HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-04-24 Info Packet CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET
~ April 24, 2003
CITY OF IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
J MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS
IP1 City Council Meeting Schedule and Work Session Agendas
IP2 Memorandum from City Engineer to City Manager: Professional Activities
IP3 Memorandum from Central Services Administrator to City Manager: Schaefer
Systems International, Inc. Letter
IP4 Memorandum from City Clerk: Complete Description of Council Activities and
Work Session Minutes
IP5 lC Housing and Inspection Services Customer Service Surgery - April 2003:
How Are We Doing?
IP6 Meeting Materials: April 24 ECICOG [Wilburn]
IP7 Email (Tomepaine.com): Corporations Are People Too [Pfab]
IP8 Meeting Materials: April 23 JC Emergency Management Commission [Pfab]
I PRELIMINARY/DRAFT MINUTES
IP9 Iowa City Board of Adjustment: April 9
City Council Meeting Schedule and April ,
c~T~ oF Iow^ c.T~ Work Session A...~._.uen..as
www.icgov.org
I TENTATIVE FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS I
· WEDNESDAY, APRIL 30 Emma J. Harvat Hall
8:30a Special Council Formal Meeting
Executive Session - Staff Evaluations
· MONDAY, MAY 5 EmmaJ. HarvatHafl
6:30p Special Council Formal Meeting
Agenda TBD
To Follow Formal Council Work Session
· TUESDAY, MAY 6 Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00p Council Formal Meeting
· MONDAY, MAY 19 EmmaJ. HarvatHall
6:30p Council Work Session
· TUESDAY, MAY 20 Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00p Council Formal Meeting
· MONDAY, MAY 26 Emma J. Harvat Hall
Memorial Day Holiday - City Offices Closed
· MONDAY, JUNE 9 EmmaJ. HarvatHall
6:30p Special Council Work Session
· TUESDAY, JUNE 10 EmmaJ. HarvatHall
7:00p Special Council Formal Meeting
· MONDAY, JUNE 23 EmmaJ. HarvatHall
6:30p Special Council Work Session
Meeting dates/times/topics subject to change
FUTURE WORK SESSION ITEMS
Regulation of Downtown Dumpsters Downtown Historic Preservation
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
TO: Steve Atkins, City Manager
FROM: Rick Fosse, City Engineer"~
DATE: April 18, 2003
RE: Professional Activities
I wanted to keep you up to date on a few additions to my professional activities.
I have recently been appointed to a four year term to the University of Iowa College of
Engineering Advisory Board. This board meets regularly to assist the College in
developing and achieving its strategic plan and vision.
I have also been appointed to Iowa's Homeland Security First Responder Advisory
Committee. The focus of this committee is to assist Iowa's Department of Public
Defense in the implementation of our state homeland security initiative. My role is to
provide input and advice from the perspective of a local public works agency.
As with other service in professional activities, I have found these appointments mutually
beneficial. I enjoy the opportunity to provide meaningful input to organizations that
directly or indirectly impact City functions. I also benefit by learning from other
professionals from around the country that face many of the same issues we deal with
here in Iowa City.
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
TO: Steve Atkins, City Manager ~ . t
FROM: Mary Niichel, Central Services Administrator 'v'~?/%_~~/'
DATE: April 21, 2003
RE: Schaefer Systems International, Inc. Letter
Attached is a copy of a letter that I received from Schaefer Systems International, Inc. in
response to the award of bid #03-39 Recycling or Waste Disposal Carts. The award of
this bid was based on several factors including the vendor's responsiveness to the bid,
the vendor's ability to meet the technical specifications, and the bid price.
Based on the bids submitted by four vendors; Toter, Inc. was the only vendor that
submitted a complete bid. In order to prevent unfair competition, the technical
specifications of the bid were not tailored to a specific vendor's product. Therefore, all of
the vendors took exception to the requirements in this section. Lastly, Toter, Inc. had
the lowest pricing overall.
It specifically stated in the bid document that "Award of the contract will be made to the
lowest responsive, responsible bidder, whose bid conforming to the solicitation, will
be the most advantageous to the City." Toter Inc. received the contract award based
on the company's bid price, the company's responsiveness to the bid solicitation, and
the company's ability to document and explain their exceptions to the bid.
If you have questions regarding this bid award, please contact me.
SCHAEFER
SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
10021 Westlake Ddve
P.O. B~x 7009
Charlotte, N.C. 28241
Phone: (704) 944-4500
Fax: (704) 588-1862
www.ssi.schaefer-us.com
April 17, 2003
Ms. Mary Niichel
Central Services Administrator
City of Iowa City
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826
Dear Ms. Niichel:
I am in receipt of your letter of recommendation, as well as, a copy of the exception
pages submitted by our competitor. The exception pages are becoming a familiar theme,
as a similar letter was sent to the City and County of Honolulu, Hawaii. While I respect
any competitor's challenges, I do draw the line when such words as "superior resin" (B.
Materials-Explanation), "inferior material" yields a higher failure rate .... "Achilles heel"
(C.Container Body Design-Explanation), "as inferior compared ... (Item 10-
Explanation), "fail three (3) time more ... (Item 13-Explanation), "inferior, weaker high
density polyethylene resin", etc. etc.
The Schaefer management team of Mr. Heuzen, President, Mr. Ken Fishel, Senior Vice
President of manufacturing, Mr. John R. Miller, Esquire and my office as Senior Vice
President, consider these misrepresentations as boarding on libelous allegations. In fact,
a legal review of this, along with other written and spoken statements, given by the
competition, are under serious review by our legal department.
The bottom line is that Mr. Rodney Walls, Superintendent of the Solid Waste Division
(now on military leave) wrote specifications for rollout containers based on what he had
learned from the industry i.e. the end users. I'm afraid the acting solid waste manager
was sold a bill of goods on rotational molding vs. injection molding, based solely on
misrepresentation and in some cases boldfaced lies. SSI Schaefer has never supported
this selling technique.
The City of Iowa City, has every right to extend last year's bid for the additional
containers now in question. Because of resin increases, the City is now willing to spend
an additional $1.08 per container, over last year's bid price, for no apparent reason other
SCHAEFER
Page 2
Ms. Mary Niichel
than the fact that six (6) wheels out of 1,200 had a pin/spring malfunction. A justification
I find very weak indeed.
In 1995, SSI Schaefer did an exhausting study on other molding processes. I think the
letter of June 28, 1995, responds to the allegations imposed in your letter of exceptions.
SSI Schaefer takes great pride in selling quality products with fair and supportive sales
documentation. Our company will not be party to negative selling filled with false and
misleading representation, ever. Quality Schaefer products speak for themselves every
day. The City of Iowa City has experienced the Schaefer quality day in and day out for
the past year and now is not the time for change.
SSI Schaefer looks forward to continuing the relationship that began with, Rodney Walls
and the City of Iowa City, almost two years ago. I look forward to a favorable response
from the City. With this I am,
Sincerely yours,
Senior Vice President
Waste Technology Division
cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council Mr. J. Lutes, Director of Municipal Sales, SSI Schaefer
Mr. L. Huismann, Regional Sales Manager, SSI Schaefer
SCHAEFER
SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, INC,
10021 West~ake Drive
P.O. Box 7009
Chadotte, N.C. 28241
June 28, 1995 Phone: (704) 944-4500
Fax: (704) 588-1862
www.ssi.schaefer-us.com
To Our Valued Friends and Customers:
Information has been circulating with regard to Schaefer Systems intent to start
manufacturing rotational molded waste carts. The stories even go so far as to say that
Schaefer will discontinue the manufacturing of injection molded products· These minors
are worthy of an explanation
Schaefer Systems has in effect invested a substantial amount of money and effort in the
research and development of a rotational molded cart, including tooling and trial parts.
This exercise has lead us to some very important conclusions that we want to share with
friends and customers alike.
ROTATIONAL MOLDING:
· is not scientifically controlled manufacturing process
· can only be used for products that allow for a lesser quality standard
· allows the use of "off-grade" material
· creates a thin, uneven wall thickness, particularly in areas where strength
· is needed most
· allows the manufacturer the option of altering the charge weight of resin
· per container, creating a light weight product
The bottom line is, rotational molding does not meet the strict manufacturing
requirements of a Schaefer product. Schaefer's injection molding process gives carts
superior strength and durability; the quality you expect from Schaefer. Schaefer Systems
will not compromise quality for price.
The story of Schaefer producing a non-injection molded container is now history.
Schaefer will continue to injection mold the GMT and USD line of containers, both today
and well into the future.
Sincerely,
SSI SCHAEFER SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, INC. - ~-.z :
Waste Technolog.y~ivision
· ael L. Knaub
National Sales Manager ':~
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 23, 2003
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Marian K. Karr, City
RE: Complete Description of Council Activities and Work Session Minutes
At your work session of April 7, Council Member Kanner requested the Complete
Description of Council Activities and Work Session minutes be included on the Consent
Calendar Agenda for approval. The City Attorney and City Clerk agreed to review the
request and report back.
Currently only the Official Actions are listed on the agenda in accordance with State
Code, and published. Complete Description of Council Activities is included in the
agenda, and retained permanently, but not officially received by the City Council. Work
session minutes are included in Council's information packet.
There is no legal reason such a change could not be implemented. Please let us know ifa
majority wishes to change the present procedure.
Cc: City Attorney
U: minutes.doc
Iowa City Housing and Inspection Services
Customer Service Survey ~ April 2003
FlOW V/I DOINGP
"I never really know what to put on these! Marty Gaffey and the city use to be like an oil and
water mix. We never really got along. Now I feel like we are peanut butter and jelly. I
appreciate all that you do for me. Thank you."
"The entire experience was pleasant, useful, informative and stress free. An effort was made
to understand owner's needs as well as meeting City requirements."
"Super job!"
"Norm Cate assisted me with a rental permit. He was very professional and obviously a really
great guy."
"The inspection process at 1958 and 1960 Broadway is difficult because there are any
different property owners to contend with. We appreciate Bob Shaver's patience and
perseverance."
"Just great."
"Bob was very pleasant to work with. Good job.
"The process of renewing our rental permit went smoothly - our inspector even provided, at
our request, a list of things we should be prepared for. She was helpful and made some good
suggestions to stay in compliance with policy."
"Very thorough - and it's nice to have a reasonable time frame to complete repairs. Keep up
the good work."
"Doug - We were inspected by Norm Cate. He was very thorough, and we found him to be
helpful, business-like and sincere. He leaves you with a good impression of the housing and
inspection department."
"John Bovey is pleasant with good knowledge and ideas on how to do things. So is Bob. As a
Department in step with City Council you're headed for trouble - you've stepped way beyond
your role of "health and safety" and into income restriction and loss and contract interference.
This will not stand."
.... Very well. Inspector was friendly and helpful on the one minor correction needed.
Receptionist very helpful regarding new occupancy ordinance and other questions I had."
.... Patricia Mackay conducted the inspection on our rental located @ 1339/41 Dolen. She is
wonderful to work with! We needed extra time to get some outside maintenance taken care of
and she was very flexible and understanding which make it easier and less stressful on us.
She's great!
"Re: 2605-2607 E. Court - Bob Shaver was very efficient and pleasant throughout the
inspection. We'll welcome him back."
hisadnVcornments-apr03.doc 1
Iowa City Housing and Inspection Services
Customer Service Survey - April 2003
Page 2
"Bob Shaver was very helpful and cooperative with our inspection with our inspection on 2503
Friendship."
"Bob Shaver was the inspector. Very professional - knew the codes - good attitude.
.... Very polite! And - very helpful in what to use for correcting problem. Understanding not
demanding. An extra thanks to Patricia and Bob S. Thanks."
"Service is fine but your fees are getting out of sight. We have to pas them on along with taxes
that escalate far, far greater than inflation to tenants who are already paying more than similar
housing in other cities nearby."
"You are doing usually very good job. In certain circumstances when it is your mistake you
should take full responsibility, i.e. after your inspectors approved a job you should not come
back and disapprove it or take responsibility on your parts.
"I have dealt with Patricia MacKay for my past 2 or 3 rental inspections. I am very impressed
with Patricia's professionalism and "fair" assessments of the items that she feels are in need
of attention on our rental units She is very friendly and is a great addition to your dept."
"I appreciated the patience and cooperation from Patricia MacKay in trying to arrange a
reinspection date since various delays were dragging the process out She was good to work
with."
"Mr. Shaver was very pleasant and helpful to work with, he was very thorough in his
inspection. He explained things very well and was very considerate. I enjoyed working with
him.
"My duplex inspection was performed by Norm Cate. He was very professional and courteous.
Keep up the good work."
"Inspector was on time, professional, friendly and in general the expression was very good.
Keep up the good work."
"All Iowa City inspectors, especially Bob Shave do an excellent job. There are courteous to the
tenants; helpful to our staff and overall, quite professional. We look forward to our next
inspections."
"Patricia is a great addition to the inspection staff."
"John Bovey was an excellent gentleman to work with. We appreciated his patience.
"I enjoy working with Pat MacKay. She is fair and cooperative."
.... Norm Cate displayed a professional attitude and completed the inspection/permit process
promptly for our rental at 111 S. Lucas Street. Thanks."
"I had to cancel my initial appointment with John Bovey at the last minute - he was easy to get
a hold of and rescheduled almost immediately. I appreciated his feedback regarding safety
issues on our rental unit.
Iowa City Housing and Inspection Services
Customer Service Survey - April 2003
Page 3
"Patricia was great to work with. She helped us out in every way possible to get our rental
permit on time. Thank you."
"Art Anderson displayed professional, businesslike manner during our rental permit inspection
at 403 N. Linn Street. On a separate matter: Will there be a revised rental permit issued for
1030 E. Jefferson since we've completed the 1st floor bedroom project?"
"I appreciate Art's useful information for maintaining my rental units. I am concerned that there
are no inspections/or permits required for home-owners who rent out unit(s) or room(s); as
many as two. I have seen some of these houses become available for sale and I believe a
great risk exists."
"Pat MacKay has been a pleasure to work with - she explained everything clearly and followed
up promptly on finding answers for all my peculiar questions. She does he job thoroughly,
reliably, and with a sense of humor."
"Norm was very professional and helpful."
"Bob has been a good addition to your department. Knowledgeable and friendly."
"Ms. McKay was informative during the inspection, which I found helpful. When the
requirements and basis for them are explained, it helps the ownedagent make future
decisions in a more efficient way. I appreciated her approach."
"The notification, walk through and good communication have all been positive. Thank you.
.... I have been very pleased by the professionalism and helpful attitude shown by Bob Shaver,
John Bovey and Norm Cate over the course of the last three years during their inspections."
hisadrn/¢ornrnents-aprO3.doc 3
~, ,Ross Wilburn. r~
EAST CENTRAL IOWA
CouNaL o .c ym hrrs --
YOUR REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 16, 2003
TO: ECICOG Board of Directors
FROM: Doug Elliott,'~utive Director
SUBJECT: Next Meeting - Thursday, April 24, 2003
The ECICOG Bbard of Directors will meet on Thursday, April 24, 2003, 1:00 p.m., at the
ECICOG offices in Cedar Rapids. An agenda for the meeting and minutes of the March 27th
meeting are enclosed. Other items are highlighted below:
Item2.0 Routine Matters: Financial statements for the month 6f March are enclosed.
Item 3.2 Board Members' Reports: Johnson County representative, Larry Wilson, is scheduled
to give a presentation on xeriscaping (low impact landscaping) and a recent construction project
at the University of Iowa.
Item 3.3 Director's Report: Again, I wanted to express my gratitude to Chairperson Brown and
the boal:d for excusing me from the March meeting. Other than a two-day delay in returning
home caused by a bomb scare at the Orlando airport, we had a great fami4y vacation.
'I have enclosed a~ copy of my remarks and the accompanying PowerPoint presentation Mary
Rump and I provided to the tDOT commission at their public meeting yesterday in Cedar Rapids.
Items 3.4, - 3.8, Community Development, Housing, Circuit Rider, Solid ,Waste &
Transportation Reports: Staff repoits are ericlosed.
Item 4.5 Solid Waste TAC Report: Minutes of the TAC's rhost ~ecent meetipg are enclosed.
Please review the remainder of the enclosed materials, and contact us if y~ou have questions
befoie the meeting on the 24t~/. ' '
Enc.,
108 Third Street SE, Suite 300 Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52401 319-365-9941 FAX 319-365-9981 www.ia.net/-ecicog
East Central lowa Council o, f Governments Board Meetin~ Notice
1,00 p.M. April 24, 2003
I
East Central Iowa CounCil of GoveEaments
108 Third street SE, Suite ~00
Cedar Rapids, lo~a
TEL 365-9941 FAX365-9981
pages
1.0 CALL TO ORDER
· 1 Recognition of Alternates
.2 Public Discussion
.3 Approval of Agenda
2.0 ROUTINE MATTERS
1-6 .1 Approval of Minutes (March 27, 2003)
7-15 .2 Preceding Month's Budget Reports/Balance Sheets
3.0 AGENCY REPORTS
· 1 Chairperson's Report
.2 Board Members' Reports
· Larry Wilson
.3 Director's Report
16-17 .4 Community Development Report
18-20 .5 Housing Report
21 .6 Circuit Rider Report
22 .7 Solid Waste Report
23 .8 Transportation Report
4.0 COMMITTEE REPORTS
· 1 Executive Committee
.2 Personnel Committee
.3 Budget Committee
.4 Transit Operators Group
24-25 .5 Solid Waste Technical Advisory Committee
.6 Ad Hoc Committee Reports
5.0 IOWA INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW SYSTEM
6.0 OLD BUSINESS
· 1 Approval o f Expenditures
7.0 NEW BUSINESS
8.0 NEXT MEETING: May 29, 2003
ECICOG is the Region l O planning agency serving local governments in the counties of Benton, Iowa, Johnson,
Jones, Linn, and Washington·
MINUTES
East Central Iowa Council of Govermnents
Board Meeting 1:00 p.m. - March 27, 2003
108 Third Street SE, Suite 300, Cedar Rapids
MEMBERS PRESENT
Ed Brown-Mayor of Washington
Bob Stout-Y~ashington County Supervisor
Charlie Montross-Iowa County Supervisor
Gary Edwards-Iowa County C#izen
Pat Harney-Johnson County Supervisor
Ric Gerard-Iowa County Supervisor
Dawn Pettcngill-Mayor of Mt. Auburn
Ross Wilburn-[owa City City Council
Aaron Chittendcn-Jones County Citizen
David P'ermeMahl-Benton County Supervisor
Leo Cook-Jones County Supervisor
James Houser-£inn County Supervisor
Ann Hearn-£inn County Citizen
Ed Raber- F~ashington County Citizen
MEMBERS ABSENT
£u Barron-Linn County Supervisor
Tom Tj¢lmeland-Mayor of Ely
Henry Herwig-Coralville City Council
Y~ade Wagner-Cedar Rapids Commissioner
Dennis Hansen-Jones County Citizen
Don Magdefrau-Benton County Citizen
Larry Y~ilson-Johnson County Citizen
ALTERNATES PRESENT - None
OTHER'S PRESENT - None
STAFF PRESENT
Mary Rump-ff?TransportationPlanner
Gina Peters-Administrative Assistant
Jennifer Ryan-Planner
Tracey Mulcahey - Grants Administrator
£isa-Marie Garlich-Planner
Robyn Jacobson-Transit Administrator
Chad Sands-Planner
Marie DeVries-Solid Waste Planning Coordinator
1.0 CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson, Ed Brown at 1:07 p.m.
.1 Recognition of Alternates - None
.2 Public Discussion - None
.3 Approval of Agenda
M/S/C (Montross/Stout) to approve the agenda. All ayes.
.4 Public Hearing - ECIT Consolidated Transit Application
Brown opened the public hearing for the FY 2004 Consolidated Transit App. at 1:08 p.m. Jacobson said there was a
change to be noted in the amount of federal assistance being requested. ECICOG will request $226,779 in federal
assistance instead of $218,263 that was listed in the public notice and will request $383,806 in state assistance.
ECICOG will also be requesting approximately $1,641,000 in capital equipment.
There were no comments from the public and no written comments were received.
M/S/c (Gerard/Stout) to close the public hearing at 1:10 p.m. All ayes. 1
(Raber joined the meett'ng at this time.) 2 f
2.0 ROUTINE MATTERS
.1 Approval of Minutes (February 27, 2003)
M/S/C (Cook/Heam) to approve the minutes as written. All ayes.
.2 Preceding Month's Budget Reports/Balance Sheets
M/S/C (Hamey/Honser) to receive and file the February financial statements for audit. All ayes.
(Wilson joined the meeting at this time.)
3.0 AGENCY REPORTS
.1 Chairperson's Report
Brown told the board the City of Washington has a new website, the address is www.washingtoniowa.net.
Brown presented Rump with an engraved clock and paperweight commemorating her ten-year anniversary at
ECICOG on March 29.
.2 Board Members' Reports - None
.3 Director's Report
Rump told the board Elliott asked her to announce that Catherine Hankey will be resigning her position as Circuit
Riding Community Planner effective April 25 to relocate to Georgia.
She also told the board the 1DOT Commission will be in Cedar Rapids on April 15 for their annual public input
meeting. Elliott will forward comments fi.om the meeting by e-mail to board members.
.4 Community Development Report
Sands handed out a memo to the board regarding the protocol for agency review and comment on annexations in the
region (attached.). Discussion followed.
M/S/C (Cook/Wilson) to accept the criteria outlined in the memo for response to annexation review and comment
requests.
Garlich handed out an article on a workshop to be held on July 8t~ for volunteer fire deparlments (attached).
.5 }lousing Report
Mulcahey told the board staffhas decided after meeting with the counties that it is not feasible to submit an
application for the regional housing assistance program at this time. She handed out a map showing where 2003
Housing Fund Applications were awarded (attached).
Raber asked if the new position would be added based on these awards. She stated Elliott said a position would be
added.
.6 Circuit Rider Report - None
.7 Solid Waste Report
DeVries handed out a postcard on the Business Recycling Challenge to be held on April 2~a. As part of the grant, a
how-to manual on the conference will be produced after the conference.
She told the board staffwill be working at the Iowa City Home Show in the Iowa City Landfill and Recycling Center
booth this weekend.
.8 Transportation Report
Jacobson referred to page 27 of the board packet, an authorizing resolution for transit assistance.
M/S/C (Montross/Gerard) to authorize the chair to sign the resolution. All ayes.
Jacobson told the board that staffhas been working to pumhase a medium-duty bus for Linn County LIFTS. Vendors
were asked to submit proposals and two proposals were received and reviewed by staff and LIFTS staff. The
recommendation is to award the contract to Thomas Bus Sales.
M/S/C (Cook/Gerard) to approve the contract award to Thomas Bus Sales. All ayes.
Jacobson noted the three-year contract with Mini Bus to provide transit service in Washington County is about to
expire. The RFP allowed for contract extension up to two additional years. Staffrecommends the region extend the
contract for two years to Mini Bus.
M/S/C (StouffMontross) to extend the contract with Washington County Mini Bus for two years. All ayes.
4.0 COMMITTEE REPORTS
.1 Executive Committee - None
2
.2 Personnel Committee - None
.3 Budget Committee - None
.4 Transit Operator's Group - None
.5 Solid Waste Technical Advisory Committee
Minutes were included in the board packet.
.6 Ad Hoc Committee Reports - None
5.0 IOWA INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW SYSTEM
MJS/C (Hamcy/Gerard) to approve all Intergovernmental Reviews with a favorable review. All ayes.
6.0 OLD BUSINESS
.1 Approval of Expenditures
M/S/C (Houser/Stou0 to approve payment ofexponditures. All ayes.
7.0 NEW BUSINESS
Houser gave an update on SF390, a bill on consolidating governments.
Chittenden and Raber gave an update on a meeting they attended about the Iowa Values proposal.
8.0 NEXT MEETING: April 24, 2003
The meeting adjourned at 2:02 p.m.
David Vermedahl, Secretary/Treasurer
February 27, 2003
Date
EAST CENTRAL IOWA
COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
YOUR REGIONAL PLANNIIklG AGENCY
MEMO
TO: ECICOG Board of ~i~tors
FROM: Chad Sands, AICP(.~_L.~
RE: ' Protocol for Agency Review and Comment on Annexations in the
Region
DATE: 3/27/03
As per your r'equest at the last ECICOG Board Meeting, I am presenting proc~ttures
for agency review on annexations in our region. It was generally felt last month that
ECICOG staff shobld onl,) review and comment.on proposed annexations in which
the local government asks for a letter. For example, if a community asks Us tS
prepare a letter to the State City. Development Bgard (CDB) on the city's behalf, w~e
should do so with the protocol listed below. However, we shc~uld not review or
comment on the many annexation notices we receive every week.
The following are issues ECICOG will consider when preparing a letter on behalf of
a community when asked to do so:
ECICOG wpuld support the annexation if:
· the proposed annexation is voluntary;
· the proposed annexation is consistent with the local government's land use o~
comprehensive plan (Is it in the city's future g(owth area? Will it be compatible with
neighborin~ uses? Will it impact regional ~nd local traffic?);
· the annexation is contiguous to the existing city limits and does not create an
island; and ,
· the property in question can be served (sewer, water, s~reets, and other city
services) in a realistic timeframe.
-or-
Is it necessary to serve the property in question?
108 Third Street SE, Suite 300 Cedar Rapids, lowa52~ 4 19-365-9941 FAX319-365-9981 www. ia.net/~ecicog
Date: April 24, 2003
From: Chad Sands, AICP, Planner
Lisa Marie Gar]ich, Planner
Lisa Treharne, Planner
Tracey Mulcahey, Grant Administrator
Status of Planning Projects
· The Benton County FMS Response 2020 plan was sent to the Iowa Department of
Economic Development for review and approval. The plan is a comprehensive
assessment of services, including the preparation of goals and objectives for the direction
of the County EMS program.
· Work is nearing completion on the Bertram/Linn County City/County Strategic Growth
Plan (CCSG) and resulting Fringe-Area Agreement between Bertram and Linn County for
managing development in the City's fringe area. The first meeting of the Springville/Linn
County CCSG is in April.
· The City of Center Junction has adopted their code of ordinances.
· Work on the City of Central City's comprehensive plan has begun. A planning committee
has been created and a town meeting has been held. Work on the plan is expected to
take approximately 5 more months.
//,/~ The Johnson Hazard Plan the State hazard team
County
Mitigation
was
sent
to
mitigation
for review for a second time and has been approved. In addition, staff at Johnson County
Planning and Zoning had requested a scope of services and cost proposal from ECICOG
for updating the County's Zoning Ordinance. They have approved the proposal and the
project will start this spring.
· Work on the City of Lisbon zoning and subdivision ordinance update has begun.
ECICOG staff recently completed the City's comprehensive plan, Work on the ordinances
should take approximately 4 more months.
· Work on the City of Olin Hazard Mitigation Plan is nearing completion. The plan is
expected to take 2 months to complete before sending it on to IEMD.
· Work is nearing compeletion on the City of Shueyville's ordinance codification project.
Shueyville's code committee will likely meet again before the City's Attorney reviews the
document.
· The City of Springville has requested a scope of services for the completion of a
comprehensive plan. Work on the plan would begin this fall after their CCSG plan has
been completed.
· ECICOG is providing site plan and development review services for the Cities of
Wellman~ Bertram and Shueyville.
· Work is nearing completion on hazard mitigation plans for the following local
governments: Marengo, Monticello and Jones County.
16
ECICOG
Date: April 14, 2003
From: Catherine Hankey, Circuit Riding Community Planner
Technical Assistance Provided:
ECICOG Region
· Completed a FEMA application for Brighton and Ladora.
· Reseamhed recreation river walk designs for Vinton.
· Attended an informational meeting in Stone City regarding the National
Register of Historic Districts.
UERPC Region
· Arranged for U of I students to present their trail proposal to the Cities of
Marquette, McGregor and Guttenberg on May 2nd.
· Met with Waukon's Downtown Development Committee regarding various
projects they would like to receive help with.
MIDAS Region
· Met with Rolfe regarding the application process for CDBG funds for housing.
· Attended Mid-Iowa Community Development Conference.
NIACOG Region
· Completed a FEMA application fo,r Corwith.
· Spoke with Buffalo Center about applying for housing CDBG funds this year.
· Researched recreational funds available for Bancroft.
Region VI
· Researched the National Flood Insurance Program's Community Rating
System for Chelsea.
General Progress Report:
A summary of progress made has been completed for each community to pass
onto Lisa Treharne, who will be assuming the Cimuit Rider position as of April
28th. Lisa has met with each COG involved, and letters have been sent to each
community informing them of the switch in personnel.
2]
ECICOG
DATE: April 16, 2003
FROM: Marie DeVries, Solid Waste Planning Coordinator, ext. 26
Jennifer Ryan, Solid Waste Planner, ext. 31
Benton County. Staff continues to provide assistance to communities in Benton County
that are planning to revamp their residential recycling programs in response to changes
being implemented by the Benton County Board of Supervisors. Contact Jennifer for
additional information.
2003 Business Recycling Challenge (Linn County). Approximately 175 individuals
representing nearly 100 businesses and agencies attended the 2003 BRC. The planning
committee, together with sponsors and exhibiting businesses, will evaluate the event
and discuss other business waste reduction strategies.
Iowa City Landfill & Recycling Center HHM Program. Staff continues to assist with
household hazardous materials (HHM) education in Johnson County. The second
annual Open House event is scheduled for Saturday, June 21. Contact Jennifer for
additional information.
HHW Education in Benton, Iowa, & Tama Counties. Staff continues to administer
promotional programs concerning proper disposal of household hazardous materials in
these counties. Contact Jennifer for additional information.
Bluestem Solid Waste Agency/Linn County. Due to the promotion of Karmin Bradbury
from planner to executive director, Marie will provide additional planning assistance to
the Agency during the transition.
~//l~)owa Recycling Association. The IRA is a non-profit organization that promotes waste
eduction and recycling across the state. Together with the Iowa Society of Solid Waste
perators (ISOSWO), the IRA holds an annual conference. Next fall, the conference will
be held at Collins Plaza, Cedar Rapids, October 27-29. The Bluestem Solid Waste
Agency, City Carton Company, and others in the area involved with managing waste &
recyclables will be involved. Contact Marie for more information.
Green Rehabilitation for Ownership (GRO). The contractor will begin rehabilitation
work on the GRO house in Monticello May 15. The City, a GRO partner, has completed
some preliminary work including removing a large tree on the property. Marie continues
to seek support for the program, including recent grant requests to the U.S. EPA and
Andersen Corporation.
Project AWARE/Jones County: The DNR is sponsoring a watershed awareness and
river expedition June 1-8 on the Maquoketa River. Staff and volunteers will canoe the
river from Backbone State park to Green Island. Along the way, volunteers will collect
garbage, which will be disposed/recycled. Interested? Contact Brian Soenen, 515-281-
6640.
22
MINUTES
EAST CENTRAL IOWA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
Solid Waste Technical Advisory Committee (SWTAC)
I PM, April 10, 2003
Bluestem Main Office, Kirkwood Campus, Cedar Rapids
VOTING MEMBERS PRESENT
Iowa City/Johnson County: Dave Elias STAFF PRESENT
Iowa County: Rick Heller Jennifer Ryan
Benton County: Myron Parizek Marie DeVries
Tama County: Lyle Brehm
Bluestem/Linn County: Teresa Kurtz OTHERS PRESENT
Stephen Emerson, SWAP Applicant
NON-VOTING MEMBERS PRESENT Sarah Smith, INRCOG Pianner/IWE
Iowa City/Johnson County: Jori Thomas, Representative
Brad Neumann
Iowa Waste Exchange: Rick Meyers, John
Koch
MINUTES: Minutes from the March meeting were approved.
Stephen Emerson gave presentation about proposed C&D recycling project SWAP application.
SWAP funds would be used to reuse and recycle material generated in a downtown commercial
building rehab project.
CITY/COUNTY/REGION UPDATES
County Updates --
Benton County: Parizek reported the SW Disposal Commission to meet April 15 to discuss
curbside recycling programs and landfill ban enforcement. There have been recent thefts of
lawnmower parts from the scrap metal pile. Still using glass in place of coarse rock at the landfill
and also sorting shingles for use as shoulder dust control.
~// Iowa City / Johnson County: Neumann, Thomas, and Elias reported:
Staff at the lC Home & Outdoor Expo distributed 250 electronic waste discount coupons as
well as ether information to the public.
· The Children's Museum will develop a permanent display promoting waste reduction. The
Landfill will sponsor a "free night" at the museum and distribute promotional items.
· Sent postcards to local businesses about the Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator
program for HHM.
· Landfill to host an open house Saturday, June 21.
· Landfill will sponsor a half price tire collection week.
· County Supervisors are sponsoring a spring clean-up event for rural residents.
Tama County: Brehm reported that the landfill will sponsor a tire amnesty in June. Investigating
the tarp-o-matic as an alternative daily cover option.
24
Marian Karr IP7
From: Irvin Pfab [ipfab@avalon,net]
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2003 11:41 AM
To: Iowa City City Council
Subject: 41503fw..Corporations are people, too. How human institution subordinate humans:Tomepaine.com, by Thom
Hartmannn
Corporations Are People, Too
How Human Institutions Subordinated Humans
Thom Hartmann is a writer, former editor and reporter, entrepreneur,
psychotherapist (and NLP Practitioner and NLP Trainer), and worldwide
lecturer who lives in Vermont. He is the author of Unequal Protection: The
Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft o£Human Rights.
Editor's Note: This article was first published on ThomHartmann.com and is
largely excerpted from Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate
Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights by Thom Hartmann (Rodale
Books, 2002).
Thomas Paine said it best.
"It has been thought," he wrote in The Rights of Man in 1791, "...that
government is a compact between those who govern and those who are
governed; but this cannot be true, because it is putting the effect before the
cause; for as man must have existed before governments existed, there
necessarily was a time when governments did not exist, and consequently
there could originally exist no governors to form such a compact with. The
fact therefore must be, that the individuals themselves, each in his own
personal and sovereign right, entered into a compact with each other to
produce a government: And this is the only mode in which governments have
a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a fight to exist."
Thus, Paine and others of the Revolutionary Era
Just after the Civil reasoned, any institution made up by and of humans
War... virtually every -- from governments to churches to corporations --
state had laws on the must be subordinate to individual living people in
books that regulated terms of the rights and powers held by the
the behavior of institution.
corporations.
Because of the unique frailties and depths of passion
~ ........ 74 unique to humans, just after the U.S. Constitution
was ratified Thomas Jefferson and James Madison began a campaign to
amend it with a 12-point explicit statement that would clearly and
unambiguously place humans -- who had created government -- above their
creation. This was the birth of what would become the Bill of Rights, and it
originally had 12 -- not 10 -- protections for citizens' rights.
On Dec. 20, 1787, Jefferson wrote to James Madison about his concerns
regarding the Constitution. He said, bluntly, that it was deficient in several
4/21/03
Page 2 of 8
areas. "I will now tell you what I do not like," he wrote. "First, the omission of
a bill of rights, providing clearly, and without the aid of sophism, for freedom
of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies,
restriction of monopolies, the eternal and unremitting force of the habeas
corpus laws and trials by jury in all matters of fact triable by the laws of the
land, and not by the laws of nations."
Such a bill protecting natural persons from out-of-control governments or
commercial monopolies shouldn't just be limited to America, Jefferson
believed. "Let me add," he summarized, "that a bill of rights is what the
people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular;
and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference."
The following year, Jefferson wrote about his concerns to several people. In a
letter to Mr. A. Donald, on Feb. 7, 1788, he defined the items that should be in
a bill of rights: "By a declaration of rights, I mean one which shall stipulate
freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of commerce against
monopolies, trial by juries in all cases, no suspensions of the habeas corpus,
no standing armies. These are fetters against doing evil, ~vhich no honest
government should decline."
Jefferson kept pushing for a law, written into the Constitution as an
amendment, which would guarantee liberties for citizens, prevent companies
from growing so large they could dominate entire industries or have the power
to influence the people's goverrLment and reduce the possibility of the nation
being taken over by a military coup.
On Feb. 12, 1788, he wrote to Mr. Dumas about his pleasure that the U.S.
Constitution was about to be ratified, but also expressed his concerns about
what was missing from the Constitution. He was pushing hard for his own
state to reject the Constitution if it didn't protect people from the dangers he
foresaw.
"With respect to the new Government," he wrote, "nine or 10 States will
probably have accepted by the end of this month. The others may oppose it.
Virginia, I think, will be of this number. Besides other objections of less
moment, she [Virginia] will insist on annexing a bill of rights to the new
Constitution, i.e. a bill wherein the Government shall declare that, 1. Religion
shall be free; 2. Printing presses free; 3. Trials by jury preserved in all cases;
4. No monopolies in commerce; 5. No standing army. Upon receiving this bill
of fights, she will probably depart from her other objections; and this bill is so
much to the interest of all the States, that I presume they will offer it, and thus
our Constitution be amended, and our Union closed by the end of the present
year."
By mid-summer of 1788, things were moving along and Jefferson was helping
his close friend James Madison to write the Bill of Rights. On the last day of
July, he wrote to Madison: "I sincerely rejoice at the acceptance of our new
constitution by nine States. It is a good canvass, on which some strokes only
want retouching. What these are, I think are sufficiently manifested by the
general voice from north to south, which calls for a bill of rights. It seems
4/21/03
Page 3 of 8
pretty generally understood, that this should go to juries, habeas corpus,
standing armies, printing, religion and monopolies."
But on the issues of barming a standing army and blocking corporations from
gaining monopolistic control over industries, Jefferson was getting resistance.
The nation had just fought a bloody war against England, and there was little
sentiment for completely dismantling the army. And the Federalists who were
in power -- a party largely made up of what Jefferson called "the rich and the
well bom" -- were opposed to government constraints on business activities.
Thus only 10 of his 12 visions for a Bill of Rights -- all except "freedom from
monopolies in commerce" and his concern about a permanent army -- were
incorporated into the actual Bill of Rights, which James Madison shepherded
through Congress and was ratified as the first 10 amendments to the
constitution on Dec. 15, 1791.
Monopolies As Persons
As the new country grew, so did its institutions. Trading companies, banks
and eventually railroads all used the corporate form to conduct business,
reduce shareholder liability and accumulate profits. America boomed through
the early 19th Century, then experienced a severe economic depression in the
decade just before the Civil War, then boomed again, starting in the post-war
years of the late 1860s.
And then a curious thing happened.
The stage was set when, just after the Civil War on July 9, 1868, three-
quarters of the states ratified the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as
part ora set of laws to end slavery.
The intent of Congress and the states was clear: to provide full constitutional
protections and due process of law to the now-emancipated former slaves in
the United States. The 14th Amendment's first article says, in its entirety:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein
they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state
deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor
deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Along with the l 3th Amendment ("Neither slavery nor involuntary
servitude ... shall exist within the United States") and the 15th Amendment
("The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or
abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color or
previous condition of servitude"), the 14th Amendment guaranteed that freed
slaves would have full access to legal due process: "equal protection of the
laws."
4/21/03
Page 4 of 8
Corporations Aspire To Personhood
During this same period, because everybody understood Paine and Jefferson's
argument that human-made institutions must be subordinate to humans
themselves; virtually every state had laws on the books that regulated the
behavior of corporations.
The corporate form is, after all, just a legal structure to facilitate the
conversion of products or services into cash for stockholders. As Buckminster
Fuller wrote in his brilliant essay, "The Gmnch of Giants," "Corporations are
neither physical nor metaphysical phenomena. They are socio-economic ploys
-- legally enacted game-playing -- agreed upon only between overwhelmingly
powerful socio-economic individuals and by them imposed upon human
society and its all unwitting members."
Thus, states made it illegal for corporations to participate in the political
process: Politicians were doing the voters' business, and corporations couldn't
vote, so it didn't make sense they should be allowed to try to influence votes.
States made it illegal for corporations to lie about their products, and required
that their books and processes always be open and available to government
regulators. States and the federal government claimed the right to inspect
companies and investigate them when they caused pollution, harmed workers
or created hazards for human communities, even if in the early years that right
was unevenly used.
These constraints and oversights had been a thom in the side of the barons of
trade and industry from the earliest days of the new American republic. But
what to do about it?
With the passage of the 14th Amendment, the owners of the what were then
America's largest and most powerful corporations -- the railroads -- figured
they'd finally found a way to reverse Paine's logic and no longer have to
answer to "we, the people." They would claim that the corporation is a person.
They would claim that for legal purposes, the certificate of incorporation
declares the legal birth of a new person, who should therefore have the full
protections the voters have under the Bill of Rights.
It was an amazing irony, given that one of Jefferson's original proposed
Amendments was an explicit ban on corporations becoming so large as to gain
monopoly power and be able to easily crash or stifle small, local
entrepreneurs. But, setting the irony aside, the railroads threw massive
resources into their new campaign to be given full human rights.
Acting on behalf of the railroad barons, attorneys for the railroads repeatedly
filed suits against local and state governments that had passed laws regulating
railroad corporations. They rebelled against restrictions, and most of all they
rebelled against being taxed.
The main tool the railroad's lawyers tried to use was
the fact that corporations had historically been The railroads threw
4/21/03
Page 5 of 8
referred to under law not as "corporations" but as massive resources into
"artificial persons." Based on this, they argued, their new campaign to
corporations should be considered "persons" under be given full human
the free-the-slaves 14th Amendment and enjoy the rights.
protections of the constitution just like living,
breathing, human persons.
Using this argument for their base, the railroads repeatedly sued various
states, counties and towns claiming that they shouldn't have to pay local taxes
because different railroad properties were taxed in different ways in different
places and this constituted the creation of different "classes of persons" and
was, thus, illegal discrimination under the 14th Amendment.
For almost 20 years, these arguments did not succeed.
In 1873, the Supreme Court made its first explicit comment on the 14th
Amendment. The Amendment's "one pervading purpose," Justice Samuel F.
Miller wrote in the majority opinion, "was the freedom of the slave race, the
security and firm establishment of that freedom, and the protection of the
newly-made freeman and citizen from the oppression of those who had
formerly exercised unlimited dominion over him."
The railroads, however, had a lot of money to pay for lawyers, and railroad
lawyer S. W. Sanderson had the reputation of a pit bull. Undeterred, the
railroads again and again argued their "corporations are persons" position all
the way to the Supreme Court.
The peak year for their legal assault was 1877, with four different cases
reaching the Supreme Court in which the railroads argued that governments
could not regulate their fees or activities, or tax them in differing ways,
because governments can't interfere to such an extent in the lives of "persons"
and because different laws and taxes in different states and counties
represented illegal discrimination against the persons of the railroads under
the 14th Amendment.
By then, the Supreme Court was under the supervision of Chief Justice Morris
Remick Waite, himself a former railroad attorney. Associate Justice Stephen
Field, who was so openly on the side of the railroads in case after case that he
annoyed his colleagues, also heavily influenced the court. In each of the
previous four cases, the Court ruled that the 14th Amendment was not
intended to regulate interstate commerce and therefore not applicable. But in
none of those cases did Waite or any other Justice on the court muster a
majority opinion on the issue of whether or not railroad corporations were
"persons" under the constitution, and so Miller's "one pervading purpose" of
the 14th Amendment (to free slaves) prevailed, and year after year, the
railroads were told that they were not persons.
Having lost four cases in one year took a bit of the wind out of the sails of the
railroads, and there followed a few years of relative calm. The railroads
continued to assert they were "persons," but states and localities continued to
call them "artificial persons" and passed laws regulating their activities.
4/21/03
Page 6 of 8
For 20 years corporate personhood was debated. Across America, politicians
were elected repeatedly on platforms that included the regulation of
corporations, particularly the railroads. But the legal fight continued -- and in
1886 the railroad hit paydirt.
The Supreme Court ruled on an obscure taxation issue in the Santa Clara
County vs. The Union Pacific Railroad case, but the Recorder of the court -- a
man named J. C. Bancroft Davis, himself formerly the president of a small
railroad -- wrote into his personal commentary of the case (known as a
headnote) that the Chief Justice had said that all the Justices agreed that
corporations are persons.
And in so doing, he -- not the Supreme Court, but its clerical recorder --
inserted a statement that would change history and give corporations
enormous powers that were not granted by Congress, not granted by the
voters, and not even granted by the Supreme Court. Davis's headnote, which
had no legal standing, was taken as precedent by generations of jurists
(including the Supreme Court) who followed and apparently read the headnote
but not the decision.
What is especially ironic about this is that Davis knew the Court had not ruled
on this issue. We found a handwritten note in the J.C. Bancroft Davis
collection in the Library of Congress, from Chief Justice Waite to reporter
Davis, explicitly saying, "we did not meet the constitutional issues in the
case." (In other words, the Court had decided the case on lesser grounds,
which it always prefers to do when possible.)
Yet Davis wrote that the constitutional issue of corporate personhood had
been decided, and his headnote was published the year Waite died, most likely
after Waite's death. The railroads were persons, he wrote (in the headnote),
implying that they're entitled to the same rights as persons. And Davis
attributed this new legal reality to Chief Justice Waite who had specifically, in
writing, disavowed it (although that note wouldn't become public for over a
hundred years -- it's now on my Web site).
Another great irony of this event is that the Bill of Rights was designed to
protect human persons because of their vulnerability in relations with other
human persons who may be much more powerful. But corporations are
bestowed with potential immortality, can change their identity in a day or
even tear off parts of themselves and instantly turn those parts into entirely
new "persons." Yet regardless of all these superhuman powers, corporations
are now considered persons.
These non-living, non-breathing persons are now, according to the
pronouncements of their own attorneys and spokespeople who cite the
headnotes of the Santa Clara County case, fully entitled to the protections that
Thomas Jefferson and James Madison wrote into the Bill of Rights to shield
human persons from abuse by such powerful institutions as governments.
Even the American Civil Liberties Union, in a recent and misguided effort,
argued before the Supreme Court that corporations should have the free
speech right to lie (or say anything else they want) that's granted to humans
4/21/03
Page 7 of 8
by the First Amendment.
A few of the world's largest corporations referenced
Santa Clara and successfully claimed the protection
Corporations are of the First Amendment, then lobbied Congress and
bestowed with the FCC to relax local ownership rules so they could
potential immortality, take control of our media. Once that was done, they
claimed First Amendment free speech rights to tell
us whatever serves their interest and call it "news"
without consideration of its truthfulness or having to
' == :~ worry about giving fair and equal time to other
viewpoints. They claim the protection of the Fourth Amendment (search and
seizure) so they can prevent the EPA and OSHA from inspecting factories for
environmental or labor violations without first obtaining the corporation's
permission -- which they say can be withheld for any reason.
They now have the protection of the Fifth Amendment so they are protected
from double jeopardy and don't have to answer questions about their own
crimes. They now have the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment so they
can sue local towns or counties or states that try to pass laws to protect local
small businesses against their predations.
The structure for this displacement of humans by corporations under the
Constitution has been in place since 1886, but only since the 1980s have our
largest corporations aggressively used the courts to claim human rights.
(Interestingly, small and medium-sized corporations almost never use this
argument: To them if corporate personhood vanished, nothing would change.)
But a human backlash is now developing.
In 10 Pennsylvania townships, the Community Environmental Legal Defense
Fund (CELDF) has helped local governments pass ordinances denying
corporate personhood in order to block large corporate factory farms from
setting up in areas previously the sole territory of family farms. In the city of
Point Arena, Califi, voters passed a resolution declaring corporate personhood
a threat to democracy, and encouraging a debate on it by other communities.
The Woman's International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF),
America's oldest and most prestigious women's rights group (founded in
by Jane Addams, with two Nobel Prize Winners as past presidents), declared
at their July, 2002 annual meeting the kick-off of a three-year "Abolish
Corporate Personhood" educational and legislative campaign.
And elected officials across the nation are discovering that meaningful
campaign finance reform, effective environmental protections and human-
friendly health care will only happen when corporations can no longer use the
extraordinary power of the Bill of Rights to insinuate themselves into politics
and legislation.
An Internet search on the phrase "corporate personhood" will find thousands
of sites discussing or devoted to the topic, and models of legislation to remedy
4/21/03
Page 8 of 8
the error of 1886.
But the first step, as always, is awakening people to the root cause of the
problems we face -- the use of corporate personhood by a handful of the
world's largest enterprises to insinuate themselves into governments and seize
control of legislative and regulatory agendas. As enough voters learn the
history and realize the consequences of this, the solution -- ending corporate
personhood -- will become more and more possible, and Paine's and
Jefferson's original idea of democracy representing "we, the people" will
come back to life.
Click here to subscribe Io our free e-mail dispatch and get the latest on what% new at TomPaine.com before everyone else!
You can unsubscribe at any time and we will never distribute your information to any other entity.
Published: Apr 15 2003
*** eSafe scanned this emall for malicious content ***
*** IMPORTANT: Do not open attachments from unrecognized senders
4/21/03
Submitted by Council Member Pfab
JOHNSON COUNTY EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
Thomas L. Hansen
EmeFgenc¥ Management CoordinatoF
April 17, 2003
The Johnson County Emergency Management Co~ission a.k.a, the Civil Defense
Board will meet in regular session on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 at 7:30 p.m. in
the Sheriff's Conference Room at the Johnson County Jail Building at 511 So.
Capitol Street in Iowa City, Iowa.
AGENDA
1. Meeting called to order by Chairperson at 7:30 p.m.
2. Reading and action on the minutes of March 26, 2003 meeting.
3. Reading and action on expenses since the March 26, 2003 meeting.
4. Reading and action on the receipts since the March 26, 2003 meeting.
5. Discussion by the Emergency Management Coordinator.
6. Discussion and Action by Commission
a. Old Business
1. Introduction of Brady Robbins and update on Supplemental Grant
2. Homeland Secudty
b. New Business
1. HazMat billing
7. Discussion by Commission Members
8. Discussion by General Public
9. Motion for Adjournment
The next meeting of the Emergency Management Commission will
be Wednesday, May 28, 2003.
51 I S. CAPITOL / P.O. BOX 169 / IOWA CITY, IOWA 52244 / TELEPHONE (319) 356-6028
FAX: (319) 339-6175 EMAIL: jocoema@co.johnson.ia.us
JOHNSON COUNTY
JOHNSON COUNTY EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
Thomas L. Hansen
Emergency Management Coordinator
The Johnson County Emergency Management Commission met in regular session on
Wednesday, March 26, 2003 in the Conference Room of the Sheriff's Building located at
511 So. Capitol Street, Iowa City, Iowa.
In attendance were:
Pat Harney - Board of Supervisor Gary Kinsinger - Coralville
George Murphy - Hills Irvin Pfab - Iowa City
Dave Smith - Lone Tree Matt Bahl - North Liberty
Don Saxton - Oxford/Chairperson Bob Carpenter - Sheriff
Greg Morris - Solon Dave Shaffer - Tiff'm
Adrian Schoenmaker - U Heights Tom Hansen - EMA Coordinator
Sue Faith - EMA Asst.
Ron Stutzman and Roger Jensen of the Iowa City Fire Dept. were present as guests.
1.) The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairperson Don Saxton.
2.) The minutes of the February 2003 meetings were read. Dave Smith moved that the minutej be
accepted with the only change noted is that the second line of the second page which reads, "This
will not replace 29E" to read "This will not replace 28E...". With the noted change Gary Kinsinger
seconded the motion to approve the minutes as amended. Motion carried.
3.) The receipt of expenses since the February meeting were reviewed. Dave Smith moved that the
receipts be accepted. There was discussion about the Qwest telephone bill. This supports the
telephones in the EOC (Emergency Operations Center) but this bill should be changing due to the
change in the phone system. There was also discussion about the copier expense and Tom explained
that it is large because it is for 2 months extra copies expense. The Sheriffreminded the Commission
members that the copier expense is in exchange of rent. Irvin Pfab seconded the motion. Motion
carried.
4.) The report of receipts received since the February meeting were reviewed. Dave Smith moved
that the report be accepted. The one item of note is a reimbursement from IKON (the copier
people). Irvin Pfab seconded the motion. Motion carried.
5.) Discussion by Tom Hansen, Emergency Management Coordinator. Busy week with many
tornado presentations and a health fair today at Solon High School. Lots of nights out. Not really
much that isn't on the agenda.
51 I S. CAPITOL / P.O. BOX 1 t59 / IOWA CITY, IOWA 52244 / TELEPHONE {319) 356-6028
FAX: 1319) 339-6175 EMAIL: iocoema@co johnson.ia.us
6.) Discussion and Action by the Commission
A. Old Business
1. Supplemental Grant. Talked to ECCOG and Brady Robbins about the Supplemental
Grant. ECCOG is too busy to be able to do the Grant at this point but Brady Robbins
sent a proposal. Tom feels that at this point it would be better to have someone who is
not in emergency management in this office do the grant. Tom distributed a copy of the
proposal listing the expenses. Tom recommended Brady explaining that this proposal is
for ail 4 components including the EMAP (the self assessment process), Citizen Corps,
Emergency Response Team, and the plan writing expected to take 610 hours. The
emergency management office would keep 5% of the total money for the adminisU'ative
fees. The question was asked if some of this has already been done and the answer is that
reviewing and rewriting the MultiHazurd Plan was included in the original application in
case there was extra money or time available once the original process is completed.
Brady is a former State EMD employee and is doing plans and grants for a couple other
counties. The Commission or a committee made up of Commission members would
review and approve all portions of the plan. George Murphy made the motion to
approve the contract to have Brady Robbins complete the Supplemental Grant.
fry Pfab seconded the motion. Motion carried. Tom '~,511 ask Brad)' Robbins to at,end
the next Commission meeting.
2. Homeland Security. There is some confusion with Homeland Security and questions
whether it should be more Emergency Management, Law Enforcement, Fire Service, US
Atty General or FBI focused. Sheriff Carpenter reports having difficulties contacting
Ellen Gordon, the Iowa Homeland Security representative appointed by the Governor.
Statewide there are problems and questions with who can access the target info from the
State and, once obtained, recipients cannot disseminate to other entities. This is
significant to the local law enforcement agencies as they are making the county secure
with the threat level now at orange. The State Police Chiefs & Sheriff's organizations
and the State Fire Chiefs are trying to cover the information gap being experienced by
everyone. Final word is that Commission members do not have to do any special
notification to their communities at this point but there is a system in place that will be
put into action should there be any local threat and that in Johnson County all entities are
working in collaboration and communicating regularly.
3. Approval of EMA Coordinator as Homeland Security liaison/representative.
SheriffCarpenter states that he proposes that Tom Hansco should be the contact person
but that there should be a committee that would make decisions about disseminating any
funds received. The committee could be appointed at a later date. Dave Smith moved
that Tom Hansco be approved as the Homeland Security contact to the State and
Federal agencies for Johnson County with a committee to support him to be
appointed at a later date. The committee will be made up, potentially, of law
enforcement, fire, health and EMS reps. Matt Bahl seconded the motion. Motion
carried.
B. New Business
There was no new business.
10. Discussion by Commission Members
Dave Smith asked about Weather Spotter training and was referred to the flyer distributed
to commmsion members.
11. Comments from the GeneraIPublie.
There were none.
12. Call for adjournment
Greg Morris moved that the meeting be adjourned. Motion seconded by numerous
Commission members. Motion rarried. Meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
The next meeting of the Emergency Management Commission
will be Wednesday, April 23rd at 7:30 p.m.
MINUTES Preliminary r~
iOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 2003 - 5:00 P.M.
CIVIC CENTER - COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mike Paul, Dennis Keitel, Vince Maurer, Carol Alexander, Eric Gidal
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: John Adam, Mitch Behr, Sarah Holecek,
OTHERS PRESENT: Jim Clark, Joe Holland, Ronald Wade, John Moreland, Marc Moen, Tim Schroeder,
Doug Boothrooy
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Mike Paul called the meeting to order at 5:02 P.M.
ROLL CALL:
Alexander, Keitel, Paul, Gidal, and Maurer present.
CONSIDERATION OF THE MARCH 12, 2003 BOARD MINUTES:
Motion: Maurer moved to approve the March 12, 2003 minutes. Gidal seconded. Motion carried 5-0.
APPEALS:
AP03-00001. Public hearing regarding an application submitted by James Clark appealing a ZCIP ruling
that the installation of a pass-through door between adjoining dwelling units in multi-family residential
buildings would create a single dwelling unit.
Adam reported that the applicant had inquired in 1996 about installing pass-through doors between side-
by-side units in more than one of his multi-family properties, and was told that the presence of the doors
would create one single unit. The applicant appealed to the Zoning Code Interpretation Panel, which
affirmed that conclusion based on the definition of a dwelling unit as found in the Zoning Chapter.
Adam said that there is nothing to prevent the applicant from installing the doors; however, once they are
installed it may be problematic going backward and restoring the wall. He said that not every situation can
be anticipated. He stated that the outcome of this appeal would affect the regulation of nearly every multi-
family property in the City, not just those owned by the applicant.
Adam reiterated that under the definition of a dwelling unit in the Zoning Chapter, the installation of pass-
through doors would make the units into one single dwelling unit because it is adjoining habitable rooms
with cooking, eating, sleeping and living facilities. He said multiplying any of these facilities is immaterial
from a definitional standpoint. There is no rule saying that a dwelling cannot have more than one kitchen,
bathroom, living room or family room. He said that how the unit is leased is immaterial from an
administrative perspective, because they can be leased bedroom-by-bedroom or as a single unit, but it
remains by definition a single unit.
Adam said that the problem occurs when the definition is treated as a fluid thing; flipping back and forth
changes calculated density, calculation of required parking, and other zoning factors. He said that some
uses exist as legally conforming uses; that is, they become nonconforming because of a zoning or
ordinance change, but are allowed to continue as nonconforming uses until redevelopment occurs, or
until the use changes or the use is discontinued for a year or more. The degree of nonconformity cannot
be increased; you cannot go from nonconforming, to conforming, then back to nonconforming. You must
comply with the current zoning requirements.
Adam said that parking calculations are done on the basis of bedrooms; two 2-bedroom units would
require four parking spaces, and one 4-bedroom unit would require three parking spaces. Therefore, you
could have a situation where you have enough parking, but if you revert to two 2-bedroom units you might
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
April 9, 2003
Page 2
be short. He said it would depend on a case-by-case basis. He said that once the two units are made into
one unit, they could not be made back into two units as though nothing had changed.
Adam said that staff maintains that the definition of a dwelling unit can only be interpreted as it has been
outlined, and it would take a substantive change to the definition in order to read it any other way.
Therefore, he said that staff recommends that AP03-00001, an application to reverse the Zoning Code
Interpretation Panel ruling dated 25 March 1996, and subsequent affirmation of said ruling dated 1 April
2003 be denied.
In response to a question from Maurer, Doug Boothroy stated that the practical issue is enforcement. He
said that when there is a wall, there are obviously two separate units, and occupancy and density are
computed on a per-unit basis. He said the installation of a doorway would confuse that determination; the
City would not know from one time to the next whether there are two units or one unit, and not being able
to determine occupancy could lead to abuse in some of the older neighborhoods of the community. He
said the City has been consistent in determining that if there is no wall separating "units", they are
considered one unit. He said that this is carrying out the legislative intent of the ordinance, which
approves buildings at a certain density.
In response to a question from Paul, Boothroy said that, in a practical sense, the City would not know
when the doors are open or closed. He said that they just spent a year with the Neighborhood Task Force
dealing with the issue of occupancy, and right now they are dealing with controversial issues with regard
to occupancy. He said it is a very real issue on the Northside and in other neighborhoods, and to allow
the fluidity and greyness in what is a dwelling unit and what is not a dwelling unit is going to create a lot of
confusion and possibly make it chaotic in the sense of enforcing occupancy standards.
In response to a question from Maurer, Boothroy said that the applicant wants to install doors so that the
two units can communicate. He confirmed that the two units each have separate doors. Maurer asked if
the distance between the outside doors and the proposed inside door is at issue. Boothroy stated that the
point is that the City cannot tell if there are two separate dwelling units anymore. He said this undermines
some of the principles of the Zoning Code in terms of density. He said that once you install an opening
between two units so that they can communicate as one, there is no way to regulate whether the door is
closed and it is to be considered two units, or the door is open and they are one unit. He said there is no
way to regulate and enforce that effectively, and it can create problems, maybe not so much with newer
buildings, but in older homes where you have dwelling units in attic areas or walk-out basements and
those kinds of situations.
Maurer compared the current proposal to the Sheraton Hotel, which has a series of adjoining rooms. He
questioned whether the apartment situation would operate the same way. Boothroy said that is regulated
as a motel and is not comparable. He said that the City does not regulate density in a motel.
Keitel suggested that the apartments, for zoning purposes, be defined as two units at all times, whether or
not there is a door or not. Boothroy said that by definition, the opening that is created between two units
makes them one unit. He said that once they have breached the wall, they have created the opening,
which creates one unit.
As an example, Boothroy stated that, in a single-family house you double the density by putting the door
in. By opening or shutting that door, you double the density. Therefore, if someone complains, the City
investigates and finds that they have a finished off basement and there are people living down there, the
occupants may say this is a non-conforming separate dwelling unit, separated by a door. He said that the
City does not buy that you can double the density, and neither do the neighbors. Keitel asked if they
would have to have separate kitchen, bath, etc. to be defined as a separate unit. Boothroy said it does not
make any difference. He said they issue permits where there are two fully equipped kitchens in a house,
with a door separating the facilities, but it is not considered a duplex. It would have to have a separate
wall.
Boothroy said that the other thing to consider is that the interpretation was not made by three different
points of view, not by one person. He said that the ZCIP consists of the Director of Planning, which is the
department that typically writes the Code; the Director of Housing & Inspection Services, which is the
body that enforces the Code; and the Legal Department, who is the City's legal advisor. This gives three
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
April 9, 2003
Page 3
areas of expertise looking at the definition and the common sense usage of it and coming to the
conclusion that once you create that hole for the purpose of making one unit sometimes, you have
created one dwelling unit. He said that all staff is saying is, follow the rules of the Zoning Ordinance and
when you convert it back, comply fully.
Paul asked if the essence of this appeal is the definition of a dwelling unit and the interpretation of that.
Boothroy stated that is the issue; whether the Board feels the ZCIP made an error in the interpretation.
Behr clarified that the question before the Board is whether the Zoning Code Interpretation Panel made
an error in its interpretation. He said that the Board's determination as to how this particular definition is to
be interpreted will apply throughout all zones and all settings.
Boothroy said that if the Board feels the ZCIP's interpretation is reasonable, then the Board should
support that interpretation. He said that if they don't like the interpretation for other reasons, the applicant
should appeal to the Council to legislatively change it. He said the Board should not conjure up an
interpretation because they don't like this one, but they should support the ZCIP or determine they made
an error.
Public Hearing Opened
Joe Holland introduced himself as the attorney for the applicant. He said that he thinks there are some
misconceptions created by Mr. Boothroy's statements, with some serious differences of opinion in
interpretation of this ordinance. He said that, in his opinion, if anyone has conjured something up, it is the
Zoning Code Interpretation Panel and not the applicant.
Holland said that the Board of Adjustment has somewhat of a unique role in this situation because, under
State law, when you are hearing appeals you are a quasi-judicial tribunal, which means they are acting
somewhat like a court and interpreting this and deciding what the meaning of this zoning ordinance is.
Holland said that the concept is to place a doorway with two doors between two apartments. He
presented a floor plan to the Board of a representative unit in which something like this might happen. He
pointed out two mirror image units with a common wall. He said they were talking about putting a doorway
through this common wall, connecting two apartments. This would allow people to pass back and forth to
visit. He said this will consist of two doors, with each apartment having a door that can be locked, opened
and closed at their discretion. He said the doors cannot be opened from the other side; there are no
knobs on the internal sides of the doors. Holland presented a diagram to the Board illustrating this
concept.
Holland said that the opening would be 36" wide, in an wall that is almost 24' in length. He said this would
not be an archway, french doors, or any type of big connection between two apartments. He said the door
would be a one-hour fire rated door on each side, on magnetic latches to automatically close if the fire
alarm system in the building goes off. He said that from a building code standpoint these doors don't
exist; they are a wall because they have a full one-hour fire rating. He said that he does not believe there
is any issue over the legality of putting in these communicating doors.
Holland said there will be no other change made in the apartments; each still has a full kitchen, all the
pre-existing rooms, each has a fully separate plumbing system, separate electrical systems, all have
separately metered utilities, and remain two fully independent, functional apartments. He said that an
obvious question is, why would a tenant want to live in a place like this? He said that the reality is that
tenants in a lot of apartment buildings want to live next door to their friends so they can regularly visit. He
said they specifically request apartments next to each other but want to keep their privacy. He said the
proposed doorway allows the tenants to visit one another without having to go out into the common
hallway, which is probably a 20-30 foot walk. He said there are other side benefits, including a sense of
additional security.
Holland said there will be two leases, which is a benefit to the tenants. He said that it is harder to
sublease a four bedroom apartment than a two bedroom unit. He said that right now, you can have five
tenants in a two bedroom apartment under the zoning ordinance if you have sufficient square footage. He
said you can have five tenants in a four bedroom apartment if you have sufficient square footage.
Therefore, the density goes down from 10 people to 5 people maximum if the door creates a four
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
April 9, 2003
Page 4
bedroom unit. He said it does not make any sense to say it permanently becomes a four bedroom
apartment and that becomes an issue for density. He said the applicant wants to maintain the pre-existing
density, not increase it.
Holland said another question would be, why would a landlord want to do this? He said that the rental
market ebbs and flows and evolves as lifestyles change, as student populations change. He said it is all
about trying to give tenants what they want.
Holland said that if you follow the ZCIP interpretation literally, it says when those doors are unlocked it
becomes one unit. Therefore, just putting the doors in does not create one unit. He said the problem in
that interpretation is that, because of parking or other zoning requirements a unit may lose its
grandfathered status and, instead of having two 2-bedroom units, you have an apartment that cannot be
used in that fashion under the interpretation at appeal. Holland said that he feels that the interpretation is
a flawed interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance. He said that the ZCIP assumed, without any explanation,
that people in these apartment would essentially live together. He said, in fact, each unit is fully functional
as an independent living unit and the mere ability to pass back and forth to visit does not determine that
those people are living together. They could do the same thing by going down that common hallway; this
doorway just makes it easier for the residents of two units to visit one another.
Holland stated that the real issue for the Board is, was the interpretation correct. He said the 1996 ruling
quoted three factors the panel looked at: 1) definition of dwelling unit in the zoning ordinance; 2)
existence of common areas shared by both units; and 3) whether there are separate entrances.
Holland said there would be separate entrances to all of these apartments.
He said the panel stated in their 1996 opinion, that whether the units become one hinges on whether
there are common areas shared by both units. He said they assumed there would be common areas;
nowhere in the opinion is a definition or example of common area. He said that you do not assume in a
decision - you look at the ordinance to see in facts if there is something there. He said he was unable to
find a dictionary definition of common area, but there are some areas of the law which give definition to
that. He quoted a passage from a criminal text, under the context of search and seizure law, a tenant
doesn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a common area. He said that police essentially don't
need a warrant to go in and search a common area. He said that cases that deal with common area say
there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. He said that the two doors which can be locked from either
side, means that no resident has a reasonable expectation they can enter the other unit or that that is a
common area. He said they can be restricted by the turn of a deadbolt to their own apartment and cannot
get into the other side. He stated that common area implies a right of use. He said the hallways are public
areas, every tenant has a right to use those. He said there is no right to use either apartment in the
situation at hand; you have a right that is controlled by the occupants of the other apartment.
Holland said that the definition of a dwelling unit sounds deceptively simple. He said that Boothroy said
you put in a door and create one unit, but did not give any explanation as to how that happens. He said
that the 1996 panel ruling and the staff report talk about the definition being adjoining habitable rooms. He
said the question is what adjoining means. He said it is not defined in the Zoning Ordinance. He said that
when you are dealing with statutory interpretation, you don't go by what you think something means, you
look for a definition. He said there is a provision in the Zoning Ordinance which says that if there is a term
that is not defined, you go to Webster's Collegiate Dictionary. Holland presented the Webster's definition
of adjoining: "Touching or bounding at a point or line." He said that in that sense, these units are already
adjoining - they share the common wall. He said he has heard no explanation which says that opening a
door makes these units any more or less adjoining, or that unlocking them makes them any more or less
adjoining.
Holland asked if opening the adjoining doors between two hotel rooms forever make that one room? He
said you have to set aside some of the nuances of the Zoning Ordinance, but he does not believe you
would think you could not close those doors, lock them from both sides and make them into two rooms.
He said they would be rented again as two rooms, and these apartments are not any different.
Holland asked the Board to keep in mind that this appeal is about what the ordinance says. It's not about
what the City staff would like it to say. He said when courts interpret laws, they are bound by what the
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
April 9, 2003
Page 5
lawmakers said, whether it is the legislature, city council, or whomever it is, and not what they might have
said.
Holland said the staff report says the problem occurs when the definition of a dwelling unit is treated like a
fluid thing. He said that what makes this fluid is the stance that the City staff and the ZCIP have taken. He
said they say, if you put a door in we can't tell if it is two 2-bedrooms or one 4-bedroom. He said the easy
answer is to say that door doesn't make any difference - it doesn't change anything. He said if you are
looking for a logical and straightforward interpretation, the interpretation you need to follow is that it stays
what it is, the door doesn't really make any difference. He said that if it were a 10' archway, it would make
a difference because then you don't have the right to restrict it.
Holland said he does not see this as something subject to widespread abuse. He said this two-door
system would have a one-hour fire rating, a magnetic latch on it connected to a central system, and there
is no real harm that needs to be prevented here. He said there would be no more occupants in these
apartments than there are now. He said there may be visitors, but those visitors can come in the front
door as well as they can come through a communicating door. He suggested that if you want to keep this
enforceable, have the City staff know what's what - don't get into the issue of whether the door is
installed, unlocked, opened. He said the easy answer is, this doesn't make any change in use, it just
preserves the status quo.
Holland asked that the Board look at the control, or common area, issue. He said that is what makes two
dwelling units into one. He said that requires some right to use that common area - not just the ability to
walk in if the door's unlocked. He said he feels the ZCIP did not look at this issue in enough depth - they
didn't think through how to make it enforceable. He does not feel they thought through what the term
adjoining means. He said that he thinks that when you look at the ordinance, the provisions of it, and the
issue that is squarely in front of the Board, that their analysis is wrong and the Board should overturn the
decision.
Gidal stated that he does not feel adjoining is the key word. He said it's an odd definition, because as he
reads it, a dwelling is defined as any habitable room or group of adjoining habitable rooms located within
a dwelling and forming a single unit with facilities used or intended to be used for living, sleeping, cooking
and eating meals. He said that what is odd to him about the definition is, it's defining a dwelling unit as a
single unit. He said the word adjoining just seems to be about making the point that you wanted to have
rooms in one part of the building and rooms in a different part of the building, but he does not see how the
decision was based on a weird interpretation of adjoining. He questioned how Mr. Holland feels the Board
is to interpret the phrase, "and forming a single unit". He said that seems the central part of the question,
not the word adjoining.
Holland said that was not really anything the ZCIP looked at when they analyzed. He said that in their
opinion, they specifically quoted the adjoining part. He said that he thinks a single unit is a group of rooms
which has all the facilities there which are legally required or practically necessary to live there, which
means you have to have hot and cold running water, you have to have a water closet, you have to have a
shower or tub, cooking facilities. He said that holds true if you are looking at an apartment or single-family
residence. He said that you could also look at rooming houses. He said a dwelling is the entire structure
which is intended for use for residential occupancy, not the apartment. He said a single unit is one which
can be operated on its own without receiving services from an outside source. He said that he doesn't
think it makes any difference here because you have two units that are completely functional and
independent; each is a single unit. Therefore, he does not understand how putting an opening with a
couple locking doors in it turns two single units into one unit.
Gidal asked where in the finding the word adjoining becomes the central point. Holland stated that the
ZCIP quoted the definition of adjoining habitable rooms, and on page 2 of the staff report, it states that
under the definition of a dwelling unit in the zoning chapter, the installation of pass through doors between
adjoining units makes them a single dwelling unit: they would constitute adjoining habitable rooms. He
stated that by putting "adjoining habitable rooms" in quotes, staff is indicating that those three words
indicate why the Board should support the ruling. Holland stated that the ruling seems to hinge on the
creation of common areas, and he does not feel that by any stretch of the imagination you can say these
doors create common areas. Holland said he prefers the term "communicating doors".
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
April 9, 2003
Page 6
Keitel stated that it is easier for enforcement people to police common doors in a hotel situation. He
asked how the City should enforce whether both doors are in place and functioning, have not been
removed by the tenants, etc. Holland said that is a problem with any Code issue. He said the tenants
could knock out the wails themselves, and the City would only know it every two years. He said that it's
like any Code violation - if the inspectors 9o in on routine inspections, they cite the landlord if the doors
are not there. He said he does not see it as a material issue - it is like any Code enforcement issue. He
said the real problem lies in determining whether you have one or two units for occupancy purposes. He
said that he feels the real nightmare is in the wording by the panel, that it becomes one unit when the
doors are unlocked and you can't revert back to two units by locking the doors.
Jim Clark, applicant, introduced himself. He said that all of their apartment units are from 1970 on. He
said the two bedrooms are large, and if they were combined into one 1800-2000 sq.ft, apartment, they will
lose control. He said that they plan to stay with a two bedroom lease. There would be a door in between,
but they are not changing the character of the apartments.
Clark said that the hotel door supports their position. He said two couples get together, take rooms side
by side, they may have cocktails or something then they go back to their own room, lock the door and
have their privacy. He said the students like this - they need the comfort of having people, but when it
comes time for bed, they like to shut the door, turn the lock and feel secure in their own apartment.
Clark said this door also gives a second exit if there were a fire problem, especially if you are on the third
floor.
Clark said that he had just talked with Boothroy today on some issues. He said that if the City's
interpretation is maintained, they would have two apartments in one apartment. He said that in the RNC-
20 area, they could possibly put in a large apartment with five efficiencies with doors in between, and this
would create one apartment. He said this interpretation does not work well in some other areas.
In response to a question from Gidal, Clark said that he wants the doors for a number of reasons. First,
he said kids today want to socialize together, but not live together. He said this is a way of satisfying that
need in the community, helping to rent apartments. He said it also gives the kids a better chance to
sublet. Cost-wise, Clark said the lease would only be $600-$800 a month, whereas if it is classified as a
four bedroom, the lease would be $1,200-$I,600. He said this proposal would have so many advantages,
and will really help the students and parents out.
Boothroy stated that the Board should not focus on Jim Clark's application; we need to look at the
application for the City as a whole. He said the City has no control once the doors are installed; they don't
know how the spaces will be used - in common or separate; they don't know what the occupancy will be.
He stated that, in his experience, the highest occupancy will occur under certain circumstances with
certain landlords, and there will be abuses.
Boothroy stated that if the Board overrules the Zoning Code Interpretation Panel's decision in this case,
they take away any kind of discreet or absolute way of determining the difference between what a
dwelling unit is and what it isn't. He asked the Board to keep that as clear as possible for enforcement
purposes.
Boothroy said that there are no standards in looking at this interpretation. He said there is nothing in the
Code that requires certain things, and the Board is not in the position to make those kinds of decisions.
He said the Board is here to decide whether the ZCIP made an error - to uphold the decision or overrule
it. He said this brings a lot of jeopardy because, while it sounds very idealistic with Mr. Clark, there are
many out there that would not take the initiative and the City will still be enforcing and still have to deal
with over-occupancy. Boothroy said he does not see any reason to cloud the issue, confuse it, or to
make enforcement of occupancy in this community more difficult. He said the ZCIP interpretation is
reasonable and it mirrors practice for the last 20 years.
Gidal questioned whether Boothroy could imagine a legislative distinction or change being made to allow
the kinds of circumstances Mr. Clark wants to follow and still give the City the enforcement power they are
concerned about. Boothroy said he thinks it is possible to write legislation with specific standards built in.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
April 9, 2003
Page 7
He said that was not what the ZCIP was looking at, and he suggests that if this is a good idea, that steps
should maybe be taken to look at the process to amend the Code, coming up with appropriate standards.
Public Hearing Closed
Motion: Gidal moved for the reversal of the Zoning Code Interpretation Panel ruling, AP03-00001,
on effect of pass-through doors between adjourning dwelling units in multi-family residential
buildings. The motion was seconded by Alexander.
Findinqs of Fact
Maurer stated that, as he understands it, the question before the Board is whether the breaching of the
wall and the installation of the doors constitutes a change in use as to the number of units. He said that,
in his opinion, the installation of the doors does not per se constitute a change in use as to the number of
units. He said he believes the location of the proposed doors versus the doors that are already there does
not change the situation - it's a difference in distance between the current doors and the proposed doors
only. Also, from a pure practical standpoint, he does not see how it makes any difference. He said the
units will be rented and handled separately. He said even though it is different from a hotel situation, it
operates pretty much the same way. He said it seems to him that adjoining habitable rooms means
having contact. He said you already have contact - that wall runs the whole distance. He said it also says
when you are touching or it's next to, and it already does that. Therefore, he doesn't see that it makes any
difference. He said he does not see where it will open up a Pandora's Box as far as everyone rushing in
to put in two locked doors between two different units, and if it does, he does not feel that is the Board's
problem today because the issue before the "court" is this particular application. He said the Board needs
to look at this application and determine if it conforms or not within the issue of that statute. Because of
those reasons, he will vote in favor of the applicant.
Gidal stated he will vote to deny the applicant. He said he agrees that the question of adjoining rooms is
irrelevant. He feels the definition is problematic to begin with because it's a kind of circular definition,
wherein a dwelling unit is defined as a single unit, and the question is what is a unit in this context. He
said that, as he understands it, the Board's decision is, did the ZCIP make a reasonable interpretation of
the definition that was given to the Board. He said their explanation in the third paragraph of their finding
hinges on this question of do these units become one unit. He said they find that depends on a) are there
common areas shared by both units, and b) are there separate entrances to each unit. Albeit the term
"common" is a little odd, he feels it is quite clear that what they are after is, do these units in essence
become one in terms of their actual use, and it seems quite clear that if they were not going to become
one in terms of their use, there would be no point in installing the door. Therefore, he thinks the Code
itself is not well written; it is very ambivalent. Nonetheless, he thinks the original finding was a reasonable
interpretation of it and to make this distinction between the different concerns, between apartments and
houses that are being split up, would require a change in the drawing up of the zoning.
Keitel said that when he started researching this subject, he reviewed the Cedar Rapids and Marion
Zoning Ordinances, and their definition of a dwelling unit is almost identical to Iowa City's with the
addition of three more words: intended to be used by "one familial unit". He said his feeling is, for the
Building Department to say that putting a door between these units creates one unit is a crock. Therefore,
he will vote in favor of the appeal. He said that maybe the City needs to redefine the definition of a
dwelling unit, because finding that putting a door between two units and creating one unit is not a correct
interpretation.
Alexander stated that everyone has made terrific sense, though on different sides of the argument. She
said that when she started, she was basing her judgment on the words in the definition. However, sitting
here today the issue is not so easy. She said that, feeling constrained by the fact that the Board is just
making a judgment as to whether this group made an appropriate interpretation, she does not feel she
can find it was an inappropriate interpretation, so she is going to vote to deny.
Paul said that, for the reasons Gidal cited, he will vote to deny as well.
The motion failed on a vote of 3-2, Gidal, Alexander and Paul in the negative.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
April 9, 2003
Page 8
VARIANCES:
EXC03-00003. Public hearing regarding an application submitted by S & M Properties for a variance to
allow an additional sign along the frontage of a tract that has reached its allowable limit in the Community
Commercial (CC-2) zone at 1570 S. First Avenue.
Adam stated that the wording in the Agenda, "exceeded", should be changed to "reached" its allowable
Adam said that the applicant proposed to install a monument sign in front of his building at 1570 First
Avenue, containing smaller signs for the businesses in the building. He said that the sign ordinance
allows up to three signs along any single frontage if the frontage length exceeds 300 feet. He said the
signs must be spaced at least 150 feet apart, and no more than four signs are allowed per lot. He said a
tract is a group of lots linked by internal drives, and is considered to be a single lot for the purposes of the
sign ordinance. He said that in this application, there is a tract consisting of all the businesses and the
related parking lots from the DeliMart up to Eastdale Office Park, immediately east of the applicant's
building. He said the frontage length of this tract is approximately 1,000 feet, and there are three free-
standing signs along this frontage.
Adam quoted from Section 14-6W of the Zoning Chapter. He said that the first test is whether or not the
variance is not contrary to the public interest, meaning will it threaten neighborhood integrity or have a
substantially adverse affect on the use or value of other properties in the area. He said that staff finds that
the application does not meet this test. He said the addition of one more sign along this stretch of First
Avenue will not radically alter the streetscape, but at some point one more becomes too many. He said
that the City Council had determined in July 1999 that three is the limit. He said that if you have a corner
lot, you can have four (three on one side and one around the corner, or two on one side and two around
the corner). However, you are limited to three along any one side.
Adam said a variance in this case would be tantamount to a Code change and would establish a pattern
that would be difficult for the Board to ignore in future cases.
Adam said that another component to this test is whether the proposed variance will be harmony with the
general purpose and intent of the Zoning Chapter and not contravene the objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan. He said the application does not meet this test. He said a sign could meet the 150
foot spacing requirement in that there are 311 feet between the Eastdale sign and the Eastdale Office
Park sign, but the frontage already has its permitted number of signs. He said the additional sign would
counter the intent of the Zoning Chapter, which is to avoid visual clutter.
Adam said that the second test is, is there unnecessary hardship. The first part of that asks whether or
not the property in question can yield a reasonable return if used only for a purpose allowed in the zone
where the property is located. He said staff finds the application does not meet this test. The applicant
has already leased some of the office space and is enjoying rental income from the dwelling units in the
apartment above. He said the building design provides for the placement of facia signs visible from the
roadway, and these are not currently being utilized. Therefore, he said the applicant is not disadvantaged
by a restriction on signs.
Adam said the owner's situation is neither unique nor peculiar to the property in question. He said the
redevelopment of any of the properties in this tract would create the same situation. He said there is
nothing so unique about this tract that a property owner in a similar tract would not have similar signage
choices, including use of the facia signs. He said that staff feels that granting a variance in this case
would convey a special privilege to the applicant. He said the hardship of the applicant's own making. He
said the office agreement the applicant has with his office tenants promised space on a sign near the
roadway. He said such agreements were made prematurely and are not valid reasons for granting a
variance. Furthermore, he said the applicant has alternatives: facia signs, or moving the DeliMart sign
around the corner onto Lower Muscatine Road.
Adam said that, because the application does not meet all the tests, the Board cannot legally grant a
variance in this case, so staff recommends that VAR02-00002, an application submitted by S & M
Properties for a variance from the Zoning Ordinance to allow more than three free-standing signs along
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
April 9, 2003
Page 9
one frontage of a single tract in the Community Commercial (CC-2) Zone at 1570 First Avenue be
approved. Adam clarified that he was making this recommendation for approval only to make it easier for
the Board to make a motion.
Gidal asked for clarification on what constitutes this actual property. Paul asked that the linkage of the
property be clarified also. Adam stated that there are internal drives that circle around Eastdale Mall,
continuing back behind apartments and parking, Eastdale Office Park, and end next to Wendy's. He
clarified that the roads do not have to be in a straight line, so long as the commercial access is
contiguous. Adam stated that one sign belongs to Eastdale Office Park; one sign belongs to Eastdale
Mall; and the third belongs to DeliMart. However, the signs belong to the whole tract, which is considered
a lot for the purposes of the sign ordinance, even though the properties within the tract are owned by
different owners.
Keitel said that on his review of the Ordinance, he fails to see how the City can integrate the DeliMart
property with the rest of the frontage. Adam said that DeliMart has an exit south of its gas pumps directly
into the parking lot of Eastdale Mall. He said that the Housing Inspection Services provided him with this
determination. He said it does not exit directly onto Lower Muscatine Road, but goes into the aisles and
drives of the Eastdale Mall parking lot. He said the tract is comprised by all the properties that are linked
by internal drives. He reiterated that there are three signs allowed along a single frontage of a tract, no
matter who owns it.
Keitel stated there was a sign there previously when Papa Murphy's was there, and asked how the City
explained that sign. Adam said it could have been an oversight. Keitel asked about grandfathering that
sign in, and Adam said it was a complete change of use and new construction entirely, so they are
subject to the current rules. Adam said he cannot speak to the issue of why there was a sign there
previously in that he does not know what the circumstances were.
Gidal clarified that the Wendy's sign is irrelevant for this application. Adam said that Wendy's is opened
but they have parking spaces up against it so Housing Inspection said it is not counted as part of the tract
because it has its own complete internal circulation pattern independent of all the other lots.
In response to questions from Maurer, Adam said that the two signs there currently are free-standing. He
said that a monument sign basically looks like a gravestone in shape, and he said he believes they are
permitted 50 square feet in signage area, 25 per side. He said the height limit could be 25 feet, depending
on the zone. He said they have to be internally lit.
In response to a question from Maurer, Adam said that no matter what type of building was built on the
lot, there would be no free-standing or monument sign allowed due to the Zoning Ordinance. He said they
would have options for facia signs. He said that the applicant could use up to 15% of the building fa(;ade
in signage.
Public Hearing Opened
John Moreland introduced himself as the applicant. He said that he did not ask for a pole sign at the time
he came before the Board regarding apartments above the commercial space because he had talked with
people in the Building and Planning departments, who advised him that they were in the process of
reviewing the sign and zoning ordinance, so he should wait. He said that when Eastdale was built, all the
property was connected by a common frontage road because First Avenue is a very busy street. He said
the City wants to restrict the amount of openings onto First Avenue. He said if all the properties were
separate, they could put signs up every 150 feet without problem. He said that it flows better by
connecting all the driveways, and keeps the City happier because there are very few entrances onto First
Avenue. Moreland said that there are so many power poles, and he does not see how one more pole sign
will upset the apple cart.
Moreland said that the important thing is how far those signs are apart along the street, not whether they
are connected by a driveway. He said he agrees with the City that you don't want a sign every 50 feet
going down a street, but he thought the City was going to change the Code to say that you could put a
sign every 150 feet regardless of whether they are connected by a driveway.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
April 9, 2003
Page 10
Moreland said that he has been unable to rent about 18% of the space. He said that he felt he had a fairly
good chance of getting a sign, so there are some people who may not renew if he does not get the pole
sign. He said a pole sign is light years ahead of a building facia sign. He said part of the problem is, the
building sits back a way so people can go by without even seeing a facia sign. However, a pole sign kind
of reaches out and grabs. Moreland said he had been deferring this application for four or five months
because he thought it would be solved.
Moreland said that what it comes down to is if the lots were all separate with separate access, the owners
could have as many signs as they wanted. He said the Code should be written so that signs are spaced
for distance along First Avenue, not if they are connected by driveway. He said he does not believe a
variance in this case would open it up to problems - you have to look at each application individually.
In response to a question from Paul, Moreland said that he could not move the DeliMart sign around the
corner because there is a canopy covering the gas pumps. In addition, he said there is no way of making
one sign to advertise all these buildings - it would be so confusing no one would know where anything is.
He said if it was a beautification issue, the power lines should be buried and off the street.
In response to a question from Alexander, Adam said that large tracts such as this exist along Highway 6
and Highway 1.
In response to a question from Gidal regarding why a variance is tantamount to a Code change, Holecek
said that the staff report argument is that if a variance is allowed here, the Board is effectively doing a bit
of a Code change because they are allowing four signs within a tract. Keitel and Gidal stated that they
feel that is the definition of a variance.
Public Hearing Closed
Motion: Keitel moved that VAR02-00002, an application submitted by S&M Properties for a
variance from the zoning ordinance to allow more than three free-standing signs along one
frontage of a single tract in a Community Commercial (CC-2) zone at t570 First Avenue be
approved. Seconded by Maurer.
Keitel stated that he disagrees with most of the staff findings, and agrees with Mr. Moreland that there is a
hardship created, particularly with the limited number of curb cuts. In addition, he has a hard time
integrating DeliMart with this tract because, to him, it does not seem like it is. Therefore, he will vote in
favor of the variance.
Maurer said that he will vote in favor of the variance for the same reasons.
Gidal said he will vote in favor of the variance. He said he does not see how it is tantamount to a Code
change; it doesn't seem to threaten neighborhood integrity since this is certainly not a pristine block. He
said it does not seem to counter the intent of the Zoning Chapter to avoid visual clutter - they seem to be
kind of subjective judgments. He said it does seem to constitute an unnecessary hardship, and he does
not feel it conveys a special privilege any more than any variance. He said he does not believe the
hardship is of the landowner or applicant's making.
Alexander said she will vote to approve for the reasons set forth. She said she is particularly struck by the
hardship issues because she does think there is much more of a hardship being placed on the property
owner than is indicated in the staff report, and she feels that, in looking at what is before her, she cannot
see that this is contrary to the public interest in this area.
Paul said he would vote against. He said that he feels that granting this would counter the intent of the
Zoning Chapter.
The motion passed on a vote of 4-1, Paul in the negative.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
April 9, 2003
Page 11
SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS:
EXC03-00003. Public hearing regarding an application submitted by Ronald Wade for a special exception
to allow a school of specialized private instruction in the Intensive Commercial (C1-1) zone at 1565 South
Gilbert Street.
Adam stated that the applicant is requesting a special exception to allow a dog obedience school to lease
space in the north half of his commercial building at 1565 South Gilbert. He said that the school, Spot &
Co., is operated by Sue Pearson. He said the other leasable space in the building contains a real estate
office.
Adam said a school of specialized private instruction is permitted without any specific requirements. He
said that the owner is not anticipating a class size of over 12 or so dogs at a time. He said obedience
training takes place indoors on weekends and weekday evenings. He said that the current landlord for the
operation has informed staff that the operations are quiet, clean and conducted responsibly. He said there
would be no changes to the parking lot as a result of the exception. He said that traffic impact would take
place during off-peak hours. He said that the applicant's lot is currently deficient in right-of-way trees
which were lost during the 1993 floods, and the applicant will need four trees for compliance.
Adam said that staff feels the proposed use will work well in this location. He said that since this is in a
controlled flight zone, FAA standards leave it to the local building official to determine if the use is safe
and how many people can occupy the use. Using the former load factors as a guide, he said this space
could contain 73 people. However, since there are no more than a couple dozen people at any one time
in the class and since there are no plans to expand the class sizes, the lower cap would not burden the
use and would also be more likely to avoid a negative scrutiny by the FAA in this case.
Adam said that staff recommends that EXC03-00003, an application for a special exception to permit a
school of specialized private instruction be approved subject to compliance with 14-6R, Tree Regulations,
and provided the operations are solely for dog obedience classes and occupancy shall be limited to no
more than 35 persons at any one time.
In response to a question from Keitel, Holecek said that the City plans to articulate the use to be very
specific because of the airport regulations. Therefore, the Board needs to make the exception very
particularized to avoid passing this exception to a new use.
Public Hearing Opened
Ron Wade presented himself for questioning. He said this building has been vacant for a little over a year
and he would like to get it rented.
Public Hearing Closed
Motion: Alexander moved that £X003-00003, an application for a special exception to permit a
school of specialized private instruction be approved subject to compliance with '14-6R, Tree
Regulations, and provided the operations are solely for dog obedience classes and occupancy
shall be limited to no more than 35 persons at any one time. Keitel seconded.
Alexander said she would vote in favor of the exception. She said in no way does it violate any of the
specific or general standards in any of the ways that have been reviewed.
Keitel said he would vote in favor.
Gidal stated he would vote in favor. He said that the specific exception will not be detrimental to or
endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare; it will not be injurious to the use and
enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish and impair
property values in the neighborhood. It will not impede the normal and orderly development and
improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the zone in which this property is located.
Adequate utilities, access road, drainage, and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided;
adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress designed so as to minimize
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
April 9, 2003
Page 12
traffic congestion on traffic streets. He said that in all other respects it conforms to the applicable
regulations or standards of the Zone.
Maurer said he will vote in favor.
Paul said that he will vote in favor for the reasons previously stated.
The motion was approved on a vote of 5-0.
EXC03-00004. Public hearing regarding an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a special
exception to allow off-street parking in the Central Business District (CB-10) zone at Lot 64-1A.
Adam said that the applicant was requesting a special exception to allow off-street parking at urban
renewal lot 64-1A, at the southwest quadrant of Linn and College streets. He said development would
contain commercial and office space on the first two floors, with 57 residential units and 54 hotel suites
above. He said the property is currently used as a municipal surface parking lot. He said that as part of
the joint effort between the City and Moen Development to develop this parcel, the City agreed to initiate
the process to obtain a special exception.
Adam said that except for hotels or motels, private off-street parking can only be provided in the CB-10
zone through the granting of a special exception. He said the applicant requests consideration of 70
underground parking spaces and 22 surface spaces. The surface spaces will be short-term only and used
for customers of the grocery store should on the site plan. He said a pedestrian bridge will link to the City-
owned parking ramp to the south and serve the hotel portion. He said vehicular access to both the
surface and underground lots will be from Linn Street; access to the surface lot would be via a one-way
entrance and exiting traffic would leave via the public access driveway between the development and the
parking ramp to the south. He said that semis will still use this access driveway for deliveries, and
vehicles from the parking lot will use it for exiting.
Adam said the intent of the CB-10 zone says that off-street parking facilities will be publicly provided. The
policy of restricting private parking is intended to provide a high-density commercial and residential
development in the downtown area, to foster a pedestrian orientation along downtown streets, and reduce
overall congestion in the Central Business District. He said that individual parking lots take up valuable
downtown property that might otherwise be developed for more active uses. He said the City has made
effort to provide adequate parking in the downtown, representing a considerable public investment. He
said the Board should also consider whether the proposed private parking will be in direct competition
with public parking.
Adam said there are two different facilities to consider here - the underground parking lot that will be
used by residents of Plaza Towers, and the 22-space surface lot will be used for the grocery store. Both
are the subject of the request, but each has unique features. He said the underground i~arking will help
satisfy most of the long-term parking demand that is expected with this use - roughly 1-1/2 spaces per
unit. As a consequence, he said this should prevent some of the parking congestion that might otherwise
occur in the vicinity. Also, since this is underground the lot can be developed at nearly full density in this
case. He said downtown business owners expressed concerns in the 1997 Comprehensive Plan that
encouraging more housing in the CBD would place a strain as residents compete for available space that
they would like to have for their customers, so this exception proposes a solution to answer those
concerns. Neither will there be excess parking that the owner may use to compete directly with public
parking facilities.
He said that access from the facility will be from the street, but Linn Street is not a busy thoroughfare. He
said traffic tends to be slow because of the presence of angled parking opposite the development. He
said this is not set amid a row of restaurant and retail uses; there is not a lot to stop and look at now so it
will not be encroaching much on pedestrians because there are few hanging out around this side of the
block. Adam said that even when it is developed, the only thing facing the street directly will be the hotel
entrance to the north, and most likely people going to and from the hotel will be pulling up in front, parking
at the Dubuque St. parking ramp, or walking from it and entering from the Ped Mall.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
April 9, 2003
Page 13
Adam said the Plaza Towers developer contends the only way a grocery store can survive in the
downtown is if it has easily accessible parking dedicated to its use. He said this is due in pad to the
unique nature of grocery shopping - typically this occurs at the end of longer shopping trips, or it is the
sole object of the shopping trip. He said whereas public parking ramps and metered on-street parking are
fine for most types of shopping, grocery shopping is either going to be quick and light or a little more
cumbersome, where you are wheeling a cart out to your car or driving up. Staff believes that until the
downtown has a critical mass of residents who on their own can support a grocery store, a small amount
of parking now could mean the difference between the grocery store going in or not going in and
subsequently surviving in this location. Adam said that, in staff's opinion, the amount of parking is not
excessive for the use. He said that, for comparison purposes, in the CB-5 zone, a maximum of one space
per 500 sq. ft. is allowed. For this grocery store, this would come out to 26 spaces; they want to put in 22.
Adam said that the developer is not proposing an amount of parking that will exceed demand generated
by the use provided so there should be ne excess available for other retail uses in the area and it will not
be competing with public parking facilities. He said the developer plans to use methods of controlling the
parking use to make sure the lot serves the intended users and not used as free parking.
Adam stated that there are three specific standards for off-street parking in the CB-10 zone. He said the
site plan indicates that a hedge and planter boxes are planned in the required location, buffering the
parking lot from the street. He said that all entering vehicles would be visible from the sidewalk; vehicles
exiting the underground ramp would be visible from the north by a person standing on the edge of the
entrance, but from the south the required hedge may inhibit visibility of exiting vehicles. Generally, he said
the City recommends that there is a vision triangle measured 10 feet along both lines of the triangle and
nothing higher than 2 feet can be placed in that area. He said staff also feels it would be beneficial to
have pedestrian access from Linn Street.
Adam presented a view of the Dubuque Street parking lot, showing that there would be no vision by
exiting vehicles of anyone who is coming alongside the building if they are close to the wall, and the
person walking that close doesn't have much field of vision until the car is practically in front of them. He
said that staff recommends a bump-out, or "chicane," be placed at the edge of the parking ramp that
would force people to walk out closer into the vision triangle.
In addition, Adam said that the concept plan does not indicate signs, but the appropriate location would
be a "slow" sign from the upper slope of the underground parking. He said ne sign would be required for
cars exiting the south public access drive.
Looking at the General Standards, Adam said that the proposed parking will add some congestion along
the street, but providing long-term parking for residents will prevent the tenants for competing with on-
street parking which is intended for customer parking for surrounding retail uses. He said that providing
the off-street parking for the grocery store, which staff feels is a unique use, may increase the specific
marketability of the retail space, making it viable for the developer to put in the grocery store. He said that
the City Council concluded it would be in the best interest of the public to have a grocery store downtown;
therefore, staff feels that allowing limited surface parking for a grocery store is consistent with stated
policy in this case.
Adam said the proposed use would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He said that a grocery is
one of the things the downtown needs to become a livable place, which is one of the objectives spelled
out in the Plan. He said this project will add more residents to the downtown, which will increase the
market base for grocery and other retail uses. He said the requested parking lot occupies a small area of
the parcel and is designed into the site in such a way that the street wall has little interruption, and the
plan shows a landscaping buffer along Linn Street, making for a well defined street frontage.
Adam said that staff recommends that the Board condition approval on the retail space being used as a
grocery store, otherwise this portion of the lot cannot be used for parking. He said the owner also has the
option of developing the area as something other than parking. He said that in retrospect, staff feels that if
the parking is available, they might still be able to draw someone; the City could lease the lot for public
use until such time as a grocery store was put in. Holecek said that this means the surface lot will be
useable only for a grocery store use.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
April 9, 2003
Page 14
In response to a question from Keitel, Adam said that the City's intent is if a grocery store does not make
it and is closed, the lot could revert to being leased by the City and would not be free parking. The owner
could also use the lot to put up a building.
Adam said that staff recommends that EXC03-00004, an application for a special exception to permit off-
street parking in the Central Business (CB-10) zone in Block 64, Lot lA, be approved subject to the
following provisions:
1. Three- to five-foot high screening shall be provided along the public right-of-way in front of the surface
parking lot;
2. At the southeast and northeast corners of the surface lot, the screening shall be no higher than two
(2') feet within triangular areas measured 10 feet out from the intersection point of drives and the
right-of-way;
3. The surface parking lot can be used by the retail space adjacent to it only if that retail space is a
grocery store; and
4. The developer shall provide for a pedestrian chicane at the northeast corner of the Dubuque Street
Ramp to improve sight lines between pedestrians and cars leaving via the public access drive.
In response to a question from Gidal, Adam said that there are currently a lot of public spaces on this lot.
He said there are probably around 100 straight-in spaces, using the entire lot. Therefore, the proposed
use should not be a huge addition in terms of what the street has experienced so far, or maybe would be
far less movement.
Gidal said he feels the idea of a grocery store is a gamble, and he wonders what will happen to the
storefront if it does not work. Holecek said that if the area of the surface lot were redeveloped, the
architect would take into consideration the remaking of that storefront that would be subsumed into the
next building. However, the applicant would always have the option of coming before the Board if another
retail use that was just as desirable to apply for the parking use. In addition, the parking could be leased
to the City for a publicly controlled parking situation. Holecek said that, in staff's analysis, the grocery
store was a vital component as identified by the Council. Therefore, being consistent with the analysis
generates that condition. Gidal stated he just wanted to say that he was skeptical, but he is in favor of a
grocery and would like it if it works.
Public Hearin~l Opened
Marc Moen identified himself as the applicant. He asked for clarification of something in the staff report
that said you can have off-street parking without an exception if it is used for hotel use. Adam said that if
you have a hotel you have to find parking somewhere it - for example, he assumes Moen has some of
the parking in the Dubuque Street parking ramp set aside for the hotel use. Moen said his only concern is
he does not want to be precluded from coming back before the Board trying to attract another retailer.
Alexander asked what the methods are for restricting the lot. Moen explained that the Brewery Square lot
is controlled mechanically with a gate, and tokens are required to get out. He said this lot will have to be
monitored more strictly. He said he plans to investigate options, including using a code provided by the
clerk of the store. He said that he visited a grocery in downtown Chicago to see how they did it. He said
they allow one or two hour parking, with a human monitor, and if you exceed that you receive a large fine.
He does feel it will have to be staffed by a human. However, he said the grocery is a huge part of the
project in terms of attracting the residents they are looking for, so they will do what is necessary on the
parking issue.
In response to a question from Maurer, Moen said the store would be open until late evening. In response
to a question from Keitel, Moen said he has a potential tenant but does not have anyone signed. He said
he feels it would have to be gated off into the evening. He said the hotel entrance is adjacent to this
parking lot, and the hotel will be open all night so there will be valets around. He said the underground
parking is controlled with electronic doors.
In response to a question from Keitel, Tim Schroeder said that the total area of the grocery store would be
14,000 feet.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
April 9, 2003
Page 15
Public Hearing Closed
Motion: Gidal moved that EXC03-00004, an application for a special exception to permit off-street
parking in the Central Business (CB-10) zone in Block 64, Lot lA, be approved subject to the
following provisions:
1. Three- to five-foot high screening shall be provided along the public right-of-way in front of
the surface parking lot;
2. At the southeast and northeast corners of the surface lot, the screening shall be no higher
than two (2') feet within triangular areas measured 10 feet out from the intersection point of
drives and the right-of-way;
3. The surface parking lot can be used by the retail space adjacent to it only if that retail space is
a grocery store; and
4. The developer shall provide for a pedestrian chicane at the northeast corner of the Dubuque
Street Ramp to improve sight lines between pedestrians and cars leaving via the public
access drive.
The motion was seconded by Maurer.
Paul said he would vote in favor. He feels it has clearly met the specific standards in terms of screening
access and signage. He said that he feels the general standards have been met, in that it will not be
injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity, nor will it impede the orderly
development of surrounding property; it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City; and overall
he feels it is a great idea.
Gidal said he will vote to approve for the same reasons.
Maurer said he will vote to approve for the same reasons.
Alexander said she will vote to approve for the same reasons.
Keitel said will vote vote in favor. He feels it is exemplary that the applicant is going to provide
underground parking.
The motion passed by a vote of 5-0.
OTHER
None.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION
Adam asked the Board to review the pamphlet from the Iowa Sate University Extension to Communities,
who are having a workshop about the role of planning commissions. He said the City will pay for the
workshop, and asked that anyone interested let him know by Friday so he can get the application in. He
said he will be attending the workshop. Keitel stated he would be attending.
ADJOURNMENT
Gidal moved to adjourn, seconded by Alexander. The meeting adjourned at 7:31 PM.
Board Chairperson Board Secretary
Minutes Submitted By Neana Saylor
data on otynVpcdlminuteslboaO4~9-O3.doc