The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2009-02-05 Info Packet~ - i ~III~ ~ • Ml~oai~~ -•ti.as~_ CITY OF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET February 5, 2009 FEBRUARY 9 SPECIAL WORK SESSION IP1 Council Meetings and Work Session Agenda IP2 Memorandum from the City Manager, City Attorney, and City Clerk: Sales Tax MISCELLANEOUS IP3 Letters from Mayor Bailey to Senator Grassley and Senator Harkin: Community Development Block Grant & HOME Investment Partnerships Program IP4 Letter from the City Attorney to Bonnie Mapes, Director, Division of Tobacco Use Prevention & Control: First Notice of Potential Violation IP5 Memorandum from the City Attorney: "Social Host" Ordinance IP6 Memorandum from the Senior Planner: Zoning Requirements for Bars and Liquor Stores IP7 Memorandum from the City Clerk: Meeting Schedule (February -June) IP8 Email from Nancy Purington: Employment for Iowa's Visual Artists IP9 Memorandum from the Director of Public Works and the Director of Planning and Community Development: Update: Flood-related activities IP10 Building and Permit Information -January 2009 DRAFT MINUTES IP11 Police Citizens Review Board: January 13, 2009 IP12 Board of Adjustment: January 14, 2009 IP13 Human Rights Commission: January 27, 2009 IP14 Planning and Zoning Commission: January 13, 2009 IP15 Planning and Zoning Commission: January 15, 2009 February 5, 2009 Information Packet (continued) 2 COUNCIL PACKETS ONLY AVAILABLE IN CITY CLERK'S OFFICE OR ON LINE (wwW.icQOV.orq) Federal Issues Washington DC Trip - 2009: Priority Projects for Iowa City, Iowa Long-Term Community Recovery Strategy ~ _ ~ u~-u5-ua ~;,c~r~~~ IP1 ' `m P ' ""`®'~~ .City Council Meeting Schedule and CITY OF IOWA CITY Work Session Agendas February 5, 2009 www.icgov.org • MONDAY, FEBRUARY 9 Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:30p Special Council Work Session ^ Sales Tax (reference agenda item 6g(13,14)& IP2J ^ Council Appointments ^ Agenda Items ^ Alcohol (reference agenda item 19 & 20J ^ Legislative Update ^ Information Packet Discussion (1/29 and 2/5] ^ Council Time ^ Schedule of Pending Discussion Items ^ Upcoming Community Events/Council Invitations ^ Discussion of Meeting Schedules 7:30p Special Formal -Executive Session (Collective Bargaining) Separate Agenda Posted • TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 10 Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:OOP Special Formal Council Meeting TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE SUBJECT TO CHANGE • MONDAY, FEBRUARY 16 Emma J. Harvat Hall President's Day Holiday -City Offices Closed • MONDAY, FEBRUARY 23 Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:30p City Conference Board -Separate Agenda Posted Special Council Work Session • TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24 Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:OOp Special Formal Council Meeting • TUESDAY, MARCH 10 Emma J. Harvat Hall TBA Special Council Work Session Special Formal Council Meeting Continue Special Work Session if necessary • MONDAY, MARCH 23 Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:30p Special Council Work Session • TUESDAY, MARCH 24 Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:OOP Special Formal Council Meeting • MONDAY, APRIL 6 Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:30p Council Work Session 1 t i~®~ ~III~~~~ ' """®'~~ City Council Meeting Schedule and -.~.~._ CITY OF IOWA CITY Work Session Agendas www.icgov.org February 5, 2009 • TUESDAY, APRIL 7 7:OOp Regular Formal Council Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall r r ~ ~~..®~r~ ~m~ ~ ,~®,~~ CITY OF IOWA CITY IP2 MEMORANDUM Date: February 5, 2009 To: City Council From: City Manager Re: Proposed Local Option Sales Tax This is a brief memo to provide additional information regarding the proposed local option sales tax initiative and to make a specific recommendation for its intended use. At our prior meeting we speculated about the extent to which the property tax rate might be reduced vis-a-vis the sales tax; we have determined that for every $1 million in sales tax used to "buy-down" the property tax would equate to an approximate $0.40 reduction. I know in talking with many of you and others throughout the community that there is great anticipation about the local option sales tax. In all candor I too am tempted by the allure of the sales tax as a possible solution for flood mitigation and recovery, property tax relief, and in light of the massive budget deficit and impending reductions in services and staff, using some of the sales tax revenue for general fund budget relief. While such uses are laudable, I might argue needed, my experience with such ballot initiatives leads me to recommend that the funds be used for the purpose of flood mitigation and recovery -when such initiatives are used to cover a broad spectrum of needs, more often than not the initiative fails. With more than $100 million in identified flood-related projects and the slow progress toward receiving state and federal funds to assist in recovery and mitigation, it is increasingly clear that considerable local effort will be needed to support meaningful recovery. r ~~,~.:.®~~, CITY OF IQWA CITY ~_l ~ E ~ C~ RA ~ Dl~~ Date: February 5, 2009 To: City Council From: Eleanor Dilkes, City Attorney Re: Sales Tax As you know, recent state legislation authorized flood-impacted cities and unincorporated areas that do not presently have a local option sales tax to adopt a local option sales tax on an expedited schedule. Chapter 4236 of the Iowa Code, which dictates the procedure. for adoption of a local sales tax, applies to the imposition of this tax with the following exceptions: 1. Expedited election and imposition. 2 options were provided. The option that remains requires the City of Iowa City, as the city with more than 50 % of the County's population, to request that the question be submitted to the incorporated and unincorporated areas of Johnson County by 5:00 pm on March 10, 2009 for an election on May 5, 2009. The tax, if passed, would be effective July 1, 2009. 2. The tax will be imposed in a city if a majority of the votes cast in that city are in favor of the tax. Under Chapter 4236 contiguous cities vote in a block. 3. The three year reference period to be used for allocating the 25% of revenue that is allocated based on the pro rata share of the total property tax dollars levied in each jurisdiction was changed from July 1, 1982 -June 30, 1985 to July 1, 2004 -June 30, 2007. The method for calling the election remains the same. Iowa City must call the election because it has more than 50% of the county's population. The formula for allocating the tax remains the same. Each city that passes the tax will share in the tax generated by other cities and the unincorporated area that pass the tax on a pro rata basis - 75% on population and 25% on property tax dollars. Attached is a mock resolution calling the election that will show you the decisions you need to make if you choose to call an election: A. Purposes You must specify how Iowa City will use the revenue as follows: 1) The percentage of tax revenues that will be used for property tax relief (can be 0% but must be stated). 2) The specific purposes, other than property tax relief, for which the revenue will be expended. The other jurisdictions will have the opportunity to specify their own purposes but if they do not the ballot will state: 1) 0% for property tax relief 2) Revenues expended for "any legal purpose" of the city or county. February 5, 2009 Page 2 B. Sunset/Automatic repeal. The Board of Supervisors decides whether the ballot proposition will include a sunset or automatic repeal. However, if you desire that the Board do so you should include the request in your resolution calling for the election. For example, the recent resolution by Cedar Rapids included a request that there be an automatic repeal of the tax within 5 years and the Linn County Board of Supervisors included a 5 year sunset. Absent special meetings, Council will need to make decisions on Feb. 9 in order to get the resolution on the agenda on Feb 24. Cc: Michael Lombardo, City Manager Dale Helling, Assistant City Manager Marian Karr, City Clerk Department Directors Prepared by Eleanor Dilkes, City Attorney, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240 319-356-5030 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REQUESTING SUBMISSION OF THE QUESTION OF THE IMPOSITION OF A LOCAL SALES AND SERVICES TAX TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE INCORPORATED AND UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF JOHNSON COUNTY. WHEREAS, the Iowa City City Council believes that the voters of Iowa City should be asked to vote on whether a 1 cent local option sales and services tax should be imposed in Iowa City for a period of approximately ( )years to provide for and WHEREAS, the Johnson County Board of Supervisors has the power to direct that such a ballot question contain a provision for the repeal, without election, of a local sales and services tax on a specific date; and WHEREAS, the Iowa City City Council must provide to the County Commissioner of Elections information to be included in the notice of the ballot proposition and on the ballots including the rate of tax, the date the tax will be imposed, the approximate amount of local option tax revenues to be used for property tax relief and a statement of the specific purpose other than property tax relief for which the revenues will be expended in the City of Iowa City. NOW THEREFORE BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, as follows: 1. The question of the imposition of a local sales and services tax at the rate of one percent (1%) to commence on July 1, 2009 should be submitted to the registered voters of the incorporated and unincorporated areas of Johnson County, Iowa at a special election to be held on May 5, 2009 as provided for by law. 2. The Iowa City City Council hereby states that percent (_%) of the revenues generated by this tax will be used for property tax relief and the remaining for the following specific purposes: 3. The City Clerk is directed to submit a certified copy of this resolution to the Johnson County Commissioner of Elections, and this resolution shall constitute a motion requesting the special election referenced above be held. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is the Iowa City City Council's requested ballot proposition language. The City of fovea City hereby requests that the Johnson County Commissioner of Elections consider this request, and to otherwise consult with it as necessary. 4. The City Clerk is directed to submit this resolution to the Johnson County Board of Supervisors and the Board of Supervisors is hereby requested to consider the Iowa City City Council's request to direct that the ballot contain a provision for the repeal, without election, of the local sales and services tax on Passed and approved on this day of , 20_ MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK Approved by City Attorney's Office Exhibit A (Insert letter to be assigned by the commissioner of Elections) SHALL THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC MEASURE BE ADOPTED? YES ^ NO ^ Summary: To authorize imposition of a local sales and services tax in the city of Iowa City at the rate of one percent (1%) to be effective from July 1, 2009 until A local sales and services tax shall be imposed in the city of Iowa City at the rate of one percent (1%) to be effective from July 1, 2009 until Revenues from the sales and services tax shall be allocated as follows: percent ( %) for property tax relief; and percent for r 1 .~~..®~r,~, ~~~~~ -~c.at~ CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM DATE: February 5, 2009 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk RE: Sales Tax Information In preparation for your discussion on February 9 I have attached the following: . Summary of Linn County cities ballot language for March 2009 Past Iowa City ballot language and election outcomes (1987 and 1999) ~~. Excerpt from Iowa Department of Revenue website on Questions and Answers. More information is available on their site at: www.state.ia.us/tax business/newlost.html SUMMARY OF LINN COUNTY CITIES LOCAL OPTION SALES TAX BALLOT LANGUAGE March 2009 City of Alburnett: 0 % for Property Tax Relief; and The specific purposes for which the revenues shall otherwise be expended are: Water and street projects. City of Cedar Rapids: 10 % for Property Tax Relief; and The specific purposes for which the revenues shall otherwise be expended are: 90% for the acquisition and rehabilitation of flood damaged housing caused by the flooding of 2008, and matching funds for federal flood dollars to assist with flood recovery or flood protection. City of Center Point: 0 % for Property Tax Relief; and The specific purposes for which the revenues shall otherwise be expended are: Community improvement projects and essential corporate purposes. City of Ely: 0 % for Property Tax Relief; and The specific purposes for which the revenues shall otherwise be expended are: Community improvements to include streets, storm sewer/runoff management, wastewater treatment, sanitary sewer and water infrastructure improvements, park/recreation improvements, reduction of short term debt and other community improvements projects. City of Fairfax: 0 % for Property Tax Relief; and The specific purposes for which the revenues shall otherwise be expended are: One hundred percent (100%) for any lawful purpose of the City of Fairfax. City of Hiawatha: 0 % for Property Tax Relief; and The specific purposes for which the revenues shall otherwise be expended are: Street improvements, public safety, park and recreation improvements, water and sewer system improvements. City of Lisbon: 0 % for Property Tax Relief; and The specific purposes for which the revenues shall otherwise be expended are: Street improvements, public building renovation expansion and any other lawful purpose. Linn County Ballot Language March 2009 Page 2 City of Marion: 0 % for Property Tax Relief; and The specific purposes for which the revenues shall otherwise be expended are: Road improvements, expenses associated with the expansion of the trunk sewer, and other community improvement projects. City of Mount Vernon: 0 % for Property Tax Relief; and The specific purposes for which the revenues shall otherwise be expended are: One hundred percent (100%) for repairs, replacements, upgrades and new additions to the infrastructure systems of the City of Mount Vernon including sanitary sewer, storm sewer, water treatment, water distribution, and streets. City of Palo: 0 % for Property Tax Relief; and The specific purposes for which the revenues shall otherwise be expended are: Road improvements, sanitary sewer improvements, park and recreational expenses, infrastructure improvements, and other community improvement projects. City of Robins: 0 % for Property Tax Relief; and The specific purposes for which the revenues shall otherwise be expended are: Streets, water, sewer and other community improvement projects. City of Springville: 0 % for Property Tax Relief; and The specific purposes for which the revenues shall otherwise be expended are: One hundred percent (100%) for infrastructure improvements to include water, sewer, storm sewer, street/curb and gutter, parks and residential development. City of Watford: 0 % for Property Tax Relief; and The specific purposes for which the revenues shall otherwise be expended are: One hundred percent (100%) for infrastructure. City of Walker: 0 % for Property Tax Relief; and The specific purposes for which the revenues shall otherwise be expended are: One hundred percent (100%) for a water tower restricted fund. Linn County Ballot Language March 2009 Page 3 Unincorporated Areas of Linn County: 0 % for Property Tax Relief; and The specific purposes for which the revenues shall otherwise be expended are: (1) revenues collected during the period April 1, 2009, through March 31, 2010, one hundred percent (100%) for flood recovery, including replacing flood related Linn County revenue shortfalls and repair and replacement of flood damaged Linn County property; (2) revenues collected during the period April 1, 2010, through June 30, 2014+, not less than ninety percent (90%) for construction and maintenance of Linn County secondary roads and bridges, and not more than ten percent (10%) conservation maintenance and improvements. * Note: The cities of Bertram, Central City, Coggon and Prairieburg have already imposed a local sales and service tax and therefore cannot participate in this election. + Linn County has imposed a five year sunset clause for the tax county wide CITY OF IOWA CITY PAST SALES TAX BALLOT LANGUAGE AND ELECTION OUTCOMES 1987 IOWA CITY Lanquage: $1,000,000.00 or 50%, whichever is less, for debt service property tax relief. The remainder of said revenues for maintenance and improvement of the City's program of services. Outcome: Contiguous areas * defeated 3,253 in favor and 3,694 against. In Iowa City the breakdown was 2,840 in favor and 2,854 against. 1999 IOWA CITY Lanquage: 0% for property tax relief. 25% for water rate stabilization and/or water rate relief. 40% for renovating and expanding the public library; for constructing a community events center; and for other capital improvements such as streets, bridges, parks, sewers, trails, public buildings, and collaborative projects with other area jurisdictions. 10% to support the operating expenses of the public library and the community events center, and to support community activities and events. 10% to support the operating and capital improvement expenses of public transit and paratransit, to include fare relief and enhanced service. 10% to support the hiring and equipping of police officers, firefighters, and/or other public safety personnel, and for construction of related public safety improvements. 5% to maintain and enhance funding of Johnson County area human service agencies and activities. Outcome: Contiguous areas ~` defeated 3,175 in favor and 8,085 against In Iowa City the breakdown was 1,882 in favor and 4,205 against. Contiguous areas include Iowa City, Coralville, North Liberty, Hills, and University Heights Is the local option sales tax imposed on the same items as state sales/excise tax? Yes, except on: • room rentals, in a hotel, motel, or other similar facility • sales of equipment by the State Department of Transportation • sales of natural gas or electric energy subject to a city- or county-imposed franchise fee or users fee • the sale of direct-to-home satellite pay television service • self-propelled building equipment, pile drivers, motorized scaffolding, or attachments customarily drawn or attached to them, including auxiliary attachments which improve their performance, safety, operation, or efficiency and including replacement parts used by contractors, subcontractors and builders for new construction, reconstruction, alterations, expansion or remodeling of real property or structures Are local option sales taxes imposed on cars and trucks? No. Vehicles subject to registration are subject to a 5% one-time registration fee rather than a state sales tax. However, the receipts from the rental of cars and trucks can be subject to local option tax. Also, sales of parts and repair services are subject to tax. Can a county with a local option sales tax impose the tax on items and services not subject to state sales tax? No. A local option sales tax cannot be imposed on any property or service not subject to state sales tax, with the exception of residential energy on which the state tax has been phased out, but on which local option tax still applies. If residents in a local option tax jurisdiction shop in a city that does not have a local option sales tax, does that mean that they avoid paying the local option tax? Maybe. If a resident of a taxing jurisdiction takes physical possession of the item in anon-taxing jurisdiction, no local option tax can be imposed. However, if the Iowa seller delivers it by the seller's vehicle or through a common carrier to the purchaser who lives in a local option tax jurisdiction, then the seller must collect the local option tax applicable in the buyer's location. When local option sales tax is figured, is it imposed "on top" of the state sales tax? No. It is imposed in addition to, but not on top of, the state sales tax. A taxable sale will be subject to the state sales tax and the local option tax. However, the amount of the sale for purposes of determining the amount of local option sales tax does not include any amount of state sales tax or other local option taxes if a jurisdiction imposes more than one local option tax. Are local option sales taxes imposed on cars and trucks? No. Vehicles subject to registration are subject to a 5% one-time registration fee rather than a state sales tax. However, the receipts from the rental of cars and trucks can be subject to local option tax. Also, sales of parts and repair services are subject to tax. February 4, 2009 IP3 ':''®~~ .:III ~ ~~ ~wr~~ ..r,~_ CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washin;ton Street The Honorable Charles Grassley Iowa Cicy, Iowa 52240-1826 United States Senate (319) 356-5000 135 Hart Senate Office Buildin (319) 356-5009 FAX g www.icgov.or; Washington, DC 20510 RE: Community Development Block Grant & HOME Investment Partnerships Program Dear Senator Grassley: It was good to see you this week and talk to you about projects in the Iowa City-Cedar Rapids Corridor. We have appreciated your advocacy for Iowa's flood-affected communities-you are helping our citizens rebuild their lives in the wake of the worst natural disaster that we have seen in Iowa City. I am writing to you in connection with S.1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 to urge you to include at least $1 billion in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds in S.1-the same amount that is contained in the House version of the recovery bill. Our community has eligible, ready-to-go CDBG projects that could be underway within three to six months. Funding ready-to-go projects with CDBG will create jobs and directly benefit lower income persons and their neighborhoods. CDBG's delivery system has been used in times of disaster and uncertainty to allocate much needed funding to communities quickly and effectively. Our community has had great success in its use of CDBG funding for job creation and economic development. Additionally, I strongly urge you to retain the $2.25 billion for the HOME Investment Partnerships Program that is included in the Senate Appropriations Committee-approved version of S.1. HOME is a vital program to expand the supply of affordable single-family and multifamily housing for lower income households in Iowa City. Our community desperately needs these funds to respond to the declining housing market, spiraling economy, and the challenges that we face in having enough adequate affordable housing in our community. HOME funds allocated directly to our entitlement cities allow each city to determine how best to meet our residents needs through a combination of homebuyer assistance, rental and transitional housing, tenant based rent assistance and owner-occupied housing rehabilitation programs. For further questions, please contact Steve Long at 319.356.5230 or by email at steve.l ong@iowa-city. org. Sincerely, ~ ~ rL~~~ Regenia Bailey Mayor February 4, 2009 ~ r ~~,~~ --~..4_ CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Wasl~in;ton Street The Honorable Tom Harkin Iowa Cicy, Iowa 52240-1826 United States Senate (319) 356-5000 731 Hart Senate Office Buildin (319) 356-5009 FAX g www.icgov.org Washington, DC 20510 RE: Community Development Block Grant & HOME Investment Partnerships Program Dear Senator Harkin: I am writing to you in connection with 5.1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 to urge you to include at least $1 billion in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds in S.1-the same amount that is contained in the House version of the recovery bill. Our community has eligible, ready-to-go CDBG projects that could be underway within three to six months. Funding ready-to-go projects with CDBG will create jobs and directly benefit lower income persons and their neighborhoods. CDBG's delivery system has been used in times of disaster and uncertainty to allocate much needed funding to communities quickly and effectively. Our community has had great success in its use of CDBG funding for job creation and economic development. Additionally, I strongly urge you to retain the $2.25 billion for the HOME Investment Partnerships Program that is included in the Senate Appropriations Committee-approved version of S.1. HOME is a vital program to expand the supply of affordable single-family and multifamily housing for lower income households in Iowa City. Our community desperately needs these funds to respond to the declining housing market, spiraling economy, and the challenges that we face in having enough adequate affordable housing in our community. HOME funds allocated directly to our entitlement cities allow each city to determine how best to meet our residents needs through a combination of homebuyer assistance, rental and transitional housing, tenant based rent assistance and owner-occupied housing rehabilitation programs. For further questions, please contact Steve Long at 319.356.5230 or by email at Steve.long@iowa-city.org. Sincerely, Q, ~ ~~ Regenia Bailey Mayor i r 1 IP4 -~.®~~ ~~III~ ~ 'wr~~~~ -~.a`_ CITY OF IOWA CITY February 4, 2009 Ms. Bonnie E. Mapes Director, Division of Tobacco Use Prevention & Control Iowa Dept. of Public Health Lucas State Office Building 321 E. 12th Street Des Moines, IA 50319-0075 In re: First Notice of Potential Violation Dear Ms. Mapes: City Attorney's Office 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 (319) 356-5030 (319) 356-5008 FAX www.icgov.org This is the response of the City of Iowa City ("City") to the First Notice of Potential Violation ("Notice") dated January 27, 2009 and received by the City on January 28, 2009. According to the Notice, "the complainant reported that on December 29, 2008 the required signage was not posted on all entrances to buildings." (emphasis added) The building at issue is City Hall, and all the entrances to City Hall were properly signed on December 29, 2008. Based on previous communication from the Complainant and a review of the Complaint itself, it is my understanding that the basis of the complaint is not failing to post signs at the entrance to City Hall, but rather, failing to post a sign at the entrance to the grounds of City Hall, namely the area between City Hall and the sidewalk in the public right-of-way. For your information, I am enclosing two photographs of the front entrance to City Hall and a diagram showing its dimensions. As you can see the space between the building entrance on which two signs are posted and the public sidewalk is relatively small. If you conclude that the Iowa Smokefree Air Act ("Act") requires that a sign be placed at one or more of the possible entrances to the grounds of City Hall in the area depicted on the enclosed diagram, the City will certainly post one. With that said, however, the real issue is not one sign at the front of City Hall. If the City is required to sign this area, then presumably I should direct City staff to place signs at the entrances to the grounds of all City buildings and in particular at every point that the sidewalk leading to a City building intersects with the sidewalk in the public right-of-way and at the entrance point to every parking lot to all public buildings. At City Hall alone, that would mean a total of 5 more signs. Furthermore, if the City is required to place signs at every sidewalk intersection and at every parking lot entrance, then Johnson County must similarly post signs at the County Administration Buildings and the Courthouse. Likewise, the Iowa City Community School District will have to place multiple signs at twenty-three schools. When one of my assistants was in Des Moines this past Friday, she looked for similar signs at the entrances to the grounds of the state government buildings. It is my understanding that there are a few signs in some parking lots that say that the state capitol complex is a no smoking environment. There are not, however, signs at every entrance to every outdoor area. For example, it is my understanding that, there are benches at the front entrance to the Lucas State Office Building (as there are in front of City Hall), but there is not a "no smoking sign" by the benches. My point is not to imply that the State is somehow violating the Act, but rather to highlight how requiring the City to post one sign has the potential to require school districts, municipalities, counties, and the State to place thousands of signs on the grounds of every public building, at the entrances to all parking lots connected to a public building, and at the intersections between sidewalks leading to public buildings and sidewalks in the public right-of-way. Thank you for your consideration of this matter, and I appreciate any direction you can provide. Sincerely, ~. Eleanor M. Dilkes City Attorney Enc. Copies to: City Council-w/enc. City Manager-w/enc. City Clerk-w/enc. 3_~ ~- ~N 5;.7, ~ r._~ `~ +~ ~.: -- , k: _ _ ~c .- ~ ~~~ ~° ~~ _ --- -: 1_ r 5 ,1 1 ~.~, ` t ' r ~ { ~ 1 it ~ ~ r 4 - hty~ /~Yr I ~ f' ~ ~.5 ,.~ Y I _ y .l` .. ry~r~ ~~ r J` . ! _ ~ ~ _ 5 _ s ~_ ~! ~. 6~ -~ - _~~~ ~---~ - - T, •~~~ l ~ .: ,~, . ~- t:- _ ~ j~s1'~ 1 fi $ ~3 b ~ y 4 ; ~ ~ Zt ~ -i ~ .~ t t ~ 1 5f '. ~ F y .~, t A~ ~ t ~ } ?~7 N +±~L r[r~ ~f5 sas y X: ` ~l ~~ I, --= _ T_ .~ ..~~ viii ~ ~ = - --~__ _ --~ ~u n - ~~ ~, =~~- ~_ C I T Y O F I O W A C I T Y C I T Y H A L L Sidewalk in the Public Right of Way 0 N 7\ rv (2) POSSIBLE "ENTRANCES" TO GROUNDS OF CITY HALL ' ~ ~ ~ U~l ^ ~' W A S H I N G T O N S T R E E T Iowa Department of Public Health • IDPH Promoting and Protecting the Health of Iowans Thomas Newton, MPP, REHS Chester J. Culver Patty Judge Director Governor Lt. Governor First Notice of Potential Violation Iowa Smokefree Air Act o ~~ January 27, 2009 ~= ~" z ~:.. ~. _; ;~ "`•• N ~ City Clerk =`~ `~;~ City Clerk's Office p ~~ ...- 410 East Washington Street ~`~ Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Clerk: The Iowa Department of Public Health has received a complaint of an alleged violation of the Iowa Smokefree Air Act at City Hall located at 410 East Washington Street in Iowa City. The following paragraph describes the particular alleged violation(s) in brief detail. The complainant reported that on December 29, 2008 the required signage was not posted on all entrances of the building. This is a violation of the following requirements of the Smokefree Air Act: ~ Signs not posted An employer, owner, operator, manager, or person having custody or control of a place where smoking is prohibited is required to post "no smoking" signs in and at every entrance to the public place, place of employment, area declared nonsmoking, outdoor area where smoking is prohibited, that clearly and conspicuously inform persons that they are entering a no smoking facility or area. The Smokefree Air Act also requires the posting of "no smoking" signs in vehicles owned, leased, or provided by the employer. This letter is not a citation or notification of a fine. We are taking this opportunity to provide you with information that will help you ensure that your establishment is in compliance with the Smokefree Air Act. Enclosed are materials containing basic information about provisions of the laws and a brochure with a link to the Web site where you find more detailed information. Additionally, to further assist your establishment in complying with the Smokefree Air Act, a representative from your local community tobacco control program may contact you to arrange for an educational site visit. Please take advantage of this opportunity to become more familiar with the law. This First Notice of Potential Violation has not been forwarded to any law enforcement agency. However, if a second valid complaint concerning your establishment is received within the next 12 months, a Second Notice of Potential Violation may be issued and this notice will be forwarded to a local law enforcement agency for further action. Lucas State Office Building, 321 E. 12th Street, Des Moines, IA 50319-0075 ^ 515-281-7689 ^ www.idph.state.ia.us DEAF RELAY (Hearing or Speech Impaired) 711 or 1-800-735-2942 Further action may result in civil penalties of not more than $100 for a first violation or not more than $500 for subsequent violations. In addition, as stipulated in the Smokefree Air Act on page 13, line 5: "violation of this chapter by a person who owns, operates, manages, or who otherwise has custody or control of a public place, place of employment, area declared a nonsmoking place...or outdoor area regulated under this chapter may result in the suspension or revocation of any permit or license issued to the person for the premises on which the violation occurred. " We are available to assist you in bringing your establishment into compliance with the law. If you have any questions concerning the law or would like to receive additional information, please visit www.IowaSmokefreeAir.gov or call 1-888-944-2247. Sincerely, vt~t~w2_ ~ 1'n Ct Bonnie E. Mapes Director, Division of Tobacco Use Prevention & Control _ ^~a 3V ~~ ..j C~ •-'~; ••~~~~ @ G i a ~ , --•• D t,~ o~ 2 r ~~..:.~~ CITY OF IOWA CITY IP5 ~ ~~~~~~~ u~ Date: February 3, 2009 To: City Council From: Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attorney Re: Social Host Ordinance A. "Social Host" ordinance description: A "Social Host" ordinance is aimed not at the people engaged in bad behavior at a residence, such as underage drinking or drug use, but instead at the person hosting the event. West Des Moines has such an ordinance that has served as a model for several others. Their ordinance reads as follows: 4-9-3: PROHIBITED ACTS: It is unlawful for any social host to host an event, gathering, or party on premises when the person knows or reasonably should know that an underage person has consumed an alcoholic beverage, or possessed an alcoholic beverage with the intent to consume it, and the person fails to take reasonable steps to prevent the possession or consumption by the underage person. A social host who hosts such an event, gathering, or party does not have to be present at the time the prohibited act occurs. (Ord. 1788, 12-3-2007) As you can see, a significant clause of the ordinance allows for the prosecution of people not present at the residence if they knew, or reasonably should have known, that there was going to be underage drinking there. Other ordinances, such as that of Washington County, punish social hosts for hosting drug parties as well as underage drinking parties. B. Discussion: Normally, a Social Host ordinance is aimed at parents turning their homes over to underage children and their friends for drinking parties. To the best of my knowledge after speaking with Chief Hargadine, this is not a significant problem here in Iowa City when compared to other alcohol issues. State law already criminalizes the hosting of a drug party (Iowa Code section 124.407), making it a serious misdemeanor for marijuana parties, and a class D felony for other drugs, so there appears to be no need for a social host ordinance addressing drugs at the local level. Police may also charge persons with providing alcohol to minors under State law (Iowa Code Section 123.49(2)(h) for liquor licensees or employees, Section 123.47(4) for non-licensees.) Providing alcohol to an underage person as anon-licensee is punishable as a serious misdemeanor with a minimum $500 fine. Doing so as a licensee (or employee) is punishable as a simple misdemeanor with a $500 scheduled fine. February 4, 2009 Page 2 The tool the Social Host ordinance would add for police is the ability to prosecute hosts who have not necessarily provided the alcohol, but who are aware that alcohol is being consumed at their residence by underage persons. Prosecution would likely be difficult, as it would require proving what the defendant knew, including not only that there was drinking, but that it was by persons under the legal age. C. Recommendation: I recommend that you do not pursue a social host ordinance at this time. cc: Michael Lombardo, City Manager Dale Helling. Assistant City Manager Marian Karr, City Clerk Sam Hargadine, Police Chief Matt Johnson, Captain of Field Ops. Sgt. Troy Kelsay Eric Goers, Asst. City Attorney r o~-05-09 t'~~~1"•p~~" CITY OF IOWA CITY IP6 ~EMoRANOU~ Date: February 5, 2009 To: City Council From: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner Re: Zoning Requirements for Bars and Liquor Stores We are planning to present draft zoning regulations for bars and liquor stores to the Planning and Zoning Commission at their February 19th meeting. We anticipate that the Commission will complete its review of the amendments on February 19th or March 5th. This schedule will allow the City Council to hold a public hearing on March 24th or April 7th ~~,®~ C[ T Y O F I O lNA C[ T Y IP7 ~~ll~~ ~E~{~R.AND(~~ DATE: February 5, 2009 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk ~+ ~ ~` .~) RE: Meeting Schedule (February -June) Attached is a meeting schedule for April through June in accordance with the policy of formal meetings being held the first and third Tuesday of each month; and work sessions being the Monday before each formal meeting. Please take a look at the schedule, and check your personal calendars. The Mayor has requested the schedule be discussed at the end of the work session on Monday evening. Please come prepared to discuss anv potential chanaes you would like to make the meetina schedule. A couple of observations: ^ We have scheduled around Spring Break, March 16 & 20 due to absences. ^ The Congressional City Conference (NLC) is scheduled March 14-18, 2009 in Washington, DC. Is anyone planning to attend? The summer meeting schedule will be discussed at the upcoming March 23 work session. In order to assist in plannina a summer schedule please let me know if you will be unavailable anytime during July and August. In the past councils have considered a reduced summer schedule and/or scheduled special work sessions for specific items. ^ I have also attached the February and March schedule for potential discussion of scheduling special meetings for priority setting of services. Attachment: February -June calendar U: schedule (February -June) II ~ O ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ j ~. ~ a i ~ ~ ~ r ~ Q I v N W H ~ ~ N N -a . -~ O ° O ~ ~ a ~ i ' I N F. W __~ V O W I d 7 fD d 61 ~ ~ ~ N F.a ~ 1 C d N U fm'+ N W O~~O N 3 ~~ N ~ `... ~ N ~ pvo w -1 c vNi oo.~-a ~ ~ 0 010 NVf~ l0 T NNr VOWT T ' Q d N Nr~ m'+AV Vf ~_. ~T _- N V N O. r W ~. ~nn'i ~n m.- ~ owrn~oN 3 I ~~,~ ~ .W--> ~ o w -{ 3 I ' ~ ' Nrr~ C VImrA G N V) L1! ~Y. o N L+ ~+ tD O~~DN VI . N C I ~ VOWOI T i 3 NN r m`+AV VI v ~ I, ~ N N N f N y r '. + i V (~ ~ Il ,~ `~ ~ I ~ II II ~ V ' ~ ~ ~ V~ ~ I 3 ~ ~I~ ~_ Ia !~ I ~ ; 3' ~ µ i II~ i .i~.~ _ ` i ~ ~g ~ I C ~` 1 SSLp ~. I~ ~ ~ ~ i ~~ r~ N. \ ~ Ul a I~ ~ I ~ i C i N : I f IN i I ~ i I N Ili 'i i ~ I ~ I ~/~I ~~I~ ~i n S N O O d y I< NN~+ t0 N VI OD r Vl W N~+ owrn~o ni 3 UI.j rAVOW -~ 3 d tNn~~~A ~N. O I 010 NVI :~ ~ N Ni+ T vowrn T 0. NN~+ 61 CorAN Vl i ~. ONi~D N Vl Vl ~ ~owrn 3 ~rAV 1 i ~ I b NU10!`+ C N O '. i ~ ~ ~ ref O W O~~O N -{ ~ AVOW T I 1N110G/A VI ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~ a ~ 3 ~^ ~ ~ ~ ~= , M .. , a ~ ~` N . ~ ' ' O ~ , N V NO r W ~ ~ O O m ILy ~ ~ C ~/ a ~ r I ~ N ~-+ ~ N ~~ d 7 a a D l0 N ~+ ~ ~ -' ~ t' : ~ N' d '. N `G N F+r+ 01lpN VI N. vowm-3 W O N W F. ~ .e b N V10C H < N O O I W N'+ ~ OWO~~DN -I ~ T dVOW T ' (L tN110)rA lA 3 v I~ `I--~ _. . ~ F+ V ~ .+ ~ W W N ~+ ~+ r AVOW VI N i v im.~-A 3 N~+r O~~D N VI ~ y ~ I N N r ~ VOWO~ F N ' . ~L*. O ~~a.V -~ C ~ ~ONVt~~+ T OWO~~ON lA i N N r ~ . . ~... i.. .. c c a i F S 0 ~. m ss ~ s _. N 'i~ i ~ ~- fi ~~~~ i m ~'i j_ ~ '~ ~ I ii ~~ ..r ~ .~ , ~i~; ~I '~~ i o ~ ~ .~, ~~ ~i i ~N~ -t= ~ W 14 ~ ,~ QJ N ~ i I N IF+ ~I ~N ~ I I ~'~ i I i i N I ~~ I`~ W V 01 3 N O O to d N ~Nrr AVOW Vl ~o ~ o. -A 3 W O ONi~pN VI ~. 3 VO m CC `c WO~ C N O m~av ~ NNr T ~O NV10D r T Q W N r Q) O W O~tO N V1 i ~ ~ ~ W r A V N I ~ ~O N V1W f+ 3 i i O W O~~DN ~ ~ ~ C I NI+~+. AVOW C (D C N ~ O ' N ~ ', ~ ~ r~r u i oo~A ~ ~ i C i N N'+ '~~ i i VOWT Vl M i w I ~ V ~ ~ ~ ~ .. J-- Sc~ ~ t~ ti ~ S c-- . / s C~ a s s- s ~ N ._ ` ^ ' ~ V C O ~ O ~ N ~ C71 pp ~, f1 ~ ~ a _ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ W N t... W ~ N i I I C (D Q d d I I C L ~ r ~ ~ V r+ o W i N NN~+ W I+AV Vl ~DN VI DJN 3... N V7 ~ ~' ~ Y'' -A OW TtON -I C AVOW ~ ~ O b Nrr V1Nr~A ~ T N i+ ~+ T~pN VI T ill VOWO~ V1 " ~ ~_ W ~- N ~ ~ ~ N N ~ Nr.. ~IDN Vt V1 i N . iowm 3 ~rAV ~ C NNr < SON VIWf+ G N' p N ~ O WO~~ON ~ i ~ C WN~+ ~ rAVOW T N`+~+ to O~rA Vl N N ~ N r-. ~.. .. IP8 Marian Karr From: Nancy L. Purington [nancy@nancypurington.com] Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 10:04 AM To: Joe Bolkcom; Vicki.Lensing@legis.state.ia.us; Mary [LEGIS] Mascher; Tyler [LEGIS] Olson Cc: Council; Nancy Purington, Art Subject: Employment For Iowa's Visual Artists "Iowa needs its artists and arts organizations to get back to work," Iowa Department of Cultural Affairs Director Cyndi Pederson said. "They're too important to the cultural and economic life of our state to be sidelined by the weather disasters we've had this year. Every time a play is produced, a symphony goes on stage, or a painter starts work on a new canvas, it means professionals are working, marketplace transactions are occurring, and -most of all -our quality of life is enriched." Iowa Arts Council News, Fa112008. All artists suffer from under-employment in Iowa, not just flood victim artists. Recent flood and fleecing affect every aspect of life for Iowa artists. The Iowa artwork market is by nature fragile. And 'artwork acquisition' is currently at the top of most private, budget cut lists. Please help focus attention on the expenditures by Iowa's Arts in State Architecture Program and Iowa City Public Art funds. Visual artwork products fabricated with support of IAC and IC Public Arts funds showcase Iowa's recognition and pride in their cultural workers. Recognition and support for Iowa artists from Iowa's State and municipal public art programs can help in the restoration process of Iowa's economy by utilizing Iowa's natural, human resources: our visual artists and craftsmen. Recent news of reviving WPA-type programs support the care and feeding of our'living cultural treasures'. Iowa is talking about investing money in restoring infrastructure of facilities and trade routes by hiring Iowan's to do the labor. We could be the first in the nation to invest more in our cultural infrastructure by Iowan's to do the visual arts aspects mandated by the State of Iowa and the City of Iowa City. Please put us all to work. Thank you for all that you do for Iowa, Nancy L. Purington, MFA Iowa Artist 1/23/2009 ~i~®dJ .:III~~~ ®..~ CITY OF IOWA CITY IP9 MEMORANDUM Date: February 4, 2009 5, 2009 To: City Council From: Rick Fosse, Director of Public Works Jeff Davidson, Director of Planning and Community Development Re: Update: Flood-related activities Engineering and Public Works Administration • The Parkview Terrace Neighborhood meeting was held on Thursday, January 22"d at the Water Plant with approximately 51 people in attendance • The Idyllwild Neighborhood meeting was held on Thursday, January 29tH at the Water Plant with approximately 35 people in attendance • Met with FEMA regarding our ongoing flood recovery and federal reimbursement • Developing concept statements for FHWA repair projects • Developed competitive quotation of Iowa River Corridor Trail Stream Bank stabilization • Met with FEMA to discuss the damage of the Iowa River Power Dam • Met with FEMA to discuss the four remaining project worksheets to be written • Met with FEMA to discuss the demolition of houses being purchased through the buyout program • Met VJ Engineering to discuss flood project development • Researching requirements for the Economic Development Administration grant application Wastewater Plant Maintenance Crew work this week: • Filter Building Mud Well sump controls -rewiring • Filter Building Mud Well flow meter installation and wiring - in process • Sludge Transfer Pump #1 -sent out for bearing replacement Additional items to complete: • Finish work on Valve Actuators in Sludge Pump Bldg. - 2 out of 5 remain to be done. • Complete installation of 1 water heaters • Install 2 air conditioners at North Admin • Finish repair of grinder controls - 2 out of 3 remain • Bar Screen gate actuator repairs - 1 out of 2 remain • Troubleshoot and repair Recirculation Station VFD - trips out • Complete repairs of Humus Pump Station • Complete duct and heat exchanger clean up • Remove old Admin Bldg. boiler • Relocate River Street Stormwater Station controls -higher elevation • Convert West Park Lift station to submersible pump system • Replace Iowa Ave. Siphon system February 4, 2009 Page 2 Water This week: • Sent elevation data to Melissa Miller (for insurance claim preparation). • Replacing meters in flooded areas (Idyllwild & Parkview Terrace) as heating systems are restored. • Met with HR Green to verify measurements for VFD and soft-start replacement • Working with Engineering for design and schedule on the 12" river crossing repairs (Old Plant and Hwy 6) • Updated FEMA PW with budget numbers and justification of generator switch replacement for hazard mitigation request. Next week: • HR Green will work on preparing plans and specifications for CW 3 & CW 4 VFD's and JW 2 soft start • HR Green will determine the availability of model predictive elevations to help to complete evaluation of hazard mitigation planning • A meeting with Mid American energy and HR Green will be set up for next week to discuss planning for duplicate switching and/or standby generation for the peninsula site Planning and Community Development: • Staff is working with the first 50 Jumpstart applicants with housing repair/rehabilitation, downpayment assistance or interim mortgage assistance. • David Purdy attended the Rebuild Iowa event in the rotunda of the State Capitol in Des Moines on Monday, February 2 to highlight flood recovery needs in Iowa City. He also witnessed the signing of the $56 million Rebuild Iowa bill. • The additional $823,000 in State Jumpstart funds allocated this week will provide assistance for up to 33 additional households for housing repair/rehabilitation, downpayment assistance or interim mortgage assistance. • Nasseem Hesler and David Purdy attended the Idyllwild neighborhood meeting on January 29. The Community Foundation of Johnson County currently has $57,000 earmarked for mortgage/rental payment assistance. Checks have been issued or are imminent for issue this week to 20 households, committing over $49,000. There are three families for which we are awaiting confirmation of payment amounts, with hopes of assisting them and expending the remaining funds. • Tracy Hightshoe and Steve Long presented and discussed Iowa City's CDBG/HOME program and overall flood recovery priorities along with updates on the flood recovery process and barriers to the process to Congressman Loebsack, Congressman Braley, Senator Harkin and Senator Grassley in Washington, DC last week. IP10 f ~` ~`_ BUILDING PERMIT INFORMATION January 2009 KEY FOR ABBREVIATIONS .Type of Improvement ADD -Addition ALT -Alteration REP -Repair FND -Foundation Only NEW-New OTH -Other type of construction Type of Use RSF -Residential Single Family RDF -Residential Duplex RMF-Three or more residential RAC -Residential Accessory Building MIX -Mixed NON -Non-residential OTH -Other Page : 2 City of Iowa City Dace : 2i2i2oo9 Extraction of Building Permit Data for ~r~ : >:,-~,» : lili2oo9 I ~3 I i2oo9 Census Bureau Report Tvue Pcrmit Number Name Address Imyr Use Stories Units Valuation BLD09-00006 U OF I SCHOOL OF ART 1375 HIGHWAY 1 ADD NON 1 0 $150,000 ADDITIONAL STUDIO AND LAB SPACE FOR TEMPORARY USE ART BUILDING Total ADD/NON permits : 1 Total Valuation : $150,000 BLD08-00876 COLLEGE TOWN PARTNER 318 N DUBUQUE ST ADD RSF 2 0 $93,470 ADDITION FOR SFD BLD08-00836 DAVID & SANDRA WOOD 1265 ESTHER CT ADD RSF 2 0 $14,000 PERGOLA PATIO COVER FOR SFD Total ADD/RSF permits : 2 Total Valuation : $107 470 13LD09-00001 PROCTER & GAMBLE HAIR 2200 LOWER MUSCATINE ALT NON 0 0 $300,000 MEZZANINE EXTENSION FOR BUILDING 53 I3LD09-00002 PROCTER & GAMBLE HAIR 2200 LOWER MUSCATINE ALT NON 0 0 $295,000 RESTROOMS AND OFFICES IN NORTH END OF BUILDING 53 I3I.D08-00838 TEXTURES SALON 1820 BOYRUM ST ALT NON 1 0 $71,487 HAIR SALON TENANT FINISH IN COMMERCIAL BUILDING BLD08-00810 MCDONALD'S CORP 1861 LOWER MUSCATINE ALT NON 1 0 $67,826 ADD COFFEE MAKING AREA IN RESTAURANT KITCHEN BLD08-00812 MCDONALD'S CORPORATI 2440 MORMON TREK BLV ALT NON 1 0 $66,923 COFFEE PREP AREA FOR RESTAURANT KITCHEN BLD09-00010 MECCA SERVICES 238 STEVENS DR ALT NON 1 0 $10,000 INTERIOR ALTERATION OF OFFICE BUILDING BLD09-00018 CORP 125 WASHINGTON ST ALT NON 0 0 $10,000 REMODEL AND CHANGE OF USE FROM RETAIL SALES TO "B" OCCUPANCY RESTAURANT BLD09-00034 IOWA VALLEY HABITAT 2401 SCOTT BLVD ALT NON 1 0 $3,366 INTERIOR OFFICE ALTERATION Total ALT/NON permits : 8 Total Valuation : $824,602 BLD09-00019 MCCALLUM, MARK 932 E COLLEGE ST ALT RMF 3 0 $50,000 CHANGE ROOMING HOUSE INTO APARTMEN TS UNITS 201, 301, 302, 303, 304 THIS PERMIT I3I_D09-00030 JUSTIN MULFORD 111 S GOVERNOR ST ALT RMF 2 0 $500 CONVERT BEDROOM IN ROOMING HOUSE TO LIVING ROOM Total ALT/RMF permits : 2 Total Valuation : $50,500 BLD09-00004 ALISON & ALBERTO ABRE 1000 RIVER ST ALT RSF 0 0 $42,743 KI"1'CHEN REMODEL FOR SFD B1_D09-00020 HOPE, MARIA S 1109 YEWELL ST ALT RSF 0 0 $30,000 KITCHEN REMODEL FOR SFD BLD08-00065 DOUG & MARY GREVE 561 GALWAY DR ALT RSF 0 0 $15,000 BASEMENT FINISH FOR SFD Page : 3 City of Iowa City ~~te : 2izizoo9 Extraction of Building Permit Data for T~> : iitizoo9 l~ li li Census Bureau Report r~m : 3 2oo9 Tyne Tune Ycrmit Number Name Address Imnr Use Stories Units Valuation BLD09-00008 DAVE & KARYL BOHNSAC 2710 LINDEN RD ALT RSF 0 0 $15,000 REMODEL BASEMENT BATHROOM FOR SFD BLD09-00011 LANGENFELD, ANN D M 57 CHARLES DR ALT RSF 0 0 $14,000 BASEMENT FINISH FOR SFD BLD08-00854 BEN SIEMERS 3618 ELGIN DR ALT RSF 0 0 $10,000 BASEMENT FINISH FOR SFD BLD09-00026 JOSHUA POWERS 1289 LANGENBERG AVE ALT RSF 0 0 $1,700 BASEMENT FINISH FOR SFD BLD08-00176 NICK HEMANN 347 S GOVERNOR ST ALT RSF 0 0 $400 BASEMENT WINDOWS FOR SFD Total ALT/RSF permits : 8 Total Valuation : $128 843 BLD08-00537 IOWA WIRELESS SERVICES 2417 HEINZ RD NEW NON 0 0 $100,000 MONOPOLE ANTENNA AND EQUIPMENT BUILDING Total NEW/NON permits : 1 Total Valuation : $100 000 BLD08-00345 TOWNE & COUNTRY MAN 2060 SHERMAN DR NEW RSF 2 1 $176,140 SFD WITH ATTACHED 2 CAR GARAGE Total NEW/RSF permits : 1 Total Valuation : $176 140 BLD08-00515 PENNINGROTH APARTMEN 201 N RIVERSIDE DR FLOOD REPAIR OF APARTMEN"t BUILDINGS BLD08-00707 SMITH-MORELAND CONST 17 CAMBORNE CIR FLOOD REPAIR FOR RMF UNIT BLD08-00818 TRACY HANSEN 13 PENTIRE CIR FLOOD REPAIR FOR RMF UNIT BI.D08-00819 TRACY HANSEN 15 PENTIRE CIR FLOOD REPAIR FOR RMF UNIT BLD09-00028 GERALD MEESTER 11 -15 N DODGE ST REPAIR RMF UNIT ADDRESSED 13 N DODGE REP RMF 0 0 $75,000 REP RMF 0 0 $36,500 REP RMF 2 0 $35,010 REP RMF 2 0 $35,010 REP RMF 0 0 $5,954 Total REP/RMF permits : 5 Total Valuation : $187,474 BLD08-00867 NANCY LANE-GIPSON 500 MANOR DR REP RSF 0 0 $125,000 FLOOD REPAIR FOR SFD BLD09-00005 MICHAEL SMITH 509 RUNDELL ST REP RSF 2 0 $13,125 REWIRE, INSULATE AND DRYWALL EXISTING BEDROOMS BI,D09-00017 OCEANVIEW INVESTMENT 711 MELROSE AVE REP RSF 0 0 $1,000 Replace bedroom windows Total REP/RSF permits : 3 Total Valuation : $139 125 hate : 4 Date : 2/2/2009 ~ro : liiizoo9 }~rom : 1/31/2009 Permit Number City of Iowa City Extraction of Building Permit Data for Census Bureau Report Twe Twe Name Address Imnr Use Stories Units Valuation GRAND TOTALS : PERMITS : 31 VALUATION : $1,864,154 DRAFT u~-ua-uy POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD IP11 MINUTES -January 13, 2009 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Michael Larson called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Janie Braverman, Donald King, Greg Roth, Abbie Yoder MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Legal Counsel Catherine Pugh and Staff Kellie Tuttle OTHERS PRESENT: Captain Richard Wyss and Officers David Schwindt of the ICPD; and public, Caroline Dieterle RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL (1) Accept PCRB Report on Complaint #08-08 CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by Yoder and seconded by Braverman to adopt the consent calendar as presented or amended. • Minutes of the meeting on 11/18/08 • ICPD General Order #00-08 (Weapons) Replacing Pages 1,8, and 15 • ICPD General Order #01-08 (Criminal Intelligence) • ICPD Quarterly Summary Report (All quarters) - IAIR/PCRB, 2008 Braverman confirmed that within General order #01-08 (Criminal Intelligence) page 3, Focus of Strategic Intelligence Activities, number 7 listing "Major crime including" is actually "including but not limited to". Also on page 4, Evaluation of Information, Braverman verified that the only information that will not be entered into the system is when reliability is unknown and validity cannot be judged. OLD BUSINESS Complaint Form Update regarding Officer Bill of Rights -Pugh researched false reports. Iowa Criminal Code section 718.6 (False reports to communications with public safety entities) refers to false reports to fire departments, law enforcement authorities, or other public safety entities. Pugh does not believe the PCRB would qualify as other public safety entities. If through the investigation the complainant makes a false report to the investigating officers, it may quantify as a false report. Iowa Criminal Code section 720.2 (Perjury, contradictory statements, and retraction) deals with when a person is under oath or in an affidavit makes a false statement. Pugh's question was if the complaint form rises to the same level as an affidavit. Pugh does not believe it does. The signature is not notarized and does not state that they swear the information is true and/or accurate. There is a statement that they certify to the best of their knowledge that the statements on the form are true. Pugh will draft some general language regarding false statements for the next meeting to include on the information sheet and the complaint form. Complaint Registry/Monitoring System -The Board requested that the officer identifiers in the Chief's report to the Board be changed to alpha only (ie, Officer A, Officer B, etc). Captain Wyss will speak to the Chief regarding this request. The Board then agreed to keep a registry of sustained allegations only. The report will include incident date, officer identifier #, and the sustained allegation. When there is a sustained allegation, the Board will request an identifying # for the officer from the Police Chief, and then enter the information on the report. Captain Wyss will look PCRB January 13, 2009 Page 2 into identifier numbers for the officers. From this point forward the Board will review the report quarterly and in the event of multiple sustained complaints against a particular officer, the Board would forward the report to the City Council. Motion by Braverman, seconded by King to start a complaint registry/monitoring system for sustained complaints only as described. Motion carried 4/1, Roth no. The Board will revisit this item at the February meeting to discuss the draft report and the additional details Captain Wyss is checking on. NEW BUSINESS None. PUBLIC DISCUSSION Schwindt confirmed that it was the Police Department that would be providing the officer identifier # for the sustained complaint report. BOARD INFORMATION None. STAFF INFORMATION None. EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion by King and seconded by Yoder to adjourn into Executive Session based on Section 21.5(1)(a) of the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records which are required or authorized by state or federal law to be kept confidential or to be kept confidential as a condition for that government body's possession or continued receipt of federal funds, and 22.7(11) personal information in confidential personnel records of public bodies including but not limited to cities, boards of supervisors and school districts, and 22-7(5) police officer investigative reports, except where disclosure is authorized elsewhere in the Code; and 22.7(18) Communications not required by law, rule or procedure that are made to a government body or to any of its employees by identified persons outside of government, to the extent that the government body receiving those communications from such persons outside of government could reasonably believe that those persons would be discouraged from making them to that government body if they were available for general public examination. Motion carried, 5/0. Open session adjourned at 6:34 P.M. REGULAR SESSION Returned to open session at 6:47 P.M. Motion by King, seconded by Braverman to forward the Public Report as amended for PCRB Complaint #08-08 to City Council. Motion carried, 5/0. PCRB January 13, 2009 Page 3 Motion by Yoder, seconded by Braverman to request 45 day extension for PCRB Complaint #08-09 due to timelines and scheduling. Motion carried, 5/0. TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subject to change) • February 10, 2009, 5:30 PM, Lobby Conference Rm • March 10, 2009, 5:30 PM, Lobby Conference Rm • April 14, 2009, 5:30 PM, Lobby Conference Rm • May 12, 2009, 5:30 PM, Lobby Conference Rm ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Roth and seconded by King. Motion carried, 5/0. Meeting adjourned at 6:50 P.M. x ~°o~c zz~~b oo~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~o~ ~~~~ ~ °~ -~ c. o ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ o ~ ~ o ~ x ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ N o ~ o ~ ~ N ~~ :~ ~~ x ~ x ~ ~ w y y ~ ~d ~~ ~~ d o~ ~~ .~ o b 0 r c 0 POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240-1826 (319) 356-5041 January 13, 2009 To: City Council Complainant Michael Lombardo, City Manager Sam Hargadine, Chief of Police Officer(s) involved in complaint From: Police Citizen's Review Board r ~. .-, ,~ :.:..~ , ~~ .~a rv :~ `~~: Re: Investigation of PCRB Complaint #08-08 This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board's (the: "Board") review of the investigation of Complaint PCRB #08-08 (the "Complaint"). BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, Section 8-8-7B (2), the Board's job is to review the Police Chiefs Report ("Report") of his investigation of a complaint. The City Code requires the Board to apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review to the Report and to "give deference" to the Report "because of the Police Chiefs professional expertise", Section 8-8-7 B (2). While the City Code directs the Board to make "Findings of Fact", it also requires that the Board recommend that the Police Chief reverse or modify .his findings only if these findings are "unsupported by substantial evidence', are "unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious" or are "contrary to a Police Department policy or practice, or any Federal, State or local law'.',. Section 8-8-7 B (2) a, b, c. BOARD'S PROCEDURE The Complaint was received at the Office of the City Clerk on July 22, 2008. As required by Section 8-8-5 (B) of the City Code, the Complaint ,was referred to the Chief of Police for investigation. The Chiefs Report was due on October 20, 2008, and was filed with the City Clerk on October 16, 2008. The Board met to consider the Chiefs Report on October 28, 2008, November 18, 2008 and January 13, 2009. At the November 18~' meeting, a 45 day extension was requested until January 20, 2009. The Board voted to review the Chiefs Report in accordance with Section 8-8-7 (B) (1) (a), "on the record with no additional investigation". FIl~IDINGS OF FACT On July 22, 2008, the complainant filed a Police Citizen's Review Board Complaint alleging that Iowa City Police Officers had harassed her and were rude to her in contacts with her and her service dog. The complainant feels that on July 7, 2008 a citation was not issued to a driver she claims hit her service dog because she had complained to Congressman Dave Loebsack's office about the police department. ALLEGATION# 1: A few years ago an unknown officer approached her and her service dog in the downtown pedestrian plaza. The officer failed to recognize that the dog was a service dog despite wearing a vest. The complainant stated the officer harassed her and was not trained in regards to service dog laws. CONCLUSION: The mention of an incident from several years ago with a current incident is not within the PC~a~'s complaint review process. (PCRB complaints are accepted within 90 days of an inc~e~nt.) T ADDRESSED ~ ~ a r~ ~~. ,~ ~~ t ALLEGATION#2: :~;r >,~. .x= v ., ,-~ i S l1 iii ~_ On an unknown date in May of 2008, the complainant says that Officer A approached l~ega}~ng having her dog in the downtown pedestrian plaza. She states, Officer A failed to recog~ze th~~er dog was a service dog despite wearing a service dog's vest. The complainant. states that Office A was rude to her and harassed her. CONCLUSION: The complainant picked out Officer A's picture from a department picture in the department's lobby. Officer A remembers dealing with the complainant, but.recalls meeting her on July 2, 2008. There is no substantial .evidence to support the allegation that Officer A harassed her, was .rude, or not trained to proficiency regarding service dogs. NOT SUSTAINED ALLEGATION#3: On July 2, 2008, Officer B approached the complainant regarding her having a dog in the downtown pedestrian plaza. The complainant stated Officer B harassed her, was rude to her and failed to recognize her dog was a service dog, even though it was wearing a service dog vest. z CONCLUSION: There is no substantial evidence to support the allegation that Officer B harassed her, was rude. to her, or was not trained to proficiency regarding service dog laws. City ordinance does not allow dogs in the downtown pedestrian. plaza unless they are service dogs. Officers are expected to approach persons with dogs in the downtown pedestrian plaza for enforcement of this ordinance. The complainant stated that once Officer B was informed that the dog was a service dog, no further conversation took place. The complainant could not describe any specific actor recount any words or phrases used by Officer B used to suggest he was rude and/or harassed her. A review of Officer B's in-car video was done of the interaction with the complainant~~iowever, the listener was unable to hear any conversation between the complainant and Officer B. ~' -~~' NOT SUSTAINED _~~~ ~' ~ _.. °_: 3 ALLEGATION #4: ~ ~ ~ ' "`'~ On July 7, 2008 Officer C covered a call involving complainant's dog and a vehicle. ~Office~ did not issue the driver of the vehicle a citation. The complainant believed this was in retaliation for her complaining to Congressman Dave Loebsack's office about the police department. The complainant did not make any allegations that Officer C was rude to her, that he harassed her, or made any comments about her complaining about the Iowa City Police Deparhnent. CONCLUSION: Officer C responded to a call about a vehicle hitting the complainant's dog while in the crosswalk on the southwest corner of Linn and Washington Streets. The complainant stated that she was about half way into the crosswalk when a vehicle turning left onto Linn Street from westbound Washington Street struck her dog. The complainant stated that she kept her dog at the location it had been struck and she did not allow the driver to move his vehicle. To issue a citation an Officer must have probable cause to believe that a crime occurred. Officer C talked with three independent witnesses who stated that complainant's dog was not struck by the vehicle. The complainant stated that she did not allow the vehicle driver to move his vehicle before Officer C arrived on scene. Officer C stated that when he arrived the vehicle had stopped prior to and out of the crosswalk. Officer C's in-car video also showed the vehicle out of the crosswalk. Officer C's in-car video also showed the vehicle out of the crosswalk. Officer C denies knowing anything about complainant's complaint to Congressman Loebsack's office. NOT SUSTAINED ADDITIONAL FACTS: On July 22, 2008 the complainant also filed a PCRB Complaint making several allegations concerning the Police Chief s conduct. This Internal Investigation was conducted by the City Manager and the City Attorney's Office as the Chief of Police was the subject of the complaint. The Police Chief, Officers A, B, C, and D and the complainant were interviewed. All reports and audio/video tapes were also reviewed. 3 ALLEGATION# 1: The complainant alleged that the Police Chief refused to direct Officer C to issue a citation in retaliation for her complaint to Congressman Dave Loebsack's office. CONCLUSION: The Chief made no attempt to influence Officer C's decision to issue a citation after learning about the incident and the relevant facts, and supported Officer C.'s decision. His decision was reasonable and not. based. on an attempt to harass or retaliate against the complainant. The Chief did not recall being aware of the complainant prior to receiving the letter from Congressman Loebsack's office on July 8, 2008 and therefore had no motive or opportunity to retaliate against her or even encourage other members of the police department to retaliate or harass her at the time of the crosswalk incident which had happened on July 7, 2008. NOT SUSTAINED ALLEGATION#2: Complainant alleges that the Chief told her that she had no authority to go to Congressman Loebsack's office because she had not been harassed by the police department. CONCLUSION: The .Chief recalled, during his interview, that he merely mentioned ~ that he had received a letter from Congressman Loebsack's office and that the police department was not interested in hiring her to educate them on service dogs. The Chief stated that he had no reason to be concerned about the complainant's complaint to Congressman Loebsacks' office, as Congressman Loebsack has no authority over the Chief or the police department. NOT SUSTAINED ALLEGATION#3: The complainant alleges that the Chief lied to her when he allegedly stated he had spoken with her service dog's vet, who felt that the dog was not hit in the crosswalk. CONCLUSION: The Chief s statements regarding the service dog's condition after, the July 7, 2008 crosswalk incident were based not on a personal conversation between him and the vet, but rather based on representations made to him by Officer D and an examination of the veterinary bill, which had been provided to him by Officer D. NOT SUSTAINED IP12 MINUTES IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PRELIMINARY JANUARY 14, 2009 - 5:00 PM EMMA J. HARVAT HALL Members Present: Terry Hora, Caroline Sheerin, Edgar Thornton, Ned Wood, Barbara Eckstein Members Excused: None Staff Present: Sarah Walz, Sarah Greenwood Hektoen, Doug Boothroy Others Present: Frank Gersch, Gregg Geerdes, Lori Dahlen, Joyce Barker, Craig Dahlen, Janet Dahlen, Tim Krumm, Tom Werderitsch, Mike Dahlen, Chrissy Canganelli RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: None. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Ned Wood at 5:00 p.m. An opening statement was read by the Chair outlining the role and purpose of the Board and the procedures governing the proceedings. ROLL CALL: Hora, Sheerin, Thornton, Wood and Eckstein were present. CONSIDERATION OF THE DECEMBER 10, 2008: Sheerin moved to approve the minutes. Hora seconded. The motion carried 5-0. Iowa City Board of Adjustment January 14, 2009 Page 2 SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: EXC08-00017: An application submitted by John Hartson and Frank Gersch for a special exception to allow conversion of anon-conforming use from medical office to general office for property located in the Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-12) zone at 1027 Rochester Avenue. Walz noted that the subject property is zoned for single-family residential and commercial uses are not permitted. The building was built in 1920 to serve as a grocery store and was converted to medical office use in the 1950's (a conversion allowed under zoning at that time). The regulations in the code allow for anon-conforming use to be converted over time to bring it closer into conformity with the current regulations. The purpose of this is to ensure that an owner does not lose all rights to a building and its function with a zoning change. Walz stated that the Board may grant a special exception to allow the conversion to another non- conforming use if the criteria for the special exception are met. Walz said that the first criterion fits precisely the situation of this building: a commercial storefront building in asingle-family residential zone. The interior of the building is divided into office space (serving most recently as an office for psychologists). Walz stated that the proposed new use must be less intense than the existing use. The use that is proposed for the building is as an office for an architectural group. The previous use, medical office use, is defined in part by its reliance on regularly scheduled appointments. A general office use does not ordinarily depend upon the turn-over of regularly scheduled appointments. Thus, the parking requirement for a medical office use is higher than the parking requirements for general office use. This provides one illustration of the lesser intensity anticipated by the zoning code for a general office use than a medical office use. The subject property was established without the required off-street parking, Walz said, and is credited with what is known as "ghost parking." Walz noted that in this case, the required parking for the new use will be less than that for the previous use so there is no effect. Walz said that the proposed use is appropriate for the building and site. The architecture of the building makes it clear that the building's intended use would be commercial. The interior is already subdivided into offices, which is appropriate for the proposed new use. Walz indicated that the new owners have no plans for expansion of the building; nor is there space on the lot for expansion. The building will be restricted to approximately 1500 square feet of office space and thus the non-conforming use will not be enlarged. Walz said that she would not go through each of the general standard orally, as they were addressed in the staff report. She summarized that because this building has functioned consistently over time as a commercial use, and because the proposed new use is less intense than the use currently allowed there the conclusion can be reached that the general standards are also met. Walz stated that the issue of the conversion ofnon-conforming uses was not addressed Iowa City Board of Adjustment January 14, 2009 Page 3 directly by the Comprehensive Plan, but noted that the Central District Plan does speak to the demand for on-street parking. Walz said it is reasonable to anticipate that the change to general office use would reduce the demand for parking. Walz stated that Staff recommends EXC08- 00017 be approved. Wood opened the floor to questions for Staff from the Board. Eckstein noted that the advertisement for the property stated that there was ample off-street parking available. Walz said that the advertisement was incorrect, that there is no off-street parking and that it was probably an error and meant to say ample on-street parking. Wood opened the public hearing, inviting the applicant to address the Board. Frank Gersch, 1041 Woodlawn Avenue, said that he believed Walz's summary was comprehensive, but offered to answer any questions board members might have. Eckstein noted that the application adequately addresses the issue of traffic congestion, but does not speak to pedestrian safety. Eckstein asked Gersch to speak to the issue of having only on- street parking available at the site and pedestrians having to cross a busy street like Rochester Avenue. Gersch stated that in ten years at that location there had never been a problem or a complaint on that issue. Wood asked if there was plenty of parking available on the streets nearby. Gersch said that there is parking on Rochester Avenue, Elizabeth Street, Bloomington Street, and other surrounding streets. Sheerin asked approximately how many customers the medical practice had in a week's time. Gersch replied that four doctors worked in the building, with each of them seeing a patient each hour, sometimes families would also come for appointments in separate cars. He said there would have been approximately thirty-two clients per day. There were no further questions for Gersch from the Commission. Wood invited anyone wishing to speak in opposition to the application to come forward. Seeing no one, Wood closed the public hearing. Walz noted that when the change of use is contemplated by the Board, it should be contemplated as a change from a generic medical use to a generic general office use. She stated that the special exception is tied to the property and not an individual owner/user. She said it was once converted to the general office use, it could not revert to a medical office use. Thornton moved to accept EXC08-00017, an application submitted by John Hartson and Frank Gersch for a special exception to allow conversion of anon-conforming use from medical office to general office for property located in the Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-12) zone at 1027 Rochester Avenue. Sheerin seconded. Iowa City Board of Adjustment January 14, 2009 Page 4 Sheerin said that this application meets the specific standards for the regulations governing non- conforming use because the property would be moving to a use of less intensity than the present use. Sheerin said that the proposed use will be located in a structure that was designed for a use that is currently not allowed in the zone. Sheerin said that the one-story building with large display windows in the front, and the interior space with its office space, examination rooms, and filing and storage space is designed for a commercial use, which is not allowed in the current zone. The new use will be of a lesser impact than the current use because of the lower traffic anticipated by the zoning code in a general office use. Because of the ghost parking that applies to the building, no additional parking will be needed for the new use. The proposed use is suitable for the subject structure and site because the building is designed and constructed for commercial use. The owners are not able to, and do not wish to, expand the building in any way. Sheerin outlined the general standards. She stated that the proposed exception would not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety or general welfare because the new use is less intensive than the current use. The proposed use will not be injurious to the use of other properties in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood because traffic will actually be reduced from that generated by the current use. Normal and orderly development of the surrounding area will not be impeded by this use because the proposed use is less intense than the present use. Sheerin stated that all utilities, access roads and other necessary facilities are already being provided. There is no issue of ingress or egress because there is no off-street parking. The use conforms to all other applicable standards of the zone in which it is to be located; while it is non-conforming, it is a lesser intense use and thereby meets this requirement. The use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because it will most likely relieve the demand for on-street parking in the neighborhood. Sheerin said that for these reasons she intended to vote in favor of this application. Thornton noted the uniqueness of the property. He said it was important to note that the owner will be aware that the property cannot be expanded; the property will not generate additional traffic and will not impede on the normal orderly development of the area, and all utilities are already present. He said that he believes the use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and he intends to vote in favor of it. Hora said that he concurred with his colleagues and that he thinks this is a good use for this building. He said that the use will be in better conformance with the zoning for the area. Eckstein said that she too agreed with her colleagues. She noted that the building seems to have been an interesting and good neighbor for quite some time in its non-conforming capacity. She said the proposed non-conforming use seems consistent with both regulations and with the building's history. Wood said that he believed the matter had been well stated by his colleagues. He said that the property had been designed and constructed for commercial use and will continue to be used that way. He said the proposed use will pose less of a parking concern than the present use, and that he intends to vote in favor of the application. Iowa City Board of Adjustment January 14, 2009 Page 5 A vote was taken and the motion was approved on a 5-0 vote. Wood declared the motion approved. He advised that anyone wishing to appeal the decision to a court of record may do so within 30 days after the decision is filed with the City Clerk's office. APPEALS APL08-00001: An application submitted by Michael and Jan Dahlen appealing a decision by the Building Office to grant a building permit to Shelter House for property located in the CI-1 zone at 429 Southgate. Walz stated that Michael and Jan Dahlen filed an appeal of the Building Official's decision to issue a building permit to Shelter House. The appellants claim that the decision to issue a building permit to Shelter House was in error for the following reasons: 1) Section 14-4B-4d-Sb in the zoning code requires a shelter management plan. Shelter House has not submitted such a plan. 2) The site plan fails to comply with the parking requirements of code sectionl4-SA-4. 3) The site plan that was approved was not submitted to or approved by the Appellants, the owners of a substantial portion of land included with this site plan. 4) The site plan that was approved was not the site plan that was submitted by the Shelter House ("Applicant") and was not made available to Appellants for their review. 5) Appellants also contend that the special exception granted to Shelter House in July of 2004 was expired, and therefore a new special exception is necessary. Walz stated that the staff memo provides background on the process that the site plan and building permit has gone through up to this point; as a result, she will not go through that with the Board. She said that she would briefly summarize the appellant's points in terms of how Staff interprets them. To secure a building permit, Walz said, Shelter House was required to meet the specific standards for the special exception that were in place at the time that the application was approved in July 2004. At the time the special exception was granted, the only specific special exception criteria contained in the zoning code for community shelter/transient housing uses was minimum of 200 square feet of lot area per temporary resident and a minimum of 300 square foot per lot area for permanent residents. Shelter House indicated a maximum of 70 temporary residents would be using the facility (Shelter House does not have permanent residents) so they were required to provide the appropriate square footage for that number of residents. The Board of Adjustment, based on recommendations from Staff, approved the original application (2004) subject to the following conditions: Iowa City Board of Adjustment January 14, 2009 Page 6 1) General compliance with the site plan submitted; 2) An evergreen landscape buffer along the east property line; 3) An approximate 30-foot rear building setback; 4) An 8-foot high privacy fence installed along the south property line; 5) Compliance with the exterior stairwell guidelines. (Walz noted that Shelter House is no longer proposing an exterior stairwell.) Walz stated that the Appellant's reference to the required site management plan is taken from Iowa City's current zoning code, which took effect in 2005, and which now requires a management plan as one of the specific criteria for the Board of Adjustment to consider. Because this requirement did not exist at the time the original special exception was granted, it was not considered in the deliberations of the Board of Adjustment at that time, and therefore was not retroactively imposed by the Building Official. All other requirements for the site are based on the current zoning code, Walz said. The minimum parking requirement for Shelter House is seven spaces (0.1 x 70 residents) plus one additional space for each employee, based on the maximum number of employees who will be at the site at any given time. Shelter House has indicated that a maximum of 14 employees would be at the site at one time, and thus a total of 21 spaces are required. The site plan indicates that most of the spaces are at the front of the building, some are on the side, and two spaces are in a ground-floor garage. It is the City's position that the boundary dispute between the Appellants and Shelter House is a private matter, and is beyond the City's jurisdiction to resolve. Because the Appellants are not part of the application process for the property in question, there is no requirement to submit a site plan to them. Regarding the term of the special exception, by operation of local ordinance, Board of Adjustment decisions expire six months from the date the written decision is filed unless extended. Walz explained that the special exception was approved in July 2004 and extended in February 2005. This extension was granted for a period of six months after the date of the written court decision in the then on-going litigation. This resulted in Shelter House having until October 9, 2008, to take action to establish the use. The timelines for Shelter House's various submissions to Staff, the Building Official and the Planning and Zoning Commission are included in the staff report and outline Shelter House's actions in establishing use. Walz informed the Board that the Building Official was present and available for their questions. Greenwood Hektoen stated that she wished to touch on the Board's role in this matter. She said that in deciding this appeal the Board's first job is to determine if the Building Official erred in granting the building permit. Greenwood Hektoen said that the Board could not decide that this was not an appropriate location for the Shelter House and then grant the appeal; the Board would Iowa City Board of Adjustment January 14, 2009 Page 7 have to determine that the Building Official in some way violated the zoning code and/or other regulations in issuing this building permit. Greenwood Hektoen said that if the Board determines an error was made, then the Board can stand in the shoes of the Building Official and make whatever decision they believe should have been made, whether it is granting a building permit but adding considerations they feel are required by the code or denying the permit outright. Sheerin said that it is clear that the requirement for a site management plan was not required at the time the special exception was granted. She asked if there was anything that could guide the Board in establishing if it should be applied retroactively. Greenwood Hektoen said that the City Attorney's interpretation is that the requirement should not be retroactively applied because it is something that is required at the time an application for a special exception is submitted. Greenwood Hektoen said there is nothing in the language that makes it retroactive. Greenwood Hektoen explained that the parking requirements had also changed since the special exception had been granted, and that these changes, unlike the site management plan, would be applied to the Shelter House. The reason for the difference, Greenwood Hektoen explained, was that the parking requirements are something that are enforced at the time that the site plan is submitted, whereas, as previously noted, the site management plan would be submitted at the time the special exception is applied for. Thornton asked for clarification surrounding the issue of whether or not the special exception had expired. Walz explained that an applicant is given six months from the date the special exception is filed to take steps to "establish the use." In this case, Shelter House was granted a special exception in August 2004, and requested an extension in the February 2005 Board of Adjustment meeting. That extension was worded so that it gave Shelter House six months from the date that litigation, which had been impeding their progress, came to an end. Walz said she believed that this set the expiration date for the extension as October 9, 2008, by which time Shelter House was to have taken action to establish the use. Walz noted that it is the Building Official who makes the determination as to whether or not appropriate steps are taken, and that it would be appropriate to direct questions to him regarding that issue. Walz said that during this time site plans and updates were going back and forth between Shelter House and Staff, and that ultimately the building permit was not issued until late November 2008. Greenwood Hektoen added that the standard practice has been that the actions that Shelter House did take have been in the past considered sufficient to establish use; the code does not require that a building permit actually be granted prior to the expiration date of the special exception. Hora asked about the boundary dispute between the Dahlens and Shelter House. He said he understands that it is a private matter, but asked how that private issue affects the 30-foot setback issue required by the special exception. Hora asked if the matter was resolved in the Dahlens favor if it would result in pushing everything on the site farther away from the boundary, thereby nullifying the current site plans. Walz explained that the 30-foot issue came up in the original decision because it was cited as a finding of fact that the proposed 30-foot setback would provide the space needed to separate the two uses. Walz said that the 30-foot setback was not imposed Iowa City Board of Adjustment January 14, 2009 Page 8 by the Board as a specific requirement. Walz asked the Building Official, Doug Boothroy, if he would explain how the building department handles boundary disputes and their affect on the issuance of building permits. Doug Boothroy, Director of Housing Inspection Services and Building Official for the City of Iowa City, asked Hora to restate his question. Hora asked if the land boundaries were different than what the site plan says and a 30-foot off-set for water easement is required, then how would the overall site plan be affected. Boothroy explained that in a boundary dispute, the building department requires the complainant to file something with the court or have the boundary claims certified and documented in some way; verification is required that the dispute is valid. Boothroy said that this is a case of adverse possession, and the building department has not been provided with any kind of documentation that there has been a claim. Boothroy said that until there is some evidence that a claim has been made he is not sure it should be part of the consideration. Sheerin summarized that the burden is on the applicant to show that they own the property; once that is done, the burden is on any claimant to verify that they have a claim to the property. Boothroy affirmed this to be correct. Sheerin asked if it is correct that at this point the applicant has shown that they own the property and the building department has no other indication that there is a legal claim or pending litigation regarding ownership. Boothroy said that this was correct. He added that if during this process, prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, a claim is verified or litigated and impacts compliance with the code, that could be a problem for the applicant. He noted that this is a risk the applicant would be taking in proceeding prior to a boundary dispute being resolved. Boothroy said that this does not come up very often. Greenwood Hektoen asked Boothroy to speak to what the code requires for arear-yard setback; she asked if it was not the case that the 30-foot setback discussed in the appeal is superfluous to code requirements. Walz stated that the special exception originally passed was worded as follows: " ...the Board approves EXC04-00016 an application submitted by Shelter House for a special exception to permit transient housing in the Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone located at 429 Southgate Avenue subject to general compliance with the submitted site plan including a landscape buffer being provided along the east property line, an 8-foot tall privacy fence being provided along the south property line, and compliance with the exterior stairwell guides." At that time, the site plan showed a 30-foot rear setback, but a requirement fora 30-foot setback was not imposed upon the applicant by the Board. Wood asked how problems regarding adverse possession generally get resolved. Boothroy said they are typically resolved through the courts; the City has no authority to resolve such disputes. Thornton asked if the manner in which the expiration date and extension of the special exception were handled was standard. Boothroy said if Thornton's question was whether the amount of effort made by Shelter House to get their plans approved and the process that they followed was typical, then the answer is yes. Boothroy said there is some judgment involved in answering the question of whether Shelter House has shown due diligence and follow through, and whether the efforts were substantial enough to constitute taking action to establish a use. Boothroy said the Iowa City Board of Adjustment January 14, 2009 Page 9 question is in part whether the Board believes his judgment was made in error: that the sum of the Shelter House's efforts was not actually enough to establish the use. Boothroy said that there have been instances in the past where the application for a building permit has not been enough to establish a use, because no other efforts were made. In this case, Boothroy said, a lot of work on both sides (the City and the Shelter House) can be demonstrated in exchanges of information and negotiations to get the site plan ready to go before the Planning and Zoning Commission. Sheerin said having the information that the application for a building permit is not in and of itself enough to establish use was very helpful. Hora asked if there had been applicants in the past who have gone through the level of work the Shelter House has and not followed through and applied for a building permit. Boothroy said that every case is unique, but at this point in time he cannot think of a situation like that. Wood asked what the procedure was for letting an applicant know that the six months they were given by the Board of Adjustment is about to expire. Boothroy said that it seldom happens that there has been little or no communication between the building department and the applicant at that point, but if that were to occur, they would have to reapply to the Board of Adjustment. Greenwood Hektoen clarified that in the case of the Shelter House, the expiration of the initial Board decision is not being discussed; the appellant's claim that the extension that was granted by the Board after the original six months expired also expired prior to the issuance of the building permit, and therefore was no longer valid. Sheerin asked if there was no requirement that the site plan be made available to the appellants in this instance. Boothroy said that it is a public document, and as such is readily available to anyone wishing to see it. Greenwood Hektoen stated that the only applicable notice requirements were the sign postings. Boothroy said the primary purpose of the signs is to give notice to the applicant. Wood invited the public to address the Board. He reminded the public that the issue before the Board is an appeal, and the Board's concern is whether the Building Official was in error when he issued the building permit to Shelter House. Wood requested that discussion focus on that. Gregg Geerdes, 105 Iowa Ave, #234, is an attorney representing the Appellants in this matter. Geerdes said he wanted to emphasize what he and his clients consider the role of the Board, which is one of being a judge and a buffer between the Staff and the Appellants and the Applicant and the Appellants. Geerdes said it was the Board's job to review the facts, the case and the law and to make a decision. He said he wished to note that the information the Board was given regarding the standard of review is incorrect in his opinion. Geerdes advised Board members to read the city ordinances on their own and draw their own conclusions about what they mean, and what the Board's intended role is. Geerdes said the Board was told that taking steps to establish use was sufficient to avoid the automatic expiration six months after the special exception was granted. Geerdes encouraged Board members to read section 14-8C-1 e of the city's ordinance which states: "unless the applicant shall have taken action within the six month period to establish the use or construct the building permitted under the term of the Board's decision, such as obtaining a building permit Iowa City Board of Adjustment January 14, 2009 Page 10 and proceeding to completion under the terms of the permit ..." Geerdes said the ordinance is very specific about what steps need to be done. Geerdes argued that obtaining the permit and commencing construction was not even close to being done prior to the expiration of the special exception. The building permit was not even applied for until late August or early September. Geerdes concluded that the appropriate steps were not taken to establish use according to the requirements of the city ordinance. Geerdes offered this interpretation as a good example of why Board members should be reviewing the ordinances for their own purposes rather than relying on the interpretation of others. Geerdes noted that a survey showing the boundary lines of the appellant's property and the applicant's property was attached to a copy of a letter he had provided to the Board and asked to be entered into the record. The survey, Geerdes said, was performed by a surveyor hired by Shelter House. The survey shows that there are at least two, if not three, mobile homes that are on property which Shelter house proposes to develop. Geerdes said there are lawsuits on file to establish ownership and the City Attorney's office is well aware of that. The survey, Geerdes said, clearly shows the legitimacy of the Dahlen's claims to ownership, as the mobile homes have been in the same spot for decades. The ownership issue presents a problem for the setback situation, as it makes it impossible for Shelter House to comply with the setback requirements. Geerdes said it is his position that the Board should not make a decision to approve until the unresolved boundary issue has been settled in court. Geerdes said he would next like to address the issue of the site management plan. He said that Staff has offered the interpretation that a site management plan is unnecessary because it was not required in 2004. Geerdes again cautioned Board members to review the ordinances themselves, particularly 14-4E-4e-5, which specifically states that when a site plan is presented it is to be determined at that point in time whether zoning requirements and other requirements of the code have been complied with. Geerdes said that a shelter management plan is not submitted with a special exception application; it is submitted when the site plan is submitted. Geerdes said that because the shelter management plan was a requirement in effect at the time the site plan was considered, it must be required. Parking issues remain unresolved, said Geerdes. The appellants do not believe that the number or type of parking spaces shown on the plat are correct. Geerdes said that they do not believe that parking in the interior of a garage that is used to store Shelter House vans should qualify as parking spaces for visitors or employees. Geerdes said he wished to address the issue of whether or not the appellants needed to be provided with a copy of the site plan. Geerdes said that he and his clients were provided a copy of a site plan; the site plan did not meet the requirements and so they objected to it. At approximately 6:00 p.m. on the night of the formal Planning and Zoning Commission meeting a revised site plan was submitted to Staff and the Commission, but not to the appellate for their review. Geerdes said that he and his clients believe that they were entitled to notice of that site plan change, and were not properly provided with an updated copy. Wood asked what the date Iowa City Board of Adjustment January 14, 2009 Page 11 of that meeting was. Geerdes said that he did not know off the top of his head, but that the information is included in the materials he distributed to the Board. In looking at all of these matters and interpreting the ordinances on their own, Geerdes said, the Board will have to agree that the building permit should not have been granted. Geerdes said that the expiration of the special exception itself is reason enough for denying the permit and the boundary issue is another problem. Geerdes asked that board members carefully consider all of these points and grant the appeal before them. Sheerin asked why Geerdes did not feel that the parking spaces in the garage should be considered parking spaces. Parking spaces are designed for employees and visitors and customers who come to a building, Geerdes said. When you have an interior garage space that will permanently be dedicated to storing Shelter House vans, Geerdes said, it does not serve the purpose of a parking space. Sheerin asked if the concern was that the parking spaces will be occupied by vans or that he is concerned because it is in an interior space. Geerdes said the garage will be used for other purposes and will not be realistic parking for anyone wishing to use the shelter. Sheerin stated that Geerdes had also argued that 20 employees should be used when determining the number of parking spaces Shelter House should have. At the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, Geerdes said, the information provided by Shelter House was that as many as 20 employees would be at the facility at one time. The number currently given by Shelter House is a maximum of 14 employees at any one time. Wood asked if the figure was based on the total number of employees. Greenwood Hektoen said that the parking is based on the maximum number of employees that would be on site at any given time, not the total number of employees on payroll. Sheerin asked for clarification as to whether lawsuits had or had not been filed regarding the boundary issue. Geerdes said that lawsuits have been filed in Johnson County and in federal court. Geerdes said that the City Attorney could provide the documentation of that lawsuit to the Board. Thornton asked why that information had not been shared already if the City has such information. Greenwood Hektoen said that to her knowledge there is litigation ongoing but that it is not specifically concerning title to the land, and is about other issues. Sheerin asked if it would be possible for the Board to get access to those filings. Geerdes said he could provide it to the Board, and that he could assure the Board that the issue of ownership of the land is very much a part of the lawsuit. Wood asked how long the mobile homes had been occupying the land in question. Geerdes replied that it had been decades, realistically, since sometime in the late 1950's or early 1960's. Lori Dahlen, 2018 Waterfront Drive, identified herself as a manager at the Hilltop Mobile Home Park. She said that the number of parking spaces had not been adequately resolved to her thinking. She said that there was no space allowed for visitors in the current calculations. Walz explained that the minimum parking requirements ensure that a site provides a certain minimal amount of parking. This formula for determining the minimum requirement is based, in Iowa City Board of Adjustment January 14, 2009 Page 12 part, on the maximum number of staff that will be on-site at any given time (14 in this case). The minimum parking requirements do not restrict parking to those specific uses (staff, visitors, etc.), rather it is the minimum that must be provided. Walz said that if the Board of Adjustment had sought to, they could have imposed additional parking requirements above and beyond the minimum. However, in this case, the Board did not. Walz explained that spaces inside of parking garages do count toward the minimum, saying that what they are actually used for does not matter as long as they function as parking spaces. Walz said that in earlier versions of the site plan, Shelter House had in fact not provided the number of spaces required, apparently due to the misreading of a regulation by one of their consulting engineers. However, when the error was pointed out to Shelter House they did revise the plan to meet the 21-space requirement. Dahlen said that even if the site management plan is not technically required at this time, though she believes that Geerdes has demonstrated that it is, the plan is definitely needed. The site management plan addresses such issues as littering, noise levels, loitering, and getting along with neighbors. Dahlen said that she and her family have gone a long distance on this journey because they believe that this is not an appropriate place for this facility. Dahlen said she would think the Shelter House would want to create a site management plan to alleviate the concerns of the neighbors and foster dialogue. Dahlen said that when she attended the very first Board of Adjustment meeting on this issue in 2004, she picked up a hand-out entitled "Shelter House Rules for Guardians of Dependents." She said that while she was not particularly surprised by the content of the handout, she was convinced more than ever that Shelter House did not belong in their neighborhood. She read from the pamphlet: "Shelter House may have occasions in which clients of Shelter House may be on a state sex-offender's list. It is the guardian's responsibility to provide care and supervision for the well-being and safety of their dependent. Do not assume that anyone you meet while at Shelter House is not on a state sex-offender list." Dahlen said that she understands that if a person is on the state sex-offender list, they cannot reside at Shelter House. However, sex-offenders can still receive services and leave. Dahlen asked how this might affect the neighborhood. She said it is a very practical matter to have a plan for what you do with someone whom you service and then must turn away. Will they be denied shelter and then be simply left in the neighborhood? Dahlen said that these sorts of things could be addressed in a shelter management plan. Walz clarified that it is Staff's interpretation that they cannot retroactively impose something that was meant to be evaluated by the Board of Adjustment. The criterion in the current code referred to by Geerdes says: "site plan and shelter management plan must be submitted along with the application for a special exception or if allowed for a provisional use ..." Walz explained that this use is not a provisional use; a provisional use is a use that has to meet all of those criteria but is reviewed only administratively. Provisional uses are reviewed by Staff only; special exceptions must be reviewed by the Board of Adjustment. Joyce Barker, 2018 Waterfront Drive, # 128, pointed out that the reason the parking is such an issue is because there is no parking on Southgate whatsoever, and Waterfront is very problematic Iowa City Board of Adjustment January 14, 2009 Page 13 for parking as well (residents have requested that it be designated a no parking zone). Barker said that visibility and safety are major concerns with this issue. Craig Dahlen, 2018 Waterfront Drive, identified himself as a manager at Hilltop Mobile Home Park. He said that all he has been hearing for the last year is how the Shelter House wants to be good neighbors. Dahlen said he thinks that is great. However, he believes that having a shelter management plan is the best way to start the process of being a good neighbor. Dahlen said that there are nearly 90 children in the park, a lot of children riding buses, a lot of children in the daycare/preschool around the corner at HACAP. Dahlen noted that there is no bus service on the weekends, and wondered what the plan was for transportation. Dahlen worried about how the area would be policed to ensure that families and kids were safe. He restated that the shelter management plan was huge in answering these questions. Janet Dahlen, 2018 Waterfront Drive, read from the general standards for a special exception: "The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity, will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood." Dahlen said she is not a person that likes to go against the City, or likes to fight about anything. She said that she would not be there if the matter were not very important to her. Dahlen said that one of the residents in her trailer park had received a letter from Dorothy Person, chairperson of the Shelter House board, in response to a letter the resident had written. Dahlen read the final paragraph of Person's letter to the Board: "Even though a registered sex offender cannot be a resident of Shelter House, he or she may be permitted to utilize the facilities for drop-in center and outreach purposes. Such individuals may access the shower and laundry facility, eat dinner, receive phone messages and mail, and work with the outreach staff. Their access to and use of the facility is with the knowledge of and under the supervision of Shelter House staff. As a practical matter, individuals who are on a registry of sex offenders are not physically present at the facility any longer than if they were shopping at the grocery store or applying for food stamps at the Department of Human Services. It is imperative to clarify that registered sex offenders rarely use the Shelter House support services." Dahlen said she would be happy to help search for and secure other land for this project, and would double the money that was paid for that lot in order to stop this project. She said there is not anything they would not do. She said there are many children in her trailer park and there is a large daycare across the street and she worries about what would be on the mind of a sex offender in that area, even if they were only at the Shelter House very briefly. She was very concerned about the safety of children in her neighborhood. Iowa City Board of Adjustment January 14, 2009 Page 14 Wood reiterated that the charge of the Board of Adjustment in this matter is to determine if the Building Official was in error when he issued Shelter House a building permit, and that the Board's focus was very narrowly centered on that issue. There were no others wishing to speak in favor of the appeal so Wood opened the floor to those against the appeal. Tim Krumm, 4186 Prairie Meadow Court NE, an attorney with Meardon, Sueppel and Downer spoke on behalf of Shelter House. He offered his appreciation to the Board for the considerable work they had done on this issue. He said that he believed all legitimate concerns had been addressed thoroughly by Staff in the staff report and supporting materials. Krumm said that for any questions he cannot answer, Christine Cangenelli, Director of Shelter House, and Tom Werderitsch, a member of the Shelter House board and construction manager for the project were present. Krumm said he felt it was fitting that the issue was back before the Board of Adjustment in what he hoped was a milestone activity in terms of making the shelter a reality for the city. The Board of Adjustment is where the matter began, Krumm said, noting that none of the present members of the Board were on the Board in July 2004 when the matter first began. Krumm said that the Shelter House and been in litigation for this project for many years, ending in the Iowa Supreme Court last April. Krumm said he concurred with Staff analysis of the matter. Krumm said that Geerdes had requested a delay from the Board, but he urged the Board to issue a prompt decision because the Shelter House has been waiting since July 2004. Krumm said that Shelter House does not believe the Board's approval will mean the end of the litigation road, but at least this important milestone would be passed. The first issue is the question of the shelter management plan. Krumm said that Staff had fully addressed this question. The requirement for a shelter management plan is a requirement for a special exception, not for site plan approval or the issuance of a building permit. The code is quite clear on this, Krumm said. Krumm said that Shelter House is anxious to be good neighbors, but the shelter management plan should not be a precondition of that. Krumm said that with all due respect the Dahlens do not want a shelter management plan; they want to stop the shelter. Krumm said that the parking space issue was a simple question of math. 21 spaces are required; one for each employee who will be at the facility at a given time, which is 14, not 20. Krumm said that 20 is the total number of Shelter House employees. The code requires .O1 spaces per resident; a maximum of 70 residents will be at Shelter House, adding 14 more spaces to the requirement for a total requirement of 21. The code is clear in all respects regarding the parking. Krumm took issue with the boundary line dispute. The discovery of the encroachment onto Shelter House property was a surprise that came about during the site plan process. The issue is whether that encroachment and boundary issue has anything to do with the issuance of a building permit. Krumm said the 30-foot setback issue is a city drainage way in which the Shelter House Iowa City Board of Adjustment January 14, 2009 Page 15 has never had any intention of building. Krumm said that it is not the goal of Shelter House to move those mobile homes; he said that the homes do not impact Shelter House's plans at all other than the location of a fence. Krumm said that if these legal issues could be resolved Shelter House would be more than willing to grant a perpetual easement to the Dahlens. Krumm said that the Dahlens are using their encroachment on the property as a delay tactic. Krumm said that Geerdes' assertion that there are lawsuits on file to establish the issue of ownership of this property is simply not true. There are lawsuits on file, and they do mention a boundary dispute, Krumm said, but they have not asked any state or federal court to change the boundary line. Krumm said that Geerdes and his client take issue because they were not provided with a copy of the final site plan submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Krumm said it is not at all unusual for Staff and applicants to continue discussions and revisions to site plans up until the time of the meeting. He said there is no neighbor notification requirement whatsoever, and that the process is a public one. The site plan in question was projected on the wall of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and the Dahlens were present. There were no surprises, Krumm said. Krumm said that in regard to the issue of whether or not the special exception had expired, Staff and Boothroy have detailed the level of activity that Shelter House took during that six month time period. The requirement is that there be activity toward establishing a use, and the level of activity was sufficient to establishing that use when measured by past City practice and Iowa law. While this is ultimately a judgment call on the part of the Building Official, Krumm said, it is not as though Shelter House had demonstrated some indifference. The context of the matter is that Shelter House has been waiting for over four years to build. Even if Shelter House had had site plans ready and waiting for the moment the Supreme Court ruled, Krumm said, the site plans may not have met final approval within six months due to the extensive back and forth with the City that goes on in the process. The purpose of the six month expiration rule is to penalize those who are indifferent to the approval that has been granted. Krumm offered to answer any questions the Board had. Wood asked about the October 16th petition for a site plan review that had been submitted by the neighbors. Krumm said that this petition was actually a petition asking that the Planning and Zoning Commission complete the site plan approval process as opposed to City Staff, which is the usual process. Wood asked if the site plan was public record. Walz said that it is. She noted that around that time she had discovered that the parking requirement was not met, informed Shelter House of this, and Shelter House changed the site plan to comply with parking requirements by the time of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Krumm said that there had been an issue at the time the special exception was granted as to whether 18 or 22 spaces were required. In the interim, the code had changed, so a change to the site plan was necessary. Thornton asked if Krumm was saying that a previous version of the site plan had been provided to the neighbors. Krumm said that he did not believe so as there is nothing in the code requiring Iowa City Board of Adjustment January 14, 2009 Page 16 that. Walz said that Staff will provide a site plan that is under consideration to anyone requesting it, as it is part of the public record; however, they are not required provide it to anyone without a request. Hora asked if there was a timeline by which a site plan had to be in to Planning and Zoning so that the public has time to review it. Walz said that typically a site plan would not even go to Planning and Zoning. In this case, it went to Planning and Zoning because of the petition filed by the neighbors. Hora asked if the site plan can be changed right up to the final minute without the public having a chance to review it prior to the meeting. Walz said that that was correct, and that this is also the case with the Board of Adjustment. Greenwood Hektoen stated that it was important to understand that typically approving a site plan is an administrative process, so there is no set time for public comment. Krumm added that the practice of allowing the give and take between the applicant and Staff right up to the point of the minute actually works to the benefit of the City, as it helps to get projects up to City code the first time around. Hora said he was simply trying to establish if there was a process in place for the public to see these documents before the time of the meeting so that they are not trying to formulate their objections in the middle of a meeting from a projection on the wall. Wood asked if there was anyone else opposing the appeal who wished to speak. Tom Werderitsch, 3 Evergreen Place, said that he is a member of the Shelter House Board of Directors and is donating his services to the project as construction manager. He said he wished to speak to the 30-foot issue. Werderitsch said that the 30-feet is a city drainage easement; there is no backyard setback. He said that if it was not for the drainage that comes down from the mobile home court and the property to the east, Shelter House could build up to the property line. Werderitsch said that even if a court ruled that the Dahlens were the owners of the five or six feet of property in question, the location of Shelter House would not move. The only thing that would be affected would be the location of a fence which they are planning to put as close to the property line as possible. Walz reiterated that the 30-foot setback issue came up as a finding of fact, and was not required by the Board as a condition of the special exception. The Board did contemplate that some setback was appropriate, realizing that the 30-foot easement was there and would provide a buffer. There was no one else who wished to speak against the appeal and Wood invited those in favor of the appeal to respond to comments. Joyce Barker, 2018 Waterfront Drive, #128, said that Krumm had said it is not Shelter House's intention to have any of those trailers encroaching on the property line moved. Barker said that one of the residents received a letter from Shelter House in October 2008 stating that she had to move her mobile home by December 1, 2008. Barker said that this makes her suspect the validity of some of the other things said by Shelter House and its representatives, as there is a direct contradiction between what was said in this meeting and actions taken prior to it. Iowa City Board of Adjustment January 14, 2009 Page 17 Geerdes said that he too received a letter from Krumm directing the Dahlens to move those mobile homes, which of course resulted in the lawsuit in which the issue of ownership will be determined. In regard to the issue of the 30-foot setback, Geerdes read from the July 14, 2004 decision from the Board of Adjustment: "This Board finds that the 30-foot setback from the south property line and an eight-foot tall privacy fence will provide a transition from the proposed two-story Shelter House to the one-story manufactured housing units located to the south." The decision goes on to say that the special exception is conditioned upon "general compliance with the submitted site plan." Geerdes noted that the submitted site plan showed a 30-foot setback. The idea that the setbacks are not an issue is simply wrong. Geerdes said that if he understood Krumm correctly then he is basically conceding that those mobile homes have been there a long time and that the Dahlens may prevail in court. What that does, Geerdes said, is eviscerate the site plan; a site plan which Shelter House is required to comply with. Geerdes said this is why the adverse possession claims cannot simply be ignored. For all of these reasons, Geerdes said, he is requesting that the Board overturn the decision of the Building Official and revoke the building permit. Mike Barker, 2018 Waterfront Drive, #128, said he was going to ask for a little bit of leeway because his comments did not directly pertain to the building permit. Since 2004, Barker said, the argument has not been so much if the Shelter House should be built, but more a matter of getting some questions answered. Barker said he had lived in the mobile home court for 25 years, and that there are over 150 kids in the trailer court. Barker asked what would become of the sex offenders and alcoholics who were turned away from Shelter House. Wood stated that this is beyond the jurisdiction of the Board. Barker replied that that is why he requested leeway at the outset. He said that his concern was not the boundary lines but what becomes of those who are turned away from the shelter into his neighborhood. He said that he believed it was time to stop all of this nonsense and sit down and figure out what is best for everyone. There were no further comments from those supporting the appeal and Wood invited response from those opposed to the appeal. Chrissy Canganelli, resident of the east side of Iowa City and Executive Director of Shelter House, said that she wants the public record to show that Shelter House has served this community for 25 years, has demonstrated that it is a good and responsible neighbor, and has acted proactively in its neighborhood. Canganelli said she agreed with Barker that everyone's time could be best spent in other pursuits, and she is very interested in sitting down with the neighbors, engaging in conversation and working together. She said this is impossible to do, however, when lawsuit after lawsuit is being filed against the City and Shelter House. Canganelli said that if these lawsuits were to go away tomorrow, Shelter House would immediately contact its neighbors and say "let's sit down and talk and get things worked out." Iowa City Board of Adjustment January 14, 2009 Page 18 Canganelli said she is concerned that Shelter House is being held to a different standard than other organizations in the community that serve the poor, the disabled and homeless veterans. She is also concerned that there is a lack of understanding that well-over 100 children are served by Shelter House every year. Shelter House works very closely with HACAP and MECCA; the people receiving services from Shelter House often are the same people receiving services from HACAP. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Walz advised the Board to ask for any information/documentation they might need, and to take whatever time they needed to make a decision. Greenwood Hektoen said that she agreed and that the Board did not necessarily need to make a decision that night. She said that if a decision was made, then it would be important to clearly state the findings of fact and the basis for the Board's conclusions. Thornton suggested deferring the matter and having a work session to discuss the issue fully. He said there were a lot of issues and very good comments that were made by both sides. Walz explained that a work session would be a public meeting, but the time for public comment would be closed. Wood asked if there were others who felt the need for a work session. Hora and Sheerin indicated that they would. Thornton moved to defer the matter and call a special work session at another time. Sheerin seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-1 (Eckstein opposed). After some discussion, a tentative date of January 20th at 5:00 p.m. was set for the work session, with board members agreeing to notify Walz if they discovered they had a conflict. Walz compiled a list of additional documentation that board members had indicated an interest in seeing which included information on lawsuits that have been filed and the letters referenced in the public hearing. Walz reminded board members that they should not talk to one another, Staff, or any member of the public about this matter prior to the meeting. ELECTION OF OFFICERS: Wood opened the floor for nominations for Chairperson. Sheerin nominated Wood for Chair. Hora seconded the nomination. Iowa City Board of Adjustment January 14, 2009 Page 19 A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. Hora nominated Thornton for Vice-Chair. Wood seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. OTHER: Hora asked how to bring about change to the zoning coe. He noted that their charge stated that they could bring about changes to ordinances and he wanted to know the process for doing that. Walz said that the Board can make a motion for the Planning and Zoning Commission (or other appropriate authority) to consider investigating an issue. Walz and Greenwood Hektoen said they would look into the exact process and get back to Hora. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION: None. ADJOURNMENT: Hora motioned to adjourn. Thornton seconded. The motion carried 5-0, and the meeting was adjourned at 7:32 p.m. H ..~ Q w L m N L V /V i.n I L d s L s O a 0 N N V' O O~ O O~ N O O ~O M O M N 'R ~ x x x x x . H ~ - M N O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . _ X O O O O O W O O O O O ~ _ ~ L 0 ~ N °' V i ~ ~ • W ~ o s 0 Z L 2 ~, ~- o c ~ L m L L V ~ Z ~ ~ U ~ C L ~ _ ~ ~ ~ Vl Q N N Q ~ Z ~ ~"~ Z ii X n O n w O n ~ Z ii ' W IOWA CITY HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION TUESDAY, January 27, 2009 LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL IP13 Members Present: Newman Abuissa, Dianne Day, Wangui Gathua, Dell Briggs, Yolanda Spears. Staff Present: Stefanie Bowers. Call to Order Abuissa called the meeting to order at 7:24 p.m. Recommendations to Council (Become effective only after separate Council action): The by-laws be referred to the Rules Committee for review of revisions. Consideration of the Minutes of the November 25, 2008 rneeting Motion: Spears, seconded Briggs. Minutes approved 5-0. Flartinnc Abuissa was elected Chair. Motion: Spears, seconded Briggs. Passed: 5-0. Briggs was elected Vice- Chair. Motion: Spears, seconded Abuissa. Passed: 5-0. Meeting Day and Time Commissioners discussed moving the time they meet to 6 p.m. instead of 7 p.m. With not all Commissioners represented at the meeting, this item will be placed on the Agenda for the February meeting. Programming 2009 The Commission discussed the Youth Awards and created a subcommittee made up of Briggs, Spears and Gathua.'°Other subcommittees will be selected at future meetings. Abuissa discussed holding a forum in early spring of 2009..; however, more information is needed before Commissioners decide whether to co-sponsor the event. Bowers will do follow-up with Dale Helling and Sue Dulek and report back to the Commission. at their February meeting. Resorts of Commissioners Abuissa reported on a documentary: Chronicles of a Refuge that will be shown in six parts at various public places at no cost to attendees. Day mentioned a program she organizes at the Senior Center on Diversity that is held the last week in March and the first two weeks in April. Day will provide more information in the near future. Adjournment There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 20:02. Motion: Spears, seconded by Day. Board or Commission: Human Rights ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2009 (Meeting Date) NAME TERM EXP. 1127 2/24 3/24 4/28 5/26 6/23 7/28 8/25 9/22 10/27 11/24 12/22 Newman Abuissa 1/1/10 P Joy Kross 1/1/10 A Eric Kusiak 111/10 A Dell Briggs 1/1/11 P Yolanda Spears 111/11 P Corey Stoglin 1/1/11 A Dianne Day 1/1/12 P Wangui Gathua 1/1/12 P Martha Lubaroff 1/1/12 A KEY: P =Present. NMNQ - No meeting, no quorum A =Absent NM = No meeting Board or Commission: Human Rights ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2008 (Mcaaf-i nn T1n~c1 NAME TERM EXP. 1/22 2/26 3/25 4/22 5/20 6/24 7/22 8/26 9/23 10/21 11/25 12/09 Florence Ejiwale 1/1/09 P P P P P P P A P P P NM Kate Karacay 1/1/09 P P P A P P P P _ P P A NM Martha Lubaroff 1/1/09 A P P P A P P P A' P A NM Newman Abuissa 1/1/10 P P P P A P P' P P P P NM Joy Kross 1/1/10 P A P P A P P P P P P NM Eric Kusiak 1/1/10 P P A P P A P P` P P P NM Dell Briggs 1/1/11 A P P A P A P A P A P NM Yolanda Spears 1/1/11 P A P P P P P' A P A P NM Corey Stoglin 1/1/11 P P P A P P P A P A A NM KEY: P =Present' A =Absent NM = No meeting NMNQ - No meeting, no quorum IP14 MINUTES Preliminary PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 13, 2009 - 6:00 PM -INFORMAL CITY HALL, EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Michelle Payne, Wally Plahutnik, MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Weitzel, Elizabeth Koppes, Josh Busard STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Christina Kuecker, Sarah Greenwood Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: None CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairperson Ann Freerks DEVELOPMENT/REZONING ITEM REZ08-00011/SUB08-00010: Discussion of an application submitted by S~J Development LLC for a rezoning of 18.58 acres from Interim Development Single-Family Residential (ID-RS) to Low Density Single Family (RS-5), a rezoning of 44.29 acres from Rural Residential (RR-1) to Low Density Single Family (RS-5), a rezoning of 82.3 acres from Low Density Single Family (RS-5) to Planned Development Overlay Low Density Single-Family (OPD-5), and a preliminary plat of Country Club Estates Parts 3-8, a 170 lot, 82.3 acre residential subdivision located on Rohret Road, east of Slothower Road. Kuecker stated that at the time this property was annexed there was a lack of sewer system to the area and Rohret Road was in sub-standard condition. Because of this, the IDRS and RR-1 zoning was chosen for the area. Since 1994, the City has brought the area into the growth boundary and made the commitment to extend sanitary sewer to the area in order to allow development. The Southwest District Plan indicates the area as appropriate for low-density residential. Most of the surrounding area is large-lot residential or RS-5. This development came before the Commission several years ago and was met with concern from area residents. The application was not approved at that time because it did not comply with the wetland requirements. The Comprehensive Plan does indicate the necessity for a transition area from large acre lots to the smaller RS-5 lots. Overall Staff believes that the rezoning would be in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and would be an efficient use of the land. The subdivision calls for 170 lots, with three out-lots that will serve as a storm-water retention area, dedicated park space, and an area containing the wetlands. There are some environmentally sensitive areas. The applicant proposes construction of additional wetlands in the western portion of the stream corridor to compensate for the reduction of wetlands and buffer areas in other parts of the property. Staff has expressed concern about the combination of the wetlands and storm-water retention; however, Staff, is confident that if the Army Corp of Engineers approves the design, then their concerns can be alleviated. One complication with the subdivision is that neither Slothower nor Rohret Road are up to city standards. Staff recommends that the portions of the subdivision closest to Rohret Road not be platted until after improvements to the road have been made. Transportation staff does not believe that any traffic from the subdivision should be allowed on Slothower until it is widened to at least County standards, as presently it is only twelve feet wide. Planning and Zoning Commission January 13, 2009 -Informal Page 2 In general, roads within the subdivision do provide for good connectivity, and pedestrian walkways are adequately provided for. Staff has indicated that the applicant must get the right of way of the southern section of Slothower vacated to avoid future development of the road resulting in lots with double- frontage. Miklo noted that some of the questions brought up in the staff report may be resolved by the Thursday night formal meeting, however, not all of them will be. Eastham asked how the condition of Rohret Road compared to the condition of Sycamore Street south of Lakeside Drive. Miklo said they are comparable, though Sycamore may be slightly better because the City has done more chip sealing on it and there is a sidewalk in place. Freerks asked about the apparent limited access to the park land. Miklo said that as it stands presently, there is considerable public frontage for the park on Slothower Road, and the Commission would have a say if it changed in future plans. Payne asked for clarification on the portion of Slothower that would be vacated. Kuecker explained that the County portion of the road which is to be vacated is currently impassable and washed out. Miklo said that the Commission could approve the plat subject to the vacation of Slothower with the condition that if it is not vacated that portion of the subdivision would have to be redesigned. Greenwood Hektoen noted that specific lots could be denied development if the road was not vacated and those lots were not redesigned. Payne requested a visual aid showing which lots were in each addition of the subdivision. Eastham asked for clarification on the timeline for Corp approval. Kuecker indicated that it could be weeks or months; Miklo noted that approval of the application could be made subject to final approval by the Corp. Eastham asked if there were any alternatives to the current storm-water retention plan. Miklo stated that given the topography of the area substantial redesign of the development would be required to provide storm water management if the Corps of Engineers did not approve the current proposal. Plahutnik asked if the Commission would be required to accept the storm-water retention plan just because the Corp accepted it, and Kuecker informed him that they would not. Miklo noted that it is not the Corp that requires a buffer around wetlands, but the City's sensitive areas ordinance. The City's ordinance spells out conditions for when a wetland can be reduced, all of which, Miklo added, apply to this particular circumstance. Miklo said the overall wetlands are presently of poor quality, and could be improved if the plan is followed through correctly. Staff is suggesting that the order of the additions be changed around to allow time for Rohret Road to be improved, and to avoid having houses in place along Rohret Road when the considerable road construction takes place. Eastham asked if Staff had considered breaking the application up into more manageable parts; some of the concerns could be more easily addressed over time if things were taken in small chunks. Miklo said this has been discussed with the applicant but that the applicant prefers to do it all at once. However, Miklo said if the Rohret Road improvements do not make it into the CIP, then Staff would not recommend rezoning the area adjacent to Rohret Road at this time. Payne asked how many years it would take to for the improvements to the road to be made, since the 7th and 8th additions would be held up until that point. Miklo said that given the pace of the market, he suspects that it would be more than five years before those lots would be developed anyway. Greenwood Hektoen noted that according to the current recommendations the road does not have to actually be put in prior to development. Eastham asked about a request for increased density that he had read somewhere in the staff report. Miklo clarified that the reference to increased density came from a neighbor's letter and concerned the previous attempt at subdivision of this property; Miklo explained that Staff had not endorsed that particular plan, but had simply noted that if density was being lost due to wetland preservation in one area, the applicant could propose clustering to make it up in another area. Eastham said that the Comprehensive Plan does suggest more dense development along Rohret Road would be appropriate, and suggested that the somewhat higher density found in townhome design might be more appropriate for part of the Planning and Zoning Commission January 13, 2009 -Informal Page 3 area. Payne asked if this would not result in more objection from the neighborhood. The Commission wrapped up discussion and moved on to the next item on the agenda. REZ08-00012/SUB08-0001.1: Discussion of an application submitted by Three Bulls for a rezoning from Low Density Single-Family (RS-5) to Planned Development Overlay Medium Density Single- Family (OPD-8) and a preliminary plat of Hickory Pointe, a 3-lot, 2.97 acre residential subdivision on Hickory Trail, west of First Avenue. Miklo stated that the plan calls for re-subdividing the lots by shifting the lot line and building Hickory Trail to the west of First Avenue to provide access to the ACT property. Miklo said there is multi-family development along First Avenue already. He noted there are steep and critical slopes in the area, but that they are not natural and were created when the First Avenue extension was built. The first proposal is to rezone from RS-5 Low-Density Single-Family to RS-8 Medium-Density Single- Family. An overlay zone would allow the clustering of three buildings on three different lots that would each be broken up into six townhouse style units. The current zoning would allow for further subdivision of up to ten single-family lots without requiring any rezoning, as long as there was rear alley access. RS- 8 would allow for 13 detached single-family homes on this property. The actions the Commission is being asked to take will allow for increased density from a maximum of ten single family homes to eighteen units. The Comprehensive Plan does support increased densities along arterial streets. The Northeast District Plan specifically shows townhouse development in this area. The planned development comes with several conditions and criteria to determine if it is appropriate for the area. The staff report lays out how staff evaluated the project; Staff's conclusion is that these buildings are appropriate for the area. The applicant has proposed quality building materials and architectural details which help the project fit in with the surrounding neighborhood. Further work will need to be done on the window design for the rear and side elevations to ensure compliance; it has also been suggested that the applicant take better advantage of the Hickory Trail side of the building. Miklo said overall Staff recommends the design. Staff does not believe the proposal will over-burden utilities or traffic in the area. A minor modification would be required to allow for an adjustment to the driveway placement. Staff does not believe that this development will adversely affect the light, air or quality of life any more than the development of ten single-family homes would have. Staff does need more final details on the landscaping plans and the outdoor common spaces; however, approval of the plan could be made conditional upon final Staff approval. The area does contain critical slopes, however, in this particular case, the slopes are not natural and were the result of construction along First Avenue. Because of that, this is a case where Staff is comfortable with the amount of disturbance of steep and critical slopes that this project proposes. The requirement for open space will be met by a small dedication of land and a fee paid for the remaining open space requirement. Staff suggests waiving the sidewalk requirement on the south side of Hickory Trail because the Comprehensive Plan suggests leaving a buffer to the park, and as there will be no development south of the development, the sidewalk to the north will suffice. Miklo said that most of the conditions that need to be resolved can be handled by updating the plat rather than implementing a conditional zoning agreement. Staff recommends approval of this plan provided the details left to work out are resolved. Eastham asked if the rationale for having northern access to First Avenue was for safety reasons. Miklo replied that it was for safety and general access purposes. Planning and Zoning Commission January 13, 2009 -Informal Page 4 Payne asked if the applicant or Staff had ever considered having five units in each building rather than six. Miklo said that it had not been discussed, but that given the amenities and the quality of design proposed by the applicant, Staff is comfortable with the higher density. The Commission discussed townhouse development in the city in general and its relation to the Comprehensive Plan. Several Commissioners said they would like to see the most southern unit redesigned to present a front to Hickory Trail. OTHER: Miklo noted the City Council has instructed Staff to write a zoning ordinance regulating bars and liquor stores, which could be coming before the Commission as early as February. Miklo noted that there would be a City Council budgeting meeting January 28th at 6:30, which is an opportunity for boards and commissions to come and comment. In the past, the Commission has never felt compelled to comment; however, if there is a budget issue of concern to Commission members (such as capital improvements) that is the time to comment. To be placed on the agenda, Commissioners should notify Miklo prior to January 22"d Miklo passed out updates for the Commissioners code books ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m. 0 .y rn .~ O U 'a a~ O c ~ C ~ N v o ~ ~ N ~ ~ C ~ ~C d C ~ t0 Q a ~_ U 3 O I I I I I T X X X ~ X X X N ~W ~ O ~ O C7 O N O O O O O M o z ~ m ~ ~ W ~j i U.. Q ~ Y LLI C a ~ Y r 7 a ~ _ ~ ~ H I I I O X X ~ X X D ~ ` . ~_ ~ f"-w •- r l( 0 r- ~ ~ 0 M ~- ~ 0 N ~- II> 0 O r L ~ 0 O r ~ 0 M ~- ~ 0 z N m ~ +.' W ~j ~ ~ Q Q `1~ ui a ~ Y a ~ ~ ~ U X W C C ~ C N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q a. Q n >, II II _W YXOO IP15 MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 15, 2009 - 7:30 PM -FORMAL CITY HALL, EMMA J. HARVAT HALL PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Freerks, Josh Busard, Charlie Eastham, Michelle Payne, Wally Plahutnik, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: Elizabeth Koppes STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Christina Kuecker, Sarah Greenwood Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: Duane Musser, Larry Jewell, Robert Hegeman, Tim Thompson, Chester Schulte, Judy Tokuhisa, Rai Tokuhisa, Witold Krajewski, Mary Ebert, Karl Ebert, Diane Thrift, Nancy Hitchon, Lucy Wibbenmeyer, Janni Ebert, David Tokuhisa, Casey Boyd, Susan Huff RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: Recommended approval of REZ08-00012/SU608-00011, an application submitted by Three Bulls for a rezoning from Low Density Single-Family (RS-5) to Planned Development Overlay Medium Density Single-Family (OPD-8) and a preliminary plat of Hickory Pointe, a 4-lot, 2.97 acre residential subdivision located on Hickory Trail, west of First Avenue, subject to compliance with the revised elevation drawings; staff approval of detailed plans for the open space area; and approval of a minor modification for the location of the north curb cut on First Avenue. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chairperson Ann Freerks. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: Eastham announced that he had received a letter from Linda Prybil regarding concerns she had with the Commission's recent annexation of land owned by the Prybil Trust. Eastham said that he would like to enter the letter into the record so that it was officially shared with the entire Planning and Zoning Commission (copies had been distributed at the January 13'h informal meeting). DEVELOPMENT/REZONING ITEMS: REZ08-00011/SUB08-00010: Discussion of an application submitted by SB~J Development LLC for a rezoning of 18.58 acres from Interim Development Single-Family Residential (ID-RS) to Low Density Single Family (RS-5), a rezoning of 44.29 acres from Rural Residential (RR-1) to Low Density Single Family (RS-5), a rezoning of 82.3 acres from Low Density Single Family (RS-5) to Planned Development Overlay Low Density Single-Family (OPD-5), and a preliminary plat of Country Club Estates Parts 3-8, a 170 lot, 82.3 acre residential subdivision located on Rohret Road, east of Slothower Road. Kuecker explained that the southern triangle of the property in question was annexed into the city in 1994. At that time, Rohret Road was in substandard condition and there was no sanitary sewer system in the area. As a result, the decision was made to keep the area designated as RR-1, large lot single-family and ID-RS Interim Development Residential. Since that time, the City has extended the growth boundary to include this area, and the area up to Highway 965; the City has also committed to extending sanitary sewer throughout the area in order to encourage full development. Kuecker said that the first phases of Country Club Estates have been subdivided and are in the process of being built; the applicant now wishes to move forward with the other phases of the development. Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2009 -Formal Page 2 Kuecker said that the land is in the Weber sub-area of the Southwest District Plan, an area which has been indicated for low-density single-family residential development. The proposed development meets the intent of the plan. The Southwest District Plan does indicate that larger RS-5 lots should be platted against the lots along Tucson Place in order to provide some sort of transition between large-lot residential and the potentially smaller RS-5 lots. The lots in the proposal bordering Tucson Place are larger than the required minimum of 8,000 square feet, ranging from 11,000 to 25,000 square feet. Kuecker noted that a small finger of wetlands provides further buffer along that area. Staff believes that the rezoning of the land to an RS-5 zone would be appropriate and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan providing that Rohret Road is improved to city standards. Kuecker stated that the plan would provide an efficient use of land and infrastructure in the area. Kuecker stated that the applicant is proposing a 170 lot subdivision with three out-lots. Out-lots A and C contain a blue-line stream, drainage way and some jurisdictional wetlands. Out-lot B is in the northwestern corner and has been accepted by the Parks and Recreation Division as a dedicated park. The applicant is proposing six phases, the first of which would be along Lakeshore Drive, connecting Lakeshore Drive to Rohret Road. The applicant has indicated a willingness to re-order the phases based on Staff and Commission recommendations. , Kuecker noted the applicant is requesting a reduction of the wetland buffer area and the elimination of it altogether in the southern finger in order to construct Lakeshore Drive. Compensation for that would be the extension of the wetland area on the western portion of the property. The Army Corp of Engineers would need to approve this wetland mitigation plan, about which Staff has raised some concerns. If the Corp of Engineers is willing to approve the plan, then it will meet Staff's requirements as well. It is because of these issues surrounding the wetlands that the Sensitive Areas Overlay is required. The conditions of Slothower Road and Rohret Road are also of concern to Staff. Both are currently chip- seal streets that are in fairly good condition, though not up to city standards. Staff is recommending that the 7th and 8th additions should be the last phases of the project to allow time for Rohret Road to be improved. If the City Council includes Rohret Road in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), then the developer can go ahead and develop the 7th and 8'h addition (provided their fair share is paid). City Council will be deciding within the next few weeks whether Rohret Road will be included in the CIP. Slothower Road is only twelve feet wide and is not currently wide enough for two cars to pass each other without one car having to leave the paved surface. Staff does not feel comfortable allowing traffic from an urban subdivision onto Slothower Road until it is improved at least to County residential standards (22 feet wide, chip-seal). The subdivision contains a range of lot sizes that are scattered throughout the site. The street design does provide connectivity within the neighborhood and to the surrounding area. Kuecker explained that the southern portion of Slothower Road is currently an impassable dirt trail. She noted that if the road is left as it is, it is possible it will be developed at a later time and all of the lots adjacent to it will become double-fronting lots. As a result, Staff has recommended that the western-most lots not be platted until Slothower Road is vacated. Staff recommends the rezoning and subdivision (provided that City Council does include Rohret Road in the CIP) with the condition that the portion of Rohret Road adjacent to lots 1 and 38 be improved to city standards at the expense of the developer and that the extension of Lakeshore Drive be completed in the first phase of the development. Staff recommends that the 7th and 8th additions be subject to the developer paying his fair share (12.5% of the Rohret Road improvements), and the Parts 7 and 8 should be the last phases of development unless Rohret Road is improved prior to or simultaneous with their construction; the portion of Slothower Road from the northern boundary of lot 95 south to Rohret Road shall be vacated prior to the development of the 7th addition and lots 152-170 of the 8'h addition. The wetland mitigation must be approved by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. If the City Council does not include Rohret Road in their CIP, Staff recommends that the 7'h and 8th additions retain their ID-RS, Interim Development, zoning. All deficiencies addressed in the Staff report have been resolved except Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2009 -Formal Page 3 that the applicant needs to indicate on a revised plat the wetland buffers. Kuecker noted that the City Engineer also indicated that a note needs to be added to the plan to state that the landscaping buffer along Rohret Road would be paid for by the developer. Kuecker asked for Commissioner questions. Eastham asked Kuecker how this plan satisfied the neighborhood trail needs of the Weber sub-area. Kuecker noted that in the trail-plan there is no indication of a trail for the area in questions. She stated that the topography makes it difficult to provide a satisfactory trail. However, she noted, the interconnected nature of the streets and the required 5-foot wide sidewalks will provide a safe, accessible way to navigate the neighborhood. Miklo added that Rohret Road will have an 8-foot sidewalk connected to the trail system, and that there has been a concept plan developed for the County Poor Farm which includes a trail system just to the north of this development. Miklo said Staff had explored the idea of trails through the wetlands connecting the subdivision to the parks, but that it was not possible to get an ADA accessible trail through that topography. Eastham asked about the access points for the proposed park area. Kuecker stated that there would be one access point to it off of Slothower and two from Wildcat Lane. Freerks asked about parking for the park. Miklo explained that the Parks & Recreation Department generally waited until a subdivision is established before developing the park (to allow for resident input), but that generally neighborhood parks do not have parking. Parking will be available on the street. The public hearing was opened at 7:52 p.m. Duane Musser of MMS Consultants spoke on behalf of the applicant. Musser said that the applicant understood Staff's concern with the need for Slothower and Rohret Road improvements. Musser said that a wetland mitigation plan has been submitted to the Army Corp of Engineers. Musser noted that the applicant has been through this process with the Corp once already, and that the applicant has done everything necessary except for the archaeological study (which is not possible until the ground thaws). Musser said that the applicant is aware that final approval will not be granted from the Corp until the archaeological survey is completed. Musser pointed out that nearly 100% of the current wetlands are non-native invasive species. Staff had expressed concern for the amount of grading indicated for the existing wetlands, but, Musser said, the grading is an intentional part of the plan for re-establishing native wetland seeds. An application to vacate the level B impassable portion of Slothower has been submitted, and the applicant does not foresee a problem with it. The applicant would like to see Rohret Road improvements remain on the City Council's CIP, as it would help to alleviate uncertainty about phases 7 and 8. Musser offered to answer any questions. Freerks asked why the wetland buffers do not appear on any of the information before the Commission. Kuecker and Musser explained that the buffers are accounted for in the plan, but that the hatchings were left off the plat in an oversight. Eastham asked if it was correct that the applicant did not anticipate Corp approval until the weather was warm enough to do an archaeological survey. Musser said he anticipated approval of the design, and that the applicant has hired an archaeological firm to do the work, but that the Corp could not grant final approval until after the survey takes place. Eastham asked if it was correct that Staff would not approve a final plat until the archaeological survey had taken place and final approval from the Corp was received. Miklo said that this was correct; no final plat would be approved until the Corp signed off on the plans. Larry Jewell, 53 Tucson Place, stated that he is one of the neighbors impacted by the proposed rezoning and development. Jewell has lived in the Southwest District since August of 2001. Among the reasons that he and his family moved to Iowa City was to raise their children in an environment that valued quality of life, planned its neighborhoods, and did not overdevelop properties. They chose to live in the Southwest District because of its rural atmosphere, larger lots, and close proximity to schools and downtown. Their specific lot was chosen based on the current zoning of RR-1, which they felt would help to maintain the rural feel of the area and help to protect sensitive areas from the affects of overdevelopment. Jewell said that his family specifically participated in the urban planning efforts involved in developing the Southwest District Plan. Jewell said that his family does not believe that the current Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2009 -Formal Page 4 proposal follows the established planning principles in the Southwest District Plan. Jewell noted that he had provided Commissioners with a packet of information for their perusal. Jewell said that he believed that the planning process that had been set forth by the City should be respected by all. As part of the Comprehensive Plan, Jewell said, the Southwest District Plan lays out some fairly clear planning principles and guidelines. Specifically, the Plan calls for transition and integration from the existing large-acreage lots in the neighborhood adjacent to the proposed RS-5 lots. Jewell said the proposed lots are not large enough to comply with this principle. Jewell said the Southwest District Plan also speaks of a safe network of streets that prevents cut-through traffic, specifically that streets from Melrose to Rohret should be circuitous to discourage non-local traffic. Jewell contended that with 170 additional families in the development, Lakeshore Drive would become a desirable cut-through route for Rohret and Melrose. Jewell said that the current plan does not make adequate provisions for interconnected trails and accessible green space/park space for a neighborhood of its size, as is required by the Southwest District Plan. The current park space is not centrally located and is not easily accessible to the southern portion of the development. Jewell said the existing wetlands could be utilized as park space, thereby decreasing somewhat the overall impact the development is having on them. The Southwest District Plan calls for the preservation of the rural character of the area. Jewell said that rezoning the space from RR-1 to RS-5 and putting in multiple minimum sized lots is the exact opposite of the Plan's directives. Jewell said that he did understand that the plan is a set of principles and guidelines, and that it could not hope to address all of the issues and concerns that come up. However, he contended that these principles should be used in conjunction with input from the citizens directly affected by the development to make planning and zoning decisions. Jewell said that this is the process the City has out forth to encourage participation of its citizens. Citizens are left feeling powerless and disenchanted with their local government when they follow the processes laid out by the City for participation and then their input is disregarded. Jewell said that he had been involved in previous efforts to stop the over-development of the area, and that he has found many neighbors have thrown up their hands in frustration this time around, certain their voices will not be heard. Jewell urged Commissioners not to let this type of development go into the area without considering the concerns of the neighbors and the violation of principles set forth in the Southwest District Plan. Jewell expressed concern for the negative long-term impact that such a large development would have on the stream corridor, due to run-off from the large number of lots. Jewell said that the mitigation plan calls for only a 5-year period of oversight by the developer, and then it is handed off to the homeowners' association. Jewell expressed a concern for the impact on available resources and infrastructure in the Southwest District. A known-issue regarding a methane gas smell that comes from the landfill and inundates the entire area is of concern to Jewell. Jewell said that he has spoken with the landfill supervisor who has acknowledged the smell, but cannot pinpoint the exact source, despite investigations by the fire department, the gas company, and the landfill emergency response team. Jewell said it would be irresponsible for the City to allow further development in that area until the landfill issue is resolved. A potential risk and liability exists for any new development in that area as there is a known-issue of concern and tax-payers could foot the bill for any harm caused by this. Jewell said that only four out of the 170 lots are close to an average of two lots per acre. Jewell said the developers calculations take into account property covered by wetlands. The other 166 lots are less than half an acre, including 45 lots that are at the low-end of the minimum lot size for RS-5. Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2009 -Formal Page 5 Freerks requested that the speaker wrap things up as a large number of people also wished to speak; she advised Jewell that he could speak again after others had spoken if he wished. Jewell stated that 11% of the lots (19) do not appear to meet the minimum required lot-width. He suggested closer scrutiny of the plans was in order. Kuecker said that there are a few lots that do not have 60-feet when measured from the street frontage; however, at the 15-foot setback, where the measurements are taken, all lots have the full 60-feet. Eastham asked which direction drainage would flow and if it would all flow toward the wetland area. Kuecker said that approximately one-third of the drainage flows in the opposite direction of the wetlands. Robert Hegeman, 44 Tucson Place, asked if his understanding is correct that it is City policy to connect the current lots on septic systems to the sewer system. Miklo said that City policy is that once the sanitary sewer is within 300 feet of property that is served by a septic systems, it sometimes requires connection. Freerks added that it is not standard, and that while it may be required, it is not necessarily required. Hegeman asked whose obligation it would be to bring the sanitary sewer up to the property line, the City's or the resident's. Greenwood Hektoen said that without having the code in front of her she was not certain of the answer. Hegeman pointed out that the sewer system was designed on the current platting, so while it comes close, it does not come all the way up to the property line. Hegeman noted that he owns the pond and drainage system to the east of this property and which forms the start of the wetlands. Hegeman said the system is dependent on a pipe that runs underground for 1600 feet to just west of Slothower Road. At the time the system was put in place, all of the property was owned by one landowner, and was subsequently divided; this results in an implied easement for access to the the and that system. Hegeman said construction will disconnect the the and he is wondering how it will be addressed. Hegeman said that there is a major problem between Rohret Road and Melrose Avenue, and the lack of connection between them currently. Lakeshore Drive has all the markings of acut-through and is ideally situated to be one, Hegeman said. He said he believes the situation needs along-term, up-front solution. Hegeman said that he believed that it is the Commission's duty to balance the interests of the developer with the interests of the adjacent landowners. He said that while he does not have a great objection to the development as a whole, he does not believe this plan balances those interests. Tim Thompson, 3040 Rohret Road SW, stated that he takes care of the farmland to the west of this property. Where the drainage comes through, Thompson said, he has two creek crossings which he has had to repair several times. Over the years, as development has increased, more water comes down the creek. Additional houses and additional roads will exacerbate the problem. Thompson said it is popular wisdom now to often have prairies surrounding wetlands. To have prairies, Thompson said, you must properly manage them, and this includes controlled burns. He said that he has already had three wildfires on the property since he began taking care of it. Thompson said that he has spoken with the adjacent landowner, and that adjacent landowner is unaware of the road vacation. Freerks asked Miklo if it was possible for the road to be vacated without the adjacent property owner being aware. Miklo said that the vacation is being reviewed by the County Engineer, but that his understanding was that the County Engineer intended to require the consent of the adjacent landowner prior to vacating the road. Miklo reminded the Commission that Staff's position is that those lots should not be platted until the road is vacated, so unless the road is vacated, that portion of the plan will have to be redesigned. Eastham asked Staff to comment on the storm-water retention plan for the property. Miklo advised that this would be a question for the City Engineer. He said that the City Engineer did review the plan and felt it met city requirements for storm-water management. Miklo noted that at the time of final platting, the developer will be required to submit a plan for long-term maintenance of the drainage system. Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2009 -Formal Page 6 Chester Schulte, 1812 Rohret Court SW, has lived at his property for 25 years. He said that he opposes this rezoning for a number of reasons including the density of the housing, and the location of a major intersection. The intersection, Schulte said, would essentially be located in his front yard and would cause car lights to constantly flash on his living room wall, making it a more suitable location for a convenience store than a home. He said he does not want these changes dumped on the neighborhood. He said he has concerns about the traffic and the noise, as well as increased accidents. Judy Tokuhisa, 3305 Rohret Road SW, stated that she was pretty concerned about this development. She said her greatest concern is the density of the development, and that she does not believe that the transition area that is called for in the Southwest District Plan has been at all met in this case. Tokuhisa said that she has six acres, and that she is going to be across the street from properties that have five homes per acres situated on them. Tokuhisa questioned if the current overcrowding of area schools had at all been considered in developing this plan, and if the School Board had been consulted. It greatly concerns her that a large chunk of her front yard would be taken if the road is widened. She said plans to widen the road would make it so that her house was only 43 feet from the road and a large old oak tree would be taken out, as would her walnut and apple trees. Tokuhisa said that she has owned her property since 1993, and that it is emotionally significant to her because her children were married there, she raised her children there, and she wants her younger children to be married there as well. She said that her front yard and her circular driveway would be taken away and the only thing she would get in return would be sidewalk costs and sidewalks to shovel. Tokuhisa said that at a good neighbor meeting she had been told that water would run away from her property, but that at tonight's meeting she was told that polluted run-off would be heading straight for her organic property. She said that this plan does a lot for the developer and nothing for her, her family, and the people living in the area. Busard asked what Tokuhisa meant when she said she would lose front yard space and her driveway access. Tokuhisa replied that she was told that eventually they would be limited to one-driveway access point, and that she has a circular drive that makes it possible to drive and turn around her tractor. Freerks asked Miklo if he was familiar with this. Miklo said that he did not believe that the City could take someone's driveway away if they had an existing driveway. Miklo said the concerns seem to be based on the future improvement of Rohret Road. He explained that there is the possibility that the City may need to acquire up to 15 feet of additional land to make those improvements, but that he believed that the amount of tree removal would be less than what was being stated. Freerks asked Tokuhisa if the trees in question were that close to the road. Tokuhisa replied that they were, and that because her land was very long, and not deep, removing fifteen feet would take away both her buffer and a significant amount of land. She expressed concern that on top of that she would be required to put in and maintain sidewalk. Freerks asked if this was correct. Miklo said that the land to the south of Rohret, where Tokuhisa's property is, is governed by the County. Freerks noted that this was a question that could be followed-up on. Rai Tokuhisa, 3305 Rohret Road SW, expressed concern that this development would be damaging to the sense of community in the area that she had grown up with. Tokuhisa said that dropping 170 new families into a tight knit community like theirs would have the effect of breaking it apart. She conjectured that if for every four houses there was one high school student, then an additional 40 cars would be driving over to City High every morning. Tokuhisa addressed the issue of over-crowding in Iowa City high schools, and the effects that the new development would have on it. She expressed concern that the sense of friendship and community she had grown accustomed to would vanish once the area grew so rapidly. Tokuhisa said that living in her small area and getting to know her neighbors has helped her to develop on a personal level. She expressed her great appreciation for the beauty her family had created in the outdoor spaces of her home, and how she wanted it to remain that way until she herself was able to get married in the back yard sometime in the distant future. Witold Krajewski, 3329 Rohret Road, said that he moved to his residence over 21 years ago from very high density living in Washington, D.C. He said they very carefully chose the location of their home, and that at that time, their land was not even part of the city. When it was annexed, Krajewski said, no one took their opinion into consideration. Krajewski said that he understands that populations grow, but he said he feels the principles of taking the existing neighborhood into consideration have been left behind. Krajewski said that there is no transition between the large acreages and those lots that consist only of Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2009 -Formal Page 7 the minimum square footage required. He said he agrees with everything his neighbors have said so far, and that he is strongly opposed to the Commission approving this plan. He said that in order for the development to be compatible with existing neighborhoods, the density should be much lower. Krajewski urged Staff to provide better maps in the future so that people had a clearer idea of what they were looking at. Freerks noted that the Commission did have larger maps for their review. Dr. Mary Ebert, 3357 Rohret Road, said that her family has lived at the acreage south of Rohret Road since 1973. She noted that at that time the area was, of course, very sparsely populated. She said her primary concerns are for general safety and increased density. Ebert said the increased density would mean a lot of houses across the road from her, a lot of noise, and a lot of kids driving to school. Ebert said that traffic is already a problem in the mornings with traffic heading east on Rohret Road backed up consistently. She said it would get worse when 170 additional families are added to the mix. Ebert said that there are a lot of car accidents in the area already, including a recent fatality. Ebert said that another safety concern is for the large number of people who walk and bike along Rohret Road (a number that would only increase with so many new households), which is very narrow and hilly with no shoulders and deep ditches. Ebert said she also was concerned about the possibility of losing her trees in the front of her house, which serve as a windbreak, help with erosion control, and serve as a noise buffer. Karl Ebert, Coralville, owns the west parcel of 3357 Rohret Road, and intends to build a home there. Ebert said that the intrusiveness of this project was beyond comprehension, and that he is very worried about its ramifications. Ebert said that traffic is backed up on Rohret Road every morning, and that adding 170 units could mean 200-300 more cars to add into the equation. Ebert noted that the majority of people living in the development will use Rohret Road as their primary access point. Ebert said that mixing high density living with the rural setting requires a much better transition than that provided by the plan. He said he believes that the development needs to be platted differently. He noted that he is a former Iowa City realtor, and as such, is not against developing land in general. He stated that the increased foot and bicycle traffic on Rohret Road combined with increased auto traffic will cause serious safety concerns. Ebert said he hopes City Council gives this thorough consideration because the development will negatively impact a lot of property owners in southwest Iowa City. Diana Thrift, 3329 Rohret Road SW, said that she owns three acres to the south of Rohret Road. She said that her family has been there for almost 25 years. She said that they have huge trees in the front of their property that serve as a wind block and give privacy from the road, and that it sounds to her as though they would lose those trees if the road has to be widened for this development. Thrift said that her driveway is horseshoe shaped and she is afraid of losing one of the driveway access points if the road is widened. Thrift said that the homeowners were told at the good neighbor meeting that when the City re- does aroad, they sometimes take out one driveway access point to avoid the cost of a culvert. Thrift said that there is a lot of traffic on Rohret Road, so much so that dogs are constantly hit on the road. She expressed a concern for the large impact the addition would have on the area schools. Thrift said that the plan does not properly preserve the rural feel of the area. With such large lots on the south side of Rohret Road, Thrift believes that RR-1 is the highest density that should be allowed on the north side of Rohret Road. Thrift said the area is very beautiful and understated and that high density will detract from that. Thrift said she is very concerned about increased flooding due to water runoff from over-development. Nancy Hitchon, 29 Tucson Place, asked the question of how many years it would be between when this development was passed and when there would be Rohret to Melrose access. Miklo said this was not a question he could really answer as it would depend on the residential real estate market and what property owners decided to do with their land. Hitchon said that even if it were only five years, this could be a long time given the traffic pressure. When children are being dropped off at school, and again when it is time to pick them up, traffic in front of the school comes to a standstill. Hitchon said that if for some reason Rohret Road had to be closed due to some sort of accident, there is no way for emergency personnel to get to residents. She said this is a major safety concern, and directly related to the issue of overdevelopment. Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2009 -Formal Page 8 Lucy Wibbenmeyer, 1281 Prairie Grass Lane, said she wished to echo the concerns expressed by others. Wibbenmeyer stated that Weber School is extremely over-crowded and there is a 3-4 year wait for the after-school program. She asked at what point Planning and the School Board got together and discussed when a new school should be built. Janni Ebert, 3357 Rohret Road, said that she and her husband, Karl, have been very excited to build a house on Rohret Road, and all of a sudden there is now a development with 170 families across the road from their property. She noted that that there are 170 lots in 82.3 acres, which would be .48 acres per home. She noted that a football field is 1.32 acres. She asked the Commission to imagine having four or five homes in an area the size of a football field. Ebert said that one thing that disturbs her about the plat is that there are very good sized lots in the middle and toward the top, and then lots become quite small down near Rohret Road. Ebert said she read somewhere that homeowners would run the "gamut of economic status." Ebert said that big lots would go to the wealthier people, and smaller lots would go to low-income people. Ebert said she found that scary. She asked if she was going to have a situation like what happens over on Broadway right across the road from her property. She said this was a frightening thought to her. David Tokuhisa, 3305 Rohret Road, said that he appreciated his neighborhood, which he considers to be an island in that it provides a very unique atmosphere for intellectual growth, personal growth, and raising children. He said the environment is good, the air is clean, and there are a number of places to cross- country ski and bike. However, Tokuhisa said, though he appreciates Iowa City, he is concerned about the direction the city has taken. He says that he sees schools as a critical factor. He said the student to teacher ratio in some Iowa City schools is disturbing, while at others, the schools are under-populated. He said the overcrowding is systemic. Tokuhisa asked how long Iowa City can sustain its excellent schools in this environment. Tokuhisa said that he has noticed a strong smell of natural gas in living a mile or so away from the landfill. He noted that the new development will actually be closer to the landfill than the property he lives on. Tokuhisa said that not only was having accessible routes for first responders and car traffic important, but also one must consider the steps necessary to be a green community and to promote public transit. Tokuhisa compared the density problem to that of an overcrowded goldfish bowl, in that if only a few fish are added to the bowl it can remain habitable; however, if the bowl becomes overcrowded with fish, they cannot survive. Tokuhisa said that in many ways Iowa City is encouraging people to live greener lives, to reduce their carbon footprints, grow gardens, and have green space and parks. However, Tokuhisa said, if the wetlands and parks are all hemmed in by small (perhaps fenced) lots, then it is difficult to use and access them. Robert Hegeman, 44 Tucson Place, said that he thinks one of the most important tools for planning when there are unresolved issues (such as the major issue of access between Melrose and Rohret) is simply preserving your options. Hegeman said that the north part of this land will be developed and the landowner has that right. However, the part of the development that is south of the wetlands and west of Lakeshore Drive is not going to be developed for some time anyway. As a result, there is simply no need to rush to judgment and plat that area tonight. Hegeman advised the Commission to rezone the area, but not to plat it. Hegeman said the developer does not need it platted right now and there is simply no need to hedge the City into that situation when there are so many unresolved issues. Larry Jewell, 53 Tucson Place, said that he thinks one major factor that should be taken into consideration is the current economic situation. Jewell said he thinks we need to stop and ask in the current housing climate if it makes sense to dump more housing stock into our community. He said that doing so will only act to further depress the housing market and delay our recovery. Jewell said that as far as he understands, no Commissioner has actually come out and reviewed the property. He said that he hoped some of them would, prior to making this decision from information Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2009 -Formal Page 9 provided on a small, flat map. Eastham informed Jewell that he had been out to the area two years ago when a rezoning issue came before the Commission. Jewell said that the theme from the neighborhood is the fear of losing the rural feel of the neighborhood. Jewell reminded Commissioners that the Comprehensive Plan and the Southwest District Plan explicitly state the desire to retain the rural feel. Jewell urged the Commission to deny the request for rezoning and subdividing. Jewell said he would strongly suggest that the Commission deny any application unless the developer sits down and does a true good neighbor meeting. Jewell said that in this case there was only one meeting and it was entirely one-way communication, with the developer informing the neighbors what they would be doing. Jewell said that the concerns of the existing neighborhood and community have to be balanced against those of the developer. Jewell acknowledged that a developer has an absolute right to develop their property. They do not, however, have a right to expect that it will be rezoned. He said that one-acre lots are still very desirable, and that neighbors are willing to sit down with Staff and the developer and get what everyone wants. Witold Krajewski, 3329 Rohret Road SW, asked who was in charge of Rohret Road. Miklo explained that the road was divided down the middle. The southern half was under County jurisdiction and the northern half was in the city. Krajewski suggested that the concerns from those on the southern side of the road for lost property and trees could be assuaged by shifting the road to the north side (i.e., instead of taking 15 feet from each side, take 30 feet from just the north side where the proposed development is). This suggestion, Krajewski said, has the consequence of making the current plat proposal untenable, but, he said, he hopes that would not be the only reason not to act on this idea. Freerks noted that whether or not the road is put into the improvements plan will be decided by City Council in the next few weeks, and will be part of the budget they adopt in March. Freerks said that City Council may be entirely unaware of the concerns expressed by Rohret Road residents tonight, so it would be worth following that process and making their concerns heard. Eastham asked if the alignment of the road could be an infrastructure issue that the Commission could consider and perhaps direct. Miklo said that shifting the road to the north would be difficult given the other intersections along the way. The concerns about loss of driveways, Miklo believed, was not necessary as he believed that the City had an obligation to put back any driveway they took out unless there was some sort of health or safety issue with it. Miklo said that 15 feet of right-of-way was the maximum that would be needed, so he suspects that the fears of encroachment to the south are somewhat greater than what would occur. Duane Musser, MMS Consultants, noted that the open space for the development was decided on by the Parks and Recreation Department because the City owns the adjacent property to the north. Originally, the applicant wished to have more centrally located green space, near the wetlands. Musser said that water is leaving the site at three different areas. The storm-sewer system in the streets will collect a majority of the runoff and direct it into the storm-water detention basin. Sanitary sewer is extended to the boundary of the applicant's property. During the construction process, Musser said, tile- line investigations are completed and will be patched and reconstructed by the applicant if damaged. Musser said the intersection of Rohret and Lakeshore Drive is pretty much locked in due to design standards and specifications. Eastham asked if the maintenance of the subterranean the system would ultimately fall to the homeowner's association. Miklo said that the outlots would eventually become the responsibility of the homeowner's association, as well as the the if it was a part of the drainage system. The public hearing was closed at 9:28 p.m. Freerks noted that the 45-day limitation period is up on January 19th. The Commission could deny the application, pass the application, pass the application with conditions, or ask the applicant for an extension. Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2009 -Formal Page 10 Eastham motioned to defer the item and ask the applicant to extend the limitation period through the next formal meeting. Plahutnik seconded. The applicant wished to hear the Commission's discussion prior to granting or denying the extension Busard said that what he would like to see in a subdivision would be more clustering of the homes and more shared green space, although he acknowledged that this is a trend that has not caught on in Iowa City. He said that this subdivision reduces sprawl and that from his perspective he would rather see more lots than less lots within the city limits. Busard said one reason he would like to consider a deferral is to get input from the school district on the overcrowding. Freerks said that the Commission typically does not talk to the school district about that, but that it may be appropriate to ask the school district to comment. Miklo said that the City and the school district have at least one annual meeting where the district looks at growth that is taking- place to help them make those kinds of decisions. Miklo noted that a development of this size will not happen overnight, and that it would take several years before those lots were built and full and perhaps 10-12 years before the impact was felt on schools. Busard suggested asking the applicant if the applicant is amenable to dedicating some property to a school. Busard asked what the transportation planners had to say about the traffic problems discussed by the neighbors. Miklo said that the transportation planners did not have concerns about Rohret Road; their primary concerns were with Slothower. Eastham said he agreed with the idea expressed by Busard of considering school capacity as a factor in infrastructure support, although he acknowledged it may be pushing the boundaries of the current zoning code. He said he too would like to hear comment from the school district. Eastham said that while traffic planners may be satisfied with Rohret Road's capacity to handle the additional traffic, there still is not good connectivity to Melrose or Highway 1. He and Miklo discussed the future of Slothower's possible connection through the County Poor Farm property. Greenwood Hektoen suggested keeping discussions limited to whether or not Commissioners would be in support of a motion to defer. Payne asked what the average size of the lots in Southwest Estates is (excluding the 1-acre lots). Miklo said he would have to look at the plat more closely, although he knows they are larger than the 8,000 square foot minimum. Payne asked what the likelihood of farmers using Lakeshore Drive as acut-through would be (a concern brought up by one resident). Miklo said that it would be very unlikely. He said the only adjacent farm land would be the County Poor Farm property which has better access from Melrose Avenue. Eastham said that he has some concerns about density; however, his concern is that an opportunity for a little higher density townhomes along Rohret Road is being missed. Plahutnik stated that he felt very little effort had been made to meet the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan in providing a transition from RR-1 to RS-5. The Comprehensive Plan's directive that development is appropriate when infrastructure is in place is also not followed in this case. Plahutnik said that this development was not ready for prime-time. He said that Rohret Road does not work now, and it certainly is not ready for this development. Plahutnik stated that as a clerk in a grocery store he might not have much call to disagree with a City Engineer; however, he noted that the people sitting in traffic on Rohret Road probably are not City Engineers either, and they too would disagree with the City Engineer's assessment. Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2009 -Formal Page 11 Plahutnik said much of this is perspective, noting that those on 10-acres think a 3-acre lot is too small, and those on 3-acre lots think the 1-acre lots are too small, and so on. Plahutnik noted that all of the houses on Summit Street are on lots smaller than those being discussed tonight, and yet, most people would think that Summit Street is not such a bad place to live. At some point, Plahutnik said, this property will be developed. More than likely it will be developed at RS- 5. However, Plahutnik's feeling is that the things that need to be in place before development can occur are not yet ready. Busard suggested that the applicant might want to consider zoning the entire area RS-5, but only platting one phase of the project. Payne asked how far out Rohret Road is improved. Staff explained that the road would be improved from the last developed lot eastward, in the direction that most traffic would be flowing. This improvement is a condition of Staffs recommendation. Weitzel said that he believes there is merit in discussing doing the platting in phases, as there are enough disparate ideas and opinions that more discussion seems necessary. He also noted that he would like to hear comment from the school district. Freerks said she had a number of questions she would like more information on before voting on this development in any positive way. She noted that change is difficult, but that something will happen with this property; it is simply a matter of how it occurs. Freerks said she lives on a lot smaller than all of those in the development, but that she understands that what one is used to and what one is expecting has a huge role in what one can easily accept. Freerks stated that she had concerns about the lack of transition and buffer. She continues to have questions about drainage. She said that there is some merit in preserving rural character. She has questions about the maintenance of the wetlands. She would like more answers about curb cuts, driveways, loss of trees, etc., that would occur with improvements to Rohret Road. Park access was also a concern for Freerks. She expressed interest in a deferral because she would hate to have to vote no simply because her questions could not be answered. Payne asked about Musser's comment that the Lakeshore Drive/Rohret Road intersection had been chosen by the City. Miklo said that Staff did feel the intersection was located in the most logical place, as it aligns with Rohret Court to the south. Freerks said she wanted more information about the possibility of mitigating lights shining in the Schulte's window if that would really be the case. Musser indicated a willingness on the part of the applicant to grant an extension beyond the 45-day limitation period. A vote was taken and the motion to defer was approved 6-0. SUB08-00011/REZ08-00012: Discussion of an application submitted by Three Bulls for a rezoning from Low Density Single-Family (RS-5) to Planned Development Overlay Medium Density Single- Family (OPD-8) and a preliminary plat of Hickory Pointe, a 4-lot, 2.97 acre residential subdivision on Hickory Trail, west of First Avenue. The 45-day limitation period expires February 20, 2009. The proposal is to rezone this property and subdivide it into a planned development of three clusters each with six townhouse style units. There would be a private drive to provide rear access. The property is currently zoned RS-5 as three residential lots. Under its current zoning, the property can be subdivided into up to ten single-family homes. The applicants request is to rezone this to RS-8 which would allow up to thirteen single-family houses. Because the applicant is also requesting a planned development, which allows the clustering and a slight increase of density, 18 units are proposed for approval. Staff feels this rezoning is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The Northeast District Plan identifies potential townhouse development on this very property. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2009 -Formal Page 12 building town houses or small multi-families is appropriate on arterial streets adjacent to large open spaces. The Northeast District plan gives guidance on development near Hickory Hill Park, a sensitive area. This plan addressed that in terms of planning for open spaces and appropriate plantings. The planned development is an option under the zoning code. It allows for higher density and clustering, but some conditions must be considered. The development must be compatible in scale to adjacent buildings. Staff feels that the proposed design and quality of materials is appropriate for the neighborhood. The location of the driveway is an issue. Staff recommends a minor modification - an administrative level review - to allow the driveway to be less than 25 feet from the property line. The adjacent property is owned by the City and will not be developed. A sensitive areas overlay rezoning is required because there are some steep and critical slopes in the area. Staff believes the slopes were created in the construction of First Avenue. As a result, in this case it is appropriate to allow the dramatic amount of grading called for in the plans. There is a small amount of open space on the south side of Hickory Trail to be dedicated to the City if the Parks & Recreation Commission choose to accept it. A fee will be paid in lieu of the other required open space. Staff received a revised plan after the informal meeting. As a result not all of the conditions outlined in the staff report continue to be necessary. Miklo said that staff recommended approval subject to compliance with the revised elevation drawings (he noted that the elevations would need to be revised to comply with section 14-46-4 A. 3.d. regarding design features for attached dwellings); staff approval of detailed plans for the open space area; and approval of a minor modification for the location of the north curb cut on First Avenue. Plahutnik asked why the Hickory Trail Extension was part of the Comprehensive Plan. Miklo said that at the time the Northeast District Plan was created there was great concern about how the Northeast District would develop in relationship to Hickory Hill Park. To create a buffer between development and the park the plan included an extension of Hickory Trail as a "single loaded street" to the west of First Avenue. He said that the intent of the single loaded street was to create an open space buffer on the south side of the street and residential development on the north side of the street only. The public hearing was opened at 10:12 p.m. Casey Boyd, 40 Green Mountain Drive, said that he has really listened to what people want for the area and worked with neighborhood groups. He said neighborhood meetings have been very positive, as have meetings with Friends of Hickory Hill Park. Boyd said Sarah Walz has been very helpful and provided great ideas. Boyd said the quality of the materials will be very similar to those used on the units at the corner of Scott Boulevard and North Dodge Street. He offered to answer any questions the Commission might have. Susan Huff, 2601 Hickory Trail, said that she lives in a 16-unit condominium unit across the street from the property. She said that the new units could affect the egress for her building. Huff asked why it was necessary to build on the open space when there are lots on the other side of the street (where homes are already built) that are for sale. She said she would prefer that the property not be rezoned Greenwood Hektoen noted that an a-mail from Mary Gilbert regarding this development had been distributed to the Commission. The public hearing was closed at 10:19 p.m. Busard motioned to approve REZ08-00012/SUB08-00011, an application submitted by Three Bulls for a rezoning from Low Density Single-Family (RS-5) to Planned Development Overlay Medium Density Single-Family (OPD-8) and a preliminary plat of Hickory Pointe, a 4-lot, 2.97 acre Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2009 -Formal Page 13 residential subdivision on Hickory Trail, west of First Avenue, subject to compliance with the revised elevation drawings; staff approval of detailed plans for the open space area; and approval of a minor modification for the location of the north curb cut on First Avenue. Eastham seconded. Plahutnik noted that the Commission had gone from astate-of-the-art 1960's subdivision design to a progressive, unique and innovative solution to housing. Plahutnik said he believed it was possible to live in these units and function without an automobile. While it is a shame that the building will block some open space, Plahutnik said, he assumes the applicant does not own the property across the street and is simply going with what he's got. Plahutnik said he likes the development and the amenities in the rear. Eastham said he too is in favor of this application; it is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Eastham said he thinks the developer did an excellent job of proposing buildings that are attractive and address the needs for a transition from residential housing to open space. Weitzel stated his support for the project and said he would like to see more of it in town. Freerks said she believes this is a good development, and that she believes this is a good example of planned development overlay. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: December 1 & December 4, 2008: Eastham motioned to approve the minutes. Payne seconded. The minutes were approved on a vote of 6-0. OTHER: None. ADJOURNMENT: Payne motioned to adjourn. Eastham seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 6-0 vote at 10:35 p.m. s/pcd/mins/p&z/2009/P&Z 01-15-09.doc c 0 .y N .~ O U '~ C1 O C V ~= d O ~ N ~o ~ = N ~ ~ C ~ •C d a~+ R Q a U co 3 0 i ~ r X X X O X X X ~ ~ F- W ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 M ~ 0 N ~ 0 O ~ 0 O ~ 0 M ~ 0 a~ E z ~ R ~ m '~ ~ t N W ~j N ~ ~ ~ Q N ~ O Y LLl ~ c to a ~ Y r ~ t a 3 ~ ._ m 3 ~ N r T ~ ~ I--'w ~ l ~ 0 ~ l\f~ 0 M t ~ 0 N l ~ 0 O l~C~ 0 O L~f~ 0 M L\C~ 0 N z ~ N m -~ E r w V ~n ~ ~ Q w C. Y W ~ _ a ~ Y = ~ a ~ ~ ~ F- N 7 U X W c ~ N Q . ~ Q ~~ II W YXOO Federal Issues Washington DC Trip - 2009 Priority Projects for Iowa City, Iowa ~ r ~. ..III ~~ January 2009 City of Iowa City Representatives: Regenia Bailey, Mayor 319-351-2068 cell: 319-321-1385 regenia-bailey@iowa-city. org Michael Lombardo, City Manager 319-356-5010 michael-lombardo@iowa-city. org Ross Wilburn, City Council 319-358-6374 toss-Wilburn@iowa-city.org ~:..=.f ~' r~~~i~k~!~~ 3a „e 'y1~WF~}~lj1~T'T~ -~a.~r~ I ~]~i~f: Priority #1: Elevation of Dubuque Street and Replacement of Park Road Bridge Estimated cost: $21 million • Dubuque Street is the principal entrance to Iowa City from Interstate 80 -Average daily vehicle count of 25,500. Principal access to Downtown Iowa City and The University of Iowa Campus. • Park Road Bridge is one of five arterial street crossings of the Iowa River in Iowa City. • Dubuque Street and Park Road Bridge were closed for over 30 days during the 2008 flood. • The existing low elevation of Dubuque Street causes it to be the first arterial street closed during a flood event. Park Road Bridge is the first bridge to be closed. • The existing design of the bridge causes river levels to rise upstream. • Dubuque Street and Park Road provide access to major employment and education centers including 20,000+ University of Iowa employees and 30,000 students. • Provide principal access to major emergency and medical service centers, including The University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Veterans Administration Hospital, and Mercy Hospital. i- 1 ~ ~ r { ~ ; ~ ~' a ~ ~ ~ ~'~ ~~ ,a, ` ~ ~ e ~` ~~ ~~.. City of Iowa City Contact Information: ~ Jeff Davidson, Director Rick Fosse, Director Planning & Community Development Public Works 319-356-5232 319-356-5141 jell-davidson@iowa-city.org rick-fosse@iowa-city.org { '- _ :~ • Maintain access to emergency services for north Iowa City and adjoining Johnson County residents. • Maintain function of Mayflower Residence Hall (University of Iowa), alleviating the need to evacuate 1000 residents. • Reduce the need for evacuations due to lack of access. • Alleviate existing operational constraint on the Army Corps of Engineers' operation of the Coralville Reservoir. Elevation of Dubuque Street would facilitate higher release rates earlier in flood events, reducing overall peak flooding. • Maintain access to hospitals, University of Iowa campus, and downtown employment center. Reduce traffic congestion caused by traffic converging on the one remaining access to Iowa City during a flood event - Dodge Street. Dubuque Street with Mayflower Residence Hall in background. Inundated Dubuque Street. • Newly designed bridge would create less backwater and reduce flood damage to upstream properties. • Hydraulic benefits of improved bridge would help reduce flood potential in Coralville including commercial areas on Highway 6. • New bridge would balance traffic among all river crossings and reduce congestion due to bridge closure. • Access maintained between east Iowa City and Manville Heights Neighborhood/UI Arts Campus. ~. ~~ _ .,, ~ , R,, ~' J}'~. ~1 J' .F~ ~l Submerged Park Road Bridge. .~ ~ f_. I ~ ~~ ~"' a- ~ ~ . ~, ~°.~, } ~~ ~` -. ,%~ M i ,. ~ ;ova River in Iowa City -completely submerged Park Road Bridge at bottom of photo -other bridges to the south are of higher elevation. ~ x , .; ~~ ~~ a+ A Park Road Bridge -Holes drilled in deck to equalize pressure to prevent separation of deck from piers. 7 s a ~.-. ~ ri' rca91,*~ NItl1 ~ ~ ~7~ ~ ~ ~ ® s ~' - ~~ ~A Located adjacent to the Iowa River, the North Plant is one of two sewage treatment plants serving Iowa City. Inundated during the 2008 flood, minimal sewage treatment was possible during this time. Significant effort and good fortune combined to prevent the total loss of operation of this facility during the flood. The newer South Wastewater Treatment Plant is not located in the Iowa River floodplain. Relocation of the North Wastewater Treatment operations by expanding the South Wastewater Treatment Plant will eliminate the threat of direct flooding from the Iowa River. Iowa City's Comprehensive Plan calls for subsequent flood mitigation strategies to be incorporated into the area and a high density urban neighborhood developed. '..,~ - ~~.~~ '! e' ~. ~ ;,. ~Pa- . r~. ,r - - ~,, ~,~ F ~. a ~~._. Benefits of Relocation: • Relocation of plant away from the Iowa River floodplain would ensure its integrity and maintenance of vital wastewater treatment ~,~,- ~. ~.,.__ k ~";_~ ~~_~ t rya •~ .. ~ .~ "`` ~p' 1 $~g; L~~- ~ ~ ~ u ~r ~~ .: s ~ / . ~ `~ ~f _ ,ti ~~_ , ~- .. .~~ - _ ~ I r M ~~ ., ~ ~ ' ~. ~~ ~ ~ u ,~. , {p ~~ .. 1 , F. ~:~ ,. - -- - ~` -- - ~, . ~, ; ~.. ------ ;, ~ -- ;~~ -~~-°_ -~:. r~'..~.`~~ ~~ Wis. ,~ 3` ,. ~~,F: ~; ;, -F ~~ ~ ~ ~- ~u ~~, _ ~~ Q /~ V U ~" rig W ~' 0 v W Z d V W H 1 Z 0 J Old Capitol Building located in lotiaa City ESF #14 Long-Term Cornrnunity Recovery {LTC R) is a cornrnunity-focused Federal, State and local initiative. It helps disaster-impacted cornrnunities identify opportunities for a more effective recovery, facilitate partnerships that leverage a community': recoven2 and maximize tha use of recovery rescurc:es.One (1) offiftean (15j Emargena/ Jupport Functions (ESFs} authorized in the Natior~af Response Frameavork that guides tl•ia Federal response tc disasters with significant impacts, ESF #14 LTCR is a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) program. X2008 FEhAA Region VII - ESF #14 Lon~_I-Term Lorrimunity Racovery (LTCR)_v0110200° LONG-TERM COMMUNITY RECOVERY STRATEGY Q W A C I T Y, I Q W A D E C E M B E R 2 Q© 8 U S_ Department ei Hc~melan~ Secuntp• ~ ~ ~h'aahingeun D G 20472 s.~®dl ~~ ~ ~~~,~ti ~~; FEMA ~~, / / LONG-TERM COMMV NItt RECOVERY _^ ~~~ ~ C~rv of low, CiTv FEMA Region VII 4221 Ward Parkway, Sulte 300 Kansas Clty, MO 64114 www.fema.gov TABLE O F CONTENT 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 INTRC+dUCTICFN 5 Overview 5 Johnson County 6 ESF #14 LTCR SUPPORT 9 Community-Based Support 4 What is an ESF #14 LTCR Project? 10 TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 13 Elevation of Dubuque Street and Replacement of Park Road Sridge 14 Wastewater Treatment Ptant Consalidatian 16 Iowa River Power Dam Portage Trai! 18 NEXT STEPS 23 ACKNOWLEbGEMENTS 25 APPENbIX LONG-TERM COMMUNITY RECOVERY STRATEGY IOWA CITY, IOWA This report, Long-Term Community Recovery Strategy (Strategy), is a coordinated effort of the City of Iowa City, Rebuild lawn Office (RID) and Federal Emergency Management Agency`s {FEMA) Emergency Support Function {ESF) #14 Long-Term Community Recovery {LTCR) program. ESF#14 LTCR and RIO provided targeted recovery support and Technical Assistance resourcesto assist Iowa City in identifying community recovery strategies and opportunities. This Strategy provides a brief history of Iowa City and the effects of the Flood of 2008 on the community. It outlines the process that ESF #14 LTCR and RIO utilized to assist Iowa City with post-flood recovery and provides specific information useful to the City for ongoing. LTCR project development and resource identification. ESF #14 LTCR in partnership with RIO provided coordination and planning to identify flood-specific recovery recommendations and strategies. Efforts focused on three (3) recovery opportunities that can positively affect Iowa City`s recovery and ongoing development: road elevation and bridge replacement, wastewater treatment facility consolidation and a river access portage trail. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Old Car~itol, circa 1 Soo Photograph from the collection of Johnson County Histcn-ical Society `"' ~. ~` Z INTRODUCTION 5 Overview 5 .Johnson County b -- ~~~ f . {. -1 ,, _..'- ~ - ; ~_~'~y G ._ _. - ~~ - ~ ___,~ r.:4, dt ~' f ~, ^~ Terrill Nlill and Dam Photograph fi-om the rollecTien of Johnson County Hist-rical S moiety OVERVIEW City of Iowa City is located along the Iowa River, four (4) miles downstream from Coralville Lake. The lake provides a variety of rea-eational opporrtunities for the region and flood protection for 1,703 square miles of the Iowa River Valley below the lake's dam. On June 11, 2008, at Coralville Lal<e, water exceeded the emergency spillway's elevation causing surges in the Iowa River leading into Iowa City. Extensive areas of Iowa City were evacuated. Within two (2) days, the Iowa River reached record levels, cresting at nine and one-half (9.5} feet above flood stage in Iowa City. Bridges and roadways were inundated. Bridge and roadway closures affected emergency services and access to downtown and hospitals throughout the area. One (1) of two (2) City wastewater treatment plants serving the area was inundated and as a result, wastewater that had only undergone primary treatment was released downstream. The flood also affected several residential areas, damaging hundreds of units; however, affected units make up a relatively small percentage of the Iowa City housing stock. The University of Iowa, located in Iowa City, sustained major damage as a result of the flood, including an estimated $231.75 million of damage to more than twenty (20) buildings and properties situated along the river. INTRODUCTION Iowa City is home of the University of Iowa, the largest employer and a significant economic generator in the region. Iowa City is the county seat and largest city in Johnson County, with an approximate population of 62,200 people {2000). The City of Iowa City's Vision Statement is: lowa City is an attractive, energetic City with a vita! downtown, a healthy economy, safe neighborhoods and diversity in its people. As Iowa City grows, we w7! strive to preserve the character and identity of the community while guiding the creation of compatible new areas; protecting the environment; encouraging diversity in the population, in housing and in jobs; and offering opportunities for human development to Iowa City's citizens. fovea City wi!! be an inclusive, accessible and safe community to a!f its citizens, embracing persons with disabilities and a!! races, cultures, life-styles, ages and socio- economicgroups. Iowa City's Vision Statement is included in the (owa City Comprehensive Plan (1997). After the flood, Iowa City adopted the Iowa City Central District Plan to further define and enhance the goals of the Vision Statement. JOHNSON COUNTY Johnson County is located in the east-central region of lawa,just south of Cedar Rapids. The Iowa River runs along two-thirds of the northern part of the county, then turns south to travel through Iowa City. The county includes approximately six hundred twenty-five (625} square miles. There are eleven (11} incorporated communities in the county, with more than 100,000 Iowans and a wide variety of businesses, including farming, retail, manufacturing and academics. The majority of the county's population resides within Iowa City and Coralville City limits. 6 ~ LONG-TERM COMMUNITY RECOVERY STRATEGY IOWA CITY, IOWA Johnson Lounty, Iowa Courtasy of Johnsen County !"' Q ~. ~. V I-- J d' r ~. W ESF #14 LTCR SUPPORT 9 Community-'eased Support 9 What is an ESF #14 LTCR Project? 10 LONG-TERM COMMUNITY RECOVERY STRATEGY IOWA CITY, IOWA COMMUNITY-BASED SUPPORT ESF #14 Long-Term Community Recovery {LTCR) support is offered in partnership with State and local governments. It uses a community assessment process implemented by experienced recovery professionals and aided by subject-matter experts to determine whether a community would benefit from ESF #"14 LTCR support. Assessments consider pre-disaster conditions, disaster impacts and past-disaster capacity {remaining staff, functioning workspace, existing building codes, etc.) to manage recovery. Assessment results help guide how ESF #14 LTCR assistance might benefit a community and the potential level of support needed. ESF #1 LTCR ESF #'14 LTCR in partnership with Rebuild Iowa Office (RID) determined that ten ('10) Iowa communities would benefit from the additional recovery resources ESF #14 LTCR brings to a community. ESF #14 LTCR offers several levels of support. Final determinants of level of support offered are made in partnership with the State and local community based on community need, willingness to participate in ESF #14 LTCR activities and capacity to respond to the impacts of the disaster. ESF #14 LTCR SUPPORT In Iowa City, the level of assistance included providing a Technical Advisor to provide intensive, targeted and short-term, on-site recovery guidance; identification of regulatory agencies for participation in a future workshop; 17e1p in the identification and coordination of LTCR projects that would benefit from added support available through ESF #'14 LTCR and identification and coordination of recovery resources. ESF #14 LTCR Technical Advisor worked within an ESF #14 LTCR Team to make strategic recommendations on LTCR projects to City staff. In addition, the Technical Advisor provided an ESF #14 LTCR Self-Help Guide as a community development planning resource for Iowa City`s ongoing recovery efforts. WHAT IS AN ESF #14 LTCR PROJECT? ESF #14 LTCR projects are intended to help communities recover from a disaster. Individual projects are aimed at achieving the community's post-disaster vision and when viewed in a broad context may have an impact beyond their original scope or purpose. Identified within this doa.nr~ent are ESF #14 LTCR projects that help build the foundation for community recovery. Each project write-up identifies existing conditions and includes a project description, understanding of the context and recommended strategies. The project write-up also includes the goal of the project, a list of action steps and a preliminary cost estimate which serves as a guide for initial budgeting purposes. Every ESF #14 LTCR project has a Recovery Value. Recovery Value is the designation assigned to a project that indicates its ability to help jump-start a community's recovery from a natural disaster- or incident of national significance. Projects that positively contribute to recovery typically address a broad range of issues that encourage a functioning and healthy economy, support infrastructure optimization, encourage a full range of housing opportunities and enhance the sustainability of the community. Fallowing is an explanation of the four {4} Recovery Value designations. 10 ~ LONG-TERM COMMUNITY RECOVERY STRATEGY High Recovery Value Project '~~` ' Those projects assigned a High Recovery Value are catalyst projects that serve as important building blocks for recovery. Typically, a High Recovery Value project will: • Fill apost-disaster community need. • Provide leveraging and create linkages for other projects and funding. • Be related to the physical damage from the disaster. • Encourage private investrY7ent. • Have strong community support. • Have access to the resources needed to carry out the project. • Be realistic in its outcome. • Use resources wisely. Moderate Recovery Value Project I ~}' Projects with a Moderate Recovery Value can be expected to have clear and positive impact on recovery but by their nature are limited in scope, span, impact or benefits. A Moderate Recovery Value project typically will be related to the physical damage from the disaster. Low Recovery Value Project 't. Low Recovery Value projects may have no direct link to the disaster and its damages, lack public support and/or- provide few, if ar7y, identifiable benefits to tl7e community related to disaster recovery. These projects still play a role in the recovery process. Community Interest Project Projects that are considered Community Interest may be extremely important to a community. While not meeting the criteria that defines projects with high or moderate recovery value, they have significant public support. IOWA CITY, IOWA W V z Q H N Q J Q V Z C~ TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 13 E(evaticn of Dubuque Street and Replacement of Park Road Bridge 14 Wastewater Treatment Plant Consolidation 16 Iowa River Povver Darvt Portage Trail 1°, LONG-TERM COMMUNITY RECOVERY STRATEGY IOWA CITY, IOWA ESF #14 LTCR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE ESF #14 LTCR and Rebuild Iowa Office {RIO} held a kickoff meeting with local officials on August 28, 2008 to describe the ESF #14 LTCR program, introduce the ESF #14 LTCR Technical Advisor supporting the community and to define the scope of ESF #14 LTCR engagement in Gity of Iowa City. ESF #14 LTCR Technical Advisor began regular coordination meetings with Iowa City's administrative staff and RIO staff. Weeldy meetings occurred for twelve {12} weeks and provided an opportunity to determine how ESF #'14 LTCR could leverage the community's recovery through the identification of strategic LTCR projects and potential stakeholders for identified projects and the support coordination of recovery resources that could be applied to those projects. Iowa City, ESF #14 LTCR Technical Advisor and RIO staff worked together to identify ESF #14 LTCR projects that support the community`s vision and where ESF#14 LTCR assistance would provide value. Three (3) projects were identified based on LTCR criteria: • Flevatron of Dubuque Street and Replacement of Park Road Bridge. • Wastewater Treatment Plant Consolidation. • Iowa River Power Dam Portage Trail. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE ELEVATION O F DUBUQUE STREET A N D R E P L A C E M ENT O F PARK ROAD B R I D G E ~~ ,,., RECOVERY VALUE (HIGH) ~,~ ~ ~`' Implementation of the Elevation of Dubuque Street and Replacement of Park Road Bridge project significantly irY7proves the delivery of emergency services during a disaster as well as providing access to the University of Iowa, hospitals and downtown businesses and area residents. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project includes the reconstruction and elevation of Parl< Road Bridge and the elevation of approximately 3,500 feet of Dubuque Street, afour- {4) lane arterial roadway with associated sidewalks, trail and drainage features. EXISTING CONDITIONS Dubuque Street and Park Road Bridge are important components of the community's arterial street network. Dubuque Street is the principal entrance to Iowa City from Interstate 80 {I-80) and accommodates an average of 25,500 vehicles per day. It is also the principal access to the Central Business District and the University of Iowa campus. Park Raad Bridge is one ('I} of five (5} arterial street crossings of the lawn River and intersects Dubuque Street at tl7e north end of downtown. Three (3} of the five (5} avers closed during the Flood of 2008. Both Dubuque Street and Park Road Bridge provide vital links to downtown, the University of Iowa, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics (a regional medical center), Veterans Administration {VA) Hospital and Mercy Hospital. When these arterial streets are closed, they compromise convenient access for community residents and to downtown businesses and hospitals. Importantly, closures impact the delivery of emergency services, particularly in times of crisis. Iowa City has experienced two (2} major floods in the last fifteen (15} years. City's proximity to Coralville Lake reduces the flood peak but extends its duration. In both the 1993 and 2008 floods, floodwaters lasted more than a month. This created challenges for the community and especially the City's transportation system. GOALS • Reconstruct and elevate the Park Raad Bridge to remove backwater and in- stream obstructions. • Elevate approximately 3,500 feet of Dubuque Street above the floodplain to ensure it remains accessible in flaod conditions. 1q ~ LONG-TERM COMMUNITY RECOVERY STRATEGY During a flood event, Dubuque Street is the first arterial street to be closed due to its existing low elevation. Raising Dubuque Street would maintain the function of and access to the University of Iowa Mayflower Residence Hall {1,000 residents). Additionally, implementation of the project accommodates increased stream flows and as a result provides greater operational flexibility upstream far the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers {USAGE) when releasing water from Coralville Lal<e. USAGE has the ability to release 20,000 cubic feet per second {cfs) from the primary control structure during flaod events; however, Dubuque Street floods when mare than 14,000 cfs is released. If Dubuque Street is elevated, the constraint is eliminated. Inundation of the Park Road Bridge created back~ruater, contributing to flooding of residential areas upstream. The implementation of this project will maintain a secondary means of access to the Manville Heights and Parkview Terrace neighborhoods and ensure a reliable river crossing during flood events. Capacity improvementsattheintersection ofPark Road and Dubuque Street are currently in the Iowa City Capital Improvements Program (GIP). The City identified these projects after the 1993 floods as important recovery and community development projects. City has the capacity and planning and engineering resources to complete and maintain the project once funding is in place. IOWA CITY, IOWA ACTION STEPS The scope of the Elevation of Dubuque Street and Replacement of Park Road Bridge project includes the following steps: • Identifying additional project resource partners; University of Iowa and U.S. Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration {EDA) have already been identified. • Determining design flow options. • Evaluating impacts that design options ~~ill have on water surface profiles. + Evaluating environmental impacts for design options. • Conducting a field review ~~ith the regulatory agencies to discuss National Environmental PolicyAct{19b9) (NEPA) and subsequent permitting requirements to help streamline the project. + Establishing requirements and restrictions of funding sources. • Determining preferred design option and preparing construction documents. • Finalizing funding ar7d financing strategy. • Acquiring property or easements. • Bidding. • Construction. .}_ ESTIMATED COST ReconstructionlElevate Park Road Bridge Elevate Dubuque Street FUNDS AVAILABLE Iowa City {CI P} FHWA Bridge Scour Repair FHWA Pavement and Fencing Repairs EDA Funding Additional potential funding resources for the Elevation of Dubuque Street and Replacement of Park Road Bridge are provided {see Appendix). 32,000,000 8,500,000 23,500,000 ($ 1,930,000) {$ 1,b00,000) {$ 180,000) {$ 150,000) { TBD) ADDITIONAL FUNDS NEEDED $ 30,070,000 )ubuyue Street, looking south toward University of Iowa Mayflower P,esidence Hall during thre Rood of20Q8 Courtesy of City of loins City TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE W A S T E W A T E R T R E A T M E N T PLANT C O N S O L I D A T I O N RECOVERY VALUE (MODERATE) 'x~` The relocation and consolidation of the North Wastewater Treatment Plant operations and incorporating these into an expanded South Wastewater Treatment Plant will eliminate the threat of direct flooding from the Iowa River, reduce threats from partially treated effluent and provide opportunities for• redevelopment. EXISTING CONDITIONS The North Wastewater Treatment Plant is located adjacent to the Iowa River. Constructed in the 1930s, the North Wastewater Treatment Plant is one {1) of two {2) sewage treatment plants serving Iowa City. Inundated during the Flood of 2008, the North Wastewater Treatment Plant provided minimal sewage treatment during that time. Significant efforts by staff and volunteers prevented the total loss of operation of this facility during the flood. The plant is the primary treatment facility for effluent fi-om University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Veterans Administration {VA) Hospital, Mercy Hospital and University research facilities, making this a uniquely important facility. Sizeable commercial and residential neighborhoods are located in the floodplain downstream from the facility and are vulnerable to untreated orpartially-treated effluent that maybe released during future flood events. GOALS Relocate North Wastewater Treatr-nent Plant out of the Iowa River- floodplain. • Expand the South Wastewater Treatment Plant to accommodate the operations of the North Wastewater Treatment Plant. • Redevelop existing North Waste~nraterTreatment Plant site. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project proposes relocation of the North Wastewater Treatment Plant and consolidating operations into South Wastewater Treatment Plant, expansion of the South Wastewater Treatment Plant and redevelopment of the current North Wastewater Treatment Plant`s fifteen- (15} acre site. 16 I LONG-TERM COMMUNITY RECOVERY STRATEGY IOWA CITY, IOWA Relocation of the North Wastewater Treatment Plant facilities and consolidation into the South Wastewater Treatment Plant improves wastewater treatment performance, increases capacity to accommodate future growth, upgrades obsolete and inefficient facilities and creates development opportunities within the core of the community. Currently, soccer fields adjacent to the South Wastewater Treatment Plant are being irrigated through water reuse from this plant. Relocation and the subsequent expansion of the South Wastewater Treatment Plant provides additional opportunities for treated water reuse and new opportunities for the implementation of other sustainable wastewater treatment practices, such as non-hazardous chemical use for disinfection {using either UV light or on-site bleach generation); enhancement of on-site bio-gas utilization for the buildings and process heat needs; continued support of University research projects far advanced and/or natural options for nutrient and emerging contaminant removal. Courtesy of City of lo5nr3 City SITE DEVELOPMENT Iowa City Central District Plan {200&) reconvrrends the incorporation of flood mitigation ESTIMATED COST $ 63,000,000 strategies into the current location of the North Wastewater Treatment Plant area and the Update Design Concepts $ 250,000 development of ahigh-density residential neighborhood located adjacent to existing Technical Design and Construction Documents $ 5,000,000 rail service. Redevelopment of the North Wastewater Treatment Plant site enhances the Construction $ 35,750,000 core of Iowa City by removing the North Wastewater Treatment Plant from the City's Demolition $ 17,000,000 Central District and potential redevelopment of the areas north and east of the existing Redevelopment Concepts and Plan $ 5,000,000 North Wastewater Treatment Plant site will be enhanced. FUNDS AVAILABLE { TBD} ACTION STEPS • Update design concepts. • Identify and confirm project funding resources, including additional discussions with Economic Development Administration {EDA). • Seek local and State regulatory approval for design concept. • Prepare technical design and construction documents. • Construct expanded facility and related infrastructure at the Sauth Wastewater Treatment Plant. • Disassemble and demolish the North Wastewater Treatment Plant. + Prepare development concepts and plan for the existing North Wastewater Treatment Plant site. -~ ~ E . . m Nor[h ~R+asteUlaterTreatmant Plant Burin Couitzsy Potential funding resources for the Wastewater Treatment Plant Consolidation are provided {see Appendix). ADDITIONAL FUNDS NEEDED $ b3,000,000 TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE South Wastewater Treatment Plant Courtesy of City of lo~aa City IOWA RIVE R P O W E R D A M P O R T A G E T R A I L RECOVERY VALUE (COMMUNITY INTEREST) Implementation of ;owa River Power- Dam Portage Trail project aids in the total recovery of Iowa City by providing a water trail that builds on the regional trail system. EXISTING CONDITIONS Iowa River in Iowa City provides drinking water for the City and University as well as recreational activities such as fishing, canoeing and kayaking. The Iowa River Power Dam, glow-head dam, was erected in 1844. Originally constructed as a mill dam and then retrofitted to become ahydro-electric power source, it now provides a pool of water for Iowa City's water treatment plant. The dam was recently renovated and a pedestrian bridge and observation platforms were added through a joint project with the City of Coralville. The dam is a barrier for some water recreation activities. Safety for users is an issue. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Iowa River- Power Dam Portage Trail project creates portage paints on the east edge of the river, above and below the Iowa River Power Dam. The portage trail would provide a stable docking area for boats, canoes and kayaks to safely traverse the dam. Portage entrance and exit areas would be placed a safe distance above and below the dam and would be connected by a portage trail approximately 1,000 feet in length and ten {10) feet wide. In addition, the project would include warning signs and buoys near the up and downstream sides of the dam and the installation of a low-head emergency evacuation system and emergency notification tenrinals. OPTIONS A study conducted by students at the University of Iowa (2008) identified three (3) options for portage entrances and exits with varying degrees of land disturbance and structure improvements. ~g ~' LONG-TERM COMMUNITY RECOVERY STRATEGY IOWA C I T Y I O W A Design Option #1 Option #1 provides a gently sloping sand landing area in slow moving water for access. Sand would extend thirty {30) feet along the shore and riprap {rock and other material used on shorelines) would be placed upstream and downstream of sandy areas. A pervious geotextile material will be placed under the riprap. Design Option #2 Option #2 includes a portage structure placed along the bank of the river. Recycled plastic landscape timbers anchored to geowebbing would be placed underthe structure to provide a stable foundation. Design Option #3 Option #3 includes a portage structure placed along the bank of the river using recycled plastic landscape timbers anchored to geowebbing placed under the structure to provide a stable foundation. The structure would be hollo~,rr and back filled with native sail during foundation construction. Iowa River Pow?r Dam SITE DEVELOPMENT Design Option #3 is the recommended alternative in the University of Iowa student study. In addition to the portage structure and trail improvements, the project also calls for enhanced safety features. There is currently one {1) "Danger" sign located approximately two hundred (200) feet above the Iowa River Power Dam on the east side. A combination of four {4) different signs would be placed both upstream and downstream of the Iowa River Power Dam in addition to "Danger Dam" buoys. The proposed emergency evacuation system includes a rape escape system. The design incorporates an emergency assistance alerting system used by the University to aid onlookers in notifying emergency personnel incase of an emergency. Three {3) units are recommended, one {1) at the Stanley Hydraulics Laboratory, one (1) at the west end of the pedestrian bridge aver the Iowa River Power Dam and a third, a wireless, solar unit placed at its east end. ACTION STEPS • Develop design details. • Coordinate support with local champions and stakeholder user groups. • Identifij and confirm project funding resources. • Seek local, University and State regulatory approval for design concept. • Prepare construction schedule. • Determine maintenance plan requirements. • Detenrine erner-gency plan requirements. ESTIMATED COST $ 160,000 • Canoe/Kayak Portage Trail • Advanced Warning and Emergency Evacuation System FUNDS AVAILABLE ( TBD} Potential funding resources for the (owa River Power Dam Access and Portage Protect are provided {see Appendix). ADDITIONAL FUNDS NEEDED $ 160.000 TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE East side of loa~a River above the larva River Po~mer Dam 0. W V'f H W Z NEXTSTEP5 23 LONG-TERM COMMUNITY RECOVERY STRATEGY IOWA CITY, IOWA NEXT STEPS This Long-7er-rn Community Recovery Strategy (Strategy) and the associated planning tools provided by the ESF#14Long-Term Community Recovery (LTCR) Technical Advisor and Team provide a framework for continued identification and coordination of funding resources and continued project refinement and development. This Strategy guides project development and implementation. Further refinement of the ESF #"14 LTCR projects should occur in conjunction with the Iowa Inter-Agency Coordination Team (IACT). Composed of Federal and State agencies, Iowa TACT is a collaborative recovery entity facilitated by ESF #14 LTCR and Rebuild Iowa Office (RIO}. It aids in the coordination of Federal and State agency recovery resources, providing a platform for agency discussions, recovery problem solving and the identification ofproject-specific prospective funding sources. NEXT STEPS Next steps include: Elevation of Dubuque Street and Replacement of Park Road Bridge • Conduct regulatory agency field review. • Coordinate Nith Federal Highway Administration (FHWA} and Iowa and Federal Departments of Transportation (Iowa DOT and U.S. DOT) to determine funding. • Coordinate with University of Iowa for hydraulic study and future involvement. • Coordinate with U.S. Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration (EDA) for funding. • Review potential funding sources and identify appropriate agencies and programs that can provide assistance (see Appendix). Wastewater Treatment Plant Consolidation • Provide project presentation to Iowa TACT. • Coordinate with EDA for funding. • Review potential funding sources and identify appropriate agencies and programs that can provide assistance (see Appendix). Iowa River Power Dam Portage Trail • Review potential funding sources and identify appropriate agencies and programs that can provide assistance (see Appendix). 24 LONG-TERM COMMUNITY RECOVERY STRATEGY IOWA CITY, IOWA i Z 1 .;,, CIN OF 1DbVA CITY LONG-TERM COMMtINItt RECOVERY ~~~ FEIVIA City of Iowa City Johnson County Johnson County Council of Governments (JCCOG) University of Iowa U.S. Department of Commerce Economic DevelopmentAdministration (EDA) Rel3uild Iowa Office (RIO) State of Iowa ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 1 Z W ~. ~. Q aPPEN~ix LONG-TERM COMMUNITY RECOVERY STRATEGY IOWA CITY, IOWA ELEVATION OF DUBUQUE STREET AND R E P L A C E M ENT O F PARK ROAD B R I D G E POTENTIAL RESOURCES IOWA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (Iowa DOT} 800 Lincoln Way Ames, IA 50010 Revitalize Iowa's Sound Fconomy (RISE} www.sysplan.dot.state.ia.us/rise.htm Office of Systems Planning 515.239.1664 • Program established to promote economic development through construction or improvements of roads or streets. Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program http://www.iowadot.aov/local systemslindex.htm Urban Engineer, Office of Local Systems 515.239.1051 (For City-owned projects) 515.239.1506 (For County-owned projects) • Bridge structurally deficient under Federal guidelines. • Bridge functionally obsolete under Federal guidelines. County and City Bridge Construction Fund www.dot.state.ia.us/local systems/index.htm Urban Engineer; Office of Local Systems 515.239.1051 (For City-owned projects) 515.239.1506 (For County-owned projects) • Bridge structurally deficient under Federal guidelines. • Bridge functionally obsolete under Federal guidelines. Innovative Bridge Research and Deployment Program Lee Benfield District Transportation Planner Iowa DOT Region '10 Office 430 16th Avenue, SW P.O. Bax 3150 Cedar Rapids, IA 52406-3150 Coordinate through Iowa Department of Transportation • Innovative material technology far the construction of bridges. JOHNSON COUNTY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS (JGCOG} www.jccog.orq 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Surface Transportation Program 319.356.5230 • Must be on Federal aid roads. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION (FHWA} 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 Transportation and Community and System Preservation Program (TCSPJ www.fhwa.dot.g ovld iscretiona ry Kenneth Petty Office of Planning 202.366.6654 202.366.6654 • Must coordinate through Iowa DOT District Engineer. WASTEWATER T H E AT M E N T PLANT C O N S O L I D A T I O N POTENTIAL RESOURCES U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA} Office of Water (4101 M} 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460 Handbook for Coordinating Funding for Water and Wastewater Infrastructure www.epa.aov/OGWDW/dwsrf/pdfs/guide dwsrf funding infrastructure.pdf • Resource guide far funding drinking water and waste~,nrater projects. Guidebook of Financial Tools: Paying for Sustainab-e Environments/ Systems http://~w~n~w.epa.gov/efi npaae/auidebook.htm • Resource guide for funding and programs for pollution prevention and clean water financing. IOWA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (IDED} 200 Grand Avenue Des Moines, IA 50309 Community Facilities and Services Fund www.iawalifechanging.comlcommunity/community/fac&srv.html Hank Manning 515.242.4836 • Incorporate and support State's sustainable principles. IOWA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (DNR} Parks, Recreation and Preservation Division Wallace State Office Building 502 E. Ninth Street Des Moines, IA 50319 Iowa State Revolving Fund (Iowa SRF) http://www. iowadn r.com/water/srf/i ndex. html Patti Cale-Finnegan 515.725.0498 • Iowa SRF provides law interest loans for wastewater treatment infi-astructure improvements. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Economic Development Administration Iowa Representative's Office 210 Walnut Street, Suite 823 Des Moines, IA 50309 Economic Development Representative for Iowa Bab Cecil 515.284.4746 • Investment for• public works and econor-nic developr-nent facilities. IOWA RIVER POWER D A M P O R T A G E T R A I L POTENTIAL RESOURCES IOWA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (Iowa DOT} Office of Systems Planning 800 Lincoln Way Ames, IA 50010 Federal and State Recreation Trai! Program www.sysplan.dot.state.ia.us/fedstate rectrails.htm Steven Bowman 515.239.1337 • Trail must be maintained as a public facility for a minimum of 20 {t~+renty) years. • Program also administered in conjunction with Iowa Department of Natural Resources Parl<s, Recreation and Preservation Division. Iowa Clean Air Attainment Program (1CAAP) www.dot. state. ia. us/ICAAP. htm Wendele Maysent 515.239.1681 • Support for planning and development activities of services and prograrrrs for increasing air quality. IOWA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (DNR} Parks, Recreation and Preservation Division Wallace State Office Building 502 E. Ninth Street Des Moines, IA 50319 Resource Enhancement and Protection (REAP) www.iawadnr.com/reap/index.html Ross Harrison 515.281.5973 • Program that invests in the enhancement and protection of the State`s natural and cultural resources. Land and Water Conservation Fund httpJ/www.iowadnr.camlg rants/landwater.html Kathleen Moench 515.281-3013 • Fifty{50) percent grants for trail development and amenities foroutdoor recreation activities. Water Trails Toolkit and Dam Safety Grant Program www. iawad n r.co m/watertra i Is/tool I<it. htm I David Dunn 515.2$1.3449 • Financial and planning resources for dam and water trail projects Water Trails Grant Program www. iowad n r. gov/watertra i is/g ra nts. htm l Nate Hoogereen 515.281.3134 • Grant program for ir7iplementing water trail projects. Water Recreational Access Cost Share Program www. iowad n r.co m/g ra ntslwate rrec. htm I Michelle Wilson 515.281.8675 • Funding for- structures to enhance use of waternrays by the public U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Midwest Region 601 Riverfront Drive Omaha, NE 68102 Rivers and Trails Conservation Programs htta://www.nps.gov/ncrclprocgrams/rtcalhelpfultoolslht publications.html David Thomson 402.661.1568 • Resources for planning and developing river and trail programs and projects THE CONSERVATION ALLIANCE P.O. Box 1275 Bend, OR 97709 Legacy Fund www.consarvationalliance.com Jahn Sterling 541.389.2424 • Protect rivers, trails and ~nrild lands for non-motorized transportation.