The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1996-03-26 Bd Comm minutesMINUTES IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION THUi~SD~%Y FEBRUARY S, 1996 - 5:45 P.M. IOWA CITY TRANSIT FACILITY MEMBERS PRESENTs Howard Horan, Rick Mascari, Robert Hicks STAFF PRESENTs Anne Burnside, Ron O'Neil C~%LL TO ORDER~ Chairperson Horan called the meeting to order at 5:55 pom. Because a quorum of the Commission was not yet present, Horan requested Jerry Searle begin the Master Plan Study update. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION{ACTIONS ao Master Plan Study ~ Searle discussed the idea of having a brochure explaining the Master Plan Study. This would be distributed to everyone on the newsletter mailing list, as well as anyone else who was interested. Searle and Ken Pardock presented information on the Airport Layout Plan (ALP). This drawing depicts the facilities on the Airport property, as well as the safety areas off site° Obstructions and constraints surrounding the Airport are identified° On Runway 06/24, the ALP calls for displacing the threshold on 24 by 900 feet to meet the safety requirements and allow for Riverside Drive to be located outside the Runway Obstacle Free Area. An additional 1000 feet would be added to 06 in order to replace the displaced area on 24. Obstruction removal in the safety areas for 06/24 were discussed. Runway 24 would have a 34:1 approach slope and Runway 06 would have a 20:1 approach slope. (Hicks arrived, providing a quorum.) Runway 12/30 would remain the same as it now is, with 20:1 approach slopes on both ends. Obstructions have been identified on both ends. On 12, the obstructions are trees and poles. On Runway 30, there is a building that is an obstruction. Elevations were determined for most of the buildings, trees and poles surrounding the Airport. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of the January 11, 1996, meeting were approved as submitted. AUTHORIZATION OF EXPENDITURES~ Mascari made a motion to approve the bills. Hicks seconded the motion and it was approved. PUBLIC DISCUSSION - ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA~ No items were presented. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTIONs a. Sports Ca= Club of America - Robert Kistler requested use of a portion of a taxiway for two dates during the summer to hold a SCCA rally and competition. He gave the Commission an option of four dates. Horan reminded the Commission that the Airport Manager will not be available on these dates and that one of the Commission members would need to be at the Airport to supervise the events. Mascari and Horan said they would not be available for any of the dates. Hicks said he may be available for one of the days. Mascari suggested deferring this item to next month's meeting. Horan and Hicks agreed and Horan directed O'Neil to put this on the agenda for the March meeting. b. Iowa City School District land lease - 0'Neil said a formula had been developed to bring the School District's lease in line with otheF land leases on the Airport. The District now pays about 10% of what other tenants pay. The rent would increase from $ 300.00 per year to $ 1500.00 in the first year and increase 10% per year until it is equal with other land leases. The School District has reviewed and endorsed the plan. Horan said he thinks the formula shows intent by the Commission to lease the property at fair market value. Burnside said a public hearing will need to be held prior to renewing the lease. Mascari, Hicks and Horan agreed that this would be the formula used when the lease is renewed in August. O'Neil will notify the School District that the proposed formula is acceptable. C. Iowa City/Coralville Jo C.'s - No one from the J.C.'s was present to discuss their request to use Airport property. If contacted by the J.C.'s, this will be an agenda item on the March agenda. d. Snow removal policy - Horan said the Commission received a letter from James Kisthard, requesting a change in the Airport's snow removal policy. Kisthard is the director of the Iowa Statewide Organ Procurement Organization. He would like the Commission to expand their policy and level of service to meet the needs of his organization. Horan said that the policy in affect has worked well over the last several years except for an unusual storm this past January when the Airport did not have the equipment immediately available to deal with the ice and frozen snow. Mascari said the FAA Advisory Circular recommends the runways should be cleared as "expeditiously as possible". He mad~ a motion to adopt the FAA Advisory as the Airport's snow removal policy. Burnside recommended the motion be revised to say that the current policy be reviewed and brought into compliance with the Advisory Circular° She said the circular covers many areas not related to Iowa City and should probably not be adopted in total. There was no second to the motion. O'Neil said the circular should be viewed as a guideline and is not as explicit as a FAA regulation° John Ockenfels said that the Commission needs to look at what can and can not be done. He said the current policy was discussed when he was on the Commission and there are some situations dealing with snow removal where it may not be realistically possible to follow a strict policy. Mascari recommended forming a snow committee to offer suggestions to the Commission on a snow removal policy. Kisthard said he would like to see any snow removed as soon as it accumulates. Ockenfels said the Commission has to determine what level of service is being asked for and what they can financially provide. There was discussion on how and when snow is currently removed and what is possible with the available manpower and equipment° O'Neil said a subjective decision must be made with each snow fall as to if and when snow should be removed. The 1" or more accumulation in the policy is a guideline. He asked Kisthard if his company would be willing to contribute to a higher level of service than would normally be provided at an airport similar to Iowa City ? Kisthard said he would look at what the increased costs would be. Mascari, Kisthard, and the chief pilot from ICFS will be invited to be on the snow committee to advise the Commission on the snow removal policy. This will be an agenda item at the March Commission meeting. eo "Old Jet "relooation request - O'Neil said there is a letter in the packet requesting "Old Jet" be moved to the Green Castle Airport, a private airport west of North Liberty. The Commission had discussed relocating the jet to a different location on the Airport when the Master Plan is implemented. The Green Castle group would contact community veterans groups for their opinions. Horan directed O'Neil to contact the Green Castle group, ask them to make preliminary contact with the veterans organizations, and invite them to the next Commission meeting. CHAIRPERSON°S REPORT: Horan said he had nothing further to report. COMMISSION MF2{BER8t REPORTS: Mascari asked what caused the plumbing problems in the Terminal Building on February 6. O'Neil said the sewer line from the building is relatively flat and is normally flushed out by Roto- Rooter twice a year. The line was running slow because it was time for it to be flushed out. Jones, from Iowa City Flying Service, turned on the water-cooled air conditioning unit and the large amount of water forced into the slow running drain caused all the toilets to overflow. O'Neil said he cleaned up the mess and has had a cleaning company clean and disinfect the area twice° ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: O'Neil said ICFS would like to be released from their two corporate leases if they build a new shop in the next five years and no longer need the hangars. Burnside suggested this be an agenda item next month since it involves a lease modification° There was a letter in the Commission packet from Councilperson Kubby suggesting an alternative way to raise funds to renovate the Airport Terminal. There was also a question raised concerning airport authorities. 0'Neil distributed the section of the Code of Iowa that relates to airport authorities° O'Neil said he and Blum were part of a group of airport representatives invited to meet with the State Transportation Co~mission in Ames on February 6. No specific issues were discussed, but the Commission seemed interested in learning more about the public airports in Iowa. The next Resource Group and public meetings for the Master Plan Study are scheduled for February 15, 1996o O'Neil said the 1995 State Airport Sufficiency Report is available for review. SET NEXT MEETING: The next regular meeting is scheduled for March 14, 1996, at 5:45 p.m. ADJOURNMENT Hicks moved to adjourn the meeting. and the mee ing adjou.rned ,%t 7 Howard Horan, Chairperson Mascari seconded the motion. :37 p.m. MINUTES BOARD OF APPEALS MONDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1996 LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM - 4:30 PM MEMBERS PRESENT: Carlson, Staska, Maas, Roffman, Buss, Werderitsch (arrived late) MEMBERS ABSENT: Hagedom STAFF PRESENT: Boose, Hansen OTHERS PRESENT: George Bedell, Randy Larson, Dwight Dobberstein 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Bob Carlson-called the meeting to order at 4:47 p.m. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Buss moved to approve the minutes of October 30 and December 11, 1995. Maas seconded, The motion wa~ unanimously anl~roved. Werderitsch joined the meeting at 4:50 p.m. 3. HEAR APPEAL OF HOUSING CODE VIOLATION CITED AT 47 VALLEY AVENUE George Bedell appealed the finding by Steve Burns that in his laundry room the washer and dryer are too close to the electrical panel. He showed pictures of the area and said he had owned the building since 1971 and not been told he was in violation before. The pictures showed the washer, dryer, two water heaters, and electrical equipment. Boose said he had included in the information packets a section from the National Electrical Code that required working clearances from the '96 edition and noted that the requirements had been the same since 1976, though the City had not always enforced them. He also included a letter that HIS had received from the Iowa-Illinois in November, 1994 stating their concern about clearance between Bedell's gas water heater and the electrical equipment. He said Gary Klineloiter, Senior Housing Inspector, was present to answer questions. Klinefelter explained the working space requirement as 30" wide or whatever the width of the equipment was and the minimum clearance in front is 36", to be maintained from the floor to the top of the electrical equipment or not less than 6.5 feet high; and the working area must be clear at all times. Klineloiter said the vertical distance between the main disconnect, shown in the BedeIFs photo, and the front of the washer was 12 inches. The hot water heater was about 2 inches from the wiring gutter at bottom of the equipment. Klineloiter noted that in BedeIFs utility room the equipment width is the entire wall opposite the clothes washer and dryer. He said in his opinion the main safety consideration was for people who might be working on the electrical equipment, who would be wedged in, and that if something was energized, someone using the laundry equipment would be electrocuted. Regarding BedeIFs not having been cited before, Klinefelter said this is a new section in the housing code, in effect for a little over 2 years. He said whereas it may have been in violation for a period of time, the inspectors were not required to cite Bedell until this became part of the housing code. He added that HIS was not comfortable with the clearances being maintained any less than what was specified in the code. Roffman said it was his understanding that HIS not only wanted the washer and dryer moved but the other water heater moved too. Klinefelter confirmed, saying the second water heater may just serve'the clothes washer. Bedell said one was for apartment #7 and one was for the washing machine. Klinefelter said one of the water heaters was not a problem. Roffman asked if Boose t~ad said there was no action taken on the letter from Iowa Illinois. Boose said that that was correct; he wasn't aware (~f the letter until he found it in the file. It was addressed to Paul and he'd never gotten a copy. Boose said the original blueprints for the building were not in the files. He did find the original building permit from 1962. Bedell agreed on the date of the permit and said Bill Kress had been the original builder. Boose said he hadn't been able to trace the City's electrical code back that far, but he supposed the laundry room was a mechanical room that had been converted to laundry use. Bedell said that when he bought The building in 1971 the laundry facilities were there and that he didn't think the layout had changed since the building was built. 'He had replaced the original washer end dryer. Boose said he assumed the washer and dryer were probably an afterthought. Bedell agreed but pointed out there was no other place for laundry facilities. Roffman asked if the machines were used much, and Bedell told him they were often used by tenants of the 9-unit building and that people in neighboring buildings came over to use them. He said though that he wasn't aware until this inspection that this was a safety hazard, and he wanted to do everything to be in compliance with code. He said he'd take them out if the board wanted. Carlson asked if when the housing board adopted the new section it was their intent to enforce it for existing facilities. Klinefelter said yes, it was in the maintenance section that they used to renew rental permits. Maas said that, having worked on electrical panels before, he agreed that there was not enough room, and that if something went wrong with one of those panels, someone would have a lot of problems getting to it, and that working with running water so close to electrical equipment was not good. All agreed that there was a lovely ground and that you wouldn't have to worry about getting partially shocked - that you could get a beautiful glow. Wsrderitsch asked if there would be any way that a stacked unit could go in a space shown in the photo. He noted a cabinet on the wall. Bedell said there was a fire extinguisher in there. Roffman said that might be moved. Klinefelter said the room was five feet wide, so with the 12 inch projection of the main disconnect from the wall plus three feet, there would only be a foot left. Carlson suggested putting a smaller unit against the front wall adjacent to the door, but Klinefelter said the equipment ran the full length of the wall. Roffman noted the main was the thing that stuck out furthest, but Klinefelter said there was also a gutter Board of Appeals February 5, 1996 Page 3 running the full length of the bottom and projecting 6 or 6~A inches, so with the three foot clearance, only 18 inches could be left. Bedell said he didn't think it would be possible to put a unit in there and said he would have to take the equipment out. Werderitsch said that main service within a few inches of running water is a hazard and he wouldn't want to be exposed to it. Carlson called for a motion for denial or approval. Buss asked what was on the other side of the wall, behind the washer/dryer. Bedell said a kitchen in another apartment. Buss asked how big the hallway outside the laundry room was. Bedell said small, not big enough for laundry machines. He said he could take out the machines and the tenants could do their laundry elsewhere, unless the board thought it wasn't a problem. Carlson said it was. Roffman asked if he could move the water heaters and put the stacked washer and dryer in a different place. Klinefalter said there wouldn't be enough room, the meters go all the way to the outside wall. Werderitsch thought maybe they could be stacked in the hallway in a notch. Bedell said he thought he'd just remove the laundry equipment. Werderitsch moved to deny the recluest. Staska seconded. The motion to deny was unanimous. 5. HEAR REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF UBC SECTION 106 AT 22 S. CLINTON ST. Randy Larson and Dwight Dobberstein of Neumann-Munson showed plans for the Airliner's proposed second floor fire escape, which ran along the Airliner's first floor roof, across the 11' wide blind alley at a height of 7', and down 1.5' from the opposite building, the stairs switching back halfway down and. emptying northbound into the alley. Boose had advised Larson that the UBC did not allow any structure in the alley between the Airliner and its property line, but that if he was to find a way to put the escape along the Airliner rather than the neighboring building, he would feel comfortable recommending a modification. In a letter to the board dated January 31, Larson explained that he could not do this because of electrical equipment on the Airlineds wall. He believed Boose's objection to the proposed modification was that it put the stairway next to the neighboring property rather than the Airliner, running counter to the UBC's aim of providing a clear space between the two properties. He said he would show how his proposal created a safer environment than having the escape built next to the Airliner. Dobberstein said the reason he needed a fire escape into the alley is that the only place to get an exit for the second floor was out the back and across the walkway and down the stairway into the back yard. He said he'd tried to work out an agreement with neighbors for another location but couldn't. If they put an exit running through the building to the back, he said, it would take out too much kitchen room. As far as he could see his only choice was a stair coming out across the first-floor roof, going down into the alley southward with a switchback north so that patrons would not go into the blind alley. Board of Appeals February §, 1996 Page 4 Larson said the alley was privately owned, dead ending on Whitey's and MC Ginsberg. Carlson asked where the property line was, and Larson said he didn't have an answer yet but that it was somewhere in the yard. Larson said that if they didn't own the full ten feet from the back of the building, they'd have to inquire and maybe buy the property. Carlson asked if it was used for access and Larson said it wasn't used by anybody except himself, removing garbage to his dumpster in the yard. He noted that Austin Burke had back doors opening on it. Several members agreed that the alley was not a required fire exit for the other buildings. Larson said that as a legal matter it didn't have to be there and as a practical matter nobody used it but him to take out garbage. Boose noted that Larson needed it as a fire exit from the south half of the first floor of the Airliner. Larson said the building facing his across. the alley had is a windowless concrete block wall, Boose wanted to know if th~ stair posts would clear the back door. Dobberstein said there would be headroom of 7' under the stairwell for egress from the bosom back door, Larson said he knew the concern in the code was to provide as much clear space as possible between his building and the one across the alley, and that the fire escape would make the alley 7' wide instead of 11'. He said he wanted to put it next to neighboring building because there were no windows in the concrete block wall on the other side and the distance would keep the stairs away from his first floor back door and electrical wires connected to his second floor. He pointed out that if the neighboring building was on fire nobody would use the fire escape, and if his building was on fire the fire stairs would be 7' away from a burning building. He said the code requirement he was looking for asking a modification on was that there should be 10' between the neighboring building and any exterior stairway, because there wasn't 10' of room to leave, Boose said he had mistakenly told Larson the code requirement was 10' and that the actual requirement was 20'. He called the board's attention to the code requirement included in the packet. He said he figured the building was a Type Ill - One Hour, and noted that the Airliner already had noncombustible exterior walls. There was some confusion then because the board had memoers' copies from the '94 code and Boose was reading from the '91. Boose told them both charts had the same information but a different format. Larson said he'd be willing to replace his back door with a fire door if there was a safety concern about door-fire escape distance, and added that he already had a fire window and foam sprinklers in the kitchen. He said he'd be happy to do anything he could in the back to make it more fire safe and repeated that he had nowhere else to put a fire escape. He said he thought he was working out a good solution with the owners of the next door building and for the City by running his fire escape across the top of Jake's and giving that building a fire escape for the second and third floors but the owner of the bar said he might want to expand one day where the stairs would be, Dobberstein emphasized that part of this project is making the building safer. Larson mentioned the second floor addition rated at 46-7 people and that the fire exit would makes that space safer than it is now. He said that right now it's two rundown apartments. He said he felt his modification would be an improvement for City in Board of Appeals February 5, 1996 Page 5 terms of fire safety. He said the building will have 1-hr ceiling & floor, going back to brick walls, original roof. Carlson asked him what the fire stairs would be made of. Dobbsrstein said the he was showing the stairs made of wood because the building is type 11h Larson added that because he only has a lease, he didn't want to build 50-year stairs, but was willing to listen to concerns. Boose said the concern about wood stairs was that even in type III buildings all exterior walls have to be noncombustible. Larson said he would entertain any realistic practical consideration for making the modification more safe. He said if he couldn't get this slight modification of what he thought was a technical requirement of the code that didn't meet the actual realities of that space, then he probably couldn't do this project. Maas was concerned about clearances for the electrical equipment alongside the fire stairs. Larson noted that the shed was an electrical meter said he had wanted to move it out of the way but that the electric company would have charged him t~ 10,000 to move the banks to the front of the building. He noted that moving the electrical equipment still wouldn't solve the modification problem. He said no one would be able to stand on the landing and touch the wires. Boose asked what the required clearance was and Maas said it should be 8' from any point on the stairwell and Boose asked if that included the top of the railing. Mass said yes. Larson said he would change switchback so it brake out of reach of the wires and landed a few feet off the property. He didn't think Haywood Belle would mind. Carlson asked for a Fire Department opinion. Hansen said the drawing looked better than the reality and that in the courtyard he'd just seen "hellacious electrical mast heads", a big dumpster, and a back door that couldn't open. Larson said the door didn't open because of ice. Hanson said his big concern was with the fire escape, saying that with a 4' dumpster in the 7' clearance the fire escape left, there would be only 3' clearance in the alley. Larson offered to move the dumpster. Boose asked if he might get an easement for the dumpster from Haywood Belle. Larson thought it wouldn't be a problem and said John McDonald might rent him space. Hanson said he was worried about having a wood fire escape near a big dumpster when the "Thing is, you've got a wood construction and we don't burn many buildings downtown but we burn a hell of a lot of dumpsters. Especially in that courtyard back there." Larson said he'd rent space to move the dumpster. Roffman asked for Larson's timeline on the project. Larson said he'd hoped to start December 1 but would start as soon as he got approval, He said the tenants were already out, Werderitsch asked if Larson would have an exterior lighting scheme to cut down on security problems on the fire escape. Larson said he'd have a security door with a siren on the back of the second floor and that personnel would be close to that door, but that he'd put in whatever exterior security the board thought appropriate. Boose asked about security for people hanging out in the courtyard and on the fire escape and roof. Larson said he didn't want people coming in that way because they lose the cover charge and control over carding. Board of Appeals February 5, 1996 Page 6 Hansen asked if he could put the fire stairs through the floor inside the building. Larson said he can't use that room because the kitchen was there and there was no room in the kitchen. He couldn't use the front room because the downstairs fire exit was in the hallway of the neighboring building, and he didn't want to extend 2nd floor over the whole building anyway because the addition was already budgeted at $200K and he can't get an assurance of being able to stay in the building for more than 7-12 years. Carlson said he didn't have any problems with concept on the following conditions: That Larson find adequate clearance for electrical equipment overhead and front; that he replace kitchen door with fire-rated door; that he move the dumpster off the property; that he prevent people from leaving under stair {close front part of switchback so people leaving the Hangar don't walk into back of s.tairs); that he install an alarm fire door on the 2nd floor; that he install adequate lighting; and that the fire stairs were noncombustible so as not to add combustion load to building next door, Boose and Werderitsch said they didn't think fire-treated wood would hold up in winter. Larson said he would build metal stairs. Boose noted Larson would have to find out where the property line is. Larson asked if easements would be needed before occupancy or building permit, and asked if it would be all right to show proof in writing that he and the owner had a tentative agreement, start building, and hold up the occupancy permit until the easement was signed. He also offered to give HIS a copy of the lease for rented dumpster space. Boose said his proposed arrangement would be fine. Larson repeated the conditions for approval of the modification. Carlson moved to a13prove the modification of UBC Section 106 for remodellnCl at 22 South Clinton, with the conditions noted. Roffman seconded. The motion was unanimousIv ar~proved. 5. ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR - LEFT TILL LAST Vice Chair Jane Hagedorn had not yet arrived and Carlson suggested thev leave the vote until last. 6. AMENDMENTS TO 1994 UBC Boose led the discussion of changes to the UBC. Roffman wanted to know if, according to Section 106.2.1 O, freestanding pools would need permits, and wondered who would build an 18" swimming pool. Boose said they were exempt only if they were below 18 inches and 5,000 gallons - that if a pool was over 18" deep but had less than 5,000 gallons it would still need a permit. He said the change was prompted by questions about fish pools and it ensured there was a protective fence that complied with the zoning ordinance, which says anything permanently full of water - not just swimming pools - needs a fence. Board of Appeals February 5, 1996 Page 7 Boose said the reason for the change to 106.3.3 was that commonly mechanical rooms are too small for the water heater/furnace and the equipment can't be fixed handily. He figured the only solution was to have architects draw everything to scale beforehand. Carlson commented that a furnace firebox would only need replacing every 20 years. Staska said someone working on the equipment would still need adequate front service space. Boose replied that working space was generally not a problem, but access to the bulk of the equipment was, and told of city houses where you couldn't change the furnace filter without taking out the flue. He said in some houses you have to remove part of the ductwork to get a part of the water heater out and pointed out that heaters need replacement at least every five years. Carlson said the board had already discussed 106.4.6., Demolition Permits. Werderitsch asked if they would have to wait to demolish dangerous buildings with historical significance. Boose said he thought the wording "buildings....having no historic significance and dangerous buildings" meant they'd be exempt from notice and waiting, historical or not, but expected some Council discussion on the matter. Carlson asked if there were any questions on Section 209, Habitable Space. Boose said the change reflected current enforcement but understood the Board was still debating it. Carlson asked what they wanted to do and Roffman suggested they discuss it later. Boose asked the Board's opinion of new wording for Section 310.4. He said the intent was to keep the egress window away from the bottom of basement steps. Carlson said he was confused first time he read it but then thought it was very reasonable, Boose said Section 904.2.8, R-1 Occupancies, comes from the Fire Code. About Section 1OO6.9, Boose said inspectors have bean allowing fluctuation in the regulation of 2" maximum diameter for handrails, and that people have been using banisters of widths up to 2s/8" as handrails so as not to have to mount a handrail on the wall. In his opinion handrails should not be wider than 2~A". The change would effectively loosen the code slightly in single-family or R-1 apt, with the assumption that the regulation would be more strictly enforced. Roffman asked if 2 ¼" was for the grippable point or the widest point and Boose said they were the same thing. Boose said the other problem with banisters was the banister ending and a handrail being installed on the top part of the wall, which was no good because no one should have to take his hand off the rail at any point on the stairs. Boose passed around a box of handrail samples. Carlson agreed 2~A" was a good handrail width. Roffman asked about the requirement of runrang the handrail 12" past the last step. Boose said that was an ADA requirement applying only to commercial properties. On Section 1505.1, Access, Boose said a lot of people tried to hide attic access openings in closets, where they were inaccessible to firefighters checking for smoke coming up through walls into the attic. Werderitsch asked if openings would be allowed in walk-in closets. Boose said no. He added that he'd thought the section Board of Appeals February 5, 1996 Page 8 might mean access openings were not permitted in bedrooms, but Acting Fire Chief Andy Rocca said he thought there would be no problem as long as when firefighters threw open door they could see it. Bcose said that for Section 1806.1 he hadn't found a specific frost-heave prevention design to approve so he'd used the design book they'd taken all their information from. His intention was to draw up a typical design staff could hand out as pro-approved. One concern he noted was about putting in insulation and digging up shrubs, but according to the HBA guide, while shrubs shouldn't be planted close to walls some degradation of styrofoam wouldn't affect insulation. He said the state energy code wouldn't allow so much heat loss but that there would be no frost heave. Boose said 1806.2 had been changed because a 400 sq. ft. building was too large to be built on skids, and noted that 200 sq. ft. was larger than a typical garden shed. In response to Werderitsch's question, Boose said the change in Section 1907.6.5 should read "deformed", not "the formed", He said he'd called Jim Wolf at Concrete Walls to see where their ties landed in the walls so they could get the area where it'd be convenient for them to put them. Roffman asked if they'd talked about minimum distance for offset. Boose said he'd talked to Jim Jacob, and that they haven't added it in, but that minimum offset should be 4' for a tributary Icad of up to 16'. If the tributary load is over 16' the offset should be 6'. Boose said a 4' stoop should take care of most houses. Roffman asked if you could have a deadman back there and Boose said that according to Jim a deadman would serve the same purpose. He said the language needed to be smoothed out. Carlson said he thought Section 2326.4.1 was clear. Roffman said it would be helpful to have a diagram for Section 2326.11.1. Boose agreed and said the depth/width distinction was confusing. He wanted to change "width" and "depth" to "maximum room dimension parallel to atrium wall" and "maximum dimension perpendicular to the atrium wall." Carlson suggested they adopt the section as is and have a handout. Roffman agreed and noted homebuilders expected there to be a meeting or two to explain the code changes. Werderitsch asked what was better than #1 douglas fir. Boose answered that #1 Douglas Fir was visual graded, and that there were t.wo or three grades of select structural that were better, 8. OTHER BUSINESS Boose said he had spoken with Anne Burnside, who agreed valve locks on gas meters was a public safety issue. According to Boose, Burnside said the ordinance would be defensible if mid-America refused, and that since the City informed Mid-America~ of this proposed ordinance change, Mid-American had returned to the former policy of not installing meters until the City released them. Booso's opinion was that the board should adopt the amendment in case Mid-America)~ changed their minds. Werderitsch moved to recommend Council adoat the amendments to the Uniform Building, Fire, Code for Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, and Plumbin¢l Codes. Roffman seconded. The motion was unanimously al~l~roved. Board of Appeals February 5, 1996 Page 9 5. ELECTIONS Roffman moved to retain Bob Carlson ps Chair and Jane HaQedorn as Vice Chair. Buss se~:onded. The motion was unanimousIv a~moved. 6. ADJOURNMENT At 6:30 Roffman moved to adjourn the meeting. Staska seconded. Carlson declared the meeting adjourned at 6:32 p.m. Minutes submitted by Amy Charles. Approved htsblgU~a2.5.mtn Robert Carlson, Chair MINUTES PAd'KS AND RECREATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 14, 1996 MEMBERS PRESENT: ME~ERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: GUESTS PRESENT: Ken Fearing, Judith Klink, Maurer, Matt Pacha, Alan Stroh, Jana Egeland, Rex Pruess Terry Trueblood, Marilyn Kriz William Buss Deb Liddell, Bruce Ross Wilburn FORMAL ACTION TAKEN: Moved by Klink. seconded by Stroh, to approve the January 10. 1996 minutes as written. Unanimous° Moved by Klink, seconded by Pacha. to endorse the ~roposed plans to expand the Mercer Park A~[uatic Center° Unanimous° Moved by Pacha. seconded by Fearing. to officially change the Parks and Recreation Commission re9%%lar monthly meeting time from 5:3Q to 5:00 p.mo. Unanimous. MPAC EXPA~NSION: Pacha presented the proposed floor plan for expansion of the Mercer Park Aquatic Center, and requested an official endorsement from the commission prior to it being presented to the City Council. Pacha noted the only change from the original floor plan was the addition of approximately 800 square feet to allow space for bleachers. The expansion will consist of a multi-purpose room and a gymnasium which will accommodate two basketball courts or three volleyball courts° In order to save money it will share a common lobby, ~ocker rooms and restrooms with the existing facility. Potential financing options and conceptual schedule as to how the facility could be used were also distributed. Stroh questioned what the endorsement had to do with financing. Trueblood indicated the one financing option calls for borrowing $200,000-$250,000 from the Parkland Acquisition Fund, which would require a recommendation from the commission and approval by City Council to do SOo Stroh asked about the Parkland Acquisition Fund in general; i.e. total amount of fund, source of funding and approximate amount received each year. Trueblood noted the conkmission would be endorsing its number one CoIoP. project° Liddell asked about the expansion committee's general feeling about the project, its need and fund raising. Pacha stated the group feels there is a need and supports the plan, but noted the group in general felt it would be difficult to raise the amount necessary. He stated the Foundation needs to identify someone to head the project and organize the fund raising effort. Liddell asked if the Foundation might recommend a private fund raiser, with Pacha stating they would not rule it out at this time. Trueblood noted Egeland is a proponent of this idea. Moved by K!ink, APPOINT- MENT: MEETING TIME: NOS UPDATE: seconded by Pacha, to endorse the proposed plans to expand the Mercer Park Aquatic Center. Unanimous. Stroh expressed concern with a public entity trying to raise money, with citizens feeling they already pay city taxes. Trueblood stated the plan is for the main fund raising thrust to come through the Parks and Recreation Foundation and not from the commission or staff. Liddell asked for a volunteer to serve on the Parks and Recreation Foundation. Wilburn indicated he would be willing to serve and was thereafter appointed by the chair. Liddell asked for a formal motion to officially change the commission's monthly meeting time° Moved by Pacha. seconded by Fearing, to officially change. the Parks and Recreation Commission ~eqular monthly meeting time from 5:30 to 5:00 p.m.. Una~imouso Walden Woods. Trueblood stated the 1.7 acre parcel donated for open space is now officially city property. The main thrust in accepting this parcel was to eventually construct a trail to tie into the Willow Creek trail, and staff is looking into the possibility of including it in the Willow Creek trail project° Jensen and Neuzil Properties° have been appraised Neuzil=$43,000/acre)o Trueblood stated the properties (Jensen=S38,500/acre and With respect to the Jensen property, Klink stated until there is some comprehensive grasp of how the whole area will be developed, the neighborhood would not support the purchase of this property at this time° William Buss believed the Miller/Orchard neighborhood is supportive of buying parkland in the Jensen tract, but that they would not want to encourage purchase if doing so would be at the expense of an area closer and more usable to people in the Miller/Orchard area. Buss felt as a person on the outside there was no sense of any kind of overall plan in terms of thinking about competing places that need park space and available money. He felt areas should be prioritized instead of waiting until something pops to the surface. Buss stated he understood the difficulties of private property rights and developer issues, but felt something should be done in the direction of a comprehensive plan. Trueblood stated the Neighborhood Open Space Task Force will be meeting to discuss establishing priorities and meeting with the various neighborhood groups° He noted the Task Force also realizes that as development occurs in various areas of the city those priorities may have to change° Liddell acknowledged that it may appear to be reactive to people not in the process, but the commission does not know when opportunities will arise, when and where utility easements will occur that could be utilized for a trail, and the commission needs to be flexible enough with priorities to seize an opportunity when it occurs. IOWA CITY GIRLS' SOFTBALL: After discussion, the consensus of the commission is that they are not interested in p~rsuing acquisition of either property at these prices. However, in view of the fact that a parkland deficit exists in both areas, the Commission would like to keep their options open in the event circumstances should change. Galway Hills. Trueblood stated the commission's official position taken on the pre-preliminary plat originally submitted was to request the northeast parcel (2.56 acres) and the south parcel (5.15 acres) for open space. The developer has submitted a new preliminary plat for only parts 3 and 4, with the south parcel still being proposed for open space. Klink stated she met with the neighborhood association in this area to discuss the Neighborhood Open Space Plan and task force goals. She noted the neighborhood would like to see parkland that is more centrally located in the subdivision. She stated Casey Cook was in attendance at this meeting and indicated when considering open space the entire district is looked at and noted this area is centrally located in this district. Klink also noted the neighborhood is upset with the downsizing of the lotso Liddell asked if this change in density would change the developer's open space requirement° Trueblood stated the calculation is based on whatever zoning the area would allow, noting if the lots were larger there would be more parkland for fewer residents. Trueblood noted the south parcel is somewhat centrally located, is an important segment of the proposed Willow Creek Trail, and provides possibilities for future parkland expansion. He asked if the commission wished to change its thoughts on this subdivision. Klink felt it important to reiterate the commission's assumption that there will be a trail connection between the two parcels once the entire subdivision has been submitted to the Planning and Community Development Department. The Commission decided not to change their official position ("...to accept the northeast and south parcels for the purpose of constructing a trail on the east border to connect the two parcels, and to obtain from the developer additional land for open space that is flat, above the high water mark, and contiguous to the south parcel.") Trueblood reported staff is doing everything possible to make sure Iowa City Girls Softball will have a successful season next summer, since they are being displaced from Napoleon Park as a result of the sewer pipeline project. Staff is still progressing with the University of Iowa softball complex lighting project, which has become more complicated and time consuming than anticipated. Trueblood noted the fields are reserved for Iowa City Girls Softball whether or not they are lighted° staff has also committed to putting in a temporary softball field in lower City Park where the two existing picnic fields are presently located. Fearing asked if staff foresees a problem with parking in City Park if it is utilized by Girls Softball, and alsoquestioned why there is not a senior softball 3 RIVERFRONT REPORT: COMMISSION TIME: league. Trueblood stated staff is working with the University of Iowa on a long-term agreement for shared use of their fields, and once this is accomplished there will be more flexibility to offer additional programs. With respect to parking, Trueblood noted the most popular time for use of City Park is weekends and holidays, times when the girls normally would not be playing° While there will be hea~ytraffic with both Girls' Softball and Boys' Baseball, staff will do what it can to overcome any problem that occurs. A copy of the e-mail sent to Liddell from Pruess, report on the 1/17/96 Riverfront and Natural Areas meeting was distributed. giving his Commission Wilburn stated he was working with a group of people across the country on comm%mity youth development. He' distributed a copy of a statement setting out their purpose and philosophy. He urged creation of opportunities for youth, and staff to look for ways to include young people in some type of planning, such as the teen dances. He noted it is beneficial to all parties to cultivate a relationship with young people who will be our future supporters and advocates. Stroh asked if it was the department's obligation to maintain dedicated trails on easements through private property. Trueblood stated the department is responsible for these areas, for sidewalks that lead to or are adjacent to parks, and linear riverfront trails. Klink expressed appreciation to Liddell for the memo she sent to the City Council on behalf of the commission regarding the FY97 operating budget. Pacha referred to the nicely done Special Olympics calendar included in the packet, asking if it was produced every year. Trueblood stated the department has become heavily involved with the Special Olympics the last couple of years, and this is the first year for the calendar. Pacha also indicated he may have a potential conflict with next month's meeting. Maurer asked that since some of the Girls; Softball games will be played in City Park, and given the fact that people will park at Hancher, if there will be any type of protection that can be provided to people crossing the street° Trueblood stated staff will discuss parking and possible problems prior to the season beginning; park security s%aff will be utilized to help handle parking and pedestrian crossings if necessary. Liddell referred to the drawing of the Near Southside Design Plan which was distributed to the commission. Trueblood stated the Planning and Community Development Department is sending it to a number of groups to review and submit their questions or 4 DIRECT0~'S REPORT: comments. Liddell requested this item be scheduled for discussion during the Commission's April meeting. Liddell questioned the purpose of the information board located on the east side of Hickory Hill Park, with Trueblood stating it is intended to display information on the Incas Trail° Trueblood reported on the following: Wetherby Park A~ttton. The 10.26 acre parcel adjacent to Wetherby Park is now officially city property. Pat Johnston. Pat has returned to work on a part time basis and is doing much better. C,~.P. Projects. Progress is steadi%y being made on the commission's established C.I.P. priorities, and staff will be providing the commission with a written progress report° Whispering Meadows Wetlands. The Grant Wood Neighborhood Association will begin planting the trees/shrubs this April/May which were funded through a city PoI.No grant. Due to the high cost of the trees/shrubs, they were not able to purchase the desired number of trees and the city will purchase the remaining trees. Staff anticipates the completion of the trail extension before springtime, and the contract let for the wetland planting project came in under budget. Trueblood noted overall things are progressing nicely. IMU Bridge to Iowa Avenue Trail. The project was bid and came in over budget ($194,000), with the City continuing to work to get this pr6ject done. Moved by Pacha, seconded by Wilburn. to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 6:30 pomo Unanimous~ 5 MINUTES BROADBAND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION MONDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1996 - 5:30 P.M. CIVIC CENTER LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Cordell Jeppsen, Betty McKray, Edc Rothenbuhler, Steve Hoch MEMBERS ABSENT: Roger Christian STAFF PRESENT: Brau, Helling, Burnside, Hardy OTHERS PRESENT: Beth Fisher, Ren~ Paine, Steve Wurtzler, Derek Maurer, Lida Cochran, Barbara Black, Howle Vernon SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION " Paine reported the PA'I'V fundraiser generated over $200 for entry to Home Town Video Festival. Discussions focused on Commission's priorities in directing staff in negotiations with PATV regarding their expired contract. Issues of how to allocate the pass through funds and the level of public access funds, community programming, a new building and enhanced services were the focus of discussion. The Commission voted to recommend to the City staff to begin negotiations regarding PATV's contract. APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by McKray, seconded by Hoch to approve the January 22rid and January 29th minutes. The motion passed unanimously. ANNOUNCEMENTS OF COMMISSIONERS None SHORT PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS None PATV REPORT Paine reported about 36 people attended a fundraiser held February 23rd which raised over $200 to help pay for Home Town Video Festival entry fees. The prime time series and statement of responsibility policies have been in place for six months and will be undergoing a review. LIBRARY REPORT Fisher reported the new character generator should be in place by March 4th. ECC REPORT None Broadband Telecommunications Commission February 26, 1996 Page 2 LEGAL REPORT Burnside said she had nothing to report. TCl REPORT None CABLE TELEVISION ADMINISTRATOR REPORT None PATV CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS deppsen said the objective for the meeting is to offer guidance to staff on negotiating a new contract with PATV. Jeppsen identified four issues which should be included in the negotiations. First, is to continue to provide public access services. Second, is an appropriate commitment to community programming. In the course of meeting with the access channel providers it became clear that definitions of community programming varied. A clearer understanding of community programming could be flushed out during negotiations. The third issue is active participation by PATV in the identification and securing of a new space. Fourthly the PATV Board should be representative of all community interest. When PATV was first formed the Board represented the diversity of citizenry in Iowa City. Finally, the contract should include regular periods of review. Rothenbuhler said PATV Board is dependent on who they get to volunteer. Among those volunteers the Board needs those with appropriate expertise. Rothenbuhler said he doesn't know of any problems with the Board they should be correcting. Jeppsen said it is important to have people like Trey Stevens who are consumers of the service rather that a producer of program- ming on the Board. Hoch said the Board should work to attract members from a broad range of the community. The mix of public access and community programming may now tilt toward public access. If the Board was more representative of the larger community moving towards more community programming may be facilitated, McKray said she had no objection to including language stating that thought should be given to broad representation on the Board. Burnside said she assumes Board make up is covered by their by-laws. PATV is a non-profit corporation and she bas some qualms about the City trying to exercise direction on something that is controlled by the corporate by-laws. It is permissible for language in the contract stating there are cartam goals for the Board membership, but directing action which would conflict with or amend the by-laws would be a problem. McKray read the section dealing with the Board "membership from PATV's by-laws. That section said membership may be made up of members reflecting the diverse racial, ethnic, socioeconomic make-up of Iowa City. The Board may represent the broad base of the community interest as reflected in the variety of non-profit associations serving the citizens of Iowa City and may include access producers and persons with expertise which will benefit PATV." Hoch asked what the City does when it is involved in a contract with an entity which violates its own by-laws. Neither Burnside or Helling could recall that s~tuation arising in the past, but Burnside said the responsibility for by-law enforcement would be the members of the corporation, not the City's. In regards to the second proposed negotiating item, the proper commitment to community programming, Rothenbuhler said the issue of who will provide community programming, how much, and with what resources needs to be discussed before an appropriate commitment can BroadbandTelecommunications Commission February26,1996 Page 3 be determined, Asking for new activities from any access channel should be based on what they have been doing, who they've been serving and how well things have been working. Identifying problems and possibilities for fixing those problems by reallocating resources and identifying new opportunities tied to new resoumes needs to be looked at. Some discussion of the need for more community progremming might have been based on not knowing how much Community Program. ming was being cablecast due to the fact that it was dispersed among all the access channels, The function of PA'l'V-providing public access to the facilities of communications - needs to be protected. The appropriate commitment to new efforts needs to be small unless there are new monies to support the new efforts. If one or more of the access channels were suddenly without a building that is a need that comes prior to the perception of a need for more community programming. Any new money needs to go towards a building first in that case. If the money doesn't have to go to a new building then those resources can go to new activities. If the money goes to a building then the negotiations would center on how to preserve what we have and how to make it better. McKray suggested beginning negotiations with PATV to provide their existing level of service, not including any enhanced service or pass-through money and then negotiate any services and resources in addition to that at a later date, Hoch said if PATV were to get a new facility there would be new resources available to them. Hoch would like to see more programming about the community on the public access channel. If building a new facility for PATV and continuing funding at the past levels uses all the new money resources, subscribers will get no new services. This is troublesome. Rothenbuhler said if Hoch wants to see more community programming on the public access channel then he misunderstands the nature of the BTC authority and the nature of the public access channel. Hoch said the City will negotiate a contract in which it will decide how much public access to buy and how much community programming to buy. Even if there were no new monies it is possible to negotiate for a different mix of community programming and public access from what the City is currently purchasing. Fisher asked if the BTC has decided that PA'I-V will be the community programming provider. Jeppsen said that has not been decided. Jeppsen's identification of issues for negotiation stated only that PATV state their commitment to community programming. The contract should not be negotiated without a discussion of PATV's role in community programming. Fisher said each access channel provider currently provides some community programming. It is possible to split the money among all entities and each could do a little more. Jeppsen said he does not think PATV should have the responsibility for all the community progremming. PATV has expressed willingness to provide some community programming and there has been some dialogue from some on the BTC that PATV have some commitment to community programming. Hoch said Library Director Susan Craig expressed a willingness to do more community program- ming during meetings to discuss their needs. If a facility is purchased with the pass-through funds there would be very little money left for the purchase of community programming. The only other source of funds is the $149,000 earmarked for public access and community programming. Rothenbuhler asked if it was Jeppsen's view that the City should ask for a commitment from PATV of at least their current level of support for community programming and PATV might come back and say they would need additional resources to provide more community programming. Jeppsen said that a would be a fair position in the negotiating process. Broadband Telecommunications Commission February 26, 1996 Page 4 McKray asked Hoch if it was his position that BTC should look to reduce the amount of public access and increase the amount of community programming in the determination of how the $149,000 and $96,000 are used. Hoch said that was accurate. Hoch asked Rothenbuhler if it is unreasonable to ask PATV to make a statement as to what they think their commitment to community programming is. Rothenbuhler said that would be reason- able if it is an honest inquiry. If it is and attempt to force them to reallocate resoumes from public access, then it would be unfair. Instructions from Commission should not be sufficiently vague that the result of negotiating might be to force PATV to reallocate resources from public access to community programming. If the $96,000 was asked for to provide more community program- ming then the resources should be made available for that purpose. Jf the $96,000 is to be spent on a building then it can't be spent on community programming. It is unfair to ask PATV to provide community programming in exchange for a new building. Hoch said building a new facility for PATV is a large financial contribution. It is not unreasonable to expect PATV to contribute more community programming if a new facility consumes most of the $96,000. Subscribers paying $6 a year should receive something tangible for their money. if the $96,000 was spent on a facility and there is no enhanced services, subscribere will receive no benefits. Helling said there are alternatives which need to be explored. Building costs need to be looked into. It may not be the case the new facility will consume such a large share of the $96,000 that community programming could not also be funded. Hoch said PATV currently receives space in exchange for service. If PATV were to rent space that expenditure would eat into their level of service. Hoch asked if it is the City's responsibility to make good the difference? Rothenbuhler said the franchise and ordinance do state that it is the City's responsibility to provide public access. If the public access provider is unable to fulfill that service it is the City's responsibility to remedy the situation. McKray said the commitment to enhanced service means more than just community program- ming. It may be better quality program, staff or housing. The Commission could move ahead by first agreeing that PATV is the entity the Commission wishes tO continue to provide access services and determine how to provide enhanced services later. Hoch said the issue is if Commission should instruct staff to negotiate for the same level of public access services, The City is not under any obligation to buy $149,000 of public access services. McKray said she believes the City should continue to contract for the same level of public access services. Burnside said usually in contract negotiations both sides come to the table with what each want to put in and get out of a contract. It was Burnside's expectation that the Commission would recommend to the staff that they negotiate with PATV to provide public access services and if there were any funds left over PATV may wish to make a bid for enhanced services. It is possible PATV would not wish to bid for those funds in which case the City may look to other possible providers such as the Library or City Cable TV Office. Helling said it has never been quantified or agreed upon which or how much of their current activities is community programming or a hybdd, That is the part of the negotiating process. The staff will negotiate a contract with the hope that the Council approve it. Staff will be listening very closely to the Commission because their recommendation will carry weight with the Council. There are issues which the PATV Board has not clearly defined and if those issues are going to Broadband Telecommunications Commission Februa~ 26,1996 Page 5 be addressed in the contract the instructions provided to staff need to be broad enough to have some flexibility to do so. One alternative would be for staff to meet with PATV and discuss the direction they see themselves going over the next ten years and then come back and report to the Commission. There are items in the contract which need to be addressed which don't depend on the issues discussed at this meeting. The staff could get started on those items. Next month the Commission will have more Information about the whole picture and how it fits together. McKray move to recommend that the City begin negotiations to renew PATV's contract. The motion was seconded by Rothenbuhler and passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by McKray. seconded by Hoch to adjourn. The motion passed unanimously. Adjournment at 6:50 p,m. ~espectfully/~ubmit~ed, cablelwbb:~.2~.mln MINUTES IOWA CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION THURSDAY, MARCH 7, 1996-7:30 P.M. CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Bovbjerg, Benjamin Chair, Richard Gibson, Jane Jakobsen, Tom Scott, George Starr, Lea Supple MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFFPRESENT: Sarah Holecek, Bob Miklo, David Schoon, James Erwin RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: Recommended approval, by a vote of 6-0, of REZ96-OOO3/SUB96-0004, an application to rezone a 1.88 acre tract from RR-1 to RS-5, and approval of the preliminary and final plat for Broken Arrow Estates, a 3-lot residential subdivision located at 3263 Rohret Road, subject to City Attorney approval of legal papers prior to City Council consideration of the final plat. Recommended denial, by a vote of 5-2, with Gibson and Scott voting no, of amendments to the City Code Zoning Chapter creating a new overlay zoning district entitled "Design Review Overlay Zone." Recommended approval, by a vole of 7-0, of a suggestion that if the Design Review Overlay Zone Ordinance is adopted, that: a) an alternative appeal process be considered having the City Council as the final arbiter; b) a preset time limit be established in which the City must act on an appeal; and c) the City adopt a resolution to abide by the Design Review Overlay Zone Ordinance. Recommended approval, by a vote of 6-1, with Supple voting no, of the Joint Municipa! Design Standards, excluding Part 4 regarding alleys; Part 5, subparts 5.04, 5.05, and 5.11 regarding streets; and Part 9, subpart 9.13 regarding storm water management facilities. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Starr called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. REZONING/DEVELOPMENT ITEMS: REZ96-0003/SUB96-0004. Public discussion of an application submitted by Mary Jo Streb to rezone a 1.88 acre tract. from RR-1, Rural Residential, to RS-5, Low Density Single-Family Residential, and for approval of the preliminary and final plat of Broken Arrow Estates, a 3-1or, residential subdivision located at 3263 Rohret Road. (45-day limitation period: March 11, 1996) Miklo said staff recommended approval, pending the approval of legal papers prior to Council consideration. Public discussion. Planning & Zoning Commission March 7, 1996 Page 2 There was none. MOTION: Jakobsen moved to approve REZ96-OOO31SUB96-0004, an application to rezone a 1.88 acre tract from RR-1 to RS-5, and to approve the preliminary and final plat for Broken Arrow Estates, a 3-lot residential subdivision located at 3263 Rohret Road, subject to City Attorney approval of legal papers prior to City Council consider- ation of the final plat. Bovbjerg seconded. The motion carried by a vote of 6-0. REZ96-OOO4/SUB96-0002. Public discussion of an application submitted by Village Partners to rezone a 3.09 acre tract from RS-5, Low Density Single-Family Residential, to OPDH-5, Planned Development Housing Overlay, end approval of a preliminary OPDH plan and plat for Village Green, PARt XIV, a 1-lot, 8-unit, residential develop- ment located on the north side of Village Road. {45-day limitation period: March 11, 1996) Miklo said that consideration needed to be deferred to March 21, so that staff could review the revised plat. He said that staff had received a waiver from the applicant to extend the limitation period from March 11, 1996, to March 21, 1996. Public discussion. There was none. MOTION: Bovbjerg moved to defer consideration of the application REZ96- 0004/SUB96-0002 until March 21, 1996. Gibson seconded. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. DEVELOPMENT ITEM: SUB96-0003. Public discussion of an application submitted by Jeffrey Maxwell for preliminary plat approval of Woodland Ridge, Part One, a 19-1or, 55.95 acre residential subdivision located on the east side of Dane Road, at its intersection with Osage Street. (45-day limitation period: March 11, 1996) Miklo said that consideration of this item needed to be deferred to March 21, so that staff could review the revised final plat. He said staff had received a waiver from the applicant to extend the limitation period to March 21, 1996. Public di~cussion. There was none. MOTION: Gibson moved to defer consideration of the application SUB96-0003 to March 21, 1996. Bovbjerg seconded the motion. The motion carried bva vote of 6-0. DESIGN REVIEW ITEM: Public discussion of amendments to City Code Title 14, Chapter 6, "Zoning," Article J, "Overlay Zones,' by creating a new overlay zoning district entitled "Design Review Overlay Zone." Planning & Zoning Commission March 7, 1996 Page 3 Martin Haynes, Chair of the Desien Review Committee, said the Committee sought to redefine its role, as its original mandate had been limited to review of urban renewal projects. He noted that when the proposal originally came before the Commission in July 1995, it had been explained that the proposal's success hinged ultimately upon pubhc support. He said that the Design Review Committee had presented its proposal to several community groups, to educate the public and to receive input. David Schoon, City Economic Development Coordinator, explained that the proposed amendment was enabling legislation, allowing the establishment of design review overlay zones within the central business district and the Near Southside. He then reviewed the ordinance and the procedures which the proposed amendment would set forth, noting that many communities had a similar ordinance. He noted that the ordinance would only apply to projects requiring a building permit or other regulated permits. He then explained that each submission would require documents illustrating the design of building characteristics. Scott asked if any disagreement between the applicant of the Design Review Committee would be resolved by the Board of Adjustment. Schoon said that appeals of the Committee's decision would go to the Board of Adjustment. Scott asked if the Historic Preservation Commission's decisions were also appealed to the Board of Adjustment. Schoon said that appeals to a decision made by the Historic Preservation Commission go to the City Council. Scott asked who the final arbiter would be. Holecek said it would go to the District Court. Scott asked if there were any fees, and if waiving the fee for the Board of Adjustment had been considered. Schoon said there were none associated with the Certificate of Appropriateness. Gibson asked if fees were connected only to the appeal. Schoon said an appeal to the Board of Adjustment would require a fee. Scott asked again if waiving that fee had been considered. Schoon said the Design Review Committee had not considered it. Miklo noted that the Council decides all fees, and could consider that request. Gibson asked what the staff position on that request would be. Schoon said a rationale would be needed for waiving a fee for this section of the Zoning Chapter. Gibson noted that the Design Review Ordinance was subjective and that may be rational. Holecek said the City would have to show how this part of the ordinance was distinctly different and would warrant a waiver of the fee. Scott asked if the Council could be used as an arbiter for appeals. Holecek said that zoning was legislation, and that interpretation of the Zoning Chapter is the responsibility of the Board of Adjustment, a quasi-judicial body. This maintains the separation of powers. Scott noted that the same argument could have been made about the Historic Preservation Commission's procedure. Holecek said that the establishment of the Historic Preservation Commission's process had been made at the state level. Gibson asked if 'the Council was a quasi.legislative body. Holecek noted that she had made a distinction between legislative and quasi-judicial. Starr asked Schoon where design review ordinances had been enacted. Schoon mentioned Portland, Oregon. Scott said Boulder, Colorado has design review. Miklo noted that such ordinances were not uncommon. Bovbjerg asked how they were applied. Schoon replied there were wide variations, so staff had selected the Historic Preservation Commission as a model. Holecek said that enabling legislation differed from state to state. In response to a question from Bovbjerg on whether design review Planning & Zoning Commission March 7, 1996 Page 4 was a fairly new process, Holecek said that before the early 1980s, aesthetics had to be attached to other considerations. Starr said he didn't see how the preamble was connected to the text of the amendment. Holecek said it was a basic statement of police power. Supple noted that several downtown business owners had written in support of the amendment. She asked how many had recently redone their facades, and how many had asked for the Design Review Committee's input. Schoon said that two businesses had redone their facades recently, and neither had gone to the Design Review Committee. Gibson noted that he was not present when the Campus Planning Committee, which he staffs, considered the proposed ordinance. He further noted that the letter represented the Campus Planning Committee's opinion and not the University of Iowa. Bovbjerg asked if there were time limits on design review approvals. Schoon said there were not. Bovbjerg asked if that meant that design review only proceeded after a design review district was laid down. Schoon replied that was so. Bovbjerg asked what the time limit was on a building permit. Miklo said construction had to begin within six months after the permit was issued. Bovbjerg asked if approval of the proposed districts would be done by Council. Holecek said they would, and that they would also go through the Commission, in order to make sure the proper limits and rules had been satisfied. Jakobsen asked if the design review districts could be placed anywhere. Holecek said they could only be placed in the central business district and the Near Southside. Chair asked if the district designations went to the Council regardless of the Commission's decision. Holecek replied that was correct. Public discussion. John Beckord, 2503 Aberdeen Court, introduced himself as the President of the Iowa City Chamber of Commerce. He acknowledged that design review was a core community value. He noted that some changes concerned him. Currently, the Design Review Committee is merely advisory. The proposed amendment would give the Committee discretionary power. He noted that the Board of Adjustment appeal process was limited. He said the 21-day limit on the review did not include appeals and that legislative bodies often took longer to conclude business. He noted that the Design Review Committee as now constituted was accommodating to development, but there - were no guarantees to the behavior of future Design Review Committees. He said the amendment would introduce a great deal of paperwork, even for minor changes. He noted that the zones were not specifically set, and that the logic of the amendment could lead to expansion into residential areas by future Design Review Committees. He recommended keeping the Design Review Committee in an advisory capacity. He encouraged the introduction of incentives, without recourse to police power. Gibson asked what action the Chamber of Commerce had taken. Beckord said the Chamber had taken no official stand, but that his comments came from the last meeting of the Executive Committee of the Chamber of Commerce. Paula Brandt, 824 North Gilbert Street, introduced herself as the President of the Friends of Historic Preservation. She noted that future owners will have significant outlays for building renovation to correct mistakes that could have been prevented by Planning & Zoning Commission March 7, 1996 Page 5 design review, such as the installation of metal siding or painting a facade matte black. She said that the recent renovation of the Sports Column building represented good design and that the renovation was very costly due to the damage caused to the building by the previous alterations. She said she lives in a historic preservation zone, and that she views the process of approval as protection, instead of as an obstacle. She expressed her opinion that older buildings would be damaged by allowing unreviewed changes. Schoon noted that painting a structure does not require a building permit and, therefore, would not be covered by the proposed Design Review Overlay Zone Ordinance. Haynes said that the amendment was written in the form of an ordinance, but the Design Review Committee had tried to maintain flexibiliW. He noted that some submittal requirements would be waived based an the scope of proposed projects. He agreed that the 21-day limit was not short, but said that an applicant could get a Certificate of Appropriateness long before the building permit. He said the time impact could be minimal if handled promptly. He restated that the community would be involved in the entire procedure, and that the Design Review Committee was trying to act in concert with the community and the Council, not to impose the ordinance on anyone. Tom Gelmen, 714 McLean Street, introduced himself as the Chair of the Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors. He noted this was a difficult issue, as design review was for the good of the community. He argued that design review should involve incentives and education on good design, instead of imposed standards at the end of an expensive administrative process. He noted that applicants could participate in preliminary design review, but that final plans would still need approval. He noted the proposed amendment was a large change from the original charge of the Design Review Committee. He said the ordinance should be focused on problem projects, and not be so broad in scope. He said many new downtown projects had contributed to the aroa without design review. He expressed his hesitance to criticize the ordinance or the people who drafted it, but he felt this solution was uncreative. He said an incentive-focused ordinance would produce better results, and volunteered to help draft one. Nancy Seiberlinq, 209 Black Sprin(~ Circle, said she was a member of the original Design Review Committee. She agreed that a different perception needed to be introduced, and suggested a program of visual tours, illustrating concepts of bad and good projects. She emphasized the need to preserve the city's tradition. Clara Swan, 928 North Dodqe Street, said business owners as well as the community would benefit from design review. She argued .that Iowa City's downtown was unique and should be preserved and enhanced. She said that the new mall planned in Coralville would be like any mall and would not have the unique character~stms of Iowa City's downtown. She said in order to maintain a healthy downtown, it would be necessary to maintain the unique character of the downtown area. She cited examples of how this unique character could be jeopardized by unattractive building designs. Joyce Summerwill, 329 Post Road, said she had also been an original member of the Design Review Committee. She agreed that government intervention could be annoying, but noted that the pedestrian mall had been one of the Design Review Planning & Zoning Commission March 7, 1996 Page 6 Committee's first projects, and had turned out to contribute greatly to the downtown area. She urged the Commission to approve the ordinance. Haynes said a Certificate of Appropriateness could be issued on preliminary plans or schematic drawings, which would save a great deal of time. Larry Schnittier, 1917 South Gilbert Street, said the final plans would also need approval, and the process seemed much longer than necessary. Jay Oehler, 552 Foster Road, said he had a good deal of experience with design review, and had always found the process and the Commi~ee to be helpful. He said it was a good idea, and that they would soon be investing 10 million dollars in a building in the Near Southside. He noted that they had asked for tax abatement for their project and thus were required to go through design review. But he felt that anyone should have a chance to receive an incentive if they have gone through design review. Dick Summerwill, 1006 Highwood Street, said that no businessperson likes to be told what should be done with their property. However, he noted that some ground rules were needed, as good design a~tracts business. He said that if the current ordinance was the best possible alternative, then it was worth the price. He said if the ordinance is not adopted, he urged the Commission to accept Tom Gelman's offer to help redraft the ordinance. Public discussion closed. MOTION: Supple moved to approve the amendment to the City Code Title 14, Chapter 6, "Zoning," Article J, "Overlay Zones," to create a new overlay zoning district entitled "Design Review Overlay Zone." Bovbjerg seconded. MOTION: Gibson moved to amend the main motion to suggest that the City Council consider removing the fee for appeal, and that the Council serve as the body of appeal. Scott seconded. Discussion. Chait said regarding the Historic Preservation Ordinance, the state legislature had established it and had given power of appeal to the City Council. Holecek said that for that reason, the City Attorney's Office advised against adopting Gibson's motion. Gibson said his amendment was framed as a suggestion. He said he was trying to improve the palatability of a subjective measure. He said it was possible to review design on objective standards, but that a degree of subjectivity would always remain. Gibson noted that the Design Review Committee had acted in a restrained manner when putting forth the current proposal, which he believes is reasonable. He said that if they do not act in a reasonable manner when implementing the ordinance, the public would demand its repeal. He noted that if the Committee failed to act in a reserved manner, the public would demand that their power be removed. He asked how many mistakes the Design Review Committee had made and how many had occurred before the Design Review Committee was formed. He noted that some improvements can de- Planning & Zoning Commission March 7, 1996 Page 7 grade an area's character, and approved of the suggestions to incorporate Gelman's thoughts. Gibson said in his opinion, design was a process, and consideration should be given at the beginning and not at the end of the design process. He disagreed with the idea of incentives, saying that people should not be paid to do what is simply the right thing to do. He argued that some people refuse to be educated, and then regulatory measures are needed. He.noted that this was ultimately a political decision, and that the Council should make it. He said that incremental decisions could be made throughout the design process. He urged Commission members to approve the ordinance with his suggestions that the Council consider amendments regarding the appeal process. Scott agreed, saying that he preferred that appeals go to the City Council rather than to the Board of Adjustment. He agreed that appeal to judicial bodies would result in delays, and said the same would happen with an appeal to the Council. He said for that reason, he thought the Council should be held to a time frame, and if no action had been taken in that time, the appeal should automatically be approved. He said that according to his understanding of the separation of powers, that unless it was specifically prohibited by legislation, giving the appeal authority to City Council was permissible. He noted that the Council is the final a[biter in zoning, with an appeal to the judicial system. He explained that it would be possible to sue if there was a disagreement with the final administrative appeal. Bovbjerg said she felt strongly that the Board of Adjustment would make a better arbiter. She said that the proposed micromanagement was an unwise allocation of the Council's time. She said the Council should look at policy, and not involve itself in the minute-to-minute work. She said she would not support the amendment. Gibson said Bovbjerg's points were well-taken, but he felt the issue should be left to the Council. Holecek noted that the motion had been framed as a suggestion. Bovbjerg said it could be interpreted as an adamant opinion. Jakobsen said she felt the "suggestion" fails to meet Roberts Rules as a motion. Scott said that Gibson's motion suggested an alternate final approval process. He said if Commission members felt the Council should not be the final arbiter, they should vote against the motion. Jakobsen asked if Gibson's motion were the only issue under consideration. Starr said it was. IVIOTION: Gibson moved to revise his motion to amend the main motion to simply suggest waiving the fee for appeal. Scott seconded. (The original motion to amend was withdrawn.) Bovbjerg asked if th~ fee covered the City's cost for reviewing an appeal. Miklo said it was a percentage of the cost to the city, but did not even cover the cost of staff time. Bovbjerg sa~d then, the city bore the cost of the machinery of appeal. Miklo agreed. The motion to amend the main motion to waive the fee for aDl~eal was defeated by a vote of 3-4, with BovbjerQ, Jakobsen, Starr, and Supl~le voting in the neqative. Planning & Zoning Commission March 7, 1996 Page 8 Jakobsen said she would vote against the ordinance amendment, as she had always opposed large-scale design review. She said the amendment represented a large and cumbersome layer of government. She argued that the Council already had sufficient design review powers. Scott said when first proposed in July, the amendment covered the entire city. At that time, the Commission gave the Design Review Committee a clear notice that design review would not pass this Commission if it encompassed the entire city. Scott noted that he had said at that time that he would support design review for the central business district and the Near Southside, For that reason, he said he would support the ordinance amendment, He said that he had a problem with the appeal process, and said if it were passed, the Commission should consider a motion indicating that at least a majority of the Commission supports the Council as the final arbiter. Scott noted that the two most recent cases of design controversy were the Pizza Hut awning and the Uncommon Grounds sign. In the first case, there was a public uproar and considerable criticism when City government made no objection. In the second, the City, and specifically this Commission, acted quickly and passed a more strict time and temperature sign ordinance. He said if the design review ordinance was adopted, the City should likewise comply with the ordinance. He believes this strongly, despite the excuse of the Council that they can't bind future Councils. He noted that besides Portland and Boulder, many California communities have design review ordinances. He noted that when he recently visited Laguna Beach they were in the center of a controversy over the city's use of their police powers in the design review process. There were accusations of arbitrary action, "Gestapo tactics" and preferential treatment. He also noted that the Laguna Beach Board of Adjustment was the final body of appeal in design review cases. Chair commended the Design Review Committee for their time and effort. He agreed with Scott that the City should be bound by any regulation that it passes. He said the amendment under discussion seemed negative, regulatory and over-bureaucratic. He felt that the Design Review Committee could better use their time in education. He noted there was a design bonus system on the Commission's pending list, which could be the basis for an incentive program. He said that the term "Certificate of No Material Effect" seems demeaning, and that the term "Certificate of Appropriateness" seems insulting. He said the Commission judged technical issues, but that the proposed ordinance was entirely political. He noted the presentation given by the Design Review Committee had many local examples of good design, none of which had made use of the design review process. He noted that many designs which seemed good at a certain point in time now seemed less aesthetically appealing. He noted that all the letters in support came from business owners who did not use the design review process. He said the ordinance was simply not needed. Bovbjerg agreed that the ordinance seemed less helpful than regulatory. She said design review was needed, but that it should take a less onerous form. She asked the pubhc to assist in drafting a better ordinance, and expressed her conviction that a solution could be reached without tight regulation. She sa~d she would oppose the ordinance, but that she appreciated the effort that had gone into framing ~t. Planning & Zoning Commission March 7, 1996 Page 9 Starr said that good design was helpful to the community, but the proposed ordinance amendment was too vague. He expressed his opinion that the majority of design was done well. He suggested that the Design Review Committee should remain as it is, and that design review continue on public projects. He also said that greater opportunity for education existed, possibly at the building permit stage. He said he would not support the ordinance as written. The motion to aoprove the amendment to the CiW Code Title 14, Chapter 6, "Zoning," Article J, "Overlay Zones," to create a new overlay zonin(l district entitled "Desicln Review Overlay Zone," was defeated 2-5, with Bovbiern, Chair, Jakobsen, Starr, and Su~le votin~ in the ne¢~ative. Gibson said that regarding timing, he felt it was inappropriate to consider an ordinance for six months and then reject it at the last minute on details. MOTION: I~ovbjerg moved to deny the amendment to the Zoning Chapter to create a new overlay rezoning district entitled "Design Review Overlay Zone." Supple seconded. The motion carried by a vote of 5-2, with Gibson and Scott votina in the negative. MOTION: Scott moved to recommend to City Council that if the Design Review Overlay Zone is adopted, the Council consider: a) an alternative appeal process having the City Council as the final arbiter; b) a preset time limit for Council to act on an appeal; and c) adoption of a resolution requiring the City to abide by the Design Review Overlay Ordinance. Gibson seconded. The motion carried by a vote of 7-0. OTHER DISCUSSION ITEM: 1, Public discussion of Joint Municipal Design Standards for public improvements. Miklo said that the sections that required further discussion were Part 4 regarding alleys; Part 5, subsections 5.04, 5.05 and 5.11 regarding streets; and Part 9, subsection 9.13 regarding storm water. He recommended that those sections be deferred. Public discussion. Richard Rhodes, 2014 Rochester Avenue, noted he had talked about his concerns regarding street width and relaxed stormwater measures. He expressed his pleasure that the City Engineer seemed to agree. He noted that once a subdivision was constructed, it was difficult to retrofit, He cited the ongoing work at Ralston Creek as an example. Rhodes noted that mandated mitigation of stormwater quality prior to release would reduce costs for retrofitting. He then urged the Commission to use the most conservative estimates when dealing with stormwater measures. MOTION: Bovbjerg moved to accept the Joint Municipal Design Standards, excluding Part 4 in its entirety; Part 5, subparts 5.04, 5.05, and 5.11; and Part 9, subpart 9.13. Jakobsen seconded. Discussion. Planning & Zoning Commission March 7, 1996 Page 10 Scott commended Rick Fosse on his effort on the Joint Municipal Design Standards. Starr agreed. Supple said that the idea seemed good, but that joint standards were not feasible and that one size does not fit all. She also expressed her opinion that passing part of the document was unproductive. She said that Iowa City should have its own standards, and should not adopt joint standards that don't meet the needs of Iowa City. The motion carried by a vote of 6-1, with SuDple votin~l in the ne~lative. CONSIDERATION OF THE FEBRUARY 15, 1996 MINUTES: Supple indicated that Scott had revisions to make. Holecek recommended that the Commission defer consideration. MOTION: Supple moved to defer consideration of the February q 5, 1996 minutes. Scott seconded. The motion was carried by a vote of 7-0. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION INFORMATION: There was none. OTHER BUSINESS: Chait said he felt the Design Review representatives left without fully understanding the Commission's position, He asked how the Commission worked with other groups. Gibson noted that he thought the opportunity to work with the Design Review Committee had been lost, He said it should have occurred during the time when consideration of the ordinance had been deferred, Jakobsen expressed her belief that the Commission was given nothing to work with. Miklo said that staff could relay any concerns the Commission had, or that the Council might return the matter for further consideration, Chait then asked for an explanation of the bonus system on the pending list. Miklo said the bonus system was not connected to design standards, but instead to things such as green space and setback distances within the Neighborhood Commercial Zone, Gibson asked if these were based on objective standards. Miklo said they were objective. Chait said the subjectivity involved in the Design Review Ordinance had made him uncomfortable. Starr agreed. Chait asked how the Commission could work with the Design Review Committee on redrafting the Design Review Ordinance. Miklo said that was up to the Design Rewew Committee. Scott noted that the Commission had cooperated with the Housing and Community Development Commission when a policy question had complicated matters between them. Scott thought the Chamber of Commerce should have raised their concerns brought up at tonight's meeting at the time the Design Review Committee made its initial presentation to the Chamber. Gibson said he thought the amendment was rejected due to philosophical reasons, as there were only two mild objections from the public. He said those philosophical reasons should have been stated long before. Jakobsen said she thought the Council already had sufficient design review power. Miklo noted that was only in cases where tax abatement had been requested, Jakobsen said a way to change that could be found, Bovbjerg expressed her view that the ordinance was flawed. Planning & Zoning Commission March 7, 1996 Page 11 Supple questioned why private property owners sent letters of support for the ordinance. Scott said he felt Mark Ginsberg probably supported design review on philosophical grounds. He said he was surprised by Gerry Ambrose and Jim Mondanaro's letter of support and that they impressed him. Miklo suggested that they might support design review as a means of preserving property values. Scott said ~he proposed process did not seem to be overly time- consuming. He cited the nearly identical process used by the Historical Preservation Commission as an illustration. Chair noted tha~ the Joint Municipal Standards were technical. He said he could support an objective, technically based design review ordinance. Miklo noted that the enabling legislation would precede the establishment of any standards. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 70:05 p.m. Lea Supple, Secretary Minutes submitted by James Erwin. IOWA CITY PLANNING AND ~.ONING COMMISSION MEETING TttURSDAE MA~CH 7, 199~- 7:$0 P.M. ClatlC ~ CO~INC~ CHAMBF. R8 15. 14. 15. 17. 18. 19.