HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-10-18 Info Packet
1 = !
--= -~....
t~w~~
~... ~raJJmi-
...,.. ~ ~
CITY OF IOWA CITY
www.icgov .org
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET
October 18, 2007
MISCELLANEOUS
IP1 Tentative Council Meetings and Work Session Agenda
IP2 Letter from Mayor Wilburn to Area Legislators: Legislative priorities for the upcoming
session
IP3 Memorandum from Mayor Wilburn: National League of Cities November meeting
IP4 Memorandum from the Interim City Manager: Kimball Road Speed Humps
IP5 Memorandum from the City Attorney: 935 Market Street - Wetherby House
[correspondence from Marybeth Slonneger included]
IP6 Memorandum from the Interim City Manager: Iowa City Fire Department/Johnson
County Ambulance Service
IP7 National League of Cities Federal Relations Update period ending October 12, 2007
[submitted by Council Member Vanderhoef]
IP8 Police Department P.A.U.L.A. Report - September 2007
IP9 Police Department Use of Force Report - August 2007
IP10 Police Department Use of Force Report - September 2007
IP11 Quarterly Investment Report July 1, 2007 - September 30, 2007 [submitted by the
Senior Accountant]
IP12 Housing and Inspection Services Customer Service Survey - October 2007
IP13 Agenda: Johnson/Linn County Public Leadership Group Meeting - October 25, 2007
IP14 Invitation: Public Meetings hosted by Iowa Office of Energy Independence
IP15 Invitation: Advocating for Livable Communities for All Iowans - November 13, 2007
IP16 Invitation: The Chicago 2007 AlBA World Boxing Championships Opening Ceremonies
October 22, 2007
DRAFT MINUTES
IP17 Senior Center Commission: September 21,2007
IP18 Planning and Zoning Commission: October 4, 2007
IP19 Board of Adjustment: October 10, 2007
I;; j
--= -~
!~w~'t
~:.-- "lID!-~
..................
CITY OF IOWA CITY
City Council Meeting Sche~ule and
Work Session Agendas
1"P"1U1 I
October 18, 2007
www.icgov.org
TENTATIVE FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS I
. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 5 Emma J. Harvat Hall
TBA Council Work Session
7:00p Special Formal Council Meeting
. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 8 Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:30p Special Work Session/Orientation 2007-2008 City Councils
· Separate Agenda Posted
. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 12
Veterans' Day - Offices closed
. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 22
Thanksgiving Day - Offices closed
. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 23
Thanksgiving Day Holiday - Offices closed
. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 26
5:30p Legislative Meeting
6:30p Special Council Work Session
Emma J. Harvat Hall
. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 27
7:00p Special Formal Council Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
. MONDAY, DECEMBER 10
6:30p Special Council Work Session
Emma J. Harvat Hall
. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 11
7:00p Special Formal Council Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
. WEDNESDAY,DECEMBER19
4:30p Joint Meeting
Coralville
. MONDAY, DECEMBER 24
Christmas Holiday - Offices closed
. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 25
Christmas Day- Offices closed
. TUESDAY, JANUARY 1
New Year's Day - Offices closed
~~
&- ~
-~= -~
(~aij!:'t
~~.....,
~~
CITY OF IOWA CITY
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826
(319) 356-5000
(319) 356-5009 FAX
www.icgov.org
October 16, 2007
(INDIVIDUAL LETTERS SENT TO AREA LEGISLATORS)
The Honorable Robert Dvorsky
The Honorable Joe Bolkcom
The Honorable Jim Hahn
The Honorable David Jacoby
The Honorable Jeff Kaufmann
The Honorable Vicky Lensing
The Honorable Mary Mascher
The City Council of Iowa City would like to meet with legislators to identify legislative
priorities for the upcoming session.
After contacting a number of you it was determined that Monday, November 26, at 5:30
PM would be the most acceptable.
Please reserve one hour (5:30-6:30) on Monday evening, November 26, on your
calendars. The meeting will take place in Harvat Hall of City Hall, 410 East Washington
Street.
Thank you for setting aside time to meet with us and we look forward to a short
productive meeting.
W~
Cc: City Council
I ~ 1
-~= -4
~~ai!:tt
. ~~~aa.~
........ ~
CITY OF IOWA CITY~
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
October 18, 2007
TO:
Council Members
FROM:
Ross Wilburn, Mayor
RE:
National League of Cities November meeting
UISG Rep Abbie Volland has expressed interest in attending the National League of
Cities - Congress of Cities and Exposition November 13-17 in New Orleans. Council
travel policy provides that:
" .. .each Council Member during any fiscal year shall be entitled to
attend two national conferences..."
At the present time only Council Member Vanderhoef will be attending this meeting. If
any other Council Member is interested please contact Marian (356-5041) by Monday,
October 22.
Although the travel policy does not address student liaison travel it does allow for
exceptions to be addressed to the Mayor. I have approved Abbie attending this meeting
and urge you to contact Marian by October 22 if you are interested in attending as well.
& ~ 1
~~~''l
~~_aal~
~..
CITY OF IOWA CITY~
MEMORANDUM
Date: October 17,2007
Re:
City Council
Dale Helling, Interim City Manager
Kimball Road Speed Humps
a#
To:
From:
Recently, at the time you approved the installation of speed humps for the western portion of
Kimball Road, a resident raised the question of why there would be no speed hump between
Dubuque Street and Gilbert Street on Kimball Road.
A speed hump was not included for that particular area due to the relatively short distance
between those two streets. It was observed that traffic is already beginning to slow for the stop
sign at Dubuque Street if headed westbound, and that eastbound traffic is just getting up to the
25 mph speed limit at that location if they have turned onto Kimball Road from Dubuque Street.
Traffic counts indicated lower speeds (25-30 mph, 85th percentile) in that particular section of
Kimball Road.
Further, guidelines in the ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) manual indicate that speed
humps should not be placed within several hundred feet of a higher volume/speed intersection
because the speed hump is considered an "unexpected condition" in the roadway for vehicles
turning from the higher speed street (Dubuque Street).
Speeds along the entire length of Kimball Road will be measured again next year when the
project is evaluated.
cc. John Yapp, Transportation Planner
Kent Ralston, Assistant Transportation Planner
mgr/asstlmem/kimballrdspeedhumps.doc
I ~ 1
~~~...;;4....
~~W;t:~
~~~aa.~
-"\-
CITY OF IOWA CITY ~
MEMORANDUM
Date:
October 18, 2007 vi
City Council
Eleanor Dilkes, City Attorney
935 Market Street-Wetherby House
To:
From:
Re:
During public discussion at your meeting on October 16, Marybeth Slonneger approached you
about her concerns regarding the imminent demolition of the home at 935 Market Street, the
former home of Isaac Wetherby. The Council asked if it had any ability to prevent the
demolition.
I am informed by the Building Inspector that as of 10/16/07 the notice period had run and the
demolition permit may be issued at the owner's request. The request for demolition was not
routed to the Historic Preservation Commission because the property is not in an historic or
conservation district and is not an Iowa City historic landmark.
From a regulatory perspective, the City Council's only recourse would be to initiate the process
for designation of the home as an historic landmark. Pursuant to Section 14-8D-H of the City
Code the setting of a public hearing by the City Council on an application for historic landmark
designation would suspend demolition for a period of 60 days if the permit has not been issued
or if issued, no substantial part of demolition has begun. However, per 14-8E-1 of the City Code
the Council may not set such a public hearing until it receives a recommendation and report
from the Historic Preservation Commission. Pursuant to 14-8E-1 (C), upon receipt of an
application or initiation of a proposal by either the Councilor the Historic Preservation
Commission for landmark designation, prior to making a recommendation the HPC must hold a
public hearing with notice to be given at least 7 days prior to the hearing.
It is my understanding that Ms. Slonneger has been in touch with Senior Planner Bob Miklo and
Planner Sunil Terdalkar and has been informed of her ability to file an application for landmark
designation. If the Council desires to initiate the process for landmark designation, it would need
have a meeting to do so.
Please feel free to call me if you have any questions.
cc: Dale Helling, Interim City Manager
Marian Karr, City Clerk
Jeff Davidson, Planning Director
Bob Miklo, Senior Planner
Sunil Terdalkar, Planner
Sarah Holecek, First Assistant City Attorney
Sara Greenwood, Assistant City Attorney
eleanor/mem/935MarketSt-1 Q-18-07.doc
Page 1 of 1
Marian Karr
From:
Sent:
To:
Marybeth Slonneger [mbslonn@mchsLcom]
Wednesday, October 17, 20074:18 PM
Council
Subject: Notes to Council Members: Wetherby Cottage
Attachments: Letter to Council Photos.pdt; A TT537138.htm; Letter to Council.pdt; A TT537139.htm
I'm sending 2 attachments (in PDP format) at the request of the members
of City Council, as per last night's meeting. There is a page of notes and an
accompanying set of 7 images. I request that they be distributed to Council;
I would also appreciate having a set given to Bob Miklo and to Sunil Terdalkar.
Thanks very much. Please let me know if the PDP has any problems & I'll
resubmit.
Marybeth Slonneger
10/17/2007
S election of Wetherry Paintings & Photographs
Abraham Lincoln
Political Banner for Lincoln's Second Term
in Office
The Abolitionist, John Brown
Portrait in Oil
'1'
.1
, ..,..
~
i
\,
I,
~
f
'If
Wetherby's Gallery
West Clinton Street, 1862
--
I
...,
~~r
~~~...
.............. ....-.......-:-
1869
Governor Samuel J. Kirkwood
_.0_-
View of Old Capitol,
Earliest
-it
Letter to Members of the City Council, Iowa City, October 16, 2007
Topic:
Stay of Demolition for the Isaac A. Wetherby House (935 E. Market Street)
Purpose:
To facilitate moving the house to another location and to allow the Historic Preservation Commission to review the potential for
the house to be eligible to the National Register of Historic Places under Cl1terion B (association with persons significant in our
past). The owner has verbally agreed to let the house be moved thus saving him not inconsiderable landfill fees; moving the house
would also save the building materials from filling up the landfill.
National Significance:
As a self-trained artist and early photographer (he purchased his first camera within two years of the discovery of photography),
Isaac Augustus Wetherby (181911.1904) defined himself as a painter first and photographer second. He worked in the Northeast,
K'r: II, and then moved to LA. to paint and farm.
Wetherby's skill in painting was honed from the age of 15 when he began seeking painting clients. His nearly 1,000 known por-
traits include Abraham Lincoln, John Brown, a l\leskwaki Indian chief, and many others. His work has been collected in the New
York Historical Society (NYC), Fruitlands Museum (Harvard, MA), Beverly (MA) Historical Society, Putnam .\Iuseum in Daven-
port, the State Historical Society of Iowa, Iowa City, the State Historical Society of Iowa, Des !',Ioines, and in pl1vate collections.
One of his paintings hangs in the Johnson County Courthouse. Though he did not enjoy popularity during his lifetime, his paint-
ing legacy to Iowa City approaches the importance of Grant Wood.
Wetherbyis legacy includes being the first to record Iowa City in photographs when it was the state capital, including the earliest
photo taken of Old Capitol in 1854. Many citizens were photographed by Wetherby in his Clinton Street studio, including Gmz
Kirhvood, Chief Justice William Miller, Civil War officers, bankers, trades people, and many others. The collection, which is lo-
cated at historical society, includes 1,450 glass plate negatives. Just this week, Wetherbyis great, great granddaughter, Jane Beattie,
traveled from California to Iowa City to present SHSI with the only known Wetherby picture of the Lincoln Memorial that was
taking place on the steps of Old Capitol while Governor Kirkwood spoke.
The Wetherby Cottage:
My research shows that \vetherby was out in his garden planting apple trees on the day that he learned that Lincoln had been
shot. My hope is to restore the house and to plant apple trees around it. There is a wonderful image of his house showing those
apple trees and a picket fence in an 1869 pl1nt recently shown (and scanned) from the family collection.
Wetherbyis life and career \vill be highlighted in an upcoming issue of the Iowa Heritage 1\Iagazine. 1\n article written by me will
be published in the Winter issue of the Photographic Historical Society of New England Journal. My book, Wetherby's Gallery,
was published last February, and Wetherby has also been discussed in The Goldfinch, Winter 1994 and he appears in listings of
stereographic photographers of Iowa.
His cottage was not built on a grand scale and it is not elaborately decorated. Still, its continued existence helps to interpret life
of a working, middle-class artisan life of one of America's earliest photographers. And, it was built with lumber purchased with
a portrait of local lumber merchant, Peter Musser. The additional room on the back of the cottage was built with the help of
a local carpenter, August Hazelhorst. The Wetherby family owned the cottage into the 1940s. Previous residents of Iowa City
thought enough of Wetherby to name a park after him.
Plans for the Future:
I truly hope that you will support saving the Wetherby cottage. The people that I have talked to have all been enthusiastic about
saving the ~Tetherby cottage. One person offered to make a contribution without being asked! A Committee to Help Save the
\vetherby Cottage is underway. Even without National Register status the cottage is a local landmark and very worthy of preser-
vation because of the contribution that Isaac \vetherby made to our community. \V'hile I am currently looking for a lot for the
Wetherby cottage, the suggestion has also been made that the house might be an asset in one of the city parks, similar to the log
cabins in City Park. \vetherby Park has come to mind. Another suggestion was to place it on the Butler House property until
further plans can be made. There is also a possibility that these two houses could form the core of a small collection of historic
properties highlighting Iowa City history.
I am enclosing a few images of \vetherbyis work for your perusal.
I ~ 1
-~= -4
~~ai;t:tt
~~~aa.~
...,... ...
C I T Y 0 F lOW A C I T Y 11~.~~7 I
MEMORANDUM
Date:
October 18, 2007
From:
City Council ~ /J
Dale Helling, Interim City Manage~
Iowa City Fire Department/Johnson County Ambulance Service
To:
Re:
On October 12, 2007, Fire Chief Andy Rocca, Assistant Chief Roger Jensen, and I met with
representatives from the County regarding the possibility of combining services of the Johnson
County Ambulance Service with the Iowa City Fire Department. Supervisors Pat Harney and
Sally Stutsman, and County Executive Assistant Mike Sullivan, along with Director Steve
Spenler and Assistant Director Dave Dvorsky of the Johnson County Ambulance Service,
represented the County at the meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to determine if there
was interest on the part of Johnson County to further explore the concept of combining the
Johnson County Ambulance Service with the Iowa City Fire Department operation.
We concluded that there is not sufficient interest to further consider combining these services at
the present time. It is mutually recognized and acknowledged that the Johnson County
Ambulance Service provides a very high quality service to all of Johnson County. There remains
a shared interest in exploring the possibility of stationing an ambulance and crew at one or more
of the Iowa City Fire Stations in the future. Such an arrangement could be beneficial and
discussion of this concept will continue.
If at some point in the future there is a change in circumstances such that combining these
services would appear to be mutually beneficial to the City and to the County, I believe that all
parties would be willing to further discuss this concept.
cc: Pat Harney, Chair, Board of Supervisors
Sally Stutsman, County Supervisor
Steve Spenler, Director, Johnson County Ambulance Service
Andy Rocca, Fire Chief
mgr/assllmem/lC Fire-JCAmbulance 10-18-07. doc
I]!J
Marian Karr
From: Dee Vanderhoef
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 200710:31 AM
To: marian-karr@iowa-city.org
Subject: FW: Federal Relations Update - Period ending October 12, 2007
Please put in packet for council members.
Thanks, Dee
From: National League of Cities [mailto:nlcmail@nlc.org]
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 11:09 AM
To: Dee Vanderhoef
Subject: Federal Relations Update - Period ending October 12, 2007
~.~.~
www.nlc.org FEDERAL RELATIONS UPDATE
Period ending October 12, 2007
Senate Set to Resume Action on Spending Bills Next Week
With the Senate in recess this week, there was no action on the FY 2008 spending bills. Last week, the Senate
approved a Defense Authorization measure and began debate on the fiscal 2008 Commerce, Justice and
science-related agencies spending bill, which contains funding for law enforcement programs, including COPS.
The Senate is expected to approve the bill next week despite the President's veto threat.
(Carolyn Coleman,colemC3n@OJc.Qrg, 202.626.3023)
House Passes Tax Bill to Help Families Facing Foreclosure
Last week, the House passed another bill, the Mortgage Debt Relief Act of 2007 (HR. 3648), to help homeowners
facing foreclosure. Under current law, if a home sale or foreclosure fails to payoff the entire existing loan debt,
the remainder (or forgiven portion) of the debt is counted as taxable income. As a result, families that lose a
home to foreclosure are often hit with extra taxes on "income" they never received. Under the bill, which passed
by a vote of 386 to 27, a limited amount of mortgage debt forgiven after a home foreclosure or mortgage
restructuring would not count as taxable income. Although the President requested a temporary 5-year repeal of
the tax, the bill makes the change permanent and retroactive to January 1, 2007. A similar bill (S. 1394) has been
introduced in the Senate. (Michael Wallace, INC3llacE:)@lllc.or:Q, 202.626.3025)
House Passes Affordable Housing Trust Fund Bill
On October 10, the House passed H.R. 2895, the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act, by a vote of 264 to
148. The bill would provide more than $1 billion annually for the production, preservation, and rehabilitation of 1.5
million affordable homes over ten years. Sixty percent of the funds would go to cities and towns, and 40 percent
would go to states. Funds could be used for construction, rehabilitation, acquisition, and preservation of
affordable housing. Costs for administrative, advocacy, counseling, or tax-preparation assistance activities would
not be eligible expenses. NLC supported the legislation in a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Members
of the House. (To view a copy of the letter, c1ig!sJI~Il::l.) It is unclear when the Senate will consider the legislation.
(Michael Wallace, INClIIClc:e@nlc;,Qrg, 202.626.3025)
Mandatory Collective Bargaining Bill Introduced in Senate
Last week, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) introduced S. 2123, a bill that would force states and localities to enter into
collective bargaining agreements with their public safety officers. NLC and other state and local organizations
10/16/2007
Page 2 of3
continue to lobby against the bill in the Senate on the grounds that it interferes with state laws, violates federalism
principles, and may be unconstitutional. For additional information on S. 2123 and to send your Senators a letter
urging them to oppose this pre-emption of local authority, click on the following link: btillJl~ClPwi:z,QQmLnlclhQmG/.
(Neil Bomberg, POi1lPE!rg@nlc.org, 202.626.3042)
President Vetoes SCHIP; Congress Prepares for Override Vote
As expected, the President vetoed the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) reauthorization bill on
OCt. 3. Earlier, the Senate approved the measure with a veto proof majority, 67 to 29. The House vote was 19
shy of the two-thirds majority required to override the President's veto. On Oct. 18, the House has scheduled a
vote to try to override the President's veto, and between now and then, intensive lobbying efforts are underway to
secure the votes for an override. Among other things, the bill would increase funding for the program over the
next five years by $35 billion (compared to the $5 billion called for by the President) and allow states to enroll an
additional 4 million low-income children. Currently, approximately 6.5 million children are enrolled in the
program. NLC supports the legislation and is encouraging Congress to override the President's veto. (Neil
Bomberg, t:JOi1lt:JGrg@nlc.org, 202.626.3042)
House Committee Approves Temporary Internet Tax Moratorium Bill
On Oct. 10, with strong leadership from Chairman John Conyers (D-MI), the House Judiciary Committee
approved H.R. 3678, legislation that would extend temporarily the current moratorium on taxes on Internet
access. The bill's other cosponsors are: Reps. Rick Boucher (D-VA); Ranking Member of the House Judiciary
Committee, Chris Cannon (R-UT); Darrelllssa (R-CA); Linda Sanchez (D-CA); James Sensenbrenner (R-WI);
and Melvin Watt (D-NC).
Besides extending for four years the moratorium that is scheduled to expire on Nov. 1, the legislation would clarify
the definition of "Internet access," preserve the grandfather clause in the original legislation that protects state and
local taxes imposed on Internet access prior to 1998, and exempt from the moratorium general business taxes
imposed by four states as either a substitute to or a supplement to corporate income taxes paid by businesses.
Although state and local government groups generally oppose federal interference with their authority to develop
and manage their revenue systems, NLC, the National Governors Association (NGA), the U.S. Conference of
Mayors, the National Association of Counties, and the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and
Advisors (NA TOA), support the temporary extension as an alternative to pending legislation that would make the
Internet tax moratorium permanent.
With the November 1 st expiration of the moratorium looming, House floor debate on H.R. 3678 and Senate
Commerce Committee action on S. 1453, a companion bill, is expected within the next two weeks. (Christina
Loftus, loftu~@nl<:;,org, 202.626.3173)
House Approves One-Year Delay of Three Percent Withholding Requirement
This week, the House approved legislation (H.R. 3056) that would delay for one year implementation of a
requirement that federal, state and local governments withhold a portion of contractor and vendor fees for tax
collection purposes. Current law requires that, starting January 1, 2011, governments spending more than $100
million per year on purchases of goods and services must withhold three percent from all payments to contractors
and vendors and remit those funds to the Internal Revenue Service to be applied toward the contractors' and
vendors' federal income tax liabilities. Under the bill, the implementation of that requirement would be delayed
until January 1, 2012.
NLC supports the one-year delay but continues to urge Congress to repeal altogether the unfunded mandate
imposed by this requirement. (Christina Fletcher Loftus, IQftus@nlc.Qrg, 202.626.3173)
Congress Celebrates 35th Anniversary of the Clean Water Act
On Oct. 18, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee will hold a hearing commemorating the 35th
anniversary of the Clean Water Act and examining the Act's successes and future challenges. NLC Second Vice
President, Kathleen Novak, mayor of Northglenn, CO, will testify at the hearing on how the Clean Water Act has
helped local governments ensure that residents have access to clean water for drinking and recreational
purposes. Additionally, Novak will urge Congress to take steps to ensure continued success in restoring and
maintaining water quality in the U.S. and to protect the original intent of the Clean Water Act. (Carolyn Berndt,
berndt@nlc.org, 202.626.3101)
10/16/2007
uw
Iowa City Police Department
P .A. U. L.A. Report - September 2007
(Possession of Alcohol Under Legal Age)
Monthly Totals Year-to-Date Totals PAULA per Visit
Business Name [occupancv1 visits arrests visits arrests (vear-to-date)
Airliner [265] 8 1 27 2 0.074
American Legion [140]
Aoeshe Restaurant [156]
Atlas World Grill [165] 3 0 9 0 0.000
Baldy's Wraps [47]
B.P.O. Elks #590 [205]
Bob's Your Uncle (Dodge) [#]
Bob's Your Uncle (M.Trek) [204*]
Bo-James [111] 2 0 14 0 0.000
[It's] Brothers Bar & Grill [456] 17 13 77 57 0.740
Brown Bottle [289]
Buffalo Wild Wings Grill & Bar [179] 1 0 0.000
Cafe Z [56]
Carlos O'Kelly's [299]
Club Car [56] 1 0 2 0 0.000
College St Billiard Club [250] 4 0 17 1 0.059
Colonial Lanes [502] 1 0 10 0 0.000
Cottage Bakery & Cafe [156]
Dave's Fox Head Tavern [87] 1 0 0.000
David's Place [#] 2 0 2 0 0.000
Deadwood Tavern [218] 5 0 0.000
Devotay [45]
Diamond Dave's (Old Capitol) [203]
Diamond Dave's (Svcamore) [104]
Donnelly's [#J (MAR: new owner) 3 1 0.333
Dublin Underground [57]
808 Restaurant & Nightclub [176] 7 7 34 27 0.794
EI Ranchero [161]
Englert Theatre [#]
ETC [178] 9 4 31 19 0.613
Farra's 6 0 15 1 0.067
[The] Fieldhouse [420] 12 7 90 101 1.122
First Avenue Club [500] 1 0 0.000
Fitzpatrick's [116] 1 0 0.000
Formosa Asian Cuisine [#] 1 1 4 2 0.500
Fraternal Order of Eagle's [315] 1 0 0.000
George's Buffet [75]
Givanni's [187]
Godfather's Pizza [170]
Graze [49] (MAR new]
Grizzly's South Side [265] 3 0 0.000
Ground Round Restaurant [192]
Hilltop Lounge [90] 5 0 0.000
IC Ugly's [72J 1 0 0.000
India Cafe [100]
Iowa City Yacht Club [119] 1 0 4 0 0.000
Jimmy Jack's Rib Shack [#]
Joe's Place [161] 3 0 12 0 0.000
Joseph's Steak House [#]
Kandy Land [120] 3 0 0.000
La Casa [300]
Linn Street Cafe [80]
Los Portales [161]
Loyal Order of Moose [476]
Martini's [166] 5 1 30 4 0.133
Masala [46]
Mclnnerney's [154] 1 0 0.000
Micky's [70] 1 0 0.000
Mill Restaurant [325]
Motley Cow Cafe [25]
Okoboji Grill [222]
Old Capitol Brew Works [394"] 1 0 2 2 1.000
One-Eyed Jake's [355] 12 6 51 44 0.863
One-Twenty-SixlLoft [105]
Oyama Restaurant [87]
Pagliai's Pizza [113]
Panchero's (Clinton St) [62]
Panchero's (Riverside Dr) [95]
Piano Lounge [65] 5 0 0.000
Picador [339] 4 1 0.250
Pit Smokehouse (#]
Pizza Hut [68]
Quality Inn/Highlander [971]
Que Bar [458] 2 0 15 2 0.133
Quinton's Bar & Deli [149] 1 0 9 0 0.000
Rick's Grille & Spirits [120]
Riverside Theatre [#]
Saloon [#] (MAY: new) 1 0 1 0 0.000
Sam's Pizza [94] 1 0 2 1 0.500
Sanctuary Restaurant & Pub [132]
Shakespeare's [120] 2 0 8 0 0.000
SheratonNetro/Morgan's [214] 1 1 1.000
Skybox [47] 1 0 4 0 0.000
Speakeasy [#] 5 0 25 1 0.040
Sports Column [249] 15 10 71 82 1.155
Studio 13 [230] 2 0 14 2 0.143
Summit [484] 11 15 56 70 1.250
Tait's Natural Foods (#]
Takanami [148]
Thai Flavors [60] -
Thai Spice [91]
Union Bar [725] 15 8 87 52 0.598
VFW Post #3949 [197] 5 0 0.000
Verde [144?] 1 0 0.000
Vine Tavern [170] 1 0 4 0 0.000
Vito's [235] 16 13 51 38 0.745
Wig & Pen Pizza Pub [203"]
Zio Johno's Spaghetti House [94]
Z'Mariks Noodle Cafe [471
Totals: 168 86 821 511 0.622
Other PAULA at non-business locations: 50 127
["includes outdoor area]
PAULA Totals:
136
current month
638
year.to--date
1'~-~;7 I
lOW A CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT
USE OF FORCE REPORT
August 2007
orc # Date Inc # Incident Force Used
2007-
19/59 08-01 37306 Out with Officers [attempting to 10 persons following a
subject burglary] pursued three persons that fled into an
[re: burglary] apartment. Officers forced open the door & held
the persons at gunpoint while handcuffing them.
50 08-04 37855 Trespass Officer used hands-on control techniques & OC
to separate combatants & arrest/transport the
aggressor.
31 08-08 37992 Fight Officer used hands-on control techniques to
control & arrest an uncooperative person
following a fight.
08/33/ 08-08 38490 Warrant service Officers were involved in a vehicle pursuit while
39 [escapee] attempting to apprehend an escapee [bank
robber]. The escapee fled on foot into an
apartment complex. Officers displayed firearms
& used hands-on control techniques while
apprehending/arresting the escapee.
12 08-08 38575 Criminal Officer used hands-on control, techniques to
mischief apprehend, arrest, & transport a fleeing suspect.
05/12/ 08-08 38598 Suicidal subject Officers used the less-lethal shotgun (beanbag
23/29/ projectile) & hands-on control techniques to
35/44/ disarm & transport a suicidal person with a
50 knife.
45 08-12 39278 Animal Officer used sidearm to destroy an injured
complaint raccoon.
30 08- I 2 39326 Fight Officer used hands-on control techniques to
control an uncooperative prisoner that had
managed to remove the handcuffs.
22 08-14 39686 Traffic stop Officer used hands-on control techniques while
securing & transporting a combative prisoner.
03/35 08- 17 40127 Intoxicated Officers used hands-on control techniques to
person remove, arrest, & transport a confrontational
person interfering with officers' attempts to
attend to an injured person.
24/38 08-21 41109 Criminal Officers used hands-on control techniques & OC
mischief to control & transport an uncooperative,
destructive prisoner.
21/22/ 08-21 41121 Fight Officers used hands-on control techniques & OC
27 to separate & arrest three combatants.
28 08-23 41419 Warrant service Officer used hands-on control techniques to
apprehend & transport a fleeing suspect.
04 08-24 41794 Welfare check Officer used hands-on control techniques to
arrest& transport an assaultive person.
20 08-25 42083 Wanted subject Officer used hands-on control techniques'to
prevent a resistive person from fleeing & to
effect an arrest.
32 08-26 42107 Bar check Officer used hands-on control techniques & OC
to apprehend & arrest a fleeing person.
31 08-26 42171 Disorderly Officer used hands-on control techniques to
house remove & arrest an uncooperative person.
05/32/ 08-26 42183 Fight Officers used hands-on control techniques & OC
44 to control & arrest three uncooperative,
aggressive persons following a fight.
06 08-26 42270 Animal Officer used sidearm to destroy an injured deer.
complaint
31/44 08-27 42359 Armed subject Officers responded to a report of a vehicle
[knife] occupant displaying a knife to a passerby.
Officers displayed sidearms while stopping
vehicle & securing occupants.
48 08-30 43114 Animal Officer used sidearm to destroy a sick raccoon.
complaint
G:[]
lOW A CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT
USE OF FORCE REPORT
Septem ber 2007
Ofe# Date Ine # Incident Foree Used
2007-
44 09-02 43585 Intoxicated Officer used hands-on control techniques to
subject complete transport of a combative prisoner.
25 09-03 43889 Animal Officer used sidearm to destroy an inured
complaint opossum.
60 09-05 44343 Animal Officer used sidearm to destroy a sick raccoon.
complaint
90/59 09-07 44594 Suspicious Officers used hands-on control techniques to
person arrest a combative person that attempted to flee.
05/08 09-08 44929 Stolen vehicle Officers displayed sidearms while arresting the
driver of a stolen vehicle that reached for an
unknown object.
33/56 09-09 45295 Domestic fight Officers used hands-on control techniques & OC
to arrest a resistive person.
52 09-09 45373 Animal Officer used sidearm to destroy a sick raccoon.
complaint
12 09-10 45431 Animal Officer used sidearm to destroy an injured
complaint raccoon.
45 09-10 45527 Animal Officer used sidearm to destroy a sick raccoon.
complaint
52 09-11 45690 Animal Officer used sidearm to destroy a sick raccoon.
complaint
05/50 09-15 46372 Armed Robbery Officers displayed sidearms while arresting an
armed [w/gun] robbery suspect.
29 09-15 46454 Animal Officer used sidearm to destroy a sick raccoon.
complaint
30 09-23 48142 Fight Officer used hands-on control techniques while
arresting a resistive person.
12 09-27 48764 Burglary Officer used hands-on control techniques to
apprehend & arrest a fleeing suspect.
37 09-27 48773 Animal Officer used sidearm to dispatch a raccoon.
complaint
04 09-27 48946 Intoxicated Officer used hands-on control techniques to
subject arrest & transport a resistive person.
30 09-28 49208 Welfare check Officer used hands-on control techniques to
arrest a resistive person.
35 09-29 49309 Fight Officer used hands-on control techniques to
maintain control of a resistive prisoner.
08/11 09-29 49629 Fight Officers used hands-on control techniques & OC
while arresting a combative person.
51 09-30 49713 Open container Officer used hands-on control techniques while
arresting a resistive person.
CITY OF IOWA CITY
QUARTERL Y
INVESTMENT REPORT
July 1, 2007
to
September 30, 2007
Finance Department
Prepared by:
Brian Cover
Senior Accountant
lU-llS-U (
\P11
OVERVIEW
The City of Iowa City's investment objectives are safety, liquidity and yield. The
primary objective of the City of Iowa City's investment activities is the
preservation of capital and the protection of investment principal. The City's
investment portfolio remains sufficiently liquid to enable the City to meet
operating requirements that cash management procedures anticipate.
In investing public funds, the City's cash management portfolio is designed with
the objective of regularly exceeding the average return on the six month U.S.
Treasury Bill. The Treasury Bill is considered a benchmark for riskless
investment transactions and therefore comprises a minimum standard for the
portfolio's rate of return. The rolling average return on the six-month U.S.
Treasury Bill for the prior 365 days was 4.95% at 9/30/07. The investment
program seeks to achieve returns above this threshold, consistent with risk
limitations and prudent investment principles. The rate of return on the City's
entire portfolio for the quarter was 5.30% which is 35 basis points higher than the
threshold. Investments purchased by the City of Iowa City for the first quarter of
this fiscal year had an average return of 5.31 %.
Rates on new investment purchases in our operating cash portfolio for the fourth
quarter were approximately 17 basis points lower than investments purchased at
this time last year. The federal funds rate is the interest rate at which banks lend
to each other. In September, the Federal Reserve dropped the target of the
federal funds rate .50% to 4.75%. This is the first Fed rate cut in four years.
The quarterly investment report lists investments by fund, by institution, by
maturity date, and investments purchased and redeemed.
New official state interest rates setting the minimum that may be paid by Iowa
depositories on public funds in the 180 to 364 day range during this quarter were
3.70% in July, 3.75% in August, and 3.65% in September 2007.
ill
owa City vs. 6 Month Treasury B
I
City of
-+- City of Iowa City
-6 Month T-b
6.0
5.0
r::
....
.a 4.0
CI)
....
't-
o
~3.0
ns
.....
r::
CI)
CJ
~ 2.0
c..
1.0
0.0
Mar-06 Jun-06 Sep-06 Dee-06 Mar-O? Jun-O? Sep-07
Federal Funds Rate
7.0
6.5
6.0
5.5
CD 5.0
+-II
ro
a: 4.5
+-II 4.0
en
CD 3.5
"-
CD
+-II 3.0
c
-
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~\:5 }) }) }) ~c:::s ~ ~ ~ ~\:) }) })
C:JQ~ <;)00 ~flj ~'>~ c:;0~ <;)00 ~flj ~'>~ c:;0~ <;)00 ~flj ~'><:;: c:;0~
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF IOWA CITY
INVESTMENTS ON HAND
DETAIL LISTING BY MATURITY DATE
9/30/2007
INSTITUTION INVESTMENT PURCHASE MATURITY INVESTMENT INTEREST
NAME TYPE DATE DATE AMOUNT RATE
WELLS FARGO SAVINGS 01-Dec-99 N/A $ 200,000.00 VARIABLE
IOWA PUBLIC AGENCY INVEST TRUST IPAIT 13-Jun-02 N/A $ 3,000,000.00 VARIABLE
HILLS BANK SAVINGS 10-0ct-06 N/A $ 1,000,000.00 VARIABLE
BANK OF THE WEST CD 18-0ct-06 05-0ct-07 $ 750,000.00 5.290
BANK OF THE WEST 05 GO CD 06-Sep-07 08-0ct-07 $ 1,351,140.89 5.180
UICCU CD 22-Dec-06 12-0ct-07 $ 2,150,000.00 5.320
BANK OF THE WEST CD 13-Apr-07 15-0ct-07 $ 1,000,000.00 5.260
BANK OF THE WEST CD 13-Apr-07 15-0ct-07 $ 1,000,000.00 5.260
BANK OF THE WEST CD 13-Apr-07 15-0ct-07 $ 1,000,000.00 5.260
BANK OF THE WEST CD 13-Apr-07 15-0ct-07 $ 1,000,000.00 5.260
BANK OF THE WEST CD 13-Apr-07 15-0ct-07 $ 1,000,000.00 5.260
BANK OF THE WEST CD 13-Apr-07 15-0ct-07 $ 1,000,000.00 5.260
BANK OF THE WEST CD 13-Apr-07 15-0ct-07 $ 1,000,000.00 5.260
BANK OF THE WEST CD 13-Apr-07 15-0ct-07 $ 1,000,000.00 5.260
IOWA STATE BANK CD 13-Apr-07 15-0ct-07 $ 2,000,000.00 5.310
UICCU CD 22-Dec-06 19-0ct-07 $ 750,000.00 5.310
BANK OF THE WEST CD 20-Apr-07 22-0ct-07 $ 1,000,000.00 5.230
BANK OF THE WEST CD 20-Apr-07 22-0ct-07 $ 1,000,000.00 5.230
BANK OF THE WEST CD 20-Apr-07 22-0ct-07 $ 1,000,000.00 5.230
BANK OF THE WEST CD 20-Apr-07 22-0ct-07 $ 1,000,000.00 5.230
BANK OF THE WEST CD 20-Apr-07 22-0ct-07 $ 1,000,000.00 5.230
BANK OF THE WEST CD 20-Apr-07 22-0ct-07 $ 1,000,000.00 5.230
UICCU CD 22-Dec-06 26-0ct-07 $ 2,150,000.00 5.320
BANK OF THE WEST 07 GO CD 31-May-07 31-0ct-07 $ 400,000.00 5.230
UICCU CD 22-Dec-06 02-Nov-07 $ 750,000.00 5.310
IOWA STATE BANK CD 17-Jan-07 09-Nov-07 $ 2,000,000.00 5.320
BANK OF THE WEST CD 10-May-07 09-Nov-07 $ 6,000,000.00 5.250
IOWA STATE BANK CD 10-May-07 12-Nov-07 $ 2,000,000.00 5.270
FARMERS & MERCHANTS CD 15-Feb-07 16-Nov-07 $ 1,000,000.00 5.500
BANK OF THE WEST CD 17 -May-07 19-Nov-07 $ 5,000,000.00 5.260
IOWA STATE BANK CD 17 -May-07 19-Nov-07 $ 2,000,000.00 5.270
FIRST AMERICAN BANK CD 15-Feb-07 21-Nov-07 $ 2,000,000.00 5.310
HILLS BANK CD 29-Nov-06 30-Nov-07 $ 2,000,000.00 5.410
BANK OF THE WEST CD 10-Aug-07 30-Nov-07 $ 1,580,000.00 5.350
BANK OF THE WEST 07 GO CD 31-May-07 30-Nov-07 $ 400,000.00 5.230
HILLS BANK CD 29-Nov-06 07 -Dec-07 $ 1,000,000.00 5.410
WELLS FARGO CD 12-Sep-07 12-Dec-07 $ 10,000,000.00 5.510
HILLS BANK CD 29-Nov-06 14-Dec-07 $ 2,000,000.00 5.410
LIBERTY BANK CD 14-Jun-07 14-Dec-07 $ 2,000,000.00 5.355
HILLS BANK CD 29-Nov-06 21-Dec-07 $ 1,000,000.00 5.410
HILLS BANK CD 29-Nov-06 28-Dec-07 $ 2,000,000.00 5.410
LIBERTY BANK 03 GO CD 29-Jun-07 29-Dec-07 $ 1,252,244.27 5.275
BANK OF THE WEST 07 GO CD 31-May-07 31-Dec-07 $ 400,000.00 5.230
UICCU CD 17 -Jan-07 02-Jan-08 $ 2,400,000.00 5.310
FARMERS & MERCHANTS CD 15-Feb-07 11-Jan-08 $ 1,000,000.00 5.510
BANK OF THE WEST 07 GO CD 31-May-07 31-Jan-08 $ 400,000.00 5.230
BANK OF THE WEST CD 10-Aug-07 11-F eb-08 $ 1,000,000.00 5.290
LIBERTY BANK CD 23-Jul-07 15-Feb-08 $ 2,000,000.00 5.345
LIBERTY BANK CD 23-Jul-07 22-Feb-08 $ 1,000,000.00 5.345
BANK OF THE WEST CD 26-Feb-07 26-Feb-08 $ 2,261,901.00 5.280
LIBERTY BANK CD 23-Jul-07 29-Feb-08 $ 2,000,000.00 5.345
BANK OF THE WEST 07 GO CD 31-May-07 29-Feb-08 $ 400,000.00 5.240
BANK OF THE WEST CD 26-Sep-07 26-Mar-08 $ 7,000,000.00 5.000
LIBERTY BANK 06A GO CD 29-Jun-07 29-Mar-08 $ 1,443,678.84 5.235
INSTITUTION INVESTMENT PURCHASE MATURITY INVESTMENT INTEREST
NAME TYPE DATE DATE AMOUNT RATE
BANK OF THE WEST 07 GO CD 31-May-07 31-Mar-08 $ 400,000.00 5.240
FREEDOM SECURITY CD 20-Apr-07 20-Apr-08 $ 1,000,000.00 5.200
BANK OF THE WEST 07 GO CD 31-May-07 30-Apr-08 $ 400,000.00 5.240
BANK OF THE WEST 07 GO CD 31-May-07 30-May-08 $ 2,300,000.00 5.240
IOWA STATE BANK CD 14-Jun-07 16-Jun-08 $ 2,000,000.00 5.360
FARMERS & MERCHANTS CD 03-Jul-06 27-Jun-08 $ 974,504.00 5.760
FIRST AMERICAN BANK CD 10-Aug-07 30-Jun-08 $ 2,000,000.00 5.380
FIRST AMERICAN BANK CD 17 -Jan-07 01-Jul-08 $ 2,000,000.00 5.300
FREEDOM SECURITY CD 20-Apr-07 01-Jul-08 $ 1,000,000.00 5.200
BANK OF THE WEST CD 17 -May-07 01-Jul-08 $ 1,000,000.00 5.180
FIRST AMERICAN BANK CD 10-Aug-07 10-Aug-08 $ 3,000,000.00 5.410
FARMERS & MERCHANTS CD 12-Dec-06 12-Dec-08 $ 6,577,860.00 5.050
TOTAL $ 115,691,329.00
CITY OF IOWA CITY
INVESTMENT ACTIVITY
FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2007
6/30/2007 $ 127,844,442.91
INVESTMENT PURCHASE MATURITY INTEREST
INSTITUTION TYPE DATE DATE RATE
PURCHASES 7/01/07 TO 9/30/07
BANK OF THE WEST CD 05-Jul-07 06-Aug-07 5.220 $ 1,360,067.19
LIBERTY BANK CD 23-Jul-07 15-Feb-07 5.345 $ 2,000,000.00
LIBERTY BANK CD 23-Jul-07 01-Feb-29 5.345 $ 2,000,000.00
LIBERTY BANK CD 23-Jul-07 22-Feb-07 5.345 $ 1,000,000.00
BANK OF THE WEST CD 01-Aug-07 30-Aug-07 5.180 $ 91,115.44
BANK OF THE WEST CD 06-Aug-07 06-Sep-07 5.220 $ 1,355,823.01
BANK OF THE WEST CD 10-Aug-07 30-Nov-07 5.350 $ 1,580,000.00
FIRST AMERICAN BANK CD 10-Aug-07 30-Jun-08 5.380 $ 2,000,000.00
BANK OF THE WEST CD 10-Aug-07 11-Feb-08 5.290 $ 1,000,000.00
FIRST AMERICAN BANK CD 10-Aug-07 10-Aug-08 5.410 $ 3,000,000.00
BANK OF THE WEST CD 06-Sep-07 08-0ct-07 5.180 $ 1,351,140.89
WELLS FARGO CD 12 -Sep-07 12-Dec-07 5.510 $ 10,000,000.00
BANK OF THE WEST CD 26-Sep-07 26-Mar-08 5.000 $ 7,000,000.00
TOTAL PURCHASES $ 33,738,146.53
REDEMPTIONS 7/01/07 TO 9/30/07
LIBERTY BANK 03 GO (PARTIAL REDEMPTION) CD 29-Mar-07 29-Jun-07 5.215 $ (4,270.88)
LIBERTY BANK 06A (PARTIAL REDEMPTION) CD 29-Jun-06 28-Jun-07 5.690 $ (6,761.23)
LIBERTY BANK CD 24-May-06 02-Jul-07 5.370 $ (3,500,000.00)
UICCU CD 10-Aug-06 02-Jul-07 5.520 $ (2,000,000.00)
UICCU CD 1 8-0ct -06 02-Jul-07 5.360 $ (2,425,000.00)
BANK OF THE WEST 05 GO CD 04-Jun-07 05-Jul-07 5.210 $ (1,447,981.80)
IOWA STATE BANK CD 26-Jul-06 06-Jul-07 5.620 $ (2,000,000.00)
IPAIT CD 14-Sep-06 13-Jul-07 5.370 $ (750,000.00)
IPAIT CD 14-Sep-06 20-Jul-07 5.370 $ (2,000,000.00)
IPAIT CD 14-Sep-06 27-Jul-07 5.370 $ (750,000.00)
FIRST AMERICAN BANK CD 31-Jan-07 31-Jul-07 5.460 $ (2,000,000.00)
BANK OF THE WEST 07 GO CD 31-May-07 31-Jul-07 5.190 $ (400,000.00)
BANK OF THE WEST 07 GO CD 29-Jun-07 31-Jul-07 5.170 $ (400,000.00)
BANK OF THE WEST 07 GO CD 01-Aug-07 30-Aug-07 5.180 $ (91,115.44)
LIBERTY BANK 03 GO (PARTIAL REDEMPTION) CD 29-Mar-07 29-Jun-07 5.215 $ (75.80)
LIBERTY BANK 06A (PARTIAL REDEMPTION) CD 29-Jun-06 28-Jun-07 5.690 $ (165.09)
IOWA STATE BANK CD 13-Sep-06 03-Aug-07 5.460 $ (2,000,000.00)
BANK OF THE WEST 05 GO CD 05-Jul-07 06-Aug-07 5.220 $ (1,360,067.19)
UICCU CD 13-Sep-06 10-Aug-07 5.410 $ (750,000.00)
FIRST AMERICAN BANK CD 11-0ct-06 17-Aug-07 5.310 $ (2,150,000.00)
FARMERS & MERCHANTS CD 11-0ct-06 24-Aug-07 5.350 $ (750,000.00)
FIRST AMERICAN BANK CD 26-Feb-07 26-Aug-07 5.310 $ (2,000,000.00)
BANK OF THE WEST 07 GO CD 31-May-07 31-Aug-07 5.210 $ (400,000.00)
UICCU CD 11-0ct-06 31-Aug-07 5.310 $ (2,150,00000)
BANK OF THE WEST 05 GO CD 06-Aug-07 06-Sep-07 5.180 $ (1,355,823.01 )
BANK OF THE WEST CD 18-0ct-06 07-Sep-07 5.290 $ (750,000.00)
IOWA STATE BANK CD 09-Mar-07 10-Sep-07 5.330 $ (2,000,000.00)
LIBERTY BANK CD 14-Jun-07 14-Sep-07 5.325 $ (2,000,000.00)
IOWA STATE BANK CD 18-0ct-06 14-Sep-07 5.310 $ (2,150,000.00)
BANK OF THE WEST CD 18-0ct-06 21-Sep-07 5.290 $ (750,000.00)
BANK OF THE WEST 07 GO CD 31-May-07 28-Sep-07 5.220 $ (400,000.00)
BANK OF THE WEST CD 18-0ct-06 28-Sep-07 5.290 $ (2,150,000.00)
UICCU CD 28-Mar-07 28-Sep-07 5.360 $ (1,000,000.00)
UICCU CD 28-Mar-07 28-Sep-07 5.370 $ (4,000,000.00)
TOTAL REDEMPTIONS $ (45,891,260.44 )
INVESTMENTS ON HAND AT 9/30/07 $ 115,691,329.00
CITY OF IOWA CITY
INVESTMENTS ON HAND
SUMMARY BY FUND
9/30/07 9/30/2006
FUND INVESTMENT INVESTMENT
TYPE AMOUNT AMOUNT
ALL OPERATING FUNDS $ 95,897,064.00 $ 87,724,586.05
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND FUND $ 1,580,000.00 $ 1,919,277.80
EMPLOYEE BENEFIT RESERVE FUND $ $ 200,000.00
BOND RESERVE FUND $ 18,214,265.00 $ 17,824,265.00
TOTAL $ 115,691,329.00 $ 107,668,128.85
CITY OF IOWA CITY
INVESTMENTS ON HAND
LISTING BY INSTITUTION
9/30/07 9/30/2006
INSTITUTION INVESTMENT INVESTMENT
NAME AMOUNT AMOUNT
BANK OF THE WEST $ 45,043,041.89 $ 121,257.31
FARMERS & MERCHANTS SAVINGS BANK $ 9,552,364.00 $ 6,374,504.00
FIRST AMERICAN BANK $ 9,000,000.00 $ 6,823,966.02
FREEDOM SECURITY BANK $ 2,000,000.00 $ 3,000,000.00
HILLS BANK & TRUST $ 9,000,000.00 $
IOWA STATE BANK $ 10,000,000.00 $ 20,300,000.00
IOWA PUBLIC AGENCY INVESTMENT TRUST $ 3,000,000.00 $ 25,036,227.65
LIBERTY BANK $ 9,695,923.11 $ 17,407,218.02
U OF I COMM CREDIT UNION $ 8,200,000.00 $ 21,700,000.00
US BANK $ $ 2,261,901.00
US TREASURY NOTES AND AGENCIES $ $ 1,454,614.69
WELLS FARGO BANK $ 10,200,000.00 $ 200,000.00
WEST BANK $ $ 2,788,440.16
VAN KAMPEN $ $ 200,000.00
TOTAL $ 115,691,329.00 $ 107,668,128.85
Iowa City Housing and Inspection Services
Customer Service Survey - October 2007
IIP1"2 I
J40W A~e we POIN<i?
You are doing a great job. Both for public good and for being good to work with as a landlord.
Excellent! Very professional. Practical and full of good solutions and suggestions. Friendly.
Made what is an annoyance as a building owner a pleasant experience.
Very good. It was a friendly experience. Good dialog.
Very professional. Easy to reach. Great job!
Excellent!
Great - good flexibility.
Very professional; courteous; thorough; fair and unbiased
The rental inspection process was very easy and went very smoothly. Patricia Mackay was very
helpful and flexible. Thanks!
On time (Great); Reinspect - on time (Great)
Very well. The house will be sold to the present renters before year's end (2007). They will
inform the Iowa City Housing and Inspection at this time.
Appointment was prompt. Corrections were noted and conveniently corrected. A very good
experience - I think the cost is too high but service was good.
You are doing fine. Your patience with our on-site managers, the STAR program, and Shelter
House are much appreciated.
Very well. We have always been impressed with the professionalism and courtesy of the
Housing Inspectors. Mr. Anderson was particularly accommodating in scheduling our follow-up
inspection to meet our tight timeline. Thank you.
Norm was very professional.
hisadm/comments 1 0-07.doc
1
My rental house was inspected by Patricia and things went very smoothly. She informed me of
changes that had occurred since my last renewal and answered all my questions
knowledgeably. A pleasant experience!
LeeAnn was thorough and fair, but personable which was nice.
Bob Shaver was very professional and helpful. He had some helpful suggestions.
Bob - Thanks. Keep up the good work.
I could not ask for a more professional and yet warmly concerned inspection and reinspection.
Second inspection was a concerted effort on LeeAnn's part and she actually helped with a
problem so we could conclude perfectly. Thank you!!
My assigned inspector was Bob Shaver. He gave me a good tip on how to deal with a moisture
issue in a bathroom. I've been painting and repainting and he offered a long-term solution.
To: Bob Shaver. Great - thanks for all the help it took to finish the job.
Norm Cate was great to work with. He was flexible with my schedule and fair when it came to
the inspection! Thanks!
Bob went out of his way to ensure I understood the rental code. Thank you, Bob.
She did great. Very kind and professional - allowing time to fix problems. Thanks!
The inspection by Patricia McKay was done professionally and efficiently. The cost of permitting
seems quite high, especially considering a $600,000 buildinq is already paying - $22,000/year
in property tax.
Art does a good job - he educates and allows a fair amount of time to rectify issues.
Pat was terrific. She was professional and thorough. At the same time, she was friendly and
complimentary regarding the good qualities of our property.
Ms. Mackay was very professional and courteous in her inspection of 507 Kimball Rd. Doing
well.
Bob Shaver was very nice and friendly when he did the house inspections. He did not take up a
lot of our time and he was on time to do the inspection.
Hisadm/comments06-07.doc
2
LeeAnn was thorough but fair. I have found this to be true with all the inspectors I have had in
the past six years.
Bob Shaver was helpful, as was office staff.
I have no complaints - other than the cost of permits that have become so high.
I found Norm Cate to be very helpful and professional as a housing inspector. He twice gave me
information over the phone and was pleasant and efficient during his inspection.
Hisad m/comments06-07 .doc
3
G1lJ
Marian Karr
From: Gina Peters [gina.peters@ecicog.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 6:46 PM
To: Brian Fagan; Allen Witt; Beth Freeman; Chuck Peters; Doug; Hills; James Houser; Joan
Benson; Joe Raso; Joshua Schamberger; Kent Ralston; Lee Clancey; Linda Langston; Lu
Barron; Mary Day; Mayor Trent Pearson; Mayor Dale Stanek; Mayor Don Gray; Mayor Eldon
Slaughter; Mayor Glen Potter; Mayor Jim Fausett; Mayor Joel Miller; Mayor John Harris;
Mayor John Nieland; Mayor Kay Halloran; Mayor Louise From; Mayor Mike Williams; Mayor
Patrick Murphy; Mayor Paul Tuerler; Mayor Robert Kurt; Ross Wilburn; Mayor Thomas C.
Patterson; Mayor William Cooper; Mayor William Voss; Monica Vernon; Nancy Quellhorst; Pat
Harney; Paula Freeman-Brown; Priority One; Rod Sullivan; Sally Stutsman; Scott Grabe;
Terrence Neuzil; Tim Boyle; Larry Meyers; Teresa Uhlenkamp
Cc: wcooling@vernonresearch.com; rhavel@co.johnson.ia.us; Sandie Deahl; Mike Goldberg;
Kelly Hayworth; John Yapp; Jeff Davidson; Janelle Rettig; Steve Atkins; Executive Assistant
Mike Sullivan; City of North Liberty; City Clerk Tawnia Kakacek; City Clerk Susie Siddell; City
Clerk Nancy Beuter; Marian Karr; Christine Taliga; Chad; Casie Kadlec; Bernita Rozinek;
Becky Shoop; Adam Lindenlaub; City of Ely
Subject: Next Johnson/Linn County Public Leadership Group Meeting - October 25, 2007
Importance: High
Attachments: October 07 Agenda.doc
The next meeting of the Johnson/Linn County Public Leadership Group will be Thursday. October 25.2007. at
4:30 p.m., at the Guaranty Bank in Fairfax. See the attached agenda for the bank address; it is located south of
the Fairfax exit from Highway 30.
Gina Peters
Administrative Assistant
East Central Iowa Council of Governments
700 16th Street NE, Suite 301
Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52402
Phone: 319.365.9941, ext. 20
Fax: 319.365.9981
10/1612007
Agenda
Johnson/Linn County Public Leadership Group
Guaranty Bank
300 80th Street Court
Fairfax, Iowa
Thursday, October 25, 2007
4:30 p.m. - 5:45 p.m.
INFORMAL MEETING
Work Session
1. Call to order - 4:30 p.m.
2. Welcome and Introductions
Lu Barron, Chairperson - Linn County Board of Supervisors
Pat Harney, Chairperson - Johnson County Board of Supervisors
3. Update on Corridor Economic Development Activities
Joe Raso, President, Iowa City Area Development Group
4. Voice of the Citizen SurveyTM/Local Government Innovations Fund
Wes Cooling, Vernon Research Group
5. Joint Regional Project to Update Arial Photography
Rick Havel, GIS Coordinator, Johnson County
6. Cool Cities Initiative
Rod Sullivan, Johnson County Board of Supervisors
7. Local Reports
8. Other Business
9. Adjournment
UITJ
Marian Karr
From: Gross, Adam [IGOV] [Adam.Gross@iowa.gov]
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 4:49 PM
To: undisclosed-recipients
Subject: Office of Energy Independence - Public Meetings Scheduled in October
Attachments: image007.jpg; image006.jpg; image005.jpg; image001.jpg; PublicMeeting-OEI-CoverLtr.pdf;
PublicMeeting-OEI.pdf
Dear Friend,
Whether it was Marquette and Joliet, who discovered the Mississippi River on our state's eastern Border in 1673, or
Lewis and Clark, who explored our Western Border along the banks of the Missouri River in 1804, Iowa has been
united by a "spirit of exploration" that has always led to new discoveries and greater opportunities for others -
shaping our state into what it is today. It's this rich tradition of discovery that allows Iowans to meet the new 21 sl
century energy challenge. This will lead to greater energy security, major job creation, and tremendous economic
opportunity for all.
Please join Roya Stanley, director of the newly formed Office of Energy Independence (OEI), at one of the
upcoming meetings. These meetings are being hosted by OEI to seek Iowans' input for the Iowa Energy
Independence Plan. The purpose of the Plan is to outline strategies for Iowa to achieve energy independence by
year 2025. A flyer is attached with the dates and locations, along with other details.
The meeting agenda will consist of a brief overview of the purpose of the Iowa Power Fund and input from Iowans'
on issues including:
. How Iowa can produce more of its own energy needs
. How GEl can help Iowans reduce their energy usage
. How the Iowa Power Fund can wisely invest $100 million over the next four years to help us be more
energy independent
. How environmental protection and sustainability should be included in our energy plan
. How OEI can continue to engage the public in helping to achieve these goals
. How to improve Iowa's economy through energy efficiency and renewable energy
We encourage you to participate in these meetings to help us meet this energy challenge. We believe that working
together we can develop a bold, innovative - and achievable - Energy Independence Plan for the 21st Century.
Sincerely,
~r~
p~~
10/1612007
Public Meetings hosted by
Iowa Office of Energy Independence
Iowa's Energy Independence Plan:
Strategies for Iowa to Achieve
Energy Independence by Year 2025
TIME: All meetings will be from 7:00 to 9:30 p.m.
Thursdav~ October 18 - DES MOINES
State Historical Building Auditorium
600 East Locust (just west of the State Capitol)
Mondav~ October 22 - CORALVILLE
North Ridge Pavilion
2250 Holiday Road
Website: www.Coralville.ora (click on "Parks & Recreation" & then click "North Ridge Pavilion)
Thursdav~ October 25 - COUNCIL BLUFFS
Iowa Western Community College
2700 College Road, Looft Hall Auditorium
Campus map: http://iwcc.cc.ia.us/about/map.asp
Mondav~ October 29 - FORT DODGE
Iowa Central Community College
330 Avenue M, Career Education Building, Rooms 108-110
Campus map: http://www.iowacentral.com/admissions/map.htm
.:. How Iowa can produce more of its own energy needs
.:. How DEI can help Iowans reduce their energy usage
.:. How the Iowa Power Fund can wisely invest $100 million over the next four years to
help us be more energy independent
.:. How environmental protection and sustainability should be included in our energy plan
.:. How DEI can continue to engage the public in helping to achieve these goals
.:. How best to reduce state greenhouse gas emissions
.:. How to improve Iowa's economy through energy efficiency and renewable energy
You may submit comments in writing for the Iowa Energy Independence Plan.
Comments are due October 30, 2007, and should be sent by mail to: Tommi Makila,
Iowa Department of Natural Resources, 502 East gth Street, Des Moines, IA 50319;
or by email to Tommi.Makila@dnr.iowa.qov
G[]
Marian Karr
From: Nancy Ostrognai [nostrog@inavia.net]
Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2007 1:44 PM
To: Council; pharney@co.johnson.ia.us; sstutsma@co.johnson.ia.us; Imeyers@co.johnson.ia.us;
tneuzil@co.johnson.ia.us; Rod Sullivan
Subject: Fwd: Nov 13 Advocating for Livable Communities for All Iowans
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Ingrid Wensel" <IWI=l'clS_EL@lsirkwoQ~:t&<:Jl.I>
Date: October 10, 2007 1 :35:21 PM COT
Subject: Nov 13 Advocating for Livable Communities for All Iowans
If you have not already RSVP, please do so today!
You are invited!
Advocating for Livable Communities for All Iowans
Tuesday, November 13, 2007 from 9:30 am - 11 :00 am
at the Kirkwood Training and Outreach Center in Marion, Iowa
(across from Carlos O'Kellys)
Why should you attend?
You will have an opportunity to talk with elected and other public officials after the forum
to share your interests and concerns
Learn from the experts on the latest policy developments in Iowa related to home and
community based services in the aging and disability community
An opportunity to show your support for home and community based services for seniors
and people with disabilities
See back for program agenda and presenters
and for list of elected officials representing Linn County at the County and State level who
have been invited to attend
RSVP today!
Email iwensel@kirkwQQ_d.edu or call (319) 398-5559
Or toll-free 1-800-332-5934
Advocating for Livable Communities for All Iowans
Tuesday, November 13,2007 from 9:30 am - 11:00 am
Kirkwood Training and Outreach Center Marion, Iowa
10/15/2007
Page 2 of2
Welcome and introductions
* Nancylee Siebenmann, Heritage Area Agency on Aging Linn County Task Force
Chairperson
What is a livable community, what are home and community based services, and why are
they important for seniors and people with disabilities?
* Liz Selk, Director of the Heritage Area Agency on Aging
What does our current long term care system in Iowa look like and what is the role of
family caregivers?
* Delaine Petersen, ARC of East Central Iowa
What has happened recently at the state level in relationship to home and community based
services?
* Craig Wood, Linn County CPC
* Michele Baughan, Heritage Area Agency on Aging Case Management Director
* Dan Strellner, Aging Services, Inc.
* Jeff Clark, Linn County Assistant Attorney
How can we help ensure a livable community for all Iowans?
Closing comments and networking with policy makers and constituents
Public officials who have been invited to attend: Linn County Supervisor Lu Barron,
Senator Joe Bolkcom, Representative Swati Dandekar, Representative Betty DeBoef,
Senator Robert Dvorsky, Representative Ro Foege, Center Point Mayor Paula Freeman-
Brown, Central City Mayor Don Gray, Senator Jim Hahn, Cedar Rapids Mayor Kay
Halloran, Bertram Mayor Darwin Harmening Senator Robb Hogg, Linn County
Supervisor Jim Houser, Representative David Jacoby, Representative Jeff Kaufmann,
Coggon Mayor Robert F. Kurt Linn County Supervisor Linda Langston, Representative
Vicki Lensing, Senator Mary Lundby, Representative Mary Mascher, Representative Tyler
Olson, Hiawatha Mayor Thomas C. Patterson, Representative Kraig Paulsen, Alburnett
Mayor Trent B. Pearson, Representative Dawn Pettengill, Senator John Putney, Senator
Tom Rielly, Senator Becky Schmitz, Representative Art Staed, Ely Mayor Dale A. Stanek
II, Representative Dick Taylor, Representative Todd Taylor, Fairfax Mayor William Voss,
Representative Ray Zirkelbach, and key staffers from Senator Grassley, Senator Harkin,
and Congressman Loebsack's local offices.
Ingrid Wensel
Associate Director
Heritage Area Agency on Aging
1-800-332-5934
The Older Iowans Fund is an endowment that provides a permanent investment fund that
supports the future funding needs of programs and services for seniors in East Central
Iowa. For more information or to make a gift call the Heritage Area Agency on Aging 1-
800-332-5934
10/15/2007
r 1~1-~'
Marian Karr
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Bandele McQueen [bmcqueen@cityofchicago.org]
Tuesday, October 16, 2007 2:49 PM
ban dele _ mcqueen@hotmail.com
peter. hal pi n@dutkoworldwide.com
Subject: Mayor Daley Invite
Attachments: Boxing_invite_ GRC.pdf; boxing_fax.pdf
Hello All,
Please forgive us for sending this invitation out so late. The Mayor would be honored to have you and your
guest attend the opening ceremonies of the World Boxing Championships. As Chicago works diligently to be
named the host city for the 2016 Olympics the Mayor would like to thank you in advance for your support of this
effort. Please join the Mayor and roc members in welcoming athletes from around the world to Chicago for an
amazing international sporting event and a unique opportunity to show the world the great city of Chicago.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.
Thanks and we look forward to seeing you in Chicago.
Sincerely,
Bandele
Bandele McQueen
Deputy Director
City of Chicago Washington Office
1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Suite 404
Washington, DC 20004
(202) 783-0911
(202) 783-3524 - fax
This e-mail,andanyattachmentsthereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may
contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail (or
the person responsible for delivering this document to the intended recipient), you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution, printing or copying of this e-mail, and any attachment thereto, is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this e-mail in error, please respond to the individual sending the message, and
permanently delete the original and any copy of any e-mail and printout thereof.
10/16/2007
1 51 Draft
September 2007
MINUTES
SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 21, 2007
ASSEMBL Y ROOM
Members Absent:
Staff Present:
Others Present:
Meeting called to order at 3:30 PM
Robert Engel, Jay Honohan, Betty Kelly, Sarah Maiers and Nancy
Wombacher
Chuck Felling and David Gould
Michelle Buhman, Linda Kopping
Eve Casserly and Lynn Campbell
Call to Order:
Members Present:
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
None
APPROV AL OF MINUTES-Honohan
Motion: to be accepted as distributed. Motion carried on a vote of 5-0. EngeVKelly.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-Honohan
None.
COMMISSION ASSIGNMENTS-Honohan
Kelly agreed to write the web article summarizing today's meeting for posting on the
Center's website. Maiers will report on today's meeting to the City Council and Honohan
will visit the Board of Supervisors.
Maiers volunteered to write the web article summarizing the October 2007 meeting and
Kelly volunteered to report on the October meeting to both the City Council and Board of
Supervisors.
EXTENDED HOURS OF OPERATION COMMITTEE REPORT-Maiers
Maiers reviewed the committee's discussion of staff coverage during extended hours of operation
noting that multiple solutions, including the use of existing staff, hiring temporary employees,
securing volunteers, and eliminating extended hours of operation had been discussed. Maiers
presented the recommendations of the committee noting that given current staffing and financial
constraints they appeared to be the best options for insuring the safe and secure after hour use of
the facility.
1 sl Draft
September 2007
Motion: To adopt the following recommendations in order to provide staff coverage
during extended hours of operation:
1. Eliminate all member access to the computer lab, exercise room and pool room on
weekdays between 5 - 7 PM and on Sundays between 10:30 AM - 1 :30 PM
2. Identify volunteers to staff the fitness room, computer lab and pool room on Saturdays
between 10:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. If possible, this could be extended to include Sundays
as well.
3. Post signage in the fitness rooms to indicate that the person is using the equipment at
their own risk and ask all users to sign a release of liability.
4. Identify one person (instructor or participant) in each group that meets during
extended hours who will assume responsibility for turning off lights, closing the room
and responding to emergencies. The person will receive a brief orientation to
familiarize him or her with safe areas of the building, fire exits and the location of first
aid kits and emergency phones. This would apply to all after hour classes and programs
as well as rentals.
5. Staff members will continue to attend the first session of each new evening and weekend
Center sponsored and organized class to orient participants.
6. Special event programming (e.g. Gallery Walks, Skin Cancer Screening) will continue
to be covered by staff.
7. The Maintenance Worker I (MWI) will do a minimum of one building walk-through
each weekday between 8:30 and 9 PM. Because only one person fills this position, this
would not be done when the MWI is sick or on vacation.
8. Continue to document after hour programming and building use and submit this
information along with the new staff request for FY09.
Maiers/Engel
Discussion: Wombacher asked how staff would get participants to sign a release of
liability specific to the exercise room. Buhman responded that the front desk staff is
already asking members to sign a general release of liability form when they join the
Center. An additional form specific to the fitness area could easily be included. Engel
asked if the general release forms used now would be sufficient. A copy of the current
release was distributed. There was general agreement that the form was not sufficient,
even as a general release, and suggested it be reviewed by the City Legal Department.
The suggestion to have volunteers to staff the pool room, exercise room and computer lab
was discussed at length. Questions related to this recommendation included: Will the
room remain closed if a volunteer does not show up to work? How will the door
programming system accommodate something like this?
Honohan expressed his concern that the Commission originally entered into this
discussion with the idea to extend the current hours of operation and we are now
recommending a curtailment. He would like to see a volunteer system in place if the
right volunteers could be identified.
Engel suggested that the Commission could accept the committee's recommendation to
implement a volunteer staffing program with the addition of a sunset clause requiring that
the program be evaluated for effectiveness three months after it is implemented.
Engel asked if any of the funds currently allocated for temporary staff could be used to
hire a temporary worker to staff the building after hours and on Saturdays. Kopping
indicated that the funding available was calculated based upon the anticipated salaries of
1 st Draft
September 2007
the part-time temporary workers who staff SCTV. She said she would review the FY08
funding allocated for part-time temps and work study wages to see if it could be
reallocated to accommodate this position. She will report her findings at the October
Commission meeting.
Kelly suggested the Center apply for a grant to fund the position.
Move: To defer the motion until the October meeting. Engle/Kelly motion carried
on a vote of 5-0.
REQUEST FOR FUNDING TO UPGRADE EQUIPMENT IN THE COMPUTER LAB-
Kopping
Kopping reported that she has received numerous complaints from users of the computer
lab regarding the computers and their functionality. She shared a letter from a group of
regular computer lab users that expressed their frustration with the outdated computers
and the inability to upgrade the systems any further.
Kopping provided the Commission with a cost estimate for a comprehensive computer
lab upgrade. The estimated cost for equipment and lab set-up is $13,797. Kopping
indicated that the new computers would be Macs, but that a software program is now
available that will allow the Macs to look and operate like PCs. This would allow us to
offer classes in both formats.
Casserly suggested the Center apply for a grant to fund Computer lab improvements.
Kopping endorsed the suggestion and recommended that funds be made available
through Senior Center Fund Inc only if grant support was not available.
ADJOURN FOR A MEETING OF IOWA CITY SENIOR CENTER FUND, INC
RECONVENE THE SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION MEETING
OPERA nONS - Kopping
The Commission reviewed the year end Gift Fund Report for FY07. The report shows an
account balance of $15, 196.09 with donations of $935 earmarked for the Scholarship
Fund, $3,065 earmarked for the Senior Center Endowment Fund, and $350 earmarked for
the Charitable Giving account, leaving $10,846.09 in non-designated donations.
Motion: To transfer $15,196.09 from the Gift Fund to Senior Center Fund Inc.
Motion carried on a vote of 5-0. EngeVKelly
Kopping reported that the showers that were included in the ADA bathroom upgrade
project are incorporated with the construction of two additional rest rooms. Because the
two additional restrooms are required, the total cost for the showers is a relatively small
add on of approximately $6,000. The entire bathroom renovation project will be
presented to the Council for final approval at the October 2 City Council Meeting.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION-Honohan
Honohan reported his visit to the City Council.
Motion: To ask the City Attorney to review the current release of liability form.
Motion carried on a vote of 5-0. Kelly/Engel.
Motion: To adjourn. Motion carried on a vote of 5-0. KellylWombacher
1 st Draft
September 2007
Senior Center Commission
Attendance Record
Year 2007
Name Term 1/16 2/20 3/19 4/17 6/19 7/17 8/21 9/21
Expires
Bob Engel 12/31/08 X X OlE X X X X X
David Gould 12/31/08 X X X OlE OlE X X OlE
Chuck Felling 12/3 1/09 NIA NIA X X X X X OlE
Jay Hanahan 12/31/07 X X X X OlE X X X
Betty Kelly 12/3 1/07 X X X X X X X X
Sarah Maier 12/3 1/06 X X X X X X X X
Nancy Wombacher 12/3 1/06 OlE OlE OlE X X X X X
Key:
X=
0=
O/E=
NM=
Present
Absent
Absent/Excused
No meeting
Not a member
Preliminary
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 4, 2007 - 7:30 PM
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL - CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Wally Plahutnik, Terry Smith, Beth Koppes, Ann Freerks, Charlie Eastham, Bob
Brooks, Dean Shannon
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Karen, Howard, Sunil Terdalkar, Sara Greenwood
OTHERS PRESENT: Tom Gelman, Randy Bruce, Karl Madsen, Ronald Kenan, Janice Batts Pesselnick,
Charlotte Walker, Duane Musser, Mike Pugh, Bev Johlin, Jay LeaVesseur, Brad
Ruhland, Sandy Ruhland, Charlotte Bailey
Call to Order: Freerks called the meeting to order at 7:34 pm.
Public Discussion of Anv Item Not on the Aqenda
There was none.
Rezoninq Item
REZ07-00014: Discussion of an application submitted by Big Ten Rentals for a rezoning from Central
Business Support (CB-5) zone to Central Business (CB-10) zone for approximately A8-acres of property
located at the northwest corner of Linn Street and Court Street. (45-day limitation period: 10/29/2007)
Howard said additional information that had been requested during the informal work session and e-mail
correspondence that had been received since the informal work session had been distributed to the
Commissioners prior to the start of the formal meeting.
The applicant proposed to build a twelve-story building with one floor of commercial, 11 floors of residential
for a total of 132 apartments which would contain a total of 430 bedrooms. 82 structured parking spaces
would be located at and below grade. The property slopes up from east to west.
The Comprehensive Plan for this area is the Near Souths ide Plan, which was adopted in 1992. It was
amended in 2006 when the City was considering the Hieronymus Square Project. The Plan was amended to
state that either CB-5 or CB-1 0 zoning were appropriate between Court and Burlington Streets, based on the
property providing a logical extension of the downtown and adequate services for the density proposed.
Justification for this change included to encourage redevelopment of the area between Burlington and Court
Streets which would reduce redevelopment pressure on the downtown core which already had the desirable
pedestrian scale and historic buildings; and to diversify the mix of housing opportunities in the downtown
area to create more of a balance between University students and others who might enjoy the amenities of
living downtown. It was felt that the mix of residential would support a diverse mix of commercial in the
downtown area and to help it be a diverse and vibrant downtown area.
Requirements of the Conditional Zoning Agreement for the Hieronymus Square Development based on their
request for a rezoning from CB-5 to CB-10 included a minimum of two floors of commercial; a maximum of
200 dwelling units with a mix of studio, one- and two-bedroom apartments; no more than 30% of the units
could be three-bedroom; and no apartments could contain 4- or 5-bedrooms. A minimum of 80 parking
spaces had to be provided on site. A parking impact fee had been paid on the remainder of the required
parking spaces based on the CB-5 standard. They had also been required to install a landscaped courtyard
which served to maintain some open I green space, a loading and unloading space behind the building and a
design review had been required for the building itself.
As proposed, the subject property at 228 E. Court Street would contain 11 studio apartments, 11 one-
bedroom, 4 two-bedroom, 35 three-bedroom, 60 four-bedroom and 11 five-bedroom apartments. 106 out of
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 4, 2007
Page 2
132 units would contain three bedrooms or more which constituted 80% of the apartments as large
apartments. Howard explained the Residential Density Comparisons chart which listed recent apartment
developments in the CB-5 and CB-10 Zone and compared the residential densities of the proposed project
with other high density apartments. The table indicated that the proposed density of this project was
approximately 895 bedrooms per acre compared with the densest projects built to date in downtown Iowa
City, which ranged from 72 bedrooms per acre up to 336 bedrooms per acre, indicating this the proposed
density was significantly higher than anything built to date in Iowa City.
Howard said one of Staff's main concerns was the proposed increase in intensity for this building as opposed
to other CB-10 zoned buildings and a concern about whether the amenities on this site and in this area of the
City could support that increase in intensity. There was also the question as to whether that is what the CB-
10 zone was intended for. Other recent rezonings were required to provide a different mix of residential units
that would encourage a diverse population of residents in the downtown area. Staff was concerned about the
mix of units and intensity in the building, and that the living space in the apartments did not really increase as
the number of bedrooms/persons living in the apartment(s) increased. Staff was concerned about how the
lack of living space and shared common areas within the interior of the building would function to meet the
needs of the approximately 430 residents proposed for this building.
Commercial: The proposed building would have only one floor of commercial. The CB-10 Zone contains a
number of requirements to ensure that the space would be suitable for a variety of uses and to ensure
pedestrian friendly orientation so that it would be similar to the rest of the downtown. The proposed building
contains quite a few of the required elements including storefront windows which allowed viewing into the
stores, prominent entrances, entrances that were at level with the sidewalk however some of the commercial
spaces did not meet the minimum floor to floor 14-foot height requirement. Staff felt that issue could be
remedied. Due to the slope of the site from west to east, increasing the height of the second floor would
ensure usable storefronts along Court Street and provide an additional "mezzanine" level along Linn Street.
Parkinq: Howard said to insure adequate parking was provided for properties rezoned to CB-1 0 and to treat
residential development equitably with CB-5 properties that had or would pay the parking impact fee in the
Near Souths ide, Staff continued to recommend that any properties south of Burlington Street rezoned to CB-
10 be required to pay the parking impact fee as if they were in the CB-5 zone. For this property, 82 parking
spaces on site were proposed, 309 parking spaces would be required for this building so the applicant would
pay a parking impact fee for 227 spaces. Staff also recommended that a minimum of 1 secured on-site
bicycle parking space per apartment be required due to the number of people who would be living in the
building, the close proximity to downtown and to the campus.
Adequacy of Shared Parkinq Facilities in the Area: As requested by the Commission, the transportation
planning staff put together a memorandum regarding estimated parking demand in the 0-5 year future due to
recent and proposed redevelopment in the south-of-Burlington street neighborhood. Parking demand from
recently constructed buildings and from buildings that are currently under construction is estimated at
approximately 390 spaces net increase. As proposed, the parking demand for Hieronymus Square, for 301
S. Dubuque and for the subject property at 228 E. Court, is estimated at an additional approximate 650
spaces. These numbers showed there is a clear need for a commitment to build a new parking facility in the
next 5 years to support any rezonings to CB-1 0 in the Near Southside.
Buildinq and Streetscape Desiqn: There is a commitment to quality design and pedestrian oriented
streetscape in the downtown area. Staff recommended that if rezoned to CB-1 0, the applicant be required to
improve the streetscape to meet downtown standards including a minimum 10-foot sidewalk width with
decorative paving, street trees, trash receptacles, benches, and landscaping.
Staff felt that the proposed exterior design was attractive and would meet the standards expected for
building(s) in the CB-10 in the central business district. However, staff had a concern about the proposed
balconies over the rear courtyard which would be isolated from public view and had the potential to become
an attractive nuisance. There had been problems with similar buildings with private courtyards and things
being thrown out the windows and high numbers of police calls to that building. Staff recommended
disallowing balconies over the proposed rear courtyard.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 4, 2007
Page 3
Summary: In 2006, the Comprehensive Plan was amended to allow the extension of the CB-10 zone within
the Near Southside Development Area. Staff felt that provided that a new development proposed for CB-10
zoning balanced the issues of apartment mix, commercial storefront design, parking, building/streetscape
design in a manner that supported a pedestrian accessible, economically vibrant downtown commercial
area, such rezoning might be justified.
As presently proposed, Staff felt that this application fell short of meeting the goals for rezoning to CB-1 O. Of
significant concern was the proposed apartment mix with a preponderance of 3-, 4-, and 5-bedroom
apartments without sufficient services or surrounding amenities to support the proposed residential intensity
which would have the potential to cause spillover nuisances for adjacent properties and would further
imbalance the housing mix and population in downtown Iowa City. Staff recommended that REZ07-00014 be
denied unless the project was modified to address the concerns identified in the Staff Report.
Public discussion was opened.
Tom Gelman, attorney for the applicant, 714 McLean Street, said that Big Ten Rentals, LLC, a Wisconsin
limited liability company, is owned by Karl Madsen, Jim Cochran and Mike Fischer. The Madison, Wisconsin
company primarily provides housing for University of Wisconsin students. The recent change to the Near
Southside Plan had facilitated this application. The Hieronymus Square project was designed to provide a
diverse mix of uses and had received TIF assistance of up to $16.7M. The 301 S. Dubuque project also
provided a mix of uses and may be aided by up to $6M in TIF assistance. At this point in time, the applicants
for this project were not seeking assistance from TIF funding and therefore might not be able to provide the
same type of design considerations. Gelman said the question of residential mix for a particular geographic
area was an important question. Consideration needed to be given to whether every building needed to
have a mix of units or whether the desired residential mix in the downtown could be accomplished generally
without requiring the mix in every building. In other words, could the desired outcome be accomplished by
having multiple buildings with a single type of housing within each as opposed to every building having to
have a mix of residential uses within it. Could the same objective be achieved through multiple buildings
each having a different type of housing?
The parking issue needed to be addressed. It had previously substantially been addressed by two important
factors: 1) the Near Southside Parking Facility district which imposed an impact fee within this area which
enabled the City to accommodate parking needs through municipal facilities. This had been seen to work
very effectively in the new facility south of Burlington Street. 2) The precedent established by the CZA for the
Hieronymus Square project which required an equivalent of CB-5 parking requirements to be met through
either providing a percentage of parking on site and contributing to the Near South Side Parking Facility
District fund. Gelman said because of the timing of the development(s) of the proposed project(s) short-term
parking issues might arise but with the implementation and the integration of the two strategic methods by
the City over the long term the parking demands should resolve themselves.
Gelman said considerations during this evening's meeting should be about long-term issues, not short term.
Some of the issues raised regarding this project might be beyond the scope of the Planning and Zoning
Commission. He urged the Commission to bear in mind that this was a zoning request and not a site plan
review, not a building permit request and not a Code enforcement review. The focus on this application
should be two fold 1) changing the use for this particular parcel from CB-5 to CB-10 and 2) what reasonable
and realistic conditions might be implemented through a CZA to facilitate a CB-10 use and to preserve
reasonable community interest while also being responsive to the pragmatic concerns and limitations of
development, particularly development without TIF financing.
Gelman said this site could be developed under the current CB-5 zoning. An important consideration was
whether a failure to reach a consensus to permit CB-10 zoning would constitute not only an opportunity lost
not only by the developers but more importantly a significant opportunity loss for the community. The
rationale for modifying the Comprehensive Plan was to allow CB-10 in this 3-block limited geographic area
because it made sense for the community to have CB-10 facilities. If this site was developed as a CB-05
site, the City would incur a significant long term lost opportunity for CB-10 facilities within this small
geographic area which had been set aside for that purpose.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 4, 2007
Page 4
Randv Bruce, 7601 Granite Court, Madison, WI. architect who had worked with the applicants on a number
of projects. Bruce said the majority of the first floor outside perimeter would be commercial space. Parking
at surface level would be at the rear of the building. They had a better understanding regarding the required
floor to ceiling heights and felt it could be met. Bruce said he looked forward to doing additional work on the
outside of the building to improve the streetscape to City's standards. Much of the downtown area had
turned out quite nice and the proposed facility could be a great addition as well. Bruce said in response to
concerns raised at the informal meeting regarding a passenger drop-off site, he felt they could create a pick-
up/drop-off site at the rear of the building using the existing alley. There was a full 8-foot grade transition on
the property. The building's base exterior would be a cast stone or limestone integrated with brick, metal
canopy and expansive areas of store-front glass. They wanted to create a rich, permanent feel to the
building. Floors two through ten would be essentially all brick, window openings would be stone sills and
stone heads. Most units would have balconies which in the Madison area had not proven to be a negative in
terms of the management or enforcement of the balcony areas. Another stone band would be introduced
which created a stopping point for the eye and added interest to the building and created more texture. At
the top of the 10th floor the building stepped back considerably and exterior materials would change to pre-
cast panels of smoother texture and lighter color. It would be a beautiful feature on the sky-line. Garage
entrance would be at grade, a ramp going down would transition to parking below the entire building and
would ramp down one more floor level to provide 82 parking spaces enclosed within the building. The patio
area was intended to be a private area for those apartment balconies opening onto it; it was not intended to
be used for large gatherings or public space.
Bruce showed interior and exterior photos of actual buildings they had constructed in Madison. The demand
for parking for parking within their buildings in Madison regarding parking was very different than what is
predicted by reported by the transportation. Bruce reviewed the "Unit Breakdown of Applicant's Recent
Student Apartments" document; in Madison they had found the actual market demand to be one parking stall
for every 5-bedrooms. Translating the one stall per 5-bedrooms to the proposed 430 bedroom Court Street
building would equate to a demand count of 78 parking stalls. 82 parking stalls would be provided on site,
which they felt would meet true market demand.
Bruce said they understood that additional parking stalls would be provided via the parking impact fee, which
they'd calculated at approximately $6100/space or $1.4M generated by the 12-story building. As a CB-5
building, the parking impact fees generated would be approximately $400,000. The applicants felt the
parking impact fee would be a benefit for Iowa City as they didn't believe their tenants would be generating
the demand for those stalls, therefore it would provide additional parking spaces for the general commercial
public and the fee would assist the City in the construction of a new parking ramp.
Bruce said the CB-10 zoning would allow them the economics to build a higher quality architecture than
would be allowed with CB-5. The structure would be concrete frame with a useful life more than double that
of a CB-5 building. Because of the concrete frame and the clear spans allowed with it, it would have re-use
potential. They'd designed the building so that if student housing didn't become viable they could renovate it
into market rate condominiums or apartments. CB-10 zoning would allow them to do a higher level of
architecture, build a better quality building and to make an investment in Iowa City's architecture. They
looked forward to that opportunity.
Bruce said approximately 5-years ago the city of Madison had begun a trend to encourage the construction
of student housing in the downtown similar to the photos they had shown and to the project they were
proposing for Iowa City. It had been very successful; he thought Iowa City was starting to initiate the same
type of trend. By increasing the density of the downtown you were able to bring the users closer to the
location to the services they were looking for, i.e. bringing the students closer to the campus. All amenities
including restaurants, shopping, libraries were reachable by walking or biking which served to take quite a bit
of the load off the general traffic demands of the city and was an environmentally more sensitive way to
develop. Such density development took the demand for sprawl off the edges of the city and would allow the
next ring of more historic neighborhoods in Iowa City to transition back to more traditional owner occupied
neighborhoods. In Madison it was currently allowing young families to move back into houses that had
previously been student housing and turn those neighborhoods back over to what they had been post war.
Bruce said they looked forward to bringing this high quality of housing to Iowa City and hoped that it would
add to the mix of uses within the downtown.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 4, 2007
Page 5
Karl Madsen, Madison, WI, project developer. Madsen said he agreed with Howard's presentation regarding
justifications for the increase in zoning from CB-5 to CB-10. 1) To encourage re-development in this area.
2) To have a diversity of mix. He asked what would be an appropriate mix and did it need to occur in every
building at every level. Madsen said the developers felt that it did not. The Hieronymus project was
successful because of the reasons it had been approved under. They were not looking to duplicate that
development or be approved under those conditions. 3) Residents sufficient to support the commercial in
these areas. Density had been highlighted as being potentially more significant than in other projects, they
felt that density was critical to the success of their project. Madsen thanked City Staff for working with them
but said they respectfully disagreed with Staff's assessment and overall message regarding their proposed
mix. This project did have 80% in 3-bedrooms and higher, in Madison they had 60% of their units in 3- and
4-bedroom units, a mix which worked for them economically. The economic impact of the commercial, the
fact that they were paying a significant Parking Impact Fee and that they were not seeking public assistance
in financing set them apart. Madsen said they had approximately 3,000 square feet of community space
designed into their structure to provide recreation amenities for the residents of their project.
Freerks asked what was the square footage of community/recreation space in the other buildings that they
had built? Madsen said they'd provide that information to the Commission.
Koppes asked Madsen to define what he considered as community space within the proposed facility, did it
include the court yard. Madsen said it would be both interior and exterior space, he didn't know if the
courtyard had been included or not. Randy Bruce said a central common space was the farthest they had
developed. They knew they wanted to devote a certain area to the common facilities including office and
management space, lobbies and perhaps a study space on the Court Street elevation.
Eastham asked for further explanation as to the rationale regarding bedroom size, why didn't they have an 8-
bedroom apartment in this building? Why was 5 the upper limit, why couldn't 4 be the upper bedroom limit?
Madsen said the economic bottom line of a 5-bedroom unit was better than the economics of a 2-bedroom.
Eastham asked if it affected the price that each occupant paid. Madsen said not significantly; however, in a
studio it would significantly effect how much a person paid for their living space as opposed to living in a 3-,
4- or 5-bedroom unit.
Eastham asked if Madsen had any information on the social effect of students living in a 5-bedroom space as
opposed to living in a 4- or 3-bedroom space. Did they have any management experience in terms of?
Madsen said they did have management experience in 4- and 5 bedroom units. They'd invested upwards of
$200,000 dollars in a surveillance system. Staff had expressed a concern regarding the concealed courtyard
and lack of it being open to public visual surveillance and the potential for students using bad decision
making. Their experience with student housing had been that instances did happen. Their surveillance
system encompassed all open common space whether it was interior or exterior. They had surveillance
systems, motion sensors which activated cameras in locations such as elevators and hallways. The
information was transmitted to a system that could store it for up to two weeks. When there were problems
they were able to confront the students directly or involve other agencies as the situation warranted to deal
with the problem at hand. He didn't have empirical data about group living studies.
Eastham asked if the rental code provisions in Madison were significantly different than those in Iowa City
with respect to management requirements and all the items that communities were concerned with in terms
of enforcement and provisions. Madsen said he had not done a point by point comparison. Their
management practices would be similar to those they utilized in Madison. They would take an active
approach. They didn't have the structured facilities in place just to deter the students from making bad
decisions, they were also in place because it was a significant long term investment for the project partners
that they wanted to protect.
Eastham said the applicant's first speaker had suggested that some of the concerns raised by Staff
regarding the mix of bedroom sizes might be addressed by rental code enforcement or rental code
application. Greenwood said she could do legal research on the issue. Iowa City City Code allowed up to 5
unrelated persons to live in one single family unit whether it was CB-5 or CB-10. Eastham said he didn't feel
additional research was necessary but since the applicant's representative had raised rental code
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 4, 2007
Page 6
enforcement as a way of addressing bedroom size mix, the applicant's primary experience was in a different
state and if it was significantly different how Madison managed rental properties through their rental code
provisions, it might be important for the Commission to know those items.
Smith asked Madsen if he was willing to disclose what type of investment the applicants would be making in
the Iowa City community. Madsen said it would be more than twenty-million dollars.
Freerks said in the Unit Breakdown document provided by the applicant, it stated that they had two 5-
bedroom units total in their recent projects. Now they were making the leap to 11 5-bedroom units and 60 4-
bedroom units, did they have experience with other buildings of this scale with 5-bedroom units? Madsen
said he did not.
Brooks asked what was different about Iowa City in terms of mix of bedrooms per unit. All of their existing
buildings seemed to be in the 40% range averaging for 2-bedrooms or less. For the development they were
proposing in Iowa City the 2-bedroom units fell in the 16% range. What was different in the market or in
zoning requirements between Iowa City and Madison that they couldn't bring their historical ratio mix to Iowa
City, which in turn would decrease the density per acre.
Madsen said the primary differences would be the parking impact fee which they wouldn't pay in Madison,
the cost of the commercial space and balancing that with the risk of the overall market. The commercial
space that they had in the proposed building would be on both Court and Linn Streets because of Code
requirements. The proposed commercial space was proposed to be a Dominos; he'd prefer not to have
another Dominos, Pappa Johns or liquor store in the frontage of their building. They would like to do
something significantly different, the more they eroded the economics of their project the closer that they'd
be to the product that already existed in Iowa City. Madsen said that he wasn't saying that that was
necessarily bad, but he didn't see the need for another liquor store or similar commercial venue in downtown
Iowa City.
Eastham said a previous speaker had mentioned that the increased density in downtown Madison had
decreased the demand for student living space in near-by neighborhoods. Eastham asked for additional
data if the applicant had it. Madsen said they had no empirical data. Through conversations and based on
the experience of having 15 or 20-showings in a building to all of a sudden no one coming to view units to
the next year the building being put up for sale, that was their knowledge. Comments from the Madison
Planning Department supported their statements. To the extent possible they'd get empirical data.
Brooks said his knowledge of Madison, students, parking, and drivers there was very different than that of
Iowa City. In Madison mopeds almost out numbered people. In Iowa City that was not yet seen. In Madison
there was very limited student storage or any storage for parking vehicles in downtown which might create a
different culture about bringing vehicles to Madison campus than existed in Iowa City. The applicant's data
regarding demand might be applicable to Madison, but he was comfortable with Iowa City Staff's parking
demand data. When the Zoning Code had been re-written, there had data which had addressed that issue.
Madsen explained one difference is that Madison does not allow on-street parking in the downtown areas.
Parking permits were not issued to residents. This was a way to curb the appetite for bringing (residential)
vehicles to the downtown.
Ronald Kenan, resident of Capitol House apartment and member of the Iowa City Citizens Community
Organization, a grassroots community advocacy organization and member of Johnson County Green Party.
He questioned what and why the use of 5-bedroom apartments, was it to encourage students to go into the
subleasing business for themselves. The proposed building was to be built on a tiny lot and would be two
times taller than any of the surrounding buildings. For the residents of Capitol House it would cut off the
view, the sunlight and create a mini-Chicago atmosphere. Question #1, Why wasn't there enough time for
citizens to be informed prior to a developer wanting to change our community through its own change or
construction application? He felt there should be a minimum two week interim period notification period prior
to any City Board or Commission giving consideration to enacting any changes that would effect citizen's
economics, lifestyle, and or community infrastructure in order to allow citizens the opportunity to obtain
information regarding the proposed changes, provide feedback and attend meetings.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 4, 2007
Page 7
Question #2, Why was the developer or developer's representative going first to the City government to get
their input instead of to the citizens for their input. It was a highly anti-democracy process that excluded the
public and allowed the public no time for interaction with other public private citizens to be able to discuss the
changes within the community. Question #3, With any major change(s) within the City, where was the
rationale that the proposed construction met any criteria for bettering our community as opposed to simply
enhancing the bank account of the developer. Should there be a mandatory verification that the Community
would not be adversely affected by increased property taxes, increased traffic congestion, increased
numbers of temporary residents who had no interest in our community but impacted our community's living
standards, the deterioration of the atmosphere and deterioration of our rural small town commercial
businesses and community who struggled to not be out competed by global corporate goods and services.
The City had had an onslaught of projects by developers which sought to dispose residents and enacted
change in the local atmosphere that residents could not tolerate. Small businesses were under assault by
high intensity businesses that overpowered their economic attractiveness and services and which also raised
the property taxes of all residents and small businesses because the large scale businesses could support
the increased valuations due to their non-community regional and national base. The proposed building on
the corners of Linn and Court Streets is the same assault that the Sheraton Towers and hotel Vetro had
imposed on the community several year ago. The Hieronymus Building was indicative of what's been sought
to be obtained, the egocentric, non-compatible, non-community architecture and commercialism. None of
those buildings fit in the neighborhood because of the size, the scope of their edifices were excessive to the
location; none of them complied with the traditional zoning standards because they were so huge; none of
them enhanced the local downtown commercial district which relied on local residents and non-community
business brought in by UI students.
Kenan said it was time for developers to realize that No, they could not have any right to simply build
anything they wanted to in any community regardless of the community's social and commercial realm.
Rights were only granted to citizens and not to developer companies. It was time to bring democracy into
the situation and to tell developers that they could not change communities to satisfy their selfish egocentric
wealth motives. Kenan said this project must not be allowed to be built by a change in zoning laws. The
building must not be allowed to be higher than 6-stories; however, he did appreciate the architectural
appearance of the proposed building.
Freerks asked if notices had been placed. Miklo said notices had been sent to property owners within 300
feet and signs had been posted on the property approximately one-week prior.
Janice Batts Pesselnick, Capitol House Apartment resident, said she did not plan on staying in Iowa City,
she was returning to California because of the trend of development that was happening. She had resided in
Iowa City approximately 20 years ago but had moved away because the City seemed to be more intent on
pleasing the UI students rather than the people who resided in and were trying to earn a meager living in
Iowa City. She lived at Capitol House apartments because she was disabled and had a very low income.
The Capitol House building was a very nice building and had a park-like feel in the front. The residents of
Capitol House were continually disrespected by students who passed by their house and who were drunk,
girls were continually screaming and half dressed, males urinated on the window wells, cars in the back
alley. The proposed building was a big building, students with bad-judgment was a milk toast way to phrase
how students acted. The developers intended to build their building, make their money and move on. The
developers were aware of how students acted. Once the building was built, the developers would have no
long term interest in how the students were going to act. Was the surveillance going to be actual persons,
would there be noise surveillance? Watching pictures of what happened two weeks ago was fine, but who
was going to monitor the noise levels, the drunkenness, the bottles. The proposed parking and drop off area
would be intrusive to the residents on that side of the Capitol House building. The exhaust from the vehicles
in the alley would go right into the ground floor apartments located along the alley.
None of the developer's photos or drawings indicated that there were any surrounding buildings anywhere
near the proposed building. On paper they looked good but didn't acknowledge the existing people and their
lives. The residents of Capitol House apartments were low income people, who'd had unfortunate things
happen in their lives. The residents were scared of the proposed building. The only reason the developers
were even before the Commission was because a tornado had destroyed the former historic, very nice
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 4, 2007
Page 8
church. They could have built this development somewhere else in Iowa City, they were taking advantage of
a very unfortunate situation. Pesselnick said she thought if the proposed building was built, it would root out
Capitol House apartments and it would become the location of the City's next parking ramp. She felt that the
developers should purchase the Capitol House site, relocate the residents and have at it. The Capitol House
apartments were a nice location for the elderly and persons who didn't walk well. They could walk to CVS
pharmacy to get their prescriptions filled and take in fresh air outside of the building. It was a shame that the
developers had whooshed in and were taking advantage of the church's unfortunate demise.
Charlotte Walker, Capitol House Apartment resident, said the proposed building would ruin their building.
Capitol House apartments mainly had elderly people; they were already surrounded by buildings with a great
concentration of students. It was already hard for the elderly residents who lived there because the students
threw furniture off the balconies, the broken bottles thrown off balconies and into their parking lot. Walker
said she was offended that the tenants had not been notified, just the owner. There were almost 100 people
who resided in the building and this would affect their lives. The developers acted like there were not people
who already lived in that area, but there were. Walker said she'd followed other rezonings and the tenants
had been contacted. Why hadn't they been contacted, it was over 100 people. What about the people who
lived across the street, they had not been notified. Walked asked what was the intent for the existing St.
Patrick's Parish parking lot and parish hall? Walked suggested that the developers take their building and
put it somewhere else; it didn't belong in their neighborhood.
Public discussion was closed.
Motion: Koppes made a motion to defer REZ07-00014 to October 18, 2007. Shannon seconded.
Eastham asked if it was Staff's recommendation that this application not be acted upon until City Council
acted upon committing to building another parking ramp. If that was the case, how should the Commission
act upon the application before them?
Miklo said Staff recommended that it not be approved until that discussion had occurred. If the Commission
chose to recommend approval of the application, then it would go on the City Council. At or before the
Council's approval, Staff would ask that Council make a decision regarding a parking structure on the Near
Southside. Staff's advice would be, if the Council would not commit to building a parking structure, that they
not approve the application REZ07-00014.
Smith said he was perplexed about the project before them and listening to the arguments. Smith said he
was not sure that the discussion regarding the interior space was relevant to the Commission from a zoning
perspective; in concept he agreed with the argument that this project was not TIF applicable because it
would be just residential student housing. It was a significant difference than Hieronymus Square. With
regard to parking issues, parking codes and standards had been established for minimum on-site parking
requirements as well as parking impact fees. This project met those rules and requirements and it seemed
apparent that this project understood the parking impact fee and there would be a $1.4M fee that would be
associated with it, which was still viable to the developers. Looking at $20M dollar investment in the
community, they were looking at a $300,000-$400,000 in new or additional property taxes which would go a
long way toward staffing a new fire department, which Smith felt was important to the Community. Smith
said he understood the concern of the density issues and not recommending approval of the current
application. He wanted to look at if this application was to be approved, what would be the additional
requirements or changes that the City would want to see, under what conditions and with what conditions
would it be approved, outside of the bedroom or occupancy issues or density issues.
Howard said Staffs biggest concern was the mix of apartments and the common spaces in the building.
Staff felt that was relevant because the bedrooms would be taking up space that could be shared space for
the residents of the building. The question was whether this intensity of use was supported by the amenities
and services on site.
Plahutnik said he saw the main crux as being the zoning, which is dependent on whether this would be a
logical extension of the downtown based on adequate services for the density proposed. With respect to
adequate services, a fee was not a parking space which still didn't provide the service and there was no plan
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 4, 2007
Page 9
as yet to provide the parking that would be required by this building. In response to a challenge from Smith
that that was a City Council issue, Plahutnik acknowledged it was; he also said for Commissioners staying
behind on the Planning and Zoning Commission they had to deal with P&Z issues; those who were looking to
deal with City issues such as tax income could look ahead to that. The TIF issue, they could not look at
whether this would be a TIF project, the Commission didn't give out TIFs, they didn't take TIFs away, and
they could not consider that issue. They also didn't consider the profit motive involved in a developer's
project. The Commission assumed that the developers would only go ahead with projects that would be
profitable for them; it was not their job to make it so. They were considering entirely different things, the
impact on the Community and how it would benefit the Community.
Koppes said she'd lived in the dorms on 12'h floor and remembered Moving In/Moving Out day. It looked like
the building only had two elevators and nowhere for people to park and unload. That was very concerning
as to what it would do to the surrounding area. Also, where would the commercial loading dock be?
Eastham said his major issue was the mix of bedroom sizes. Several of the Staffs recommendations had to
do with the viability of the commercial spaces and additional services such as bicycle parking. He pretty
much agreed with Staff's recommendations. Eastham said he was struggling with what would be a
reasonable bedroom mix for a downtown high rise apartment building that would mainly be marketed to
students. It probably was not a bad idea to have a number of students living close to downtown, students
had some advantages and some disadvantages. One of the advantages was the number of coffee shops
which did not exist 5-years ago and were wonderful places for the citizens to congregate. The students
brought a lot to the downtown community. Eastham said he was not sure that rental income should be the
final determinant of what would be a reasonable bedroom mix.
Freerks said it was a lovely building; the Commission often had to pull teeth to get something as nice looking
as this building was proposed to be. However, the Commission had to look inside as well when it came to
density, she personally would like to see no 5-bedroom units in this structure. The Commission needed to
look at creating a viable, healthy environment all around the community. She hoped that the developer and
Staff could come up with a different configuration for the bedroom mix.
Freerks asked if windows were only in the bedroom units or were they in the common living space as well.
Howard said that in the preliminary floor plans most of the units had balconies which were off of the living
room, but the developer might be better able to answer that question. Freerks said she would like to see a
definite change in the configuration of the densities of the bedrooms; she would like to see something that
could accommodate different people and could live for a long period of time.
Brooks asked if this remained CB-5 and using the allowable apartment size mix, what would be the base that
would be allowed in CB-5 on this space. Miklo said that would be hard to do project because the Code didn't
specify that you had to have a mix in CB-5; you could have all the same size bedrooms in a building. Miklo
suggested looking at the table that Staff had put together. Howard said one of the considerations with CB-5
and also with parking was that for other areas zoned CB-5, developers had to provide parking based on the
established ratios for parking in CB-5 zone, which had been increased in the last Code revision to meet the
demand. Surface parking drove density on the lot; parking provided under or inside a building could provide
more building area on a site and more density. The two newest buildings currently under construction in the
CB-5 zone provided structured parking; using the Residential Density Comparisons chart, you could
compare the acres of the two newest structures to the proposed building and also to compare bedroom mix
per acre to get an estimate of what a CB-5 density might look like on this property.
Howard said the parking impact fee only covered approximately 1/3 the cost to build a structured parking
space. It gave developers quite a break rather than if they were required to meet the CB-5 zone standards.
Smith asked Greenwood to advise the Commission as to how could they come to a reasonable decision as
to what would be an appropriate mix when the Code allowed 5-bedroom units although most Commissioners
were uncomfortable with that size of unit. Greenwood said the Commission could include conditions that
would address conditions that could be/would be created by the development.
The motion to defer passed on a vote of 7-0.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 4, 2007
Page 10
Development Item
REZ07-00015/SUB07-00007/SUB07-00008: Discussion of an application from Dav-Ed Limited & Prime
Ventures for a rezoning to amend a Sensitive Areas Development Plan and a preliminary and final plat of
Galway Hills Part 4, a 26-lot, 10.41-acre residential subdivision located west of Donegal Place on Galway
Drive. (45-day limitation period 10/29/07)
Terdalkar said at the time of the previous approval, Dav-Ed Limited had sought a waiver of the subdivision
standards to allow for a 990 foot long cul-de-sac street. The waiver from the subdivision regulations was
justified as it allowed development to occur closer to the top of the ridge line, thus minimizing grading of the
slopes and removal of trees on the site. A sensitive areas site plan had been required and a planned
development overlay placed on the site. The road had since been built and some of the foundations on the
houses poured. During this period a change in the ownership of the property had also occurred, Prime
Ventures is purchasing the property from Dav-Ed, the original developer.
The applicants indicated that they had chosen not to use the "Good Neighbor Policy" and had not had
discussions with neighborhood representatives. The applicants were requesting modifications to the sensitive
areas development plan to move the construction limit lines to allow more grading of the steep and critical
slopes, tree removal and reduction in the woodlands to create additional developable areas on the lots.
Current buildable area available on certain lots was not sufficient for house models that the applicant wished
to build in Galway Hills. With the existing construction limit lines, at least 3,300 square feet of buildable area
is available on each lot. Staff advised against further disturbance of lots that contain protected slopes and/or
protected slope buffers. The applicant had agreed to maintaining the existing construction limit lines on lots
10, 11, 13, 14 and 18 but was requesting to move the construction limits deeper into the regulated sensitive
areas on lots 8, 9, 12, 15, 19; 20, 21 and 22 and elimination of the construction limit for lot 8.
With the proposed changes, disturbance of critical slopes would increase from 30% to 34%, steep slopes
62% to 63%, and woodlands 33% to 37% when compared to the previously approved sensitive areas plan.
One of the requirements of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance was to provide sufficient protection to the
sensitive areas to prevent soil instability, erosion, downstream siltation, flooding, landslides and mudslides.
Staff had consulted with the Johnson County Soil and Water Conservation District to asses the proposed
additional impact on the sensitive areas, Staff recommended that those conditions be incorporated into the
amended Sensitive Areas Development Plan.
Terdalkar said Staff recommended that REZ07-00015/SUB07-00007/SUB07-00008, be approved to modify
the construction limits on lots 8,9,12,15,19,20,21,22 subject to the following conditions being
incorporated into the Sensitive Areas Development Plan:
1. Slopes - Maintaining a consistent grade from building lots into outlots and avoiding "overfalls" from lots
onto the steep slopes on the construction limits and outlots.
2. Soil quality - Amending the soil on each lot with compost, avoid compaction to create healthy soil structure
that can absorb a large amount of water, decreasing erosion potential and impact on critical slopes.
3. Timber improvements - Removing invasive species and weed trees to open up the forest canopy to allow
regeneration of desirable trees, light to the forest floor.
4. Planting native woodland grasses and flowers in the understory to prevent soil erosion.
5. Storm water management - Treating storm water at the lot level with infiltration based practices to reduce
erosion and improve water quality, decrease amount of direct water flow onto the steep slopes and ravine.
6. Temporary construction fencing should be put in place prior to development of the individual lots to demark
the construction line limits.
Koppes asked where and how far had the development activity had occurred that was beyond the approved
construction line limits. Terdalkar showed photographs of the site which included lot 8 (10-feet beyond the
construction limit line), between lots 19 and 20 (excavated soil storage beyond the limit line, tree drip line and
disturbance to trees).
Eastham said he'd visited the site earlier in the day; there were already foundations on lots 19 & 20. Had the
existing limit lines been crossed on those lots as well as lots 11 and 12. Terdalkar said on lots 11 & 12 there
was minor intrusion which could be considered a minor over site. Lots 8, 19, 20, 21, and 22 were of concern.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 4, 2007
Page 11
Freerks asked how common an occurrence was this? Miklo said it had not come to the City's attention very
often, if and when it had occurred.
Eastham asked what were the ramifications when this occurred, what was the enforcement interaction? If the
contractor didn't comply did the lot become a non-conforming lot. Greenwood said what would likely happen
is the developer would be sited for a municipal infraction which generally was a fine which increased every
day the infraction existed. Freerks asked if it was retro-active based on time period from day of discovery?
What constituted notice? Greenwood said from date of notice, having an inspector go to the site and inform
the contractor/developer that they were being cited for a municipal infraction. There would be the option of
an environmental infraction. Miklo said some of the work had been done last fall when the street had been
installed. The Housing and Inspection Department had an environmental specialist who met with the
contractor on the site to identify where the construction limit line would be. She did a good job of making
sure that the contractor understood; Staff would check with her to see what her understanding was in this
particular case and report back to the Commission. Greenwood said the City could also seek equitable
remedies which could require the contractor/developer to pay a fine, plant trees or other equitable remedies.
Miklo said if the Commission opted to make the changes to lots 8, 22, 21, 20 and 19 then it would not be a
question any more as the construction limit line would be re-established deeper into the wooded area.
Eastham said lots 19 and 20 already had foundations on them. Miklo said what the Commission would be
doing was to acknowledge the infraction by moving the construction line further back.
Plahutnik said this looked like a case of it being better to ask forgiveness than to ask permission.
Smith said there was a violation and it was being suggested to clear the violation through a change. What
was the City trying to accomplish in this particular situation or were they preparing for other construction?
Smith asked how the square footage had been determined and did it include a garage? Terdalkar said using
the four plans submitted by the applicant, calculations did include the square footage for a garage.
Smith asked if the six recommendations would not apply to lots 8 and 22. Terdalkar said the slopes on lots 8
and 22 were not steep. It would be more applicable to the steeper slopes to provide soil stability and erosion
control measures.
Freerks asked how the proposed conditions would be monitored and achieved as there had already been
problems with what should have already been monitored. Miklo said the conditions would have to be written
into the sensitive areas plan and the City Inspectors would have to verify that the conditions had been met
before any occupancy permits were issued.
Eastham asked Staff if they could verify that the foundations on lots 19 and 20 were not across the current
construction limit line. Terdalkar said the excavation soil would likely be across the line.
Freerks asked if construction fence was utilized/required for most projects. Miklo said typically not, in
instances when a particular tree or area needed protection the City required it. In this case since there was
already some issues about the construction limit lines being crossed, Staff was recommending it.
Public discussion was opened.
Duane Musser, MMS Consultants, said he had prepared the preliminary plat, amended plan and final plat.
They had originally requested to modify the construction limit lines on all the lots, after working with Staff they'
were requesting to modify 6 lots and eliminate the construction limit line on lot 8. They had staked the limits
of construction line for Prime Ventures. Hen has spoken with the contractor and could guarantee that the silt
fence was right at the construction limit line; none of the foundations, porches, structure were across the line.
They had done four site plans, two were currently under construction. On lot 8, after the contractor had
worked on the berm and crossed the line, they had made the notifications and shut down all activity within
the area. The intent with the new applicant was to build a landscape berm with large trees on lots 1 through
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 4, 2007
Page 12
8 which would back up to the highway as a landscape buffer. The applicant would be agreeable to all the
conditions proposed by Staff.
Eastham asked if the foundations on lots 19 and 20 did not cross the construction line(s), then what was the
rationale for wanting to extend the construction lines on those two lots? Musser said the concern was the
underbrush and invasive plant material, having it so close to the structure and having to clean it up. The goal
was to get that material away from the backs of the house for safety and fire protection and to give the
people the opportunity to have a rear yard outside the back of the house.
Terdalkar said even if a protection measure was in place, the clearing of the brush would be allowed. It
would be considered proper management of the wooded areas so they would survive and grow. Not grading
or removal of trees.
Eastham said that Musser had indicated that the construction foreman or representative of the contractor
had assured him that the present activity did not extend beyond the present construction limit lines, but did
he know it himself? Musser said he'd personally drawn the site plans but he had not physically gone out and
measured the activity.
Mike Puqh, legal counsel for Prime Ventures, said Prime Ventures was not the original developer but they
had entered into a long term contract to purchase lots and build houses in this subdivision. Pugh said they
were not before the Commission because of a request to ratify some violation that had occurred. What had
happened was when they had begun laying out the plans for this particular site using plans which had been
very successful in other subdivisions they'd recognized that certain features of those homes, in particular the
screened in porches, extended beyond the existing construction limit lines. With help from the Staff, they'd
decreased their request to a 10 foot extension on lots 12, 15, 9, elimination of line on lot 8, straightening out
of line on lots 21 and 22, reduction of 10 feet on lot 19. Pugh said to quantify it would mean a change in the
disturbance of the critical slopes from 30% to 34%, steep slopes from 62% to 63% and woodland areas 33%
to 37% which was below the minimum 50% retention requirement for woodlands. The only question was
whether or not this particular plan complied with the design requirement of the Code and the developer felt it
did comply.
Eastham asked Pugh if the existing limit lines had been crossed. Pugh said not that he was aware of.
Bev Johlin, 3517 Galway Court, said they'd built their house in 1992 and moved in so they were one of the
first homes in the development. This was the first time that she was aware that there had been a change in
ownership.
Johlin said she was definitely asking the Commission not to allow the amendment to the sensitive areas
development plan because it would allow more trees to be removed and the grading of the steep slopes.
The existing trees were very effective sound and sight barriers to the highway which was extremely loud.
Newly planted seedlings or small sized trees would not have the sound barrier or erosion protection qualities
that the established trees had. The large trees and the natural areas which existed on the site now were
very visually appealing since the subdivision was fairly flat and without mature trees.
The grading would remove very valuable top soil underneath which was very dense clay. She knew from
experience that the grading would change the natural run-off and draining which would affect the existing
houses. She was also concerned about the very scenic pond on the site which no one had mentioned.
Johlin said she was concerned that the continued removal of trees and grading would destroy the pond. The
residents of Galway Hills would like to keep the lots and sites as they were with no additional grading or tree
removal. They'd purchased their lots with that expectation. The subdivision had been named Galway Hills
for a reason.
Jav LeaVesseur, 742 Tipperary Road, said he had resided there for approximately 7 years. This was a very
small parcel of land; it was the backfill off Melrose exit that they were trying to jam this subdivision into.
Everyone, including the newest developer had always known the lot sizes. The developer had a profitable
plan that he wanted to use but couldn't make it fit so now he wanted 10 extra feet on the end of each lot.
Everyone would like to have an extra 10-feet on their lot but just because you wanted it didn't mean you'd get
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 4, 2007
Page 13
it. Everyone knew their lot size when they purchased it and therefore had to make the house fit the lot, the
simple answer was to build a smaller porch or build a smaller house or build the bigger houses on the bigger
lots. Everyone had known what they were buying, including the developer, when they purchased the lot(s).
Developers purchased and developed lots for a living; they'd know exactly what size the lots were when
they'd purchased them.
DaveEd had been extremely poor stewards of the land. The only green measures that they'd initiated were
the two ponds which were stocked with fish and used for recreational measures. These lots backed right up
to that area and would restrict access. DaveEd had made no improvements to improve the green space or
to plant any trees.
A retention pond which had been located immediately behind LeaVesseur's house had not served its
purpose so bulldozers had been brought in, the trees dozed and ground up into mulch. It had destroyed the
existing ecosystem in which deer, raccoons, hawks and a natural pond with native fish no longer existed.
The area was now a huge mulch mound full of noxious weeds. The original final plat had shown no need or
indication to remove the retention pond. Nothing had been done to restore or beautify that area.
The application lacked credibility and was a concern that the Commission was being asked to change the
Code to protect any potential violations that may have already occurred or were likely to occur in the future.
Of concern was the greater plan of what was going to happen in the area, this was part of the proposed
remaining sub-development. Galway VII, VIII and IX and talk of connecting Shannon Road to Dublin Street
for access to West High school was yet to occur. The focus right now was to develop this area because it
was less expensive and easier to develop than the other areas and the neighbors didn't necessarily want it. It
meant potentially driving through more green space where a park was supposed to occur. There was a
greater issue going on in this subdivision as far as the planning of this sub-development, the future of what
was going out there and where the lots were going in.
LeaVesseur said in summary it came down to everyone had know the lot size when they'd purchased the
land and just because there was more house than the lot could conveniently hold and because it would be
more profitable for the developer was the wrong reason to change the plan.
Koppes asked if there was a Home Owners Association in his area. LeaVesseur said yes, that three
members of the Association were in attendance at the meeting.
Brad Ruhland, 41 Donegal, said he was the defender of the trees and had planted 40 already. He'd already
seen the ravine become smaller and smaller. They'd just received notification just two days ago so he'd not
had the opportunity to have his photographs of the lots in question developed into slides. The last time he'd
spoken before the Commission he'd been told that no more trees, mature trees, would be removed. It had
become mass destruction to the trees. He said there was a house at the end of his block in which the
woodlands came right up to their back deck. The owners had purchased it that way and it had not been a
problem. With the woodlands you didn't have to mow and it looked more natural.
Sandv Ruhland, 41 Donegal, said as you exited Hwy 218 onto Melrose Avenue it was one of the gateways
into Iowa City. It was a beautiful gateway but if developers started removing the natural areas it would no
longer be a natural, beautiful gateway. Ruhland said they'd been down this road before, when the developer
had purchased the lots he'd known their sizes. There were other house plans and designs that would be
popular that would fit on those lots. After the last time she'd spoken before the Commission, they'd promised
that no more trees would be removed. She'd been in her kitchen recently and heard a cracking, she'd
looked at the ravine and seen a big tree being shaken and bull dozed. She called and been told it had
something to do with drainage pipes being installed. She felt a lot of trees had been removed when no one
was looking, who was monitoring the site?
Mike Puqh, said the speakers had been VOICing a lot of complaints about the developers and overall
development of Galway Hills. Those were not issues that were before the Commission, they were a buyer of
lots who wanted to build some houses on the lots. The trees to be protected were on Outlots A and B.
Under design guidelines, the woodland areas were to be included in Outlot areas to be maintained privately
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 4, 2007
Page 14
or by the City. The issue this evening was whether the amended plan complied with design guidelines under
City Code. Staff agreed that it did, subject to certain terms and conditions that the developer had readily
agreed to comply with.
Duane Musser, said with respect to the berm along lots 1-8, Prime Venture had a contract with Pleasant
Valley to tree spade in 10-15 foot trees. The applicant was trying to make an attempt to increase the berm.
The area to be removed was understory, brush, invasive trees at the rear of the homes to increase the
backyard.
Charlotte Bailey, 6 Kearney Court, board member of the Gallway Hills Home Owners Association. Bailey
said the Board had quite newly become a homeowner directed Board, in the past it had been made up of
representatives of DaveEd and their management company. As a homeowners association they had an
interest and were trying to take the lead in working with the residents in the neighborhood to discern what
their expectations were that previously had not been met. DaveEd and Prime Ventures had previously made
agreements between themselves, the Association understood that their unmet agreements and concerns
would carryover into their relationship with Prime Ventures including to build, to protect and to develop their
neighborhood. To them development didn't just mean houses or just lots, they were talking about green
space, trees and the underbrush too. She'd been part of the effort to add trees to their neighborhood; they'd
applied for and been awarded PIN grants in the past. They'd planted street trees which was a concern to the
residents of Gallway Hills as were roads, traffic and parks. They needed to know and understand how did
this fit in to the big picture.
Bailey said to some of the audience it was about 10 feet on lots which would increase the value of the lots,
but to many it was about the bigger value to their neighborhood and to say that this decision wasn't one that
was necessary. It was not a change that had to happen and she was not sure that it was a change that
given time and involvement with the City and developers, and looking back at what had the District Plan and
sub plan for your area had to say. How long had it been since anyone had asked the residents what they
needed. How much had changed since they thought certain things were guaranteed to happen that really
hadn't happen and played out. What was and would be the bigger impact of that.
Bailey said the Commission was being asked to make a decision about a line on six lots, she was asking the
Commission to take into consideration what it would mean for the development overall and the partnership
they were trying to create and to have input with the City regarding their neighborhood and the direction it
would take.
Public discussion was closed.
Motion: Smith made a motion to defer REZ07-00015/SUB07-00007/SUB07-00008, to October 18, 2007.
Eastham seconded.
Smith said one of the fundamental questions before the Commission was did the proposed change comply
with Code. Another fundamental question was did violations exist. Smith requested Staff further investigate
and also confirm the location of the silt fence on or over the limit line. Smith said he'd heard conflicting
information regarding why the construction limit line needed to shift. The applicant had said due to over
hanging screened porches and deck, clearing of brush and under-story. Would Staff clarify what was
permissible and what was not, what would necessitate the movement of the line.
Koppes asked for a clarification, per lot, as to what the footage of moving the construction line would be.
She'd heard conflicting information from 9-feet up to 20-feet.
Eastham said he agreed with the comments by Smith and Koppes.
Brooks said he'd like clarification regarding when the lines were set, and then moved, if there was no field
verification then why were they bothering. If a line was set, then it needed to be respected, staked in the
field and it needed to be verified that a developer was abiding by what was agreed to. When the Building
Department inspected a foundation and they were not making it clear, that needed to be clarified with them
and to become a part of their procedures.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 4, 2007
Page 15
Brooks said it was also troubling to him that with a Neighborhood Association in existence, the applicant had
said they were choosing not to comply with the Good Neighbor Policy. Brooks said he didn't understand why
when there were neighborhood associations and ones that were as vigorous and involved as this one was,
why a developer would decide to bypass that process and instead bring all of those preliminary discussions
to the Commission. When Good Neighbor Policy had been discussed during the re-write of the Code, it was
specifically this type of thing that the Commission had intending to address. When a viable functioning
neighborhood association existed, and technically the developer was a member of the Association until they
sold the lots, why could they not communicate with the group. He was disappointed that that communication
and cooperation had not taken place in this situation.
Koppes asked if these two items could be flip-flopped on the next agenda so the individuals who'd sat
through and listened the first item could present first at the next Commission meeting.
The motion to defer passed on the vote of 7-0.
Consideration of Meetinq Minutes
Motion: Eastham made a motion to approve the September 20, 2007 meeting minutes as typed and
corrected. Brooks seconded the motion. The motion was approved on a vote of 7-0.
Other Item
None
Adiournment
Motion: Brooks make a motion to adjourn the meeting 10:27 pm. Koppes seconded. The motion was
approved on a vote of 7-0.
Minutes submitted by Candy Barnhill
s/pcd/mins/p&zJ2007/1 0-4-07. doc
Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission
Attendance Record
2007
FORMAL MEETING
Term
Name Expires 1/18 2/01 2/15 3/01 3/15 4/05 4/19 5/03 5/17 6/07 6/21 7/12 7/19 8/2 8/16 9/20 1 0/04
a.Brooks 05/10 X X X X X OlE X X X X OlE OlE X X X X X
C. Eastham 05/11 X X X X X X X X X X X X X OlE X X X
A. Freerks 05/08 X X X X X X X X X X OlE X X X X X X
E. Koppes 05/12 X X OlE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
W. Plahutnik 05/10 X X OlE X X X X X X OlE X OlE OlE X X X X
D.Shannon 05/08 X X 0 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
T. Smith 05/11 X X X X OlE X X X X X OlE X X X OlE X X
INFORMAL MEETING
Term
Name Expires 1/29 2/26 4/16 4/30 6/18 7/9 7/16 7/31 10/01
B. Brooks 05/10 X X X X X X X X X
C. Eastham 05/11 X X OlE X X X X X X
A. Freerks 05/08 X X X X OlE X X X X
E.Koppes 05/12 X OlE X X X OlE X X OlE
W Plahutnik 05/10 X X X X X OlE OlE OlE OlE
D.Shannon 05/08 OlE X X X X X OlE X X
T. Smith 05/11 X X X X X OlE X OlE X
Key:
X = Present
o = Absent
OlE = Absent/Excused
MINUTES
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
OCTOBER 10th, 2007 - 5:00 PM
EMMA J HARV A THALL - IOWA CITY ICITY HALL
PRELIMINARY
CALL TO ORDER:
Carol Alexander called the meeting to order at 5: 15 PM.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Carol Alexander, Michael Wright, Edgar Thornton
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Michele Payne, Ned Wood
STAFF PRESENT:
Sarah Walz, Sarah Holecek
OTHERS PRESENT:
Shelly McCafferty, Frank Wagner
RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL (becomes effective onlv after separate
Council action):
CONSIDERATION OF THE AUGUST 8. 2007 MINUTES:
Alexander asked if there were any editorial changes to the August 8, 2007 minutes. She
also noted that she thought the minutes were done very well and were very clear.
MOTION: Wright moved to approve the August 8, 2007 minutes as presented.
Thornton seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 3:0.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION:
EXC07-00007: An application submitted by Frank and Theresa Wagner for a
special exception to reduce the required front and side setbacks to allow
construction of an addition and an uncovered deck for property located in the
Medium Density, Single-Family (RS-8) zone at 1104 Muscatine Avenue.
Walz began with the Staff Report by stating that she has two letters to share with
Members, which arrived late, from neighbors of the Wagner's that pertain to this
exception. Walz stated that this property is in the RS-8 zone, and that the Board would
be considering two special exceptions - the first being a special exception to reduce the
required front setback for the house itself, from 15 feet to 11 feet, and from 5 feet to 3
feet for the side setback; and a special exception for the uncovered deck, from the
required 10 feet front setback to 4 feet, and the required side setback of 5 feet to 3 feet.
Walz stated that this property is surrounded by other RS-8's. Walz then proceeded to
show the Members the layout of this property, noting that it is triangular, corner lot. The
Board of Adjustment
October 10,2007
Page 2
current zoning states that if a lot fronts on two or more streets - which this property does
on Muscatine and Washington - it must have the minimum setback, equal to the required
front setback, on all streets. Walz continued, stating that this property is a
nonconforming one for several reasons. Minimum lot size is 3,400 square feet, and the
standards today say the lot must be 5,000 square feet. She noted the IS-foot setback
requirement for the front yard, noting that on this property, the side that fronts Muscatine
has a porch that is within this setback and a portion of the northwest corner of the house
and the mudroom are already within the rear setback on the Washington Street side.
Walz said that the applicants have removed an existing mudroom that measured 9 X 5
feet, and they would like to put in a kitchen extension in its place that measures 14 X 4
feet, which will be within the required l5-foot setback. This new addition would also
extend into the side setback, which Walz pointed out to the Board. Walz stated that the
applicants are proposing to build an uncovered deck, and the required setback for this
accessory structure is 10 feet.
Walz then explained the requirements for the setback regulation. The situation must be
peculiar to the property - Walz noted that staff finds the situation at 1104 Muscatine as
such, as it is a triangular lot and fronts on two streets, it is significantly smaller than
current minimum lot sizes, and the topography of the site is quite sloped and making the
rear yard difficult to use and access. Walz stated next that there would be difficulty
complying with the setback standards. She further noted that the applicants are proposing
to construct the uncovered deck along the rear side of the house, in order to create some
usable, private backyard space, as the topography is so difficult to work with. Walz
stated that the applicants are attempting to create more space on the first floor of the
home, in order to get the laundry facilities upstairs, a feature that is becoming more
common in houses.
Walz stated that granting the Special Exception would not be "contrary to the purpose of
the setback regulations." She said that staff does not feel this will be an issue, as they
would not go beyond the minimum 3 foot setback on the side. W alz said that the house
next door is set back even further off its side lot line - more than the required 5 feet - and
that there is access to light and air because of the way the lot is situated on a corner. "To
provide opportunity between dwellings" is another reason for the setback regulations,
stated W alz, and she said that staff believes that the setback reductions for the house will
not diminish privacy for the neighbor. She explained how the deck will have some
screening with trees, and that the rear of the adjacent house is set somewhat forward from
the deck location, and therefore, the deck won't be in direct view from the neighboring
house itself. The requested reduction "reflects the general building scale and placement
of structures in the City's neighborhoods" - Walz stated that there are a number of older
homes in this area that are in this type of unusual situation - either triangular-shaped or
other odd shaped lots or lots that front on two streets - and that it is not unusual to have a
portion of the house or accessory structure sitting within the required setback. She said
that given the nature in this part of town, staff does not feel this will be out of character
with the general placement of buildings.
Board of Adjustment
October 10, 2007
Page 3
Walz said there was some concern about the deck, as it will sit up somewhat higher.
Staff is recommending that the reduction be to 5 feet, and not 4 feet, to allow adequate
space for vegetation to grow, whether bushes or lawn. Walz said there is currently a
privacy fence along the top of the retaining wall, which intrudes into the space of the
sidewalk. Staff felt that if that privacy fencing were removed, it would giveoffer more of
a transition from the sidewalk to the property. "Promote a reasonable physical
relationship between buildings and residences" is another staff-agreed exception. Walz
stated that for the reasons already given, and the fact that the neighborhood is fully
developed, this will not create a difficult situation.
Walz then discussed the General Standards - will not be detrimental or endanger the
public health, safety, comfort or welfare - Walz stated that reducing the setback for the
house itself for the kitchen addition will not have any negative effects; that removal of
the fence above the retaining wall, requiring some space for vegetation between the
retaining wall and the deck, and then have the underside of the deck be covered will
minimize any potential negative effect. She further stated that the specific proposed
exception would not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the
immediate vicinity of 1104 Muscatine, and will not substantially diminish or impair
property values in the neighborhood. Walz said that this house was not maintained very
well over the years, and the applicants are in the process of reinvesting in the home and
updating both the home and yard to make it more liveable, which will in turn increase the
property value for not only this home, but for the neighborhood in general. Continuing,
this proposal will "not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of
surrounding property for uses permitted in this zone," "adequate utilities are provided,"
"adequate measures have been taken to provide ingress or egress" - Walz stated that this
has no impact on this proposal. Walz further stated that this proposal meets all other
applicable regulations; however, it does still have to go through final site review to get
the Building Permit.
The proposed use will also be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended,
which calls for maintaining and improving the safety and conformity of all housing, and
promotes the integrity of exiting single-family housing. Walz stated that in this case they
have a somewhat historic house that is being restored in a sensitive manner. In summary,
staff recommends Special Exception EXC07-00007 and application for Special
Exception to reduce the required principal building setback from 15 feet to 11 feet on the
front, and from 5 feet to 3 feet along the side property line, be granted subject to
compliance with the site plan submitted. Staff also recommends that a Special Exception
to reduce the required setbacks for the accessory structure, the uncovered deck, from 10
feet to 5 feet (front), and from 5 feet to 3 feet on the side, for the same property be
approved, subject to removal of the existing 4-foot privacy fence, providing landscape
space between the retaining wall and screening the underside of the deck.
Alexander asked the Board if they had any questions for Walz. Wright asked if the deck
screening would be a part of the site review, to which Walz stated that it could be part of
that. Thornton asked Walz to explain her remark about a particular picture where she
was explaining the existing fencing. Walz stated that one concern staff has is that
Board of Adjustment
October 10, 2007
Page 4
currently when you walk along the sidewalk you have a wall effect on one side, almost as
if the setback were zero. By granting the special exception, that would give the
opportunity to get rid of this wall and open up more space in this area. It would be
preferable to what is currently in place, and she stated that staff felt it would improve the
area overall. Wright asked Walz how far off the ground the deck will be. Walz stated
that she believes when you are standing at this sidewalk, the deck will be at 6 to 8 feet
above you.
Public Hearing Open
Alexander asked if the applicant would like to address the Board. Shelley McCafferty,
architect on the proposed project, addressed the Board concerning the exceptions. She
asked that the Board approve the staffs recommendations, as explained by Walz, noting
that the owner has agreed to comply with the recommendations of the City - increasing
the setback from 4 to 5 feet during the landscaping and removal of the wall. McCafferty
stated that she would address any questions the board members may have. Wright asked
about the deck's height. McCafferty stated that from the sidewalk level, it would be
about 8 feet. She further explained the landscaping that is proposed. Thornton asked if
there will still be some type of wal,l, and McCafferty stated that the existing retaining wall
would most likely stay in place. She said there would be some buildup of the topography
from the sidewalk to the house.
Alexander asked if anyone else wanted to speak in favor of the application. Frank
Wagner, the owner of the home, spoke to the Board next. He gave the Board further
explanation of the topography, and how the area around the home and deck will work.
Wagner stated that one noteworthy item is from a neighbor across the street who said
they turned their porch swing around to watch the progress on the Wagner's home, after
turning the swing the opposite direction about 25 years ago due to the deterioration of the
home. He said the neighbors are excited about the plans. Thornton asked Wagner how
old the house is, and Wagner stated it was built in 1910. Thornton asked what the home
was like in the beginning for the Wagners, and Wagner stated, "I shouldn't have bought
it!" He said it was in bad shape and had been unoccupied for about a year, after being a
rental property for approximately 35 years. He said once he and his wife are done,
almost every inch of the home will be restored, not renovated. They plan to live in the
home - he and his wife and four children - once the home is finished. He said all of his
neighbors have been very positive about the proposed plan.
Alexander asked if anyone else wanted to speak to the application. Thornton asked if
they could have an explanation as to why they had one letter against this proposal. He
said the complaint was about the sidewalk, and the citizen thought it would interfere with
walking down the street. Wagner stated that he briefly read the letter, but that he was
surprised by it. He said if they left the wall and vines there as they currently are, that this
makes the sidewalk harder to use than if they proceed with the proposed plan. He
questioned whether the person was aware of the proposed plan.
Public Hearing Closed
Board of Adjustment
October 10, 2007
Page 5
Alexander closed the Public Hearing, and asked Holecek for clarification on whether
these exceptions should be done individually or as one. Holecek stated that they should
do their motion from the staff recommendation. Wright asked about the contingency on
the fence, asking if the Special Exception would keep a fence from being added later. He
stated that he would like to add this to the Exception.
MOTION: Wright moved that EXC07-00007 application for Special Exception to
reduce the required principal building setback from 15 to 11 feet (front), from 5 feet
to 3 feet (side), for property located at 1104 Muscatine Avenue be granted, subject
to compliance with the site plan submitted, with the Special Exception be approved
subject to the removal of the existing privacy fence and providing landscaped space
between the retaining wall and a screened area beneath the deck. Thornton
seconded the motion.
Walz noted that on the first part of the principal setback there was a typo - it should be 5
feet to 3 feet side along the Washington Street frontage.
Thornton stated that the request from the Wagners for a Special Exception to reduce the
required front setback for principal building from 15 to 11 feet has gone before staff for
recommendation, and is now before the Board. He continued, stating that in looking at
the analysis and the situation is peculiar and there is practical difficulty with compliance.
Thornton stated that in looking at the general standards, the property is not an
endangerment to public health, safety, and welfare. In terms of making general
improvements to the property, the applicants have talked about removing some areas that
were of concern-the fencing. In looking at the specific issues and how they impact
neighbors, once again, Thornton stated that the applicants are making overall
improvements to the property. Utilities are not going to be impacted, and it is not in
conflict with the Comprehensive Plan for the City. Thornton stated that he is in favor of
this proposal.
Wright said that when he looks at the specific standards, he agrees the situation is
peculiar to the property given the lot size, peculiar shape, and sharp grade of the lot. He
said it also makes it difficult to comply with the setback standards. Wright voiced his
concern over the scale of the deck in terms of the rest of the neighborhood, and stated that
he went and looked at the current situation. He does feel that with the clearing of the
fence and the landscaping around the deck that it will not "loom" as he had feared. He
continued, stating that by requiring removal of the fence, the setback will give more
space on the sidewalk. He does not feel the Special Exception will be injurious to
surrounding properties. He does feel it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as
well, noting that one aspect of the Comprehensive Plan is to make properties more
livable. With the inability to provide a fence along the setback in the future, Wright feels
this will be a much more friendly approach to this side of the home, and that he is in
favor of it.
Board of Adjustment
October 10, 2007
Page 6
Alexander stated that she too, for all of the reason stated, feels this will be an
improvement for the neighborhood, and that she will vote in favor, as well.
The motion was approved 3:0.
APPEAL:
APL07-00002: Discussion of an application submitted by Leighton House for an
appeal on a decision not to renew a rental permit for property at 923 East College
Street.
Holecek explained to the Board that the appellant asked that this be deferred until such
time as the maximum number of Board Members could hear their appeal. Holecek stated
that one of the Board Members would not be able to sit on this appeal, and the other was
ill this evening. They have specifically asked that this be deferred to November 14,2007,
which is the next regular Board of Adjustment meeting.
MOTION: Wright moved deferment of APL07-00002 to the November 14, 2007
Board of Adjustment meeting. Thornton seconded.
The motion was approved 3:0.
VARIANCE:
V AR07-00003: An application submitted by Corridor State Bank for a variance to
allow an animated, freestanding sign in the Central Business Service (CB-2) zone
located at 202 North Linn Street.
Holecek stated that the same issue is relevant here - a different Board Member will be
conflicted on this application, and so again, the maximum number of Members to hear
this variance application will be four total, and the applicant has also asked for deferment
to enable them to present their case to the maximum number of Board Members. Walz
added that she had a brief discussion with the Bank and noted that the November 14
meeting would most likely be when the variance is heard.
MOTION: Thornton moved deferment of Variance V AR07-00003 to the November
14,2007 Board of Adjustment meeting. Wright seconded.
The motion was approved 3:0.
OTHER:
Alexander asked that Board Members remember that they need to be present for items
which they are not recusing themselves. Walz asked if everyone present is able to make
the next meeting, to which Members all stated they could. Holecek asked that Members
let staff know as soon as possible if they are unable to attend meetings. Members
Board of Adjustment
October 10, 2007
Page 7
discussed having a meal at this next meeting, due to the expected length of the upcoming
agenda. Walz agreed to provide food for the board. Holecek reminded the Members that
once the applicant has made their case to the Board, the Board does not have to render its
decision immediately at that meeting, that they can decide to defer their deliberations to a
later meeting, especially if there is a lot of information to digest or the meeting runs late.
Alexander asked about the Appeal process, asking Holecek for clarification on the
decision-making. Holecek stated that the Members step into the decision making role,
that this decision being appealed was in error, and the Board can reverse in whole or in
part; they can modify the decision; or they can uphold the decision, either in part or in
whole.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION:
Holecek stated there is nothing new on Shelter House, and that the expected opinions are
out on Thursday mornings.
ADJOURNMENT:
Alexander adjourned the meeting at 5 :45 PM.
Board of Adjustment
Attendance Record
2007
TERM 1/10 3/28 4/11 4/28 5/9 6/13 7/11 8/8 9/12 10/10 11/14 12/12
NAME EXP.
Carol Alexander 01/01/08 X X OlE X X NM X X NM X
Michael Wright 01/01/09 X X X X X NM X X NM X
Ned Wood 01/01/10 X X X X X NM OlE X NM OlE
Michelle Payne 01/01/11 X X X X X NM X X NM OlE
Edgar Thornton 01/01/12 X X X X X NM OlE X NM X
KEY:
x = Present
o = Absent
OlE = AbsentlExcused
NM = No Meeting
--- = Not a Member