subsequently has resulted in the `creatioa
of thc,peculiarly,incomplete blocks of the 'study ,_area. It is
a characteristic of the grid system that it ignores the 'topography
of any site upon which :it is,imposed, 'and in the case of the
study area this resulted in a ragged'edge of blocks: which would
appear have been, traversed by;the Chicago,,Rock Island '&
Pacific Railroad right-of-way after platting.' In fact, the
railroad was located as'it.'currently is long before this sub-
division occurred,,appearing on maps of. Iowa City'a existing
as early as:1870, whereas the subject ,area was not platted until
1899, som^_ 29 'years after the earliest map known to show the
rail line. Thus, there is a legacy of poor site design ,with
which the City is forced to live.
The zoning of the study area was originally completely RIB 'when '
in 1962, the current zoning ordinance was enacted.: Since '1966
requests for R2 zoning for certain pareels'along the railroad
right-of-way', have come to, the Plannin and
g Zoning Commission,
of which five have been granted, including one at the corner of
Avenue and J Street for R3 zoning. _These requests, in 'Staff
review,,have been analyzed in terms of buffer zoning and its
criteria. On February 8, 19721a re uest:for
of the intersection of 6th Avenue and H Street was crecommended
el t
for approval "either on the basis of'
.step .down zoning or'.
appropriate land use control and development. The „request was
subsequently granted.
On August 8, 1972 a similar request fora parcel southwest of
the intersection of I Street and, 4th Avenue was characterized
as being"spot zoning" but possessing mitigating circumstances.
Most recently a request for a property southeast of the inter-
section of 6th Avenue and,H Street was recommended for approval
based upon its consistency ,with',past Planning and Zoning Commission
Policy as evidenced by preceeding decisions in the 'subjectl'area
on similar parcels
Existing Land Use
The subject area is bounded on, the north'by H -Street, the south
• by the C.R.I.&P. Railroad, on the; east by First Avenue and on
the west by Sixth Avenue. The whole of this area is currently
zoned residential, with only the aforementioned parcels containing
-2-
• zoain4 classi
f.i ' ti
ca '
0
ns
e
r
detached dwellings. P ttexcep they, than single family
4 With the exception of a beauty salon.and
a house cleaners, both nonconforming home ,businesses, and
both over two blocks from the railway rcute, the area is
Purely residential in character. (See attached map),
THE BUFFER ZONE
A buffer zone
is
any
b e zone! dist
stri
men ct so
incompatible: located ed
i
P ble° as
t
uses of land and in'so,,doing ameliorates
their incompatibilities. 'Thus, a use which when interposed
between incompatible uses
problems, such a does not, in fact
use is not a true buff
r er.' ameliorate the
' .
A step-down zone 'a a buffer zone composed of uses "below" one
Of the two uses bein s�
in, relation to 9-Parated, and ;,thus gains meaning only
"higher" and "lowet°lusest, g regulations which Jdentify
PYr YPe tonin re ulatins
A transition zone is one w!zich:is composed of uses compatible
with those uses which are'being secomposd,'whi
ameliorate, the
Which
undesirable effects of :the uses uponreachtother,
yet.does not itself sufferlfrom these,' incompatibilit'
a transition zone assumes no higher or lower land uses
mutuallyies.I Thus,
compatible or incompatible usages of only
require separation due to operati.r,nal' property,` which
cane"•— b= solved on site and' characteristics which
to each
other. Frequent! the:tran are undesirable as'nei hbors
going a change Y; transitien zone i u
4 in land u s 'an area'' un
o business district. use as',Occurs with the expansion ;of der -
t When a
zone, �i, this is the .f
e area in transition is unction Of'a transition
same criteria as for a transitionezoneabetweensuch
two,stabl�he
areas,' Thus.the term transition may refer to both s stable
and a changing land!use pattern.
In land use planning there are several approaches to buffering.
One of the oldest is a "step down" .zone
use is considered: to be single family residential and highest" wherein the highest"
"lowest" heavy industrial: Thus';, a step down zone isthe
what it appears to be just'
district " t the designation'of an area for a zone
lower than its neighbors :and, hence, a "step down.
This concept,, along with the whole
approac;j, al
has', come under severe criticismin more -Euclltecentoning
"Pure ,,it has',historically resulted in the ',creation' of so-called
years.
"Pure" hi
',family residential areas', the low density of. which
requires proportionately larger areas of land to accommodate the
same number of people potentially', located on less:'land in 'a mixed
density district. This, of course; makes the delivery of services
far more expensive, and the viability of such concepts las mass
• transit slim. In addition
the true neighborhood, as itlobviatest is at othe ds with the concept of
land uses which are compatible. Possibility of mixing
-3- '
Secondly, the Euclidean approach to zoning results in what has
been termed "economic segregation" with those unable to afford
a given housing type on a l6t6Of "m.iniinum size" being systematically
excluded from the so-caJ.led "higher" use districts. Thus,'not
only, are neighborhood stores impossible under this 'concept, but,
a heterogeneous social milieu'becomes'impossible.,
Third, the resultant expanses of "single family residential"
areas, all of approximately the same density;' requires proportion-
ately more street miles than would more mixed areas, and correspond-
ingly,calls "for almost total dependency upon ,tile automobile to
reach services and sites which could once be arrived.at on foot
or by'Public :transit.
The "step down" zone is an integral element in the Euclidean
zoningparadigm, functioning to intercede between', uses considered
incompatible.by the underlying assumptions of'thiapproach.
Among these underlysing assumptions are, the following;
A. There are uses which have characteristic s`antipathetic,te
those of ,other, uses.
1. These characteristics cannot be ameliorated upon the
site upon which they are created and hence:_
a. They must be spatially isolated from those uses
with which the are protect these
Y incompatiole to
"higher" and less ,obnoxious uses.
B. There are uses which are either less "important"'or are more.
tolerant of the negative influences
uses, and of "lower" classification
1. These ,uses may be utilized to "fill in" the `space needed
to separate the "higher" from the "lower use.
a. 'These step down uses are themselves "lower" and
therefore undesirable, and must be isolated from
Still higher uses wherever'possible.
C. The single! family residence is the highest use, 'followed by
the'duplex:;dwelling, small apartment
.
building, largerer apart-
mentartment buildings small scale commercial uses, larger commercialuses, „light
industrial activities and finally "heavier"
industrial',activities.
Of the fallacies of the Euclidean approach, the following are
most pertinent:
1. The interposing of higher density, and hence "lower" residential
• developments as buffers donot, in'fact,'ameliorate all of
the negative effects of most uses which are being buffered.
-4-
.2. The higher densit
• 9 higher
use .paradigm assumes that 'those
occupying these higher density residences either:
a.: Don't mind the nuisance which the single family
Occupants find undesirable, or
b. Do mind the nuisance but don't matter.
Both a. and b. are false 'or at least unfounded.
3. The building type determines the density of the usage`.
This is false; beyond reproof, as the location of any,size
apartment buildingon a s ;, '
, uffic �entl
large
_ 1 tract of land
will result in -a density as low as that of the typical
single familyresidence.
However, h like clOsed logical', paradigms, the Euclidean: approac
incorporates'numerous self-fulfilling prophesiese
1. By designating undesirable sites for high, density residential
usages, those usages become clearly' undesirable. An ',analogy`
would be stating all red-haired persons are stupid, so they
will net be educated in anyway, but placed in asylums.
Before long, all red-haired ,'people will be stupid.
2• By,,failing to require nuisances to be ameliorated on-site
uses designed as "lower" l
and "intensive" became''
ust t at,.
If there ;is no`requirement to abate the negative factors,
they go unabated on site and must be "absorbed" by inter-
posing uses. Here an example is noise abatement, which
until recently was unknown., Loud noises', like glare,'can
be muffled most easily and efficiently at the source. If
unchecked 'they 'require large areas in which to dissipate.
To force certain uses into these areas as buffers puts an
unfair burden,upon'them, and results in their' unconscious
association with just those nuisances they are meant to
buffer.
3. Single family uses are the "highest" usage of urban land.
Tf°,this were measured in, terms -of economic value, it is
patently false,' as good commercial o
r industrial
are ustrial locations, and always
y. have had higher gher value than a comparable
tial loca p
tion
The effort needed to make this "true" is monumental,
involving "the requirement that the design of whole cities
be made with the goal of protecting'such, areas, ,and here the
unknown social and economic costs may well be extremely high.
Thus, this approach is roundly criticized by those who actually
• "Plan," as being replete with fallacies, unfounded assumptions
and inequities.
1' h
fA
s
-5-
oth „
e
r
. buffer zone is, incorporated in a' variety, of zoning
founded on the concept of land use „
building
associated with "intensi y. This approach,
sometimes „p
erformance" zoning looks not to
types or the ,names of industrial
commercial establishments but identifies the characteristics
processes or.
of each use objectively. In so doing; the approach
can require a use with Performance,a
acteristi-s "nuisances" or""undesirab
to ameliorat le" hu
use cha
enclosure, landscaping 'and tminimumasi eits osizes efor Tvarsr i.ousreening,
Operations known to need these treatments.
site perception o£ the nuisances to prevent the off -
are required. This means there
need be few "buffer" zones, as areas Or Provisionsaremade on l
site in quantities sufficient to buffer the -unwanted operational
effects.
The uses which locate nearby are not required to subsi
-
dize'the nuisance creating usage by "absorbing" its bad traits,(
and thereby are free to gain an economic value appropriate wit','
the true values of the site and the improveh
mentslthereon.
The "intensity" aspect of this approach:
dwellings. Here no building t relates most directly to'
number.of dwellings g YPes are; referred top l'only ;the
unit of land g Per acre, or the square feet of ,'floor area per
Thus, a duplex mmayulocate adjacent tored in terms,of �ars gleRfam lya3Well�ulated.
but the, site size required to do so -must be about
the single family dwelling unit.;, Obviously, l ng'
lots having the same number of . Obvn s result that for
e this results in both
indicates a higher 'capacity to respond gtopthe ademandstof theit so
market,,with the result that the ,citizens of the randscommof then ed
not be shunted off into various isolated districts if they desire
given, dwelling type. This approach, has the added benefit of
permitting1flexible land development while. regulatin
PbPulation density of the area. g the overall
Having reviewed the relative merits of the two majora approaches buffering, the constraints of the exis PP hes to
faced. ting situation must be
First, the railroad could buffer much of its noise by'installin
earthen banks on either side of the tracks, wherein most of
the noise originates: This is desirable, but not likely and,
g
therefore, must be abandoned as an option in this case.
Second, the area adjacent to the tracks could be left as open
space, with trees and shrubs planted to buffer the railroad's
Presence. This is incompatible with the current development
Of the sites and would require acquisition by the City of such
a strip, hence, it is also an infeasible Option at ,this ',time.
Third,,a lower density zone could be
thus exposing fewer Placed near these tracks,
® People to the undesirable use characteristics.',
This is economically infeasible and would work a hardship on the
property owners of the area:
Fourth, the bufferingcould be accomplished by 'zoning the buffer
76-
•strip
R2 a d nlex category. This placas more,people by the
nuisance but does permit development of the land. Furthermore,
the intrusion of the railroad upon uses behind the "buffer"
zone'would not truly be "buffered," as the impact of the
railroad would likely remain unchanged.
Fif_th,_the land could be left in its current zone classification.
This is feasible,would buffer noise as well as duplexes, and
(works` no hardships.
The fourth option, while apparently the most economically,
!attractive, places the; city in the role of being responsible for'
seeing to it that all land is not only, buildable but profitable.'
This is an unwise policy, requiring ,the 'city to watch out 'for
the interests ;of the landholders and not necessarily the people..
Furthermore, it must be remembered that this railroad: route is
not new, but is recorded on the '1870 plat of the city. Thus, no
new condition ':has been unexpectedly placed on`these'lots. :iFar
.from it, for they were elatted'after the railroad was so situated.
Thus, he current owners purchaseshese plots with ,full knowledge
of the railroad's presence, or at least could `'easily have 'discerned
.its, presence either on any reasonably accurate map.,or by ,visiting
the site. This means that' there ,.has not been a value lost; as
that lost value was inherent 'at'the,plot's creation.'. Any,zoningi
change to denser devel:pment must be seen as a windfall for the
owners, who paid for lots of a'lower density with easy access to
the-knowledge,;of the railroad's presence.
In the'Staff Report of April 12,`1973 it was recommended that the
requested R2 zoning in the study :area'be granted as consistent:'
with past Planning and Zoning Commission policy, and existing
neighboring development. " It is the position of the Staff that
after thoroughly examining the factors relating to, this
"buffer"
rezoning, and,!the underlying assumptions of the zone
concept, its position must be reversed on 'this case.
Furthermore, it is the hereby expressed policy of the Staff that
such "buffer" zoning will not be recommended for approval in:'!
the future, unless it were to act as a'true "buffer" in absorbing
the undesirable effects of the'use to be 'buffered, and would
do so without imposing a hardship on the "buffer" or the occupants
or users of the use intended to function as a buffer.
In summary, the Staff recommends' denial of the request of Robert
L. Richardson (Z-7304) and the cessation of the "buffer" zoning '-
policy,,as,presently constituted in this area.
Addendum:.
�j
n
It is not the 'intent of the Staff to prevent the location of duplex
.
dwellings in the subject area, but the doubling of :the potential
density of dwellings per acre which: results from the granting of
IQ zoning "ng is not desirable.
i / l
i/ice' ���.
I-:
I
in
!
i
1'
ai
I
i51'
;jir„r
4Z
I Jp
I'
ii
Jl
'r
a
m
N
Lt
i
i.
STAFF REPORT!
Planning & Zoning Commission
OApril 26, 1973
SUBJECT: Z•-7214. Rezoning request from
R1A to PC by Frantz Construction
Co.,'Inc.', and General Growth
Properties, Petitioners '(vic.
southeast of, intersection of
Sycamore Street, and ,Highway 6
Bypass. ,Date originally filed
(R1A tc C2): '6/14/72..`
Date revision filed: 4/17/73.,
45-day limitation: '6/1/73.
BACKGROUND: A request was submitted by the
above petitioners on June 14,''
1972 for a'r rezoning of. subject'
tract from RIA to-C2. `Additionally,
plans under the Larve,Scale Non-Residential Development (LSNRD)
Ordinance were 'submitted ons"June'12, 1972. The Planning and Zoning
Commission at the meetings,',of June 27 and July:ll.considered'the
rezoning request. On July,26, General Growth and Frantz' Construction
Company amended their petition to requestPCizoning, 'but did not
file the requisite studies.or LSNRD plans as. required by PC zoning.
They also waived the 45-day limitation.
On, March 30, 1973 a representative of General Growth filed with the
City Clerk copies of "Shopping Center, Feasibility-Hawkeye;,„Plaza”
and "Shopping Center, Impact on Adjacenti,Land'Value.'";`No''indication
was given as to what this "filing" of two reports meant. When
General'"Growthlphoned to inquire as to when they would be on the
i
agenda for the ;April 12, 1973 meeting, they were ',informed that
their intentions had not been made clear with respect, to .the
rezoning.Subsequently, a meeting was held on April J6 1973
among a representative of General Growth, their attorney, the
City Manager, the Director, of the Department of Community: Develop
ment, and a Senior Planner`; in the Planning' Division.
On April 17, a'petition was filed indicating a reques£ for PC
zoning, and on April 18, 1973 LSNRD plans and'a "Traffic Impact
Study of Hawkeye Plaza" were filed.
The reader is referred to the Staff Report of June 27, '1972 for
background site information.
STAFF
ANALYSIS:
PC ZONE REQUIREMENTS
The PC zone, requirements of 8.10.17.1 are given here for reference
purposes.
I f
I
-2
•
A•
the owner or owners shall sub mit to the Cit a report
Y P
concerning:
1. the economic feasibility, of a Planned Commercial District
at the location of their tract,
2. the effect of such a planned commercial district on the
surrounding property, and
3. the impact of traffic generated by such a planned commercial
district on the
surrounding streets."
B.
Plan required and laid out and developed as a unit according
to a, conforming
plan to requirements of the Large Scale'Non-
residential Development Ordinance.
C.
Yards: Front yard - 40' a;
Two side';'yards''= 20''
One rear yard :- 20'
With front yard requirements observed along any street.
D.
Off-street ,parking:
r r i
One space per each 300 square feet of floor area for the first
ea
100,000 feet of floor
area development! and one each
100 square feet of floor area beyond the first 100,00Q
feet`. square
R.
Height regulations:
When adjacent to any Rl and'R2 R2 Dis t rict said building's uil '
din s sh
9 all
not exceed 2� stories and shall not exceed 35 feet.
Fn
of
the following report, the * in the left margin indicates areas
discrepancy
that need to be resolved.
PC Zone' Requirements - Critique
The
impact
economic feasibility, impact on adjacent property''
and LSNRD lans .and traffic
1
p will be reviewed later in ireport.
The
yard regulations are met as shown on the submitted plan.
* Off-street parking presents an as yet unresolved problem. The
parking requirements are 'given
in the following table'.'
ill
i
r.
-4-
A larg a discrepancy
exis
_. is between the eccnomic fi
• I easbility
report. and the development; plan in that, the Department Stores
in the initial development -are 50$ greater than justified, by
1975, and the total GLA 34% greater than justified.by 1975.
Later in the 'report, the Suggested Development Schedule lists
a total development of 297,000,square ee ,-- _grea er-than
the 1975
Justified Floor Area
and
12.8$ less than the initial
development of the plan.. Thus the proposed development plan is
greater than both the Justified Floor Area and Suggested
Development Schedule of the Report.
A!second major discrepancy occursconcerning ,the report's
handling of the Major Retail Competition table and accompanying
text.
The Major Retail Competition table lists a total of 279,000
square feet of department store ;,type use'. in Iowa City at present.'
The Report justifies an additional 120,00 square feet for :the
proposed shopping center yielding a total of 399,000.:square, feet
in Iowa',City.: The report then uses 380,000 �square feet of
department store typelfacilities in 1975 to 'estimate its share
of the market '(35%). This 380;000 square feet also Ili
ncludes
a department store that is proposed .':or downtown Iowa.City."
There is a difficulty in reconcilingthe 399,000 square feet
i without a downtown department store_ with the;;380,000;used in
the report and containing both the downtown department store, and
the proposed shopping' center department stores:
* Population projections for the next 10 to 20 years present 'a
major discrepancy between the Report and local 'Population ;projections
developed by the Johr.3on,,County Regional. Planning ',Commission. The
report bases, its projections on an extrapolation of the ,area"
growth rate fbetween '1950 and 1970. This was a'period of unusual.
growth in Iowa City as thee4University of Iowa grew ;from 9'125 to
20,604 students. The growth rate of the area was linked directly
with University enrollment increases. Current "University "of Iowa';
projections, used by the Johnson; County; Regional Planning
Commission in their population projections, forecast'a very
minimal increase in University, enrollment over 'the Next 10 years.
This would necessarily have an important, effect on area population.
The over-estimation`ofpopulation growth in an over
estimation of, per capita retail expenditures available for any
given year, further aggravating the discrepancy between proposed
development square, footage and justified floor 'area. 'See attached
graph of Population Projections.
* A last problem area with the Economic Feasibility Report is that
it doesn't deal with costs of development. The'report:gives
"average operating volume" without defining this term and uses
it to justify floor area.The usual feasibility study gives
• approximate development and construction 'costs 'and :balances
,
these costs against a return from retail expenditures. The
approach in the report would imply, any square footage would'be
justified just because it would receive a share of the market.
..
i,,l
it
.l•
I,,
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
•
ACTUAL
T
---II .TA--
P D
EC.
ROJ TL
90,000
GENERAL GROWTH
4A 10
CORP. PROJECTIONS
80,000�
JCRPC PROJECTIONS
70;000
.:
60,.000
JOHNSON
COUNTY:
!
GENERAL GROWTH
CORP.' PROJECTIONS
O
' a
��
JCRPC PROJECTIONS,
a 50,000
o
P4
00s
40,000
IOWA
CITY
' 30;000
Novo
It 20,000,
UNIVERSITY OF
IOWA
:
10,000
0
7
t i96-0
19701980
1990
;YEARS
t
;4-24-73
-5.
Other minor discrepancies exist which this Staff Report will
not deal with.
Impact on Neighborinq Property
The report titled "Shopping -enter impact on Adjac I ent Land
Value" has been submitted to fulfill the requirement for the
impact of the center on neighboring,property.
This report falls short in several respects. First, the report
never directly discusses the specific neighboring properties
around theProposed center.
No map is given in the report to
indicate what
properties will receive:what impact. There is
existing development along Western Roa&immediately' 'east of
the proposed site, and along Gleason Drive to '.the south.;
Some comments
should be made of the impact on' these properties.
An example might be that.thd grading of the site will result
in 6 bank rising 14 feet high within a distance of 30�feet at
the,
southeast corner of the siteabuttin the -homes along Western
Road., 60 feet from the property line will 'beia department store
rising,some 53 feet higher than
the back yards, of these homes.
Second, the three shopping centers described in the report.
apparently!
are not General Growth Corporation developments,
and :all are several years
old (6t least 10 15
- years). No'
concrete examples of General Growth development are given.
Third, each ofthediscussed developmentswhich arieealso
i illustrated by Pictures in the "Impact",report,a.re.surrounded
by major arterials on all sides in two of, the'cases and
third, arterial in the
s on sides, a golf course on a:third, and
some residentialdevelopment along partofa fourth. The;
residential properties discussed 'in the report are effectively
buffered by�these arterials as is not the case in Iowa City.
And fourth, the report deals' only with
t
: proper y values. The
code requirement is for a study on neighboring properties,
property value being one portion of the totality ofeffects,
albeit
a major one. Some cc d
comments shoul be�made with respect
to the,desirability of living immediately adjacent to, the
Proposed center.
Traffic Impact Report
The "Traffic Impact Study of Hawkeye Plaza" has
been reviewed
by the City ,Engineer. His I comments are as follows:
1. This traffic study speaks only in generalities with respect
totripattractions of this major traffic'generator.
Although the "30th highest hour" is mentioned, no effort
• was',made to project what effect this major traffic generator
would have on the 30th highest hour volumes on the streets:
of the sourrounding area.
-6-
* 2.
There was no mention made of the AADT's currently being
handled by the adjacent.streets.
* 3.
Nei -attempt was made to'analyze the adjacent streets with:
respect to their level of'service""C" or any other level
of service capacity of the, adjacent
streets.
4.
No attempt was made to analyze the possible increase in
traffic
on HollywoodBoulevard as d as a result of its being
a direct :link between
two shopping centers.
* 5.
No comment was made with respect to possible need of more
sophisticated and/or increase
an in signalizatioh at the
intersections which
would be affected by thismajor,
traffic generator.
* 6L
No mention was made of 'having contacted the Highway
Commission for.a variance with respect to,,their ;basic:
requirement of a.1000' minimum between egress,points
a
on major facility, i.e. the Highway ,6'Bypass.'
* 7.
No mention has been made of the dead end streetswhichwould
occur as a`result of�this sub-development'such as
Grantw�od`Drive and Hollywood Boulevard. -
LSNRD and Engineering Review
Preliminary
reviews have been completed by both the Engineering
and
Planning Staffs of the LSNRD plans. Engineering comments
are
listed first.
* 1.
Sanitary sewer lines as shown on the plan are basically
inadequate. It is impossible to check grades in: that no
flow lines; are shown. 'sanitary
The sewer in the northeast
quadrant is shown as a dead end sewer without ',a manhole.
:The plan should include the connection of, the proposed
northwest, quadrant sewer with the existing sanitary sewer.
* 2.
A review of -the storm,sewerage is impossible in that no
indication is made as,to'the direction of storm flow from
roofs of the structures. The storm drainage for the plan
is based on 4" per hour, where as City design standards
are 5�" per hour intensity. Storm 'drainage is of importance 'J
in this area ,because already existingflooding problems
could be greatly aggravated by the proposed development.
* 3.
Surfacing: material for parking lots and 'driveways are not
shown. Sidewalks
are, not clearly defined, nor are cross
sections given:
•
Additional
Planning comments are as follows:
t2
_7-
y
• * i. Some consideration should be made with respect to the possible
shifting 'southward,of the currently >shown '`access'to'Sycamore
'
Street directly, across from 'Hollywood Boulevard._ This'w ill
have some effect on reducingany possible increase of traffic
on 'Hollywood Boulevard,!a 25! wide local:street','as adirect
connection between K7Mart and the proposeddevelopment. Also
this will improve the ".s>ight distance along, Sycamore Street. ,
* 2 Some provision should be made for modifying the 'abrupt dead
ending of Hollywood Boulevard on the east and Grantwood
Drive on the south such as through cul-de-sacs.
* 3. The wood screen at curb line used for buffering along the
south and east, sides of the site :should 'be'dimensioned!Las
to height and illustrated as to type and method of construction.
* 4. Highway Commission approval should be secured for the access
drive off Highway 6. Bypass' midway between Sycamore' Street` and -
relocated First Avenue.
* 5. Parking should not be allowed perpendicular to and directly
off of the northern exterior circulation 'drive 'parallel to
the Highway 6'Bypass. 'Parking here will only aggravate peak,
use traffic problems.
* 6. A potential stacking of waiting traffic may occur at the
south side of the intersection of relocated First Avenue
and Highway 6 Bypass. There is only 100;feet,from the
intersection to the internal corner of the parking lot.
7. Parkin should be separated from the northern-most * g P exterior.'
circulation drive by curbs. These curbs should',be delineated
on the drawing:
* 8. The Staff questions the design of the grading plan where steep
terraces at the south and 'eastern slopes of the site will
abut existing'residential'development.I,This point was'
mentioned in.the "Impact on Neighboring Properties" report.
* 9. Some indication should be made as to who will be installing
the additional,ltraffia''improvements along the Highway '16
Bypass.
* 10. - Parking by ordinance as listed on the plan is incorrect for
PC zoning.
The City Forrester recommends that the five silver maples along
Sycamore Street be 'replaced ' with any of the other listed trees.
Additionally, Y, there may be a conflict between the overhead rhead hi h
9
•' voltage ;power lines along Sycamore Street and the proposed tree
plantings.
r►.
0,M` ®m':a WWNM vorep■■■s
a�®�' _ ®• ®®®®® '®SHB■■■Y .---==`r.� ..,
mwi�
w - ®-.
n k1:!A_
STAFF REPORT
Planning & Zoning Commission
April '26 1973
SUBJECT: S-7304. Preliminary subdivision
plat: submitted by Bruce R. Glasgow,
for'.Court'Hills-Scott Boulevard
Addition, Part I, located north
of.Court Street,',between'Scott
Boulevard and.Dartmouth Street.
Date filed: 4/9/73.
45 -day limitation: 5/24/73.
SITE The subject parcel is located
DESCRIPTION:i adjacent and north of Court
Street, beginning at a!
:point
approximately 130 feet'west.of
Dartmouth Street, continuing eastward along Court Street approxi-
mately 675 feet, and extending north about 1600 feet to form a
rectangle, the northeast corner of which is truncated by aline
of aroxima
pp tele 45 Aegreas with the eastern -boundary of; the site.
`
The prouerty;is generallysloping in a.southerly direction', with
a secondary'slope beginning in the northern', quarter of the site
and'draining!north'and>easterly.> Tt,e southern slope is itself
divided intoltwo drainage basins, a lesser,,.draining southwesterly,
,
and the major one southeasterly.: There is a'pre-existing:subdivision
immediately west of„the subject property, and "a stubbed extension of
Washington Street terminating': in the' northwestern corner of the
tract. Similarly, Amherst Street will terminate at the northern
boundary of the'a_te, when completed.
i
The site is presently split,into.two zoning districts, the: easterly
two-thirds: being zoned RIA and the remaining; western portion
possessing the R1B zone classification. The,'priposed preliminary
platis laid out under the 'assumption that the requested zone
change initiated under Z-7308 will be ;granted, and therefore
must be evaluated only if such 'zoning 'is granted, as the lots
would; be'substandard'"in size for ,R1A zoning,.
The Helen Lemme Elementary School is located 'along the north-
western boundary of the site, some 380 feet west of the intersection
g
of
Amherst Street and Washington Street as `shown on this Preliminary
Plat, and as such must be considered a constraint on the 'level
of streets in the immediate area.
The site is currently an open field, possessing no vegetation 'or
trees for which preservation` would be appropriate.',
STAFF The proposed"preliminary plat
ANALYSIS: provides 'for,the extension
- of Washington Street with a
realignment south of its
-2 -
current alignment. This
reali
gnment is reasonable in light of
the topographic constraints of the terrain, and would provide
access`: along the northern boundary of the R3A zoned property
abutting Scott Boulevard and ,Court Street east of the subject
parcel.
There is shown on the preliminary plat a public right-of-way of,
60 feet for the western section of this street. This is
apparently an attempt to match the right-of-way of 'Washington
Street in the abutting subdivisionbut is not adequate present City ,standards, and , te under
must'be shown at '66 'feet.
The alignment of Amherst Street creates an offset with Raven
Street of 200 feet, thus successfully discouraging through traffic
along this route. Amherst Street should remain at'the'collector
street or lower level due -to its proximity to th9Hlen Lemme
School,'and the presence of, Scott Boulevard, 'eea future arterial.`
Phus, this street need not be aligned so as to conduct large
volumes of traffic north -south.
The proposed, while not making full accommodation of the.'
existing topography, does 'produce full utilizationrof the.', land.
The location of access to 'Court Street is well considered .in
view of: topographic constraints ,but the creation of lots,'
Eronting on Court Street'is ill considered. Court Street'
Presently functions at a level lower,,than that at which it is
Planned and eventually will serve, thelevelof an ,'arterial
street. If ,direct access to this street is permitted from all
dwellings abutting'it, its functional
'thus, capacity wilL,be impaired.
provisions should be made to allow access to 'these lots
via another street, which would in turn give 'access .to Court
Street.
STAFF It is the recommendation of
RECOMMENDATION: the Staff that this preliminary
Plat be deferred until such time
as the appropriate adjustments
may be made. These adjustments may be summarized as follows:
1. Provision of 66 feet of ROW along the entire length of
Washington Street.
2. Provision of access to lots abutting Court, Street via other
means than Court Street.
3. Accommodation of the City Engineer's comments, which follow.
I•
COMMENTS OF
THE
CITY ENGINEER:
1.
The right-of-way of Washington Street as it abutts the western
boundary of this subdivision prel:.minary°plat is shown as
60 feet. This will have to be widened to 66 feet, and so
shown on the preliminary plat.
2.
There will be required a utility easement along the rear
lot' lines of lots 24 through 31, a provision which must be
shown on the preliminary plat.
3.
Sewer lines must be installed behind lots 58 through 62 at
the ltime 'of development and be extended to the northern boundary
of this development.
4.
Sewerage to lots 1 throw h 6 shall
1 be
4 required to be provided
via taps into :the trunk line located in theCourt Street right-
of-way, rather than via the parallel sewerage line layout
shown on this preliminary plat.
1
r
1
i
,F t� a g nnin _
r � �& Zonu;g Com.'nassion`
''-May 1973.
I
Ghal'rman Madsen ha"s,i c�illcd ian informal meeting` of t}iel Planning
ai•d toning Commission to
be held:;in the'con ference.Room
Tuesday; May 1973, at
4:30,P.M.:
,8,
I
I' I:
,• ,,, ,.� 2 ,. S '�
zl
'1 4 14
iL it!•i Su �: i\rlIM r�
1+1r\ L a �S J,4r7
T'U-I�
L2<;{ )rf t !.jfi I '
t
'�.�� }- °�� �K ii •:5�, � �,r��`� Ad.14.iol f1,�Ff i -:� I
4�{
_ 'fat
r
rF'
STAFF REPORT
la nnin &`2oningcommission
May ',10, ,1973
S-7306. 'Preliminary Plat of
SUBJECT:-
the Village Green Addition,
Part V,:located south and east
of the 'intersection: of Village
Green' Boulevard and Village
Road„ submitted.by,the Iowa .City ;
Development Company.
Date filed: AVril 13, 1973
45 -day, limitation: .May 28, 1973
The subject request comprises
BACKGROUND OF -
an area,'of approximately 6.4
THIS! REQUEST
acres, in the'. previously
(11/27/67) approved Planned
mitted reliminary
Area Development nt of the same name: The'sub P
plan for; the subject
,• 111at is`substantially the
element
same shown on ,the
of that PAD,'but containing one
property submitted as an
less lo than r: shown; on the
PAD plan for, the same:area. Thus, a
original
lower ''density 'is planned at
this; than at he time of
submission of the PAD'
The submitted preliminary plat
STAFF
is; consistent with the previously
ANAiYSIS:
approved Planned Area Development
layout for the subject area and
as such poses no;p
alignment,: building density,or,
re��ealed no
circulation. A technical
review of the submission
in meeting the requirements
problems with r, the plat as
submitted
of the :.City Subdivision Regulations.
It is the recommendation of the '
STAFF
Staff that this Preliminary Plat
- RECOMMENDATION:
be approved, contingent upon
Engineering review.'
•
1
I
1
I
1 '
•11
1
1411
it
4
1
I
1
1
I
1
I
I..
•'
I'
I
I
I
If
IIS
I
1
� I IA
I
I ��
•I
�
el
1
l
1 � �1
�.'� I
•1�
iJ
1
1 t � 1.
�
I
K�1
�
II
_ 1
�.j
IY i I I
I
I• _ I
I
I�
I
I
I I
I