The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2001-01-16 Bd Comm minutes I01-'{6-01 IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ~ ~ WEDNESDAY DECEMBER 13, 2000 ~ Subject to/~gpmva} 1 CIVIC CENTER-COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Lowell Brandt, Dennis Keitel, Kate Corcoran, Mike Paul MEMBERS ABSENT: T.J. Brandt STAFF PRESENT: John Yapp, Karen Howard, Sarah Holecek, Doug Boothroy OTHERS PRESENT: Tom Gelman, Gene Lariviere, Duane Musser, John Kammermeyer, Marlin Ingalls, Terri Neuzil, Gary Neuzil, Jim Larew, Sara Paulson, Alfred Marren, Darlene Clausen, Jim Buxton, Tim Walker, Clarence Havercamp, Run Berg, Dave Foman CALL TO ORDER Lowell Brandt called the meeting to order at 5:15 P.M. ROLL CALL Roll call was taken with T.J. Brandt absent. CONSIDERATION OF THE NOVEMBER 8. 2000 BOARD MINUTES Keitel moved to approve the November 8th minutes with a second by Corcoran. The motion was approved on a 4-0 vote. APPEAL AP00-0001 Appeal of a decision made by Director of Housing and Inspection Services to deny a minor site plan submitted by Bloomington Properties, L.L.P for a medical office building and associated parking lot located at 510/512 East Bloomington Street in the Commercial Office (CO1) zone. Brandt wanted to make it very clear that the Board of Adjustment is acting in a quasi-judicial role and are not policymakers. The Board's role is to listen to the facts and grant an impartial decision in the matter. Howard began saying the Bloomington Building Properties, L.L.P., is appealing a decision made by the Director of Housing & Inspection Services to deny a minor site plan. The appellants have submitted plans for the development of a 4,172 square foot medical office building at 510-512 Bloomington Street. They propose to tear down two single-family dwellings and consolidate the properties in order to make room for the medical office building on the site. The most recent site Board of Adjustment December 13, 2000 Page 2 plan shows a 38-foot curb cut off of Bloomington Street which would provide access to a seven- space parking lot located in front of the building. The building would be set back approximately 64 feet from the front property line. Access to additional parking is located to the rear of the property. A driveway off the alley leads to two outside parking spaces and to ten parking spaces located under the building. Howard went on to give some background on the proposed plan. Bloomington building Properties, L.L.P, submitted an application for a permit in June of 2000 and then a special exception in August of 2000 requesting a reduction of the required front yard to allow an eight car parking lot between the proposed medical office building and Bloomington Street. Planning staff expressed concerns regarding the location and number of parking spaces, building placement, and impact of the loss of on-street parking and mature street trees. The applicant withdrew the special exception application. On August 30, 2000 applicants submitted a revised site plan which moved the parking twenty feet back from the property line so the front yard reduction was no longer necessary. In a letter dated November 8, 2000, the City's Director of Housing Inspection Services informed the appellants that their site plan was denied, citing three specific code deficiencies: (1) Failure to meet the vehicle and pedestrian circulation standard as stated in 14-5H-5F; (2) Failure to meet the minimum parking requirements as stated in 14-6N-1J (this deficiency is not appealed); and (3) Failure to locate the proposed building and parking lot in a manner that is compatible with surrounding properties (14-5H-1). Howard addressed each specific deficiency issue: Howard stated that applicants for a building permit must meet all requirements of the Iowa City Unified Development Code, including both the engineering design standards for curb cuts as cited in 14-1B-5 and the site plan review design standards outlined in 14-5H-5. The City has the authority to restrict the number of curb cuts on to City streets and routinely does so when reviewing site plans or subdivision plats. While a development proposal may comply with the technical engineering requirements to obtain a curb cut permit, the City has the authority to deny a curb cut if it does not meet the site plan review standards. Howard then referred to the specific standards in 14-5H-5F of the City Code, Howard stated that in this case the Director of Housing Inspection Services has determined that providing a driveway off of Bloomington Street is not necessary because this street was Board of Adjustment December 13, 2000 Page 3 designed with access off of the alley. The City is not requiring the property owner to remove an existing curb cut off Bloomington Street, but rather to provide access similar to other properties along the street. Howard then showed a view of property as it is today, explaining the existing streetscape, pedestrian access and on-street parking. Howard went on to explain the widespread use of alleys in the older parts of town and that the Comprehensive Plan states that when properties are accessed from alleys at the rear of the lots, vehicular traffic on residential streets is reduced such that the alley can serve as a common driveway for garages located off of it. Howard pointed out that the alley that serves the subject property is 16 feet in width, wide enough to accommodate two cars passing each other. It also has a number of parking lots to the rear of buildings. Howard reported the staff has suggested on several occasions that the appellants reconfigure the site plan. If the building is moved forward to the front of the lot there would be sufficient area to supply parking to the rear of property. Howard went on to say that if the appellants are allowed to build a driveway off of the Bloomington Street it would have the following negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. Howard stated it will: · cause unnecessary interruption of the pedestrian network along the street; · change the nature of the existing streetscape; · remove public on-street parking; · negatively impact the flow of traffic along the street. Howard discussed the staff view that the building location on the site plan does not comply with the intent of site plan review stated in 14-5H-1, because it is behind the established building line of the neighborhood. Howard also quoted passages from the City's Comprehensive Plan that support the City's decision. Howard stated that the site plan shows that the building parking lot will be directly adjacent to the properties next door, rather than having the building adjacent to those properties. Approving the site plan would diminish the privacy of these properties due to noise and lighting associated with the vehicle parking. These negative impacts could be avoided if the building was located closer to the street with vehicle access and parking located to the rear of the building. Howard stated that it has not been staffs intention to prevent development of the medical office building, but rather to encoui'age the appellants to design their site in a manner that is in harmony with the surrounding neighborhood. Howard stated that the staff offered a number of Board of Adjustment December 13, 2000 Page 4 alternatives in negotiations with the appellants (Howard presented staffs alternative sketches of site designs). In addition, Howard stated that there are likely other site designs that would avoid the negative impacts previously discussed. Howard reports that in staffs view the decision by the Director of Housing Inspection Services was based on a reasonable application of the site plan review standards contained in the Iowa City Unified Development Code, which gives the City authority to regulate the number of access points off of public streets. Howard stated that the decision is also consistent with the policies of the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan, which specifically stresses the importance of standards that serve to maintain the integrity of existing neighborhoods, particularly in areas that are transitioning to higher intensity uses. Due to these factors, and given that the site presents no peculiar difficulties that prevent the owners from developing the property in a way that is compatible with other development along the street, staff recommends that the Board uphold the decision of the Director of Housing and Inspection Services to deny the minor site plan as currently submitted by the appellants. Doucl Boothroy, the Director of Housing and Inspection Services, stated that one of the ~ssues being considered here is the site plan review process. A site plan review process allows the City to work with landowner and surrounding properties to insure the rules and regulations are satisfied during development. What's important about this process is that a site plan fully complies with all the rules and regulations that are in affect in the Unified Development Code, as well as fittin9 within the neighborhood in which it's being located. If the codes are not upheld it can result in a built environment that may not be acceptable and we must endure for some time. Boothroy went on to state that it is very important at this particular stage that all possible options are taken into consideration in siting the project that is being proposed. Boothroy stated that the other important issue that is in dispute, is whether the city has the authority to control access to its own streets. Boothroy went on to state that the city is charged with the responsibility of controlling the access to its streets and is not applying a higher standard to the applicant than would not be applied to anyone else on the block front in terms of street access. Boothroy also stated that the city is not asking the applicants to give up existing access to Bloomington Street, but rather requiring the applicant to use existing access off the rear alley. What the city is asking is that the neighborhood's character, the street and sidewalk areas continue to function as designed. Boothroy stated that if this site plan and this curb cut were approved it would set up an expectation along Bloomington Street for unrestricted access to the street. Boothroy stated that on the issue of limitation of access to Board of Adjustment December 13, 2000 Page 5 streets, in this case Bloomington Street, Boothroy referred to the Zoning Ordinance which defines alleys as streets when they are the primary access to properties. Boothroy went on to the issue of commercial offices in the neighborhood, Boothroy stated that commercial offices should be used transitionally in a fashion that it uses existing stock. Boothroy went to say that many offices that have located in the Bloomington area have used existing stock and fit within the neighborhood. Boothroy stated that the city zoned this area from R3A to Commercial Office zone (CO-1) in order to encourage office development. The change in the zoning came about with the understanding and idea that it would be a less intensive use than other commercial uses, would be more compatible with the character of the neighborhood, and that it would provide a good transition between the more intensive commercial development downtown and the residential development to the north. Boothroy informed the Board of the reasons the original application from Bloomington Properties, L.L.P. was denied. Boothroy stated that the proposed site plan for the medical office was not compatible with the character of the neighborhood, nor did it comply with the Site Plan Ordinance as it is today, nor the Comprehensive Plan. Keitel asked Boothroy if there is a maximum building set back in an RNC-12 zone. Boothroy replied he would have to look that up, but stated within the zoning ordinance where you're dealing with existing setbacks there is a provision that establishes a maximum setback. If you look at the property closest to Johnson Street with the front porch, because of that porch this parking can be put where it is at this point in time. The location of that house allows that parking to be placed farther back and eliminates the maximum set back requirement that would be under the averaging provision of the zoning code. It's only due to that one structure on the entire block. Tom Gelman, counsel for the property owners (Gene Lariviere and Rick Shelman), stated that he disagreed with the decision Boothroy has made to deny the site plan. Their principal premise is that there is no authority to apply the standards and Boothroy has exercised a discretion that the ordinance does not give him. This is a CO-1 zone. The preferred use is office and that is the type being proposed. They understand that the site plan is deficient based upon fewer parking spaces than necessary, but they feel they can reach agreement with the City to resolve that issue, so they are not appealing that issue, Gelman stated that there is no procedure in the ordinance for input by the housing department on a minor site plan - it is to be strictly a building official review to be done in 21 days. Board of Adjustment December 13, 2000 Page 6 Administrators "administer" specific ordinances, like building codes. Gelman cited several provisions of the zoning ordinance. He stated that all of the requirements of the zoning ordinance have been met. Gelman recited the provision relating to design standards. He maintains that the specific provisions contained in the ordinance are sufficient and satisfactory to satisfy the City's purposes in protecting the public on the minimum standards. Gelman provides that Standard F, Vehicle and Pedestrian Circulation, says that there are only two reasons that the City can restrict access to a street: 1) to prevent congestion on adjacent or surrounding streets; and 2) in order to provide a safe and orderly vehicular movement. He maintains that the City did not list either of those criteria as a reason for denying the site plan. Gelman states that Section K, Parking Areas, is the standard that should apply. Gelman maintains that the site plan as submitted meets this standard. Gelman cited Section N of the standards, and states that those standards do not apply to this property. Gelman states that the housing department relies heavily on the preamble to the ordinance. The City cannot site a specific requirement that the site plan violates. Gelman reiterates the facts and circumstances surrounding the property. He provides a map of the area from Linn St. to Dodge St., on which he has identified areas of concern. Gelman shows how the alley and the apartments across the alley create a buffer between the property and the residential areas of the north. Gelman shows the location of parking lots up and down Bloomington St., which are "all over" the neighborhood. Even though the block in question has very few driveway accesses, the next blocks have plenty of driveway accesses, both commercial and residential. Gelman submits numerous pictures he has taken of the 3-4 block area of Bloomington St. and the alley behind. Brandt asked if the board could keep the photos for a short period. Gelman summarizes that there are multiple front yard parking lots up and down the street shown in the pictures. Gelman states that they are talking about putting in 7 parking spaces, and the intended use is maybe 25 cars per day for the front parking lot. The majority of parking will be in the back or underneath. Gelman summarizes the City's decision, stating that the decision is based totally on subjective standards, and should have been based on objective standards. He states that the decision states that the reasons why the driveway access is not being granted are: 1 ) it causes an unnecessary interruption of the pedestrian network along the street. 2) it will change the nature of the existing streetscape. 3) it will remove public on-street parking. Board of Adjustment December 13, 2000 Page 7 4) it may negatively impact the flow of traffic along the street. Gelman opines that the first three are not criteria that the statute allows the City to use to deny access. The two criteria were to prevent congestion and for the safe and orderly vehicular movement. He further states that there is no evidence or traffic counts to support the fourth criteria. Gelman moved to the subject of alleys, stating that that the decision refers to alleys being incorporated into new subdivisions, and using alleys as access to residential garages, and therefore the standard is inapplicable to a commercial zone. Gelman states that the City only looked at the most immediate adjacent properties, and that if you look reasonably up and down the street, you can see that this project is not incompatible with existing uses in the immediate neighborhood. Regarding the location, Gelman states that the ordinance does not require the property to be in character with the surrounding development. In addition, the City cited the Comprehensive Plan in its decision, but that standard refers to new developments. Gelman states that this is a commercial office zone and not a residential zone. He believes the decision totally ignores the intent of the owner as to the use of the property, which is to establish a medical office. The owners are using the criteria of reasonable compatibility with the neighborhood, the medical practice they will run, and the needs of their patients for easy access. Gelman states that the City is requiring the owners to develop their facility in a certain manner without any specific provisions to do so. Gelman summarizes that he and his clients are in disagreement with the amount of discretion the City has when administering the minor site plan review standards. When there is discretion exercised, there is always a public review process where the final decision is made. Gelman states that his clients have come in good faith and tried to be reasonable. His clients reviewed all of the alternatives and traffic flows suggested by the City, but the alternatives do not work. His clients have minimized the impact to the neighborhood the best they could while still preserving their privilege of using the property in the manner that is permitted by the ordinance. Paul asked Gelman what the circumstances would be for patients to frequent this office. Gelman deferred the question to Gene Lariviere. Board of Adjustment December 13, 2000 Page 8 Brandt asked Gelman whether it is his contention that there is no discretionary authority involved in this padicular ordinance. Gelman said he would not go that far, but the ordinance has specific standards and he feels there is very little discretion to be exercised by someone who is simply administrating standards. Brandt brought out the provision that the City may restrict street access to one driveway. Gelman admits there is discretion there, that an applicant could be restricted to one driveway. Brandt reiterated the issue raised by Boothroy regarding the definition of a street, including alleys. Wouldn't the alley access be a discretionary issue about where street access occurs? Gelman responded that the standard should say "alley" if it meant alley, but it refers to "street". In addition, Gelman feels there is no right to restrict access down to one unless you do it for the criteria specified. Brandt asked where the access is to the parking under the building in the site plan being discussed. Gelman responded that will be from the alley. Brandt asked what the efforts made by the owners to minimize the impact of the building on the neighborhood were. Gelman deferred to Lariviere or the engineer on that issue. Keitel asked about the statement that the Housing and Inspection Services division only reviews a minor site plan, and how this issue got from Housing & Inspection Services to the Planning Department. Howard stated she cannot speak as to how it went to Planning Department other than by this appeal, but there was reference in the staff report that there was an earlier special exception application submitted by the appellants and that the Planning Department handles special exceptions. Boothroy stated that the distinction between "major" and "minor" review is not significant. Both site plans are required to meet all the same standards. The difference is primarily in the submittal requirements, in detail that is put into the original application. Boothroy reiterated that he denied the site plan on the basis that it would be a problem for the street based on a cumulative effect on the traffic situation and the safety of the neighborhood. Gelman reiterated that there is a big difference between what's "desirable" and what's "enforceable". Howard addressed the question about what constitutes a "street", and read the Code to the Board on this issue, which states that a street is "the improved portion of public right of way primarily intended for vehicurar travel, including alleys." Public Hearinq Opened Gene Lariviere, one of the general partners of the owners of the property, noted that Gelman adequately showed technical and legal reasons for the appeal to succeed. He went on to state that they have no intention to put their stamp on the neighborhood. The area is already zoned CO-1, which includes medical offices. The City requires 20 parking places. The solution was to Board of Adjustment December 13, 2000 Page 9 put half of the parking places underneath the building for employees, with access from the alley. Lariviere reviewed the City's first alternative to the site plan and voiced the owners' objections. He then went on to review the City's second alternative, voicing objections to that plan. Keitel asked what the owners have done to be compatible with the neighborhood. Lariviere stated that they have tried to put as little parking out front as possible. Corcoran asked why the entrances to the public parking and the underground parking needed to be kept separate. Lariviere stated that the elderly patients have to access the building and that affects the entrances to the building due to elevation of the alley. Duane Musser of MMS Consultants offered to answer questions regarding the site plan. Keitel asked how wide the driveway was coming in from Bloomington. Musser stated he believes it is 18' wide. Keitel asked if they had considered having the parking lot closer to the street. Musser stated that they cannot do that because they are adjacent to a residential zone. He stated that they redesigned the front parking lot to maintain the landscape and save two trees. Keitel asked if the owners had considered asking for a special exception to the front yard setback on parking. Musser stated they had considered that. Lariviere stated that Zoning stated they would not allow this special exception. Howard stated that Planning staff said they would not have a favorable recommendation, which would not preclude owners from coming to the Board with a request for a special exception. John KammermeVer, a physician with an office 1-1/2 block west of the site, stated that he was a member of the Comprehensive Plan Coordinating Committee that set up the current structure of the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan. The zoning around Mercy Hospital was set up as CO-1 zone to strongly encourage the development of the medical or health care complex core around Mercy. He has curb cuts from Gilbert St. to his 7-space parking lot for patients, and a curb cut onto Bloomington St. He has never had any complaints or hassles regarding the traffic. Kammermeyer stated that he would never have a medical practice in this area that would have to be accessed by patients from the alley. There are many impediments in the alley that make it dangerous for patients. He feels this site plan is an excellent proposal that should be approved. Marlin Inqalls, a resident in the area immediately north of the properties, stated that Dr. Kammermeyer's office is different because it is on a corner. Ingalls feels that the subject property is a keystone property to the Northside Neighborhood. He feels that the traffic flow and Board of Adjustment December 13, 2000 Page 10 the neighborhood would be adversely affected. The design in general is poorly suited to this area and would diminish the quality of life for everyone who lives in the neighborhood. Terri Neuzil, a resident 3-1/2 blocks north on Van Buren St,, stated that she approves of the denial. Her main concern is the aesthetic look of the office, and the parking in front of the office. Garv Neuzil, husband of Terri, said it is refreshing that the government is looking at the human element in this issue. Growth is great, but you cannot rule out the residential. The modern design of the plan does not fit into the neighborhood. Jim Larew, a resident at the corner of Bloomington and Van Buren, stated that he purchased this residence in a very poor condition and renovated it. He felt that this plan could only be an improvement since the buildings are in a very run down condition, but would like something to be done to make it more compatible with the neighborhood. He stated that the parking on Bloomington St. is horrible. To protect Mercy Hospitars interest in fire protection, Bloomington St. does not rotate parking. One out of three cars is parked for weeks at a time, if not months. He would like parking in this area to be better monitored and rationed, He questions if the seven parking spaces in front of the proposed building are necessary or are due to City requirements. Yapp said that Boothroy and the applicant could best address the first issue of how much give and take there was in this process. He stated that the parking issue on Bloomington Street was because of fire trucks and ambulances so there is a consistent travel lane when they are coming to Mercy Hospital. He stated it is possible to request to reduce the total number of parking spaces required, if the applicant is interested. Boothroy stated it was his understanding that this particular design was locked in by the applicant. He said they did look at a special exception to reduce the parking, but felt that they are showing as much parking as they need to show for the ordinance. Corcoran asked Boothroy if it was true the City staff would not recommend a special exception for the applicant, and Boothroy stated that was true with the particular design originally submitted. The area to the east cannot be used for parking because of the nearby residential zoning, He said there are site options that can be explored. When asked about the width of the lot, Boothroy guessed that the width of the two lots was 80' x 150'. Board of Adjustment December 13, 2000 Page 11 Howard clarified the difference between the standards for special exception for reducing the front yard, and the site plan standards. Lariviere stated there was quite a bit of "give and take" on the plans. The inside of the building is already designed, and the exterior affects that interior. He feels the compromises requested are too extreme. He stated that because the lot next door is zoned residential, they have to follow different regulations than other CO-1 zones. That is why they reduced the size of the parking lot in front. He stated that they feel they will need up to seven parking spots occasionally, and that is why they selected seven spaces in front. Sarah Paulson, a resident of Linn Street, questioned whether they were using "minimum" standards to really mean "maximum". She felt that the Code allows the City to expect more. She then questioned whether the applicant measured the porch before creating their final site plan. Alfred Marren, the resident next door to the subject property, stated that he supports the City's denial of the plan as it is now. Darlene Clausen, the resident next door to the subject property, spoke regarding the safety of the alley behind the subject property. She supports the City's denial and reaffirms that it would be dangerous to exit from the business onto Bloomington St. Yapp stated that the CO-1 zone specifically allows medical and other type of offices. However, the site plan review chapter handles parking. Gelman addressed the question regarding minimum standards, giving his opinion that the law is to keep government intrusion as little as necessary to protect the public's interest. Gelman read standard 14-5H-6. Gelman reasserts that the review process should be very narrow, and that only three issues should be considered: 1) Regulation F - Vehicular & pedestrian circulation (no evidence of a problem); 2) Parking in the front yard (plan provides screening); and 3) design standards the City is trying to apply are not applicable to office buildings. Brandt stated that it was his understanding that the major argument has to do with the degree to which the City official can exercise discretion in making decisions with a minor site review. Brandt then referred to the issues of vehicle and pedestrian circulation (related to the curb cut); and parking in the front yard. He asked whether it was Gelman's contention that the owner is allowed to have access to the street (not counting alley access) and that the reasons for Board of Adjustment December 13, 2000 Page 12 denying the curb cut must be compelling. He also asked whether it was Gelman's contention that with regard to building location that the provisions of the City ordinance have been met, Gelman agreed with those statements. Boothroy affirmed that the City disagrees. The City believes that allowing traffic to enter and exit off Bloomington Street at this location will have a measurable impact on the street and will increase the hazard to both pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Boothroy emphasized that City staff made every effort to work with the applicant to get to a design that would not so negatively affect the street. Brandt asked Boothroy to speak to the question of his discretion or lack thereof on a minor site plan review, Boothroy stated that it was his responsibility to look through the designs submitted and that his discretionary authority include granting modifications including reduction in yard requirements, uses in zones where they are not permitted, and the ordinance outlines discretionary authority to compel applicants to come up with designs that meet the City's standards. Corcoran asked Boothroy to respond to Gelman's statement that the City has not demonstrated compelling reasons regarding vehicular and pedestrian hazard. Boothroy stated that the standards state that, to the greatest extent reasonably possible the applicant has to show to the City that they are going to provide a design that is going to reduce hazards to the sidewalk and to the street, Boothroy read the standard to the Board. He stated that have not the applicants demonstrated to the City that they have met this standard. Gelman reaffirmed that the City must use the ordinances in place at this time in its decision. Public Hearing Closed. Motion: Paul moved to approve AP00-0001 an appeal made by Director of Housing and Inspection Services to deny a minor site plan submitted by Bloomington Properties, L.L.P. for a medical office building and associated parking lot located a 510/5t2 East Bloomington Street in the Commercial Office (CO1) zone, The motion was seconded by Corcoran. Findinqs of Fact Board of Adjustment December 13, 2000 Page 13 Keitel stated that he felt that if there was not a residential zone adjacent to this proper~y, the item would not have come to the Board. The Comprehensive Plan states that this is an encouraged use in a CO-1 zone, and the site plan as shown meets the legal requirements of a CO-1 zone. He will vote in favor of the appeal. Paul stated that he felt it was primarily a problem of zoning in that they are trying to overlay residential zoning requirements on a mix of commercial and residential. He also feels it is partly a question of the Comprehensive Plan versus property rights and what we can and can't tell people what to do with their property. He feels it is just as dangerous coming out of the alley as coming out of a driveway onto Bloomington Street. There are specific ordinances that have been met. He will vote in favor of the appeal. Brandt questioned whether, if the Board were to make a decision that they believe the City has the authority and discretion to make the decision they made, can they change what the decision was. Holecek stated that, in her opinion, there was discretion contained in the ordinance, as indicated by the pre-amble. Further, the ordinance outlines standards to be applied, and those standards are not quantitative or absolute. Holecek stated that if they find there is discretion embodied within the ordinance, they can still find that the discretion was not exercised in an appropriate manner or was exceeded. Discussion ensued between Brandt, Corcoran and Holecek on the topic of the discretionary authority granted by the site plan ordinance. Corcoran stated that it was her understanding that the issues Gelman put forth were that there was very little discretion in the site plan review article of the Code, and that if there is any discretion it was abused. She believes there is discretion in the ordinance. Corcoran then reads the preamble of the Site Plan Review Article of the Iowa City Code. After reading preamble Corcoran states that she believes that Boothroy has discretion in his administerial position and does not feel this discretion was abused. Corcoran states that the language in site plan 14-5H- 5F states that the design of the vehicle and pedestrian circulation shall provided for the safe and convenient flow of vehicles to prevent hazards to adjacent streets and property. The City may limit entrances and exits to avoid congestion upon adjacent or surrounding streets. Corcoran states that in the language of the statutes that Mr. Boothroy made the decision in regards to the Board of Adjustment December 13, 2000 Page 14 health and welfare of the city, and the Comprehensive Plan states that an alley qualifies as an access and given this the appellants did not meet the requirements of the Unified Development Code. Corcoran stated that she will vote against the appeal. Brandt agrees that the City does have discretion in applying the ordinance in this matter. With regard to the curb cut Brandt does feel there is a reasonable argument that street access can occur from the alley, and that the issue of traffic flow and speed is a concern because of the placement of the site in the middle of the block where lots of cars are parked on Bloomington Street which brings into issue the question of pedestrian and vehicular safety from turning cars. Brandt referred to public testimony regarding the intense use of the alley, and that the alley is being used safely. For these reasons Brandt stated he would vote against the appeal. The motion failed by a vote of 2-2. EXC00-00017. An application submitted by James and Becky Buxton for a special exception to permit off street parking on a separate lot for property located in the Neighborhood Conservation Residential (RNC-12) zone at 225 Church Street. The proposed off-site parking space is located at 612 North Linn Street. Howard stated that the applicant requested that this application be deferred. Howard advised that since there was insufficient time to inform the public that the applicant was going to defer that perhaps the Board would like to hear from those that had come to testify. Brandt asked Howard to give a brief statement of the staff recommendation. Howard did not give the staff report, but explained that the staff was recommending denial because after analyzing the evidence and visiting the site numerous times to count vehicles on the site, staff believes that the parking is already overutilized at 612 N. Linn Street and therefore there is not enough parking to serve both the tenants at 612 N. Linn Street and the tenants of 225 Church Street. Corcoran asked if this was a return of a previous case. Howard stated that it had been deferred twice. Public Hearinq Opened Jim Buxton, 1811 Muscatine St., owner of the property of 225 Church Street, stated that they need one additional parking space to permit the rental to four unrelated people. He stated that this morning when he met with Ms. Howard he was informed that the staff would recommend Board of Adjustment December 13, 2000 Page 15 that the special exception be denied. He requests a deferral so that he can find an acceptable parking spot before bringing the special exception forward. Tim Walker, 621 N Johnson, stated that several properties in the area owned by Buxton were full of trash and poorly kept, and have been cited for several reasons. Clarence Haverkamp, 619 N. Linn St., stated that there are three concrete parking spots, a garage and one parking spot in front of the garage at the property at 612 N. Linn St. He said that there are five cars parked at that house the majority of the time, and none park in the garage (one is usually parked in the grass). Several cars that park in this area are not residents of the immediate area. Public Hearina Closed Motion: Keitel moved that item EXC00-00017, a request for a special exception to permit off street parking on a separate lot for property located in the Neighborhood Conservation Residential (RNC-12) zone at 225 Church Street, be deferred for one month. The motion was seconded by Paul. The motion passed on a vote of 4-0. EXC00-00021. An application submitted by Mid-Eastern Council on Chemical Abuse (MECCA) for a special exception to permit construction of a twelve unit apartment and a-reduction in parking spaces for property located in the Intensive Commercial Zone (C1-1) at 436 Southgate Avenue, Howard began by stating that the applicant is a private, not for profit organization that provides substance abuse treatment services and has operated a care facility at 430 Southgate Avenue since 1986. The Applicant is requesting a special exception to construct a new office building with dwelling units above the office space. These would be transitional apartments for MECCA clients transitioning from the rehab facility into more permanent housing. In addition, they have requested to reduce the number of parking spaces required for the existing rehab facility. Howard stated that MECCA has met the standards required for dwellings located above the ground floor of another principal use permitted in the Cl-1 zone. The ground floor of the proposed building will be offices. which is a permitted use in the C1-1 zone. In addition, Howard Board of Adjustment December 13, 2000 Page 16 stated that the density does not exceed the maximum density of one dwelling unit per 1,800 square feet of lot area. Howard stated that staff feels the proposal is compatible with the surrounding uses. Howard stated that the applicant has mentioned a fenced play area, and staff has some concern about buffering between the large parking lot on the adjacent property to the east and the fenced play area. The Board may want to require additional buffering if they grant the exception. Howard outlined the parking requirements for the various uses on the MECCA site and stated that the parking would be shared between all uses. The applicant requests a reduction of the parking requirement for the rehab facility because residents are not allowed to drive or have cars as a condition of their residency. In addition, the visiting hours do not significantly affect the demand for parking at the facility because visitors are only allowed on Tuesdays and Saturdays. Howard presented parking counts conducted by the applicant to show that the number of parking spaces is adequate for current and future use of the property as long as it remains a rehab facility that does not allow its residents to drive. Howard advised the board that since the MECCA site is divided into separate lots, a parking easement should be recorded between the two properties to ensure that the office/apartment building would have access to 24 parking spaces on the lot at 430 Southgate Avenue in perpetuity, if the special exception is granted. Staff recommends that the Board of Adjustment approve EXC00-00021, a special exception to permit twelve apartment units to be constructed above ground floor office space at 436 Southgate Avenue in the Intensive Commercial (C1-1) zone; and a special exception to reduce the required number of parking spaces for the entire MECCA site located at 430 and 436 Southgate Avenue in the C1-1 zone from 100 parking spaces to 84 parking spaces, subject to the following conditions: An easement on property located at 430 Southgate Avenue must be granted to property located at 436 Southgate Avenue that assures access to 24 parking spaces and associated aisles and drives in perpetuity and must be recorded as a covenant that runs with the land; and The play area associated with the new office residential building must be protected from the adjacent parking areas by a fence of durable construction that is at least 6' in height and a planting screen of pyramidal arbor vitae located between the fence and the adjacent parking lot. This screen must be planted according to the specifications in the City Code, 14-6S-11B-1. Board of Adjustment December 13, 2000 Page 17 Brandt asked if it was a concern that in the future residents would be allowed to have cars. Yapp stated that the use is being granted to MECCA and that if the use of the property changed, the special exception would no longer apply. Holecek stated that they don't typically tie special exceptions to one ownership because it is a land use decision. A condition could be added if desired that the special exception would apply as long as the residents of the treatment center were not permitted to have vehicles. Public Hearin¢l Opened Ron Ber.q, an employee of MECCA, presented himself for questions. Brandt asked him if he had any concerns with the condition regarding residents driving vehicles. He stated that he did not. Public Hearincl Closed Motion: Corcoran moved that the Board of Adjustment approve EXC00-00021, a special exception to permit 12 apartments to be constructed above ground floor office space at 436 Southgate Avenue in the Intensive Commercial (C1-1) zone and a special exception to reduce the required number of parking spaces for the entire MECCA site located at 430 and 436 Southgate Avenue in the CI-'I zone from t00 parking to 84 parking spaces, subject to the following conditions: 1) an easement on property located at 430 Southgate Avenue must be granted to property located at 436 Southgate Avenue that assures access to 24 parking spaces and associated aisles and drives in perpetuity and must be recorded as a covenant that runs with the land; 2) the play area associated with the new office/residential building must be protected from the adjacent parking areas by a fence of durable construction that is at least 6' in height and a planting screen of pyramidal arbor vitae located between the fence and the adjacent parking lot. This screen must be planted according to the specifications in the City Code 14-6S-lIB-l; 3) the special exception shall attach to the use of the facility as a drug and alcohol treatment center, admission to which is conditioned upon not having a vehicle readily on the premises. Seconded by Keitel. Findincls of Fact Corcoran stated that she would vote in favor of the motion. The applicant appears to have met the standards of the Code and the proposal is compatible with the surrounding uses. Board of A~ustment December13,2000 Page 18 Paul stated that he would vote in favor of the motion. The standards have been met, in density as well as location. The parking requirements are a unique situation. It will not be injurious to other persons or neighboring properties. Keitel stated that he would vote in favor of the motion. The interests of the public have been served and there are no detrimental engineering issues. Brandt stated that he would vote in favor of the motion. It is a good project, good location, and minimal impact on others. The motion passed on a vote of 4-0. EXC00-00022. An application submitted by MVL Properties and Iowa City Tire for a special exception to permit Iowa City Tire to continue operation of a satellite location for an automobile repair business for a property located in the Community Commercial Zone (CC-2) at 521 Kirkwood Avenue. Paul recused himself at this point due to the fact that the presenter is a close friend of his. Yapp stated that this property is on Kirkwood Avenue at Governor's Ridge, at the southeast corner of the building. This use was in this area for 14 months, and was discovered when a complaint was received. Iowa City Tire uses this location as an overflow area for diagnostic testing and tune-up type repairs. The public does not visit this location. The staff feels that it is favorable that this site is used only for employees to shuttle cars back and forth, and that ingress and egress to the site is adequate. The use is compatible with adjacent properties because the rear of the facility is not in view. Staff recommends that the special exception be approved for a satellite station for diagnostic testing and tune-up related minor repairs, subject to the use not being open to the general public and being confined to the basement level of the building at 521 Kirkwood Avenue. Keitel asked if there are any building code issues. Yapp stated that there had been a problem with venting gases from the site which has been resolved. Public Hearinq Opened Board of Adjustment December 13, 2000 Page 19 David Foman, the property manager for MVL Properties, presented himself for questions. Brandt questioned whether the conditions suggested create any problem. Foman stated that this area is not a place for the public to come - the area is inhabited by warehouse space and the Iowa City Tire space, and he did not have a problem with the conditions proposed by staff. Public Hearinq Closed Motion: Corcoran moved for approval of EXC00-00022, a special exception to allow the continuation of an auto and truck oriented use, specifically a satellite service station for diagnostic testing and tune-up related minor repairs, subject to the use not being open to the general public and being confined to the basement level of the building at 52t Kirkwood Avenue. Seconded by Keitel. Findinqs of Fact Brandt stated that he would vote in support of the motion. The basic standards are met and the business is unobtrusive. Corcoran stated that she would vote in favor. The standards appear to have been met, and it seems to be compatible with the adjacent properties with no health or safety issues. Keitel stated that he would vote in favor. The motion passed on a 3-0 vote. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION It was nominated that Kate Corcoran be the Airport Board of Adjustment representative. Kate accepted the position. Next Board of Adjustment meeting is set for January 10, 2001. A luncheon which was planned for Brandt for December 14th has been canceled. It is planned to have a luncheon after the new board member is selected in January. Board of Adjustment December 13, 2000 Page 20 Holecek introduced Mitch Behr, a new attorney in the City Attorney's Office. He will be assisting with land use and planning and zoning issues. Brandt stated that he has enjoyed his tenure on the Board, and that it has been very educational. He has gained a real appreciation for City staff. Corcoran thanked Brandt for his articulate, thoughtful, leadership. Keitel and Paul affirmed thanks. ADJOURNMENT Keitel moved to adjourn with the second by Paul. The meeting adjourned at 9:25 P.M. ppdadrnin\rnins%boa12-13-OOdoc 01-16-01 4a(2) APPR0Y:u IOWA CITY BOARD OF APPEALS TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2000 CIVIC CENTER LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Anna Buss, Tom Werderitsch, John Roffman, Doug DuCharme, Gary Haman MEMBERS ABSENT: Wayne Maas, Tim Fehr STAFF PRESENT: Tim Hennes (Sr. Building Inspector), Sue Dulek (Assistant City Attorney), Jann Ream (Code Enforcement Assistant) OTHERS PRESENT: None RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: None. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Roffman called the meeting to order at 4:34 P.M. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES: Meeting minutes were reviewed from the October 2, 2000 meeting MOTION: Roffman motioned to approve with a second by Haman. Motion Carried by a 5-0 vote. ADJOURMENT Buss moved to adjourn the meeting with a second by Werderitsch. The meeting adjourned at 4:36 P.M. J~///nn?us~yJann Ream ~ / ' '~ 3 "" O / Jo~/' ~s Char Date / IOWA CITY HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION ~PPR0qLj~) IOWA CITY CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS November 28, 2000 MEMBERS PRESENT: Jan Warren, Joan Jehle, Charles Major, Mary Larew, Maureen Howe, Mettle Thompulos, Diane Martin MEMBERS ABSENT: Rick Spooner STAFF MEMBERS: Heather Shank 1. CALL TO ORDER: Thompulos called the meeting to order at 7:05. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Jehle made a motion to approve the minutes with revisions. Larew seconded the motion. MOTION: The motion was carried by a vote of 6-0. (Warren had not arrived yet.) 3. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: 4. NEW BUSiNESS: NEW COMMISSIONERS Four New Commissioners as of January 1,2001 Shank reported that the four new Commissioners would be Lisa Beckmann, Paul Retish, Ernie Cox, and Keri Neblett. DECEMBER MEETNG The Commission is scheduled to have a meeting on December 26th, the day after Christmas. The Commissioners agreed to reschedule the meeting for Wednesday December 20, 2000. JANUARY MEETING January's meeting to be held in the lobby conference room because Council is having a budget meeting in the Council Chambers. 5. OLD BUSINESS: PUBLIC FORUM Housing Impediments and Persons with Disabilities- Public Forum- November 29, 7:00 p.m. (Joint Project with Community Development- Angela Williams and the Cable Department- Jerry Nixon.) Shank discussed the Public Forum that is taking place on November 29th. There are going to be numerous panelists discussing the issue of housing in the Iowa City area for persons with disabilities. BREAKFAST Breakfast - 203 people attended- Next year scheduled for October 25, 2001. Have to raise the price $2.00. Shank reported that any money that was left over after paying the Iowa Memorial Union for the food would be put in the HR budget, specifically the education budget line. This year only $178.00 will go into the education line. Shank also reported that ticket prices will have to be raised next year. Warren inquired as to whether or not the prices should be raised more than $2.00 since they have not been raised since at least 1994. Shank said that she would look into it. The Commission also discussed the amount of money they receive from the state for cases completed. That money is also put in the education fund. Jehle thanked the selection committee for their effort. Shank indicated that she would try and give them more time next year to decide and, hopefully, not require such a quick tumaround. MISC. Warren pointed out that she should have brought up the fact under new business that there was notice in the packet of a day long educational conference at Cornell College in West Branch. The conference will feature Dr. Cornel West. The conference will be the 2nd Annual White Privilege conference and will take place April 19, 2001. 6. REPORTS OF COMMISSIONERS Howe reported that under a new law that waives the oath of allegiance in certain cases, a severely disabled woman from India was granted U.S. citizenship on November 21 ~t.. Larew reported that she was horrified when she read of the acid onslaughts against women in Bangladesh. The acid attacks are related to resentment regarding low dowry payments. Some of the attacks are by angry lovers, resentful husbands and some are even committed by mother-in-laws. Anyone can buy acid in Bangladesh and it is very inexpensive making it relatively easy for people to obtain. The Bangladesh National Woman Lawyers Association petitioned the Supreme Court in August demanding a law against selling acid. (Police Corruption is the No. 1 problem along with apathetic judges.) Major reported that after the last election there was a meeting by Johnson County Alternatives to the Jail. The group is going to discuss policing policies. Major said that the meetings are very interesting. He stated that he felt that sometimes 2 some misinformation gets put out. Major felt that there was going to be some city representation to clear that up. Jehle said that the next meeting would be her last and that she was sad about that, but that she felt the new members would be a wonderful addition to the Commission. In addition, Jehle thanked Mary for a job well done on the HAART tee shirts 7. STATUS OF CASES Shank reported that team A had a case to read. She reported that another case was in legal. 8. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Thomopulos made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Larew seconded the motion. The motion was carried by a vote of 7-0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:43. 3 MINUTES IOWA CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES REGULAR MEETING THURSDAY, - DECEMBER 21,2000 5:00 PM Members Present: Winston Barclay, Linda Dellsperger, Mary McMurray, Shaner Magalh~es, Mark Martin, Lisa Parker, Jesse Singerman, Jim Swaim Members Absent: Linda Prybil Staff Present: Maeve Clark, Susan Craig, Beth Daly, Larry Eckholt, Debb Green, Heidi Lauritzen, Kara Logsden, Liz Nichols Others: Joe Heitz, Press-Citizen In order to protect Mark Martin's voice, Lisa Parker ran the meeting under Martin's direction. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 5:05 pm. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Singerman asked for clarification of the section on construction management. It was explained that the Library will not hire a construction manager, but the City Public Works Department will assume those duties. The City has a person in mind to oversee the project, but he will not be available to attend meetings during the design phase. During the design phase, the Architects will be responsible for subcontracting for project planning services. This will include construction phasing. The Board wanted to know if they have the right to ask the architects to terminate relations with a firm if the Board has no confidence in the firm. Craig assured that the Architects would hire competent workers, so it would be unlikely. The minutes of the regular meeting of November 16, 2000 were approved, Swaim, Dellsperger. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: Buildinq project Architect Services Contract: As of the meeting time, Craig had not received a copy of the formal contract needed to hire the architects. At this point, attorneys from the City and the architects are reviewing proposed changes to the contract. ICPL BOARD OF TRUSTEES December 21,2000 There will be three contracts: one for the design phase, one for the construction phase, and one for the furniture, fixtures, and equipment. The tentative schedule is as follows: January 15 - Lawyers sign off contract January 17 - Craig and Building Committee meet to review contract January 19 - Contract mailed in Library Board Packet January 27 - Board approves and signs contract at regular meeting Craig was worried that the architects would not want to work without a contract for several weeks while the details were finalized, but they had no problem with that. Library Visits: Craig updated the Board on the planned Library visits. So far, Craig and various other staff have visited several libraries in Minnesota. The planned Chicago trip was rescheduled due to weather, and staff members hope to make a day trip on December 28. Craig reported that every library they visited had some nice features that would work well here, but in her opinion, no library was better than ICPL can be. Another day trip is scheduled for January 8 to visit libraries in Iowa. Chanqes to the Buildinq Proqram: Library departments are updating the 1994 Building Plan. Examples of the items under discussion are moving the ICN room to the first floor to make it accessible to early morning meetings, and changing some of the proposed movie viewing stations to Internet stations. Craig asked the Board how involved they wanted to be during this process. Board members were comfortable with the staff making decisions and directing the architects to make changes during the design phase. The Board requested that Craig prepare a list of the highlights of the changes (such as the ICN room move) so they are informed and can speak for the public interest. They will also sign off on all the plans, so the review of the highlights will provide opportunities to make changes. Craig will prepare a report under these guidelines. Proposed Schedule for Architect visits: The architects plan to be in Iowa City three times in January. Craig proposed hosting public forums during these visits. January 3 - Business forum 4 pm- inform Downtown Association and Chamber of Commerce members Public forum 7 pm- send cards to our mailing list, advertise in Press Citizen and Gazette January 11 - Public forum 7 pm- send cards to our mailing list, advertise in Press Citizen and Gazette January 25 & 26 - meet with Board at their regular meeting ICPL BOARD OF TRUSTEES December 21,2000 The Board was in favor of the proposal, but wanted to know more details. Craig suggested that the architects present and review the preliminary designs for the public, outline what can't be changed (size, budget, etc), and ask for questions and comments. Craig thought that she and the building committee should be on hand to answer policy questions. A possible scenario: "I'm really concerned about handicap access to the restrooms." "As you can see, we have included some design features to address that issue." The Board directed Craig to set up the forums as discussed. The preliminary design phase is to be completed by the end of March. This is a tight schedule, very challenging. On a side note, the Board wanted to know if input could be received by e-mail. Nichols replied that not only is it possible, but we have already received a substantial number of comments that way. 64-1A: There has been some interest in developing 64-1A, the parking lot to the south of the Library. The City Council will discuss this possibility at an informal meeting in January. Craig would like for the Building Committee and herself to be present to speak for the Library. For example, it would not be in the Library's best interest for construction at 64-1A to take place at the same time as Library construction. Ideally for the Library, the lot would be dedicated to library parking. Although the Board has already sent a letter detailing the Library's preference, Swaim suggested that it would be good to be proactive and remind the Council what we want. The Board would like any construction on 64-1A to include at least 50 parking spaces for library users. On the issue of parking, during library construction, it is likely that the City will redesign the parallel parking on Linn Street between College and Washington to angled parking. This would increase the number of parking spaces and raise the level of the sidewalk to provide accessible entrances to the businesses along Linn. One less positive result will be a narrower sidewalk. Lenoch & Cilek Buildinq Leases: The City Manager can negotiate with the business owners in the Lenoch & Cilek Building to sign short term leases. The City will take possession of the building on March 1, but the demolition won't begin until after September 2001. Mural: Craig distributed a newspaper article about the mural in the Lenoch & Cilek building. There has not yet been any contact made by those wanting to preserve the mural and Library staff or Board. ICPL BOARD OF TRUSTEES December 21,2000 Martin appointed Swaim and Barclay to contact the teacher and visit SHAC, the alternative high school (successor to the school whose students painted the mural), to get some idea of what the group has in mind for the mural. The Board is eager to cooperate in the discussion of mural preservation and location, whether in the Library, the schools, or some other public place. Exit Poll: Craig included the results of an exit survey that was conducted on election night, November 7, 2000, by the University of Iowa. It was interesting that the reason most given for voting "yes" for Library expansion was "Library excellence." Budqet FY02: Craig reported that she has not received a copy of the FY02 budget, but knew that the report was scheduled to be distributed. The City Manager indicated that he would recommend the Library gain one new position in FY01, FY02, and in FY03, to meet staffing needs of a larger building. This is not in writing and so is not positive yet. NEW BUSINESS: A. Matchinq Gift: Craig proposed that the Board set aside trust income up to $50,000 over five years from 5311.5 (NOBU) and use it to match gifts by the staff towards the Foundation's new Reaching for New Heights campaign. The Board was tentatively in favor, but had some concerns. Swaim was reluctant to commit such a substantial amount this early in the campaign. Martin wanted to know if 5311.5 could support such a gift. Craig assured him that the fund usually about a $20,000 to $30,000 carry-over this year, and that the trust income is about $8,500 annually and increasing. Parker pointed out that if the campaign did not raise enough, NOBU funds would have to be used to buy the same furniture or equipment that the campaign would have purchased. Eckholt reported that the Friends Foundation Board was enthusiastic about the possibility of matching gifts. Matching money is a significant incentive to donors and is good fundraising strategy. Several donors have already requested that their gifts be used for matching. The automatic pay option (deduction from checking or saving) is almost ready to be implemented. As soon as possible after that, the campaign will approach staff to solicit donations. Craig cautioned that the campaign be careful to follow City guidelines for solicitations. The Board approved the use of gift money up to $50,000 as described in the proposal: Martin/Dellsperger. B. Policy Reviews: The Board approved the proposed language changes in the "Policy Making" and "Membership in Professional Organizations" policies as recommended by staff: ParkedBarclay. ICPL BOARD OF TRUSTEES December 21,2000 On a side note, the language in the policy on Membership in Professional Organizations states that the Trustees shall be asked every year in January if they wish to join ALA. One of the Board Members wondered why he was never asked? Craig said it was an oversight, that the staff must have missed asking this January. C. Director Evaluation: The Director Evaluation Committee Parker and McMurray) recommended that the format of the evaluation be changed from job description related to goal related. Craig drafted some goals for this year. In the future, goals will be drafted and proposed at the same time that the previous year's goals are evaluated. The Board approved the drafted goals, commenting that they seem pretty extensive. D. City Low Power Radio Station: Barclay reported that he has heard that due to pressure from commercial media organizations, the FCC has cut back on the amount of low power licenses it had planned to offer. There was some discussion that this turn of events has made the City's application for a license useless. Other Trustees countered that our letter would be a statement of support and that if the FCC ever opens the application process again, the City would have shown their interest and have the Library's support. Swaim explained that if this FCC proposal goes through, it might legitimize youth underground radio. He also suggested that ICPL could explore the possibility of streaming audio on our Web site. The Board was concerned about adding to the already high staff workload. Craig explained that staff would drop other things if work on radio projects became a priority, and the City Cable TV offices would help convert applicable video programs to radio programs. The Board voted to send a letter of support, regardless of whether or not the City has a chance at a license: Swaim/Magalh~es. STAFF REPORTS: A. Phone Notification: Lauritzen reported that the phone notification system has been on line for a couple of weeks. The public is very enthusiastic about e-mail notifications, but there has not been much reaction to phone notification. So far the breakdown has been as follows: 43% of hold notices are sent by e-mail, 48% of hold notices are sent by phone, and the rest are sent by mail. B. Reclassification: The Building Manager position (approval was postponed election night) has since been approved by the City Council. ICPL BOARD OF TRUSTEES December 21,2000 C. New Hennen Report: Last year, the Hennen Report ranked ICPL in the top ten libraries of its size in the US. This year, ICPL was not ranked as highly. Craig mentioned that the data used in the report was a couple of years old, so next year we could be ranked higher. Craig was delighted to point out that the North Liberty Community Library received a high ranking this year. D. DO Report: Eckholt reported that the annual fund drive is doing well, and that the Friends Foundation has received quite a number of stock gifts this year. He mentioned that the capital campaign was at a sensitive stage. At this point, the DO Staff are working on a leadership gift and soliciting Foundation and Library Board members. In spite of the extreme weather, the Library received 6,000 books for Project Holiday. Eckholt was disappointed that the media has not showed more interest in the school kids who have worked so hard to collect the books. The 2001 Spelling Bee will take place Tuesday, February 6, 2001. E. Readinqs: Craig included readings she felt would be of interest to Board members. F. Board and Commission Business List: Craig explained that the Board and Commission list is distributed by the City to show the possible conflicts of interest between Board and Commission members and businesses they run. G. Library Jail Service: Logsden explained that the Johnson CoUnty Jail Browsing Library is closing due to lack of space. There are also security issues related to inmates having large numbers of books. ICPL will change the Jail procedures so inmates can choose 6 books per week. The Jail still contracts with ICPL to provide magazine and newspaper subscriptions, but that may change in FY02. As procedural changes are taking place, Library staff have volunteered to work with jail staff to design new spaces that include a browsing library. Swaim very strongly opposed the closing of the Jail Browsing Library. He agreed that most of the inmates would be well served by the new procedures, but insisted that for the few who haven't had education or opportunities, a browsing library would possibly be the only contact they would have with books. ICPL wants to serve all inmates, not just those who are comfortable with libraries. The Board will approach the Jail Building Committee (when formed) and take a proactive role in promoting library service. Logsden will include "suggested title" and reader advisory bookmarks for all level readers in with the material sent to the Jail. ICPL BOARD OF TRUSTEES December 21,2000 H. ILA Leclislative Aqenda: Craig apologized for the late notice to the annual Legislative Reception, and said that this had turned out to be a good year to miss, as only two legislators were able to attend. Governor Viisack has requested that Enrich Iowa funds be increased to $700,000, with the increase to be funded from non-tax income. On the federal level, there is a bill tying federal funding of libraries to Internet filtering. ICPL does not receive federal funding and so will not rush out to purchase filtering software. PRESIDENT'S REPORT: None ANNOUNCEMENT FROM MEMBERS: Swaim shared information about the Karkowski 130-year-old barn recently burning to the ground. Mr. Karkowski, who was not able to purchase insurance, has lost his barn, his furniture building equipment, and all of his works in progress. Swaim urged anyone interested to attend a fund raising soup dinner on January 14, 2000, from 6-9 pm in Old Brick. If people are not able to attend but would like to make a donation, checks will be accepted at Iowa State Bank. Magalh~es praised the Inservice Day Singers, a group of staff members who participated in a hilarious skit during staff training. Kudos were heaped upon Jeanette Carter, who wrote the words of the song to the tune of "We're Off to See the Wizard." COMMITTEE REPORTS: None DISBURSEMENTS: Visa report was reviewed. Disbursements for November were approved: Parker, McMurray. SET AGENDA ORDER FOR NOVEMBER MEETING: Building Plan ADJOURNMENT: Adjourned at 6:30 p.m. Minutes taken and transcribed by Beth Daly MINUTES PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 2000 MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Casey, Barbara Endel, Craig Gustaveson, Bruce Maurer, Matt Pacha, Rex Pruess, A1 Stroh MEMBERS ABSENT: Toni Cilek, James Moxley STAFF PRESENT: Mike Moran, Terry Robinson, Terry Trueblood GUESTS: Nancy Ostrogani FORMAL ACTION TAKEN Moved bv Maurer, seconded by Stroh~ to aDDrove the November 8, 2000 minutes as written. Unanimous. Moved by Stroh, seconded by Pruess, to endorse the 2rant aDnlication to assist with reconstructin~ the City Park trails. Unanimous. Moved by Endek seconded by Gustaveson, to recommend acceOtance of the oOen space as noted on the peninsula nei2hborhood develoOment olat. Unanimous. Moved by Pruess, seconded by Gustaveson, to anooint Matt Pacha as Chair and Bruce Maurer as Vice Chair for 2001. Unanimous. PUBLIC DISCUSSION Pacha welcomed Nancy Ostrogani, who has been appointed to a term on the commission beginning January 2001. CITY PARK TRAILS Trueblood reported reconstruction of the City Park trail system was one of the commission's higher rated C1P projects. John Yapp with the city's Planning and Community Development Department is applying for a grant to assist with this project. The estimated project cost is $440,000, with the grant application amount being $330,000. Staff would like the commission to sign a resolution supporting the grant application. Letters of support are also being obtained from FIRST, the Johnson County Regional Trails Committee, and others. Pacha asked if the receipt of grant funds would affect the amount committed towards the project by the Parks and Recreation Foundation. Trueblood indicated it would depend on the amount of grant funds received as to how much it would reduce the amount of GO Bonds and the Foundation's commitment necessary to complete the project. He noted the Foundation's portion is money that was received during their City Park fundraising effort after the flood of 1993. Endel asked why the city is focusing on the City Park trail system as opposed to other trails for this grant. Trueblood noted this grant is strictly for improvement and reconstruction to existing trails, and the City Park trails are in need ofranovation. Moved by Stroh. seconded by Prness, to endorse the ~rant aDOlication to assist with reconstrnctimt the City Park trails. Unanimous. Parks and Recreation Comrmssion December 13, 2000 Page 2 of 4 PENINSULA NEIGItBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT Treeblood referred to a plat of the proposed peninsula neighborhood development located to the north and east of the peninsula parkland area. The neighborhood open space requirement is 1.8 acres and the proposed area is 3 acres in size, an area that ties into the peninsula parkland. The plat depicts a trailhead through this area, which ties into the trail that leads to the bridge over the Iowa River adjacent to the old Iowa River power plant. The developer is also proposing to dedicate a .25 acre pareel near the center of the development for a small town square. The developer has indicated they would like to flood this area in the winter for ice-skating. Trueblood noted the commission would be approving acceptance of the land regardless of design. Staff will work with the developer as plans progress to determine what would be an appropriate use for this area if it is accepted. Trueblood stated this development is being spearheaded by the city to develop a neo-traditional neighborhood. Moved by Endel, seconded by Gustaveson, to recommend acceVtance of the oven svace as noted on the veninsula neil~hborhood develovment vlat. Unanimous. RECREATION DIVISION FEES & CItARGES Trueblood reviewed the draft of the proposed Recreation Division fees and charges for FY02. Once staff receives the City Manager's proposed budget it will determine what fees and charges need to be changed to obtain the goal of 40 percent of the division's budget being supported by non-property tax revenue. Casey asked if a customer survey could be conducted on the cost of swim passes and if the public thinks the fees are in line with what they are willing to pay. Trueblood noted surveys have been completed, with fee surveys difficult to compare due to the many differences in the types of pools and fee structures. He noted the city's daily pool admission is the same as Coralville, and is very close to the average fee, in a survey conducted last year, among several Iowa communities. Endel asked if the city has a long term conlract with the Swim Club, with Moran noting the Swim Club is an affiliate group and there is no formal contract. Endel indicated people have asked why there isn't an area for lap swimming at the Mercer Park Aquatic Center (MPAC) on Mondays and Wednesdays after 6 p.m. She asked with respect to income generated if it would be more advantageous to open the pool to the public. Moran indicated lap swim hours are given as much as possible throughout each day, noting these are the only two days out of the week when there is no lap swimming after 6 p.m. Endel noted Monday and Wednesday evenings are prime time hours for people who work out on a regular basis, with the public wishing they had priority use. Trueblood indicated staff struggled when the aquatic center first opened with the Swim Club wanting more hours than could be given. He stated it may be time to look at the usage of the pool again and how best to serve all parties. Casey noted it was important to remember there are no pools in the schools, and the Swim Club serves an important purpose in grooming youth for swim teams and exciting youth to swim for recreation and fitness. Endel stated she was not saying the current configuration isn't right, but that it is hard for the public to understand why they can't swim on two prime nights and why others have priority. She noted reconfiguration of lessons or Swim Club's usage could be reviewed. Trueblood stated staff will finalize the Recreation Division's fees and charges for the commission to adopt (or modify and then adopt) at next month's commission meeting. Parks and Recreation Commission December 13, 2000 Page 3 of 4 OPERATING BUDGET Trueblood noted that last month the commission was given an overview of the operating budget. Since that time a "trail ranger" program has been requested. This program would enable the city to hire four teenage youth and one supervisor in the summer to help manage and maintain the nature trails, mostly in Hickory Hill Park. With respect to the capital budget, the City Manager and staff met with Riverside Theatre to discuss their seating proposal for City Park. Riverside Theatre indicated their willingness to fund the entire amount, with the city paying back approximately one-half over a period of time. The City Manager instructed them to submit a letter to the City Council. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Pruess reported he and Stroh served on the nominating committee, and they nominate Matt Pacha as Chair and Bruce Maurer as Vice Chair for 2001. Moved by Pruess, seconded by Gustaveson, to al~l~oint Matt Pacha as Chair and Bruce Maurer as Vice Chair for 2001. Unanimous. COMMISSION TIME Gustaveson indicated this was the end of his second year on the commission. He has enjoyed serving and has been impressed with how commission members can disagree and after heated discussions can shake hands and say nice discussion. He hoped in 2001 that the commission will continue to argue and have lively discussions, noting that good decisions have resulted from it. Pacha asked for clarification of the City Park Amusement Ride Revenue Report for 2000. Trueblood indicated the city contracted with Successful Living to operate the rides, with a certain percentage being paid for administrative costs. The administrative costs remain constant, with the labor costs fluctuating depending on the numbers of hours open. He noted the contract for next year has yet to be completed, with Successful Living indicating they would like to continue operating the rides next year. Trueblood noted Successful Living would also like to operate a concession stand, incurring all the expenses and supplies and keeping the profits. Gustaveson asked if there were any plans to determine in the future whether it is feasible to continue operation of the rides. Trueblood noted funding is included in the capital improvement budget to develop the area around the rides, with plans to continue operation of the rides. Pacha noted it should be looked at as providing a service to the citizens of Iowa City. Staff will be discussing operation of the City Park rides in general with the City Manager. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Trueblood reported on the following: MPAC Air Quality Report. The report from Worksafe Iowa regarding their "assessment of ambient chlorine levels" was included in the packet. The bottom line of the report is that they found nothing wrong with the air or water quality at the center, but they also recommend that this assessment be done again next summer during periods of higher humidity. Casey asked that a copy of this report be available for people to review, with Moran stating he would mail it to the individuals who expressed concern, would have a copy available at MPAC, and could post it on the WEB. Deer in Hickory Hill Park. The city has contracted again this year with a private company to thin the deer population. There are plans to do so in Hickory Hill Park around January 8 for approximately four to five days. The park will be closed during specific times and signs will be posted. Parks and Recreation Commission December 13~ 2000 Page 4 of 4 Hickory Hill Park Walk Throul~h. Over 30 people participated in the recent walk through of Hickory Hill Park. The next trail planning session is scheduled for December 19m at the Recreation Center. Hunters Run Park. The first neighborhood park-planning meeting is set for January 17m at Weber School. This will be the first of four to five neighborhood meetings before development of plans and specifications. Commission Members. Pacha presented Casey with a Certificate of Appreciation for her service to the commission during her term, which expired this month. Trueblood reported James Moxley will be moving out of Iowa City and has resigned from the commission. ADJOURNMENT Moved bv Stroh, seconded by Endel, to adjourn. Unanimous. The meeting adjoumed at 6:20 p.m. RULES COMMITTEE MEETING January 11, 2001 Committee Members Present: Lehman, Champion Staff Members Present: Karr Police Citizens Review Board By-Laws The Rules Committee recommends approval of the changes as attached to the Police Citizen Review Board minutes of December 12, 2000. 2 Section 6. Terms. Members shall be initially appointed for staggered terms as outlined in Chapter 8, City Code, City of Iowa City, Iowa. Thereafter, Members shall be appointed for terms of four years, with terms expidng on May 1. If a position becomes vacant by reason of resignation or otherwise, and results in an unexpired term of six months or less, the Council may choose to fill the unexpired term in such a manner that the appointee shall continue in the position not only through the unexpired term, but also through a subsequent regular term. Section 7. Resiqnations. Resignations shall be submitted in writing to the Mayor with a copy to the City Clerk and the Chairperson of the Board at least 30 days prior to the date of intended departure. ARTICLE IV. OFFICERS: Section '1. Number. The officers of this Board shall be a Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson, each of whom shall be elected by the members of the Board. Section 2. Election and Term of Office. Officers of the Board shall be elected by a majority of all members as soon as practicable after formation of the Board, and thereafter annually at the first regular meeting in October each year; if the election of officers shall not be held at such meeting, such election shall be held as soon thereafter as is convenient. Section 3. Vacancies. A vacancy in any office because of death, resignation, removal, disqualification or other cause shall be filled by the members for the unexpired portion of the term. Section 4. Chairperson. The Chairperson shall, when present, preside at all meetings, appoint committees, call special meetings and in general perform all duties incident to the office of a Chairperson, and such other duties as may be prescribed by the members from time to time. Section 5. Vice-Chairperson. In the absence of the Chairperson, or in the event of death, inability or refusal to act, the Vice-Chairperson shall perform the duties of the Chairperson and when so acting shall have all the powers of and be subject to all the restrictions upon the Chairperson. ARTICLE V. BOARD MEETINGS: Section 1. Regular Meetings. At least one (1) monthly meeting shall be held The Board's regular meeting will be held the second Tuesday of each month. Special meetings may be called by the Chairperson and shall be called by the Chairperson or Vice Chairperson at the request of three or more Members of the Board. At least one (1) full day's written notice of meeting place, time and agenda shall be given each Member and the media. Insofar as possible, only matters included on the agenda may be discussed and formal votes taken. Care shaII be taken to avoid discussion of non-agenda items. Section 2. Quorum. A majority of the members of the Board shall constitute a quorum at any meeting. Section 3. Place of Meetinas. Meetings, both regular and special, shall be held in an accessible City facility. Meetings which are forums solely for community input may be in other appropriate meeting }Iaces in Iowa City.