Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2018-11-08 Info Packet
j r , City Council Information Packet rrrrmw November 8, 2018 CITY OE IOWA CITY www.iogov.org IP1. Council Tentative Meeting Schedule Miscellaneous IP2. Power point for 12 E. Court Street [Presented by Development Services Coordinator Sitzman at 11/6/18 Work Session] IP3. Copy of article from City Manager: Why Are Developers Only Building Luxury Housing? — Strong Towns IP4. Copy of article from Assistant City Manager: With 2020 Census Looming, Governments Face Many Unknowns IP5. Memorandum from City Clerk: Proposed Council Meeting Schedule, January — December 2019 IP6. Email from East Central Iowa Council of Governments: ECICOG Area Grant Opportunities IP7. Bar Check Report — October, 2018 IP8. Civil Service Entrance Examination: Maintenance Worker I — Refuse IP9. Civil Service Entrance Examination: Maintenance Operator -Wastewater IP10. Civil Service Entrance Examination: Senior Maintenance Worker - Streets IP11. Civil Service Entrance Examination: Development Specialist Draft Minutes IP12. Historic Preservation Commission: October 11 IP13. Human Rights Commission: October 16 IP14. Telecommunications Commission: October 22 November 8, 2018 City of Iowa City Page 1 Item Number: 1. + r ui �1 lat • yyrrmr�� CITY Ok IOWA CITY www.icgov.org November 8, 2018 Council Tentative Meeting Schedule ATTACHMENTS: Description Tentative MeeLing Schedule _ r i City Council Tentative Meeting Schedule ��r 1+�• Subject to change • rlwoo����' CITY OF IOWA CITY November 8, 2018 Date Time Meeting Location Tuesday, November 20, 2018 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, December 4, 2018 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, December 18, 2018 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Saturday, January 5, 2019 8:00 AM Budget Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, January 8, 2019 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Monday, January 14, 2019 4:00 PM Reception Jo. County Admin Bldg. 4:30 PM Joint Entities Meeting Wednesday, January 16, 2019 1:00 PM Budget Work Session (CIP) Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, January 22, 2019 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, February 5, 2019 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, February 19, 2019 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Item Number: 2. + r ui �1 lat • yyrrmr�� CITY Ok 10WA CITY www.icgov.org November 8, 2018 Power point for 12 E. Court Street [Presented by Development Services Coordinator Sitzman at 11/6/18 Work Session] ATTACHMENTS: Description Power point for 12 E. Court Street CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION 11.6.18 Planning &Zoning Context: 12 E. Court St Outline Overview of District Plan and Form Based Code Development Process and Bonus Height 12 E. Court Street- Pentacrest Gardens District Plan and Zoning Code Timeline 2008 Flood 2008 — present — UI Rebuilding after the flood 2009 — Rebuild Iowa Office — EPA technical assistance grant 2011— Riverfront Crossings Sub -Area Plan 2013 — Downtown & Riverfront Crossings Master Plan 2014 — Adoption of Form -based Zoning Code 2015 — Riverfront Crossings Park Plan 2015 — Demolition of the North Wastewater Treatment Plant 2016 — Amendments to Form -based Zoning Code 2017-18 — Design & Construction 1St phase of RFC Park development Context of Study re ?mieLf -ogrom, showing iCjrron:v Dawn rown, .RwWronf Crossing;, - u,iont Crossms Sub -Area, jrj Ve,r Riverfror.t D;strM wrmin tO'w0 cir•J. Location Natural Features - floodplain, green space, topography Physical Features - built form, transportation, parking Development Potential - construction activity & market analysis Community Visioning Process Framework Elements Sub -districts based on location, primary use, scale and unique features Primary streets and retail frontages Mobility -Pedestrian, Bicycle, Transit, Auto Green Space -natural features, parks & plazas Public Art and Artists Student Housing Master Plan Goals Maintain Downtown Iowa City as the focal point of the region Encourage pedestrian -oriented, mixed-use redevelopment Create a resilient riverfront park system Enhance Ralston Creek to become a community asset Develop a multi -modal transportation network Incorporate art throughout the district Create a network of green streets in the district Promote sustainable design practices throughout the district Downtown & Riverfront Crossings Master Plan — Looking North East twt � °r4., f: � r w 4�"�44r1 •". 1.Y'•5 v....r. "� � I, rimer •' rF511 t9 r(�5.. Ltr �a ��. �� ».. "tit.• M • �' ~ K, "'��. ' � ��_]��5� 7� �-,+H •i�'•�l• �t�3 cif .,• r ...t . .11r t! . .p. rdr"• . r�. d1�. til . ,w•i� �• Sir' H i4..�yr•• �` 14•} 00 me i% + • ••• . �k f Zoning Code -Form Based City of Iowa City Riverfront Crossings and Eastside Mixed Use District Form -Based Development Standards AdoptA June 3,2013 Updated 2016 Further divided area into named sub - districts Fine tuned development standards to match intended character unique to each Subdistrict Defined review process Benefits of the Form -based Code Benefits of a foam -based code: • Higher residential densities possible, while ensuring higher quality li-, ing environment • Greater mix of uses possible • Helps to reduce vehicle miles travelled by creating a neighborhood that is ease to serve with transit and pleasant for walking and biking • Lower parking requirements due to lower parking demand • Lower risk to investors and long term residents due to increased certainh• about the form of development, which also helps to stabilize property values • Higher residential densities = larger Customer basefor local businesses • Increased property values • Increased tax base High quality development creates a sense of place that ensures long term value. Great places are attractive to new residents, businesses, and employers. Development Process & Bonus Heights Development Process GENERAL • Annexation • Rezoning of Land Plat(s) Height Bonus Request Design Review Site Plan Building Permit Construction LEVEL I DESIGN REVIEW -STAFF Staff FBC Committee review of application Riverfront Crossings Master Plan and FBC Standards May grant up to +2 stories in height above base maximum height LEVEL II DESIGN REVIEW -CITY COUNCIL Requests for 3 or more stories of bonus height, or any open space transfers, historic preservation height transfers, or pubic right-of-way height transfers must be reviewed by City Council Building Height Bonus Provisions >AII requests must meet the approval criteria in the FBC, demonstrate excellence in building and site design, ➢use high quality building materials, and be designed in a manner that contributes to the quality and character of the neighborhood. Building Height Bonus Provisions Bonus Type Prerequisites Requirements Bonus Limits Open Space Size, frontage, 20,000 SgFt *sending site max base location height No limit Historic Landmark Lot area SgFt * sending site max base Preservation designation Preservation Plan height No limit Public Right -of- ROW area Sq Ft * sending site max Way City need Dedication and demo base height No limit Office Space Class A, Upper floor location, 2 floors for every 1 floor of Office residential prohibited Space No limit Public Art Payment of at least 1% of project value to City arts fund 1 floor LEED or Similar Projects designed to meet Greater the level of LEED then standard greater the bonus 4 floors Student Management, design, and Housing Location amenities 5 floors Hotel Space 1 floor for every 1 floor of high quality hotel. Need not be used for hotel. No limit Workforce or Minimum of 15% of units Affordable designated to meet adopted Housing city standards for income 5 floors Elder Housing Required age or ability restrictions, handicap accessible, limit number 3+ bedroom units 5 floors Base Building Height Limits Figure 2G-3:8 uIlding Height P4ng rem /I vjo� 2stuuH Mn � ]zenc � euourrun.. wnx iow: ev:�no�.�aq. //: - wui.va�t.a�uov.�sw,� �1 f� Irl •- "-1 ��,F '4 Maximum height in stories Some districts have a minimum height as well Upper floor step -backs may be required Bonus provisions may result in building heights greater than base maximum height Bonus Building Height Limits Figure ?pa 2; aulldlnp H,,i h: Ubg rail D 71�_7 � aaenn m.x. rrr �.anr,�r.n�aa�,aar 1 � aawi es mn.eaaiKsmox. 1 gaetivrrn[. wlMWvuftl maaO wne�wr�aaa op.asw� Maximum bonus height in stories Must meet any pre -requisites of the bonus type to be considered. Not a by -right standard -intended to generate additional public benefits Up to 2 stories can be approved administratively by staff (Level I Design Review) Requests for 3 or more stories must be approved by City Council (Level 11 Design Review) o+ :���� ,.,.� � � ;�"; . .R �� rte, r � � T• wntown j t 421. i d11 r . r -- —�r-- 1 _—�--_•1l—�� _—� � � ox � rte. .i The Viewg z' la_.a� 4... 0 town i:: Iri Y Hilton Garden Inn I� r° Hieronymus Square Midwest One Bank 14 _ The Rise t - District . e. Hyatt Place Hotel • City Parking Facility Central Cross +1s r Sabin Townhomes >I `. \I *L Dubuque Street Apartments \ Riverview Apartments \_ � �Giilbert ,.. 1 Johnson County Ambulance Ctr. Preservation of Tate Arms Kum // pppo ���^^^ 1 \ Park District 11 . o r 1 o.ao front \I ;^' ''� 1 ' r_, IApartment Building Bruegger's Bagelsst 1 `-- 5oit1i I The Crossings G'bert write I • Orchard District -- • Orchard Court Lofts a Big Grove Brewery , Riverfront Crossings Park •I e " 17 x ` xk.x r Downtown 316 S. Madison. s V '.� Hilton Garden inn r --- ---- _ Hieronymus Square i- - 5O � •. p • y 1� i t!` �i I� ti( u Downtown I The Rise li • £. 1university 13;--` j ,,=;� ; • Hyatt Place Hotel City Pa rl<ing Facility , District — ..... r.._.. \ II rC___�I • Sabin Townhomes \ :.:.:n.::::: ,..r ,.- a— .\ I4 Central Crossings n' '\ 3; .... Dubuque Street Apartments Riverview Apartments .Gilbert I rs. ".•, toI'District I, ,,. \ \ •__ _ r_____ i-7777, \ II n I \ I II I jI Preservation of Tate Arms West \ \ Park District Ri vcrfront \ F _ 11 I New Apartment Building \ \I — � � tccc� II t-7 I • Orchard Court Lofts \�\ \ sn th -- 1�,- Gilbert j ---� \ T1 1 I I IF Ir "�+ ' �� The Crossings r y n I .Gilbert ,1' r-reservation Mai of Tate Arms West \ \ Park District Rivcrfront1�1 I ,� r_j u I New Apartment Building • Lofts Orchard Court Lo I ' I -- Imo•. / I 1\ \ �/ GitPrIMS r" f� _____� — — — A , '-The Crossings"Ma N.� it .. s• �'_. ��*a ---- t pan �o p W r , r .. Projects with Bonus Height -Level 11 Design Review by City Council Level II Design Review Projects in the Riverfront Crossing District CC Bonus Project Address Subdistrict Review Description Base Total Level II Request Yes, +5 student 8 stories allowed maximum base height- housing, 316 Madison 316 Madison St South Downtown Nov -14 bonus max height of 15 stories. 8 15 X* +2 Requested & granted+7 stories for not *not housing (+5) and LEED (+2). constructe d 4 stories allowed maximum base height - bonus maximum height of 8 stories. Requested +1 for historic preservation Yes, +1 Tate Apartments 912-914 S. Dubuque St Central Crossings Jan -15 4 5 X Historic transfer for Tate Arms. Propertywas Transfer rezoned and IC historic landmark designation given at same time. 8 stories allowed maximum base height - bonus max height of 15 stories. Yes, +7 The Rise 435 S. Linn St South Downtown Sep -15 Requested & granted +7 stories for high g 15 X hotel quality hotel. 8 stories allowed maximum base height - bonus max height of 15 stories. Yes, +4 Hilton Garden Inn 328 S. Clinton St South Downtown Sep -15 Requested and granted +4 bonus stories 8 12 X hotel for high quality hotel. The View 316 S. Madison St Ground Floor retail and apartments- 70 DU's THWEST (Madison Street in the foreground) 'AN& 110 CU, IT! mz .ji 19-1 The Rise 435 S. Linn St 2 towers over underground parking 320 Apartments & 150 Hyatt Place hotel rooms w. ground floor reta i VIEW FROM NORTHEAST AT GROUND AND ABOVE (from corner of Linn & Court Streets) 311 ISI ISI r1imbEiiii II ii I-• r I iml II lie i�3 III 'II ISI �� � 111 •r. 3� ii II ISI III r1r�. � ISI' III fool ISI ISI ISI '' II I ill Ali it ISI ISI 11i II II 111 X1111 I-• r I iml II lie i�3 III 'II ISI �� � 111 •r. 3� ii II ISI III r1r�. � ISI' III fool Breckenridge Apartments 707 S. DUBUQUE ST. 55 UNITS VIEW FROM EAST (Dubuque Street in foreground) 12 E. Court Street i t tV W it + e,�l pn n. No 8UFtU GION ^+ i ■ k Mal _ rt An application submitted by 100.500 LLC for a rezoning of 3.41 acres located at 12 E. Court Street from High Density Multi -Family Residential (RM -44) to Riverfront Crossings - South Downtown moo■ r Subdistrict (RFC -SD). Cin'ui Ip+>a,Cur C Alls A ��A, C rw South Downtown District South Downtown District Extension of Downtown to the south Bridge the Burlington Street divide Provide a mix of residential, office, retail, and civic, uses Leverage the Clinton Street mobility spine Create new civic spaces as focal points — Clinton Plaza and Ralston Creek Meadow r Sl milar Intensity to downtown o Improved Clinton and Court Street streetscapes r Build on the on-going efforts to improve quality residential design I ��i:3r ill l:'3n1: Multiple housing option typologies Student housing in areas with good access to campus Office Convenience retail limited to key corners and Transit Oriented Development JOD) area Potential entertainment uses — — — — — -` 1 iN Jv YO •� u tl ! h� a r' y • M c a+ a aFP •• a "P'a • a e a w t i m tl e m• m �,r�_ L.. �.�..��w�.YS•i .�•f •.e rb,'i s�bY •�"§aiiie'We �x. § m 'tl • e + HARRISON ST. {�"��. b_'a tl r a o I • ,a. II � a * § • m,m YYvc� �y gS p� c SD -12 Mixed Use 15,890 ----- 229,135 SD -13 Mixed Use 5,450 4 21,80o SD -14 Mixed Use 4,225 8 33,800 SD -15 Mixed Use 18,440 8 133,975 SD -l6 Mixed Use 20,450 8 132,500 SD -17 Mixed Use 6,575 4 26,300 SD -18 Parking Garage - 3 - SD -19 Residential 10,790 4 43,160 SD -20 Residential 5,405 4 21,620 SD -21 Residential 7,540 4 30,160 SD -22 Perking Garage - I - SD -23 Mixed Use 11,400 11 125,400 SD -24 Parking Garage - y - SD -25 Residential 6,570 4 26,280 SD -26 Residential + a 58,500 � Mixed Use 9,135 5 38,065 SD -28 Mixed Use 9,995 4 33,885 SOUTH DOWNTOWN DISTRICT d Building Square �jala sBuilding yahaBuildinglD rd" Type Footprint 12360 Stories Footage 4 37,0801�; ��Rsidential ypiD-2 Residential 12,390 4 37,170 50-3 Residential 15,940 7 46,240 [y �� 4 0 0 / o a `�'+� a d t+Y SD-4 Residential 15,920 4 63,680 v 513-5 Government 34,600 2 34,600 \m 5D-6 Residential 13,720 4 54,880 SD-7 Residential 12,520 7 39,440 -� 50-8 University 41,620 4 166,480 �'a m. 0 II SD-9 Mixed Use 8,155 6 48,930 �G R l SD-10 Mixed Use 6,570 6 39,420 SD-11 Mixed Use 6,050 4 20,290 Lehr iii-: SD -12 Mixed Use 15,890 15 229,135 SD -13 Mixed Use 5,450 4 21,80o SD -14 Mixed Use 4,225 8 33,800 SD -15 Mixed Use 18,440 8 133,975 SD -l6 Mixed Use 20,450 8 132,500 SD -17 Mixed Use 6,575 4 26,300 SD -18 Parking Garage - 3 - SD -19 Residential 10,790 4 43,160 SD -20 Residential 5,405 4 21,620 SD -21 Residential 7,540 4 30,160 SD -22 Perking Garage - 2 - SD -23 Mixed Use 11,400 11 125,400 SD -24 Parking Garage - 6 - SD -25 Residential 6,570 4 26,280 SD -26 Residential 16,040 5 58,500 SD -27 Mixed Use 9,135 5 38,065 SD -28 Mixed Use 9,995 4 33,885 SOUTH DOWNTOWN DISTRICT TOTALS 1,542,798 Subdistrict Standards South Downtown Subdistrict • Most urban subdistrict with opportunities for hotels, apartments, condominiums and commercial businesses close to downtown and campus • Opportunities for high quality student housing (apts, private dormitories, sororities/fraternities, particularly in the western portion of the subdistrict directly adjacent to campus • Min. setback: 2 ft • Max. setback: 8 ft. • Building Height: 2 St4oi'ieS 111111. c 8 Stogie's 111a - TDR diad 1)41nits height it 1) h � 1 � stcyri�y 10 ft. :Ntl'1111;Wk dbove 511, sfi )I-'.. Facade Continuity: 75% of frontage Parking located behind active building space Building Heights -Base v. Bonus South Downtown District BASE BONUS 11nh .�4t�m 12 E. Court Zoning Agreement Condition: Obtain approval of the exterior design elevations from the Planning and Zoning Commission. If Level II design review is required for bonus height, the Planning and Zoning Commission will review the proposed development plan and make a recommendation to the Citv Council. Development Process GENERAL • Annexation • Rezoning of Land Plat(s) Height Bonus Request Design Review Site Plan Building Permit Construction LEVEL I DESIGN REVIEW -STAFF Staff FBC Committee review of application Riverfront Crossings Master Plan and FBC Standards May grant up to +2 stories in height above base maximum height LEVEL II DESIGN REVIEW -CITY COUNCIL Requests for 3 or more stories of bonus height, or any open space transfers, historic preservation height transfers, or pubic right-of-way height transfers must be reviewed by City Council 12 E. Court Development Process LEVEL II DESIGN GENERAL • Annexation • Rezoning of Land • Plat(s) • Height Bonus/// Request • Desi2n Review • Site Plan • Building Permit • Construction LEVEL I DESIGN REVIEW -STAFF & PZ Staff FBC Committee review of application Riverfront Crossings Master Plan and FBC Standards May grant up to +2 stories in height above base maximum height & PZ will review/recommend if L_II REVIEW- PZ & CITY COUNCIL Requests for 3 or more stories of bonus height, or any open space transfers, historic preservation height transfers, or pubic right-of-way height transfers must be reviewed by City Council 12 E. Court Zoning Agreement Condition: Development of the subject property must substantially conform to the substantially conform to the building footprints shown inshown in the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan a e 61 . Any significant deviation in the building footprint, as reasonably determined by the City, must be approved by the City Council in a Level II design review process 'r 40 SD-? Cfnron Streer Promenade Condition: Development of the subject property must include a landscaped interior courtyard between the two easternmost buildineis. Access to the University of Iowa's Voxman Music Building from the interior courtyard may be restricted or limited for safety reasons if deemed appropriate by the City Council in a level 11 design review process. s i • v � • w � Condition: Development of the subject property must include a landscaped interior courtyard between the two easternmost buildineis. Access to the University of Iowa's Voxman Music Building from the interior courtyard may be restricted or limited for safety reasons if deemed appropriate by the City Council in a level 11 design review process. 12 E. Court Development Process LEVEL II DESIGN GENERAL • Annexation • Rezoning of Land • Plat(s) • Height Bonus/// Request • Desi2n Review • Site Plan • Building Permit • Construction LEVEL I DESIGN REVIEW -STAFF & PZ Staff FBC Committee review of application Riverfront Crossings Master Plan and FBC Standards May grant up to +2 stories in height above base maximum height & PZ will review/recommend if L_II REVIEW- PZ & CITY COUNCIL Requests for 3 or more stories of bonus height, or any open space transfers, historic preservation height transfers, or pubic right-of-way height transfers, or deviations from Master Plan must be reviewed by City Council Building Height Bonus Provisions Bonus Type Prerequisites Requirements Bonus Limits Open Space Size, frontage, 20,000 SgFt *sending site max base location height No limit Historic Landmark Lot area SgFt * sending site max base Preservation designation Preservation Plan height No limit Public Right -of- ROW area Sq Ft * sending site max Way City need Dedication and demo base height No limit Office Space Class A, Upper floor location, 2 floors for every 1 floor of Office residential prohibited Space No limit Public Art Payment of at least 1% of project value to City arts fund 1 floor LEED or Similar Projects designed to meet Greater the level of LEED then standard greater the bonus 4 floors Student Management, design, and Housing Location amenities 5 floors Hotel Space 1 floor for every 1 floor of high quality hotel. Need not be used for hotel. No limit Workforce or Minimum of 15% of units Affordable designated to meet adopted Housing city standards for income 5 floors Elder Housing Required age or ability restrictions, handicap accessible, limit number 3+ bedroom units 5 floors Mixed Use, Housing &Hotel Projects Riverfront Crossing District CC Level Bonus Level Bonus Project Address Subdistrict Review Description I Request 11 Request Base Built Yes, +5 student 8 stories allowed maximum base height - housing, 316 Madison 316 Madison St South Downtown Nov -14 bonus maxheightof 15 stories. x* +2LEED- 8 8* Requested & granted +7 stories for student housing (+5( and LEED (+2(. nnot construct ed 4 stories allowed maximum base height - bonus maxium height of 8 stories. Yes, +1 Tate Apartments 912-914 S. Dubuque St Central Crossings Jan -15 Requested +1 for historic preservation X Historic 4 5 transfer for Tate Arms. Property was rezoned and IC historic landmark Transfer designation given at same time. 8 stories allowed maximum base height - The Rise 435 S. Linn St South Downtown Sep -15 bonus max height of 15 stories. X Yes,+7 8 15 Requested & granted +7 stories for high hotel quality hotel. 8 stories allowed maximum base height- Hilton Garden Inst 3285. Clinton St South Downtown Sep -15 6onusmaxheightof15stories. X Yes,+ 8 12 Requested and granted+4 bonus stories hotel for high quality hotel. 4 stories allowed maximum base height - bonus maxiumheight of8stones. Yes,+1 Breckenridge Apartments 7075. Dubuque St Central Crossings Requested&granted +l storyof bonus X 4 5 public an height for contribu[ionto Crty's public an fund. Dubuque Street Apartments 602-628 S. Dubuque St Central Crossings No 4 4 225 Prentiss St 225 Prentiss St Central Crossings No 4 4 Hieronymus Square 314 S Clinton St South Downtown No 8 7 R' erview Apartments 628 R'verside Dr West Riverfront No 4 4 The Crossings 1301 S. Gilbert St South Gilbert No 6 3 The Crossings 1201 S. Gilbert St South Gilbert No 6 5 Sabin Townhomes SDubuque Central Crossings No 4 4 Orchard Court Lofts 27 60rchard St Orchard No 3 3 College St 1505 E College St Eastside Mixed Use No 3 3 12 E. Court Development Process LEVEL II DESIGN GENERAL • Annexation • Rezoning of Land • Plat(s) • Height Bonus/// Request • Desi2n Review • Site Plan • Building Permit • Construction LEVEL I DESIGN REVIEW -STAFF & PZ Staff FBC Committee review of application Riverfront Crossings Master Plan and FBC Standards May grant up to +2 stories in height above base maximum height & PZ will review/recommend if L_II REVIEW- PZ & CITY COUNCIL Requests for 3 or more stories of bonus height, or any open space transfers, historic preservation height transfers, or pubic right-of-way height transfers, or deviations from Master Plan must be reviewed by City Council Item Number: 3. + r ui �1 lat • yyrrmr�� CITY Ok 10WA CITY www.icgov.org November 8, 2018 Copy of article from City Manager: Why Are Developers Only Building Luxury Housing? — Strong Towns ATTACHMENTS: Description Copy of article from City Manager "Why Are Developers Only Building Luxury Housing?" — Strong Towns Page 1 From City Manager Fruin Stop me if you've heard this one before: "Developers in my city are only building luxury housing. They're not building anything that ordinary people can afford." This is a common lament in the tense debates over growth and development in many North American cities. Sometimes, the observation is made simply to call attention to the need for housing that's affordable to those across the income spectrum. It may also, however, be used as an argument against market -rate housing development. "It's not going to help the people who truly need help," say those who favor maintaining strict local limits on the use, height, and intensity of development, to those who would relax such limits. If only well-to- do people who can already afford nice homes will benefit from new construction, why risk your community's character and stability and quality of life just to let developers make more money? This notion that development's benefits accrue only to the well-off can engender a sort of defeatism among affordable housing advocates. Those who might stand to gain from additional investment in their neighborhoods aren't going to be motivated to come out and advocate forcefully for it if they don't think that they will be the beneficiaries. Too often, however, the observation, "Developers are only building luxury housing," reflects a lack of understanding of the situation it describes. Why are developers in your community primarily building for the high end of the market? If your gut reaction is "Greed!" please read further. Developers, yes, are in business to make a profit, and aren't easily persuaded to act contrary to that goal. But the actual issues surrounding what gets built, when, and for whom are far more complex. We need a more sophisticated understanding of these problems, so we can have more sophisticated conversations about what to do about them. Here are five reasons you might see your local developers primarily building homes that you and your neighbors can't afford. i. New Construction is Expensive The floor on home prices is ultimately set by the actual costs of building new housing. Fannie Mae reported an average of $192 per square foot for apartment buildings in 2017. This translates directly to monthly rent: depending on the assumptions you make (and there are many), the minimum viable rent for an average -sized apartment in that building might easily be over $1,500 per month, or even $2,000. Similar math applies to single-family homes: according to data from the National Association of Home Builders, the median cost of constructing a single-family home in 2015 was $289,415, or $103 per square foot. Even if the land costs nothing, and the developer makes no profit, this is already out of reach of many would-be buyers. https://www. strongtowns.org/j ournal/2018/7/25/why-are-developers-only-building-luxury-... 11/5/2018 "Why Are Developers Only Building Luxury Housing?" — Strong Towns Page 2 It's not a new observation that construction cost alone situates brand w ; ., , � new housing outside the budget of lower-income households. The e ,/,► J r same has been true in other eras. So how do these households affords"' housing at all? j/ I The answer is filtering. As a building ages, it often becomes more ►�1, = r y�4 , affordable. The aesthetics are a bit dated; the place needs maintenance; the neighborhood that was once up and coming is now less so. Thus, New construction is expensive, period. In orderto make it profitable for a developer to older housing tends to "filter" down to a lower income bracket: the rich undertake that construction at all,they're likely going to have to charge a certain amount are buying the new stuff. to new tenants. (Source: Johnny Sanphillippo) Think about who buys new cars versus used cars. It's not all that different. Yet, as Joe Cortright points out, "There's no outcry about America's affordable car crisis"—because America has plenty of affordable cars, just not affordable brand new cars. And yet a lot of people dismiss filtering as magical thinking. "Oh, so you're saying we can build housing for the rich and it will just somehow trickle down to the poor?" I understand why the idea engenders intense resistance. It often involves a complicated chain of cause -and -effect, and so it can feel like an article of faith. The skeptics have a point: at the neighborhood level, or the individual -home level, filtering doesn't behave like an inexorable rule. Various things can break the filtering chain. Gentrification can occur: a previously blighted neighborhood becomes desirable, resulting in rapidly increasing property values on those particular blocks. A softening housing market can unleash latent demand: someone who was living with roommates may decide to get their own place, or someone who opted not to move to a certain city may now decide they can afford to make a change after all. This increased demand can keep rents from falling outright. Filtering is a very long-term process, and not every home will work its way down to become affordable to the working class. But that doesn't mean it's a not real phenomenon. Most of us live in housing that has filtered. Only a small fraction of all the buildings in your city were likely constructed this year, or even this decade. It is unrealistic to expect new construction to solve our affordable housing problems, when new construction comprises a tiny share of the homes that exist. Instead, we need to examine the forces that determine the price of already -existing homes and new homes alike. Chief among those forces is the interaction of supply and demand. z. Supply and Demand are out of Whack Let's get this out of the way: nine times out of ten, "luxury" is reallyjust a marketing term. Most houses marketed as "luxury" aren't really luxurious in any meaningful sense of the word. Sure, if you've got a personal elevator, a home movie theater, or sixteen bedrooms, your house might be a luxury house. For most of us, though, "luxury" homes are totally ordinary homes for which some buyers and renters, if the market is hot enough, might be willing to pay luxury prices. A simple thought experiment demonstrates this: Imagine that you could airlift a cute San Francisco Victorian house into East Baltimore. Would it still command San Francisco rents? Of course not. https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/7/25/why-are-developers-only-building-luxury-... 11/5/2018 "Why Are Developers Only Building Luxury Housing?" — Strong Towns Page 3 (Left- Son Francisco. Source: 11P Image Archive via Flickr. Right: Baltimore. Source: wikimedia Commons) Understand that when you talk about "luxury housing," you're really talking about luxury locations. If you build almost anything in Tribeca or Beverly Hills or Back Bay, someone will pay top dollar for it What makes a location a luxury location? Scarcity. It's when relatively few people can actually live there, in comparison to the number of people who would like to live there. The term "housing shortage" gets bandied about a lot, and leads to a lot of confusion around these issues. How can there be a major housing shortage? Surely, if there were, we'd see vast armies of homeless wandering the streets, right? It's hard to quantify a housing shortage because ultimately the number of households living in a given area is going to roughly equal the number of housing unitsin that same area. That is to say, most people will have a place to live. Those numbers will almost never be vastly out of sync with each other. What that rough equivalence hides, though, is the households that are displaced from the area entirely, or deterred from moving there in the first place. A better way to measure whether supply and demand are in balance is the vacancy rate. High vacancy means that there are more available housing units then there is short-term demand for those units. As a result, homes are sitting empty. Given such an environment, landlords face incentives to reduce rents or offer other deals to get tenants into apartments. In a low -vacancy environment, on the other hand, landlords and sellers can up their asking prices, since they're likely to have many prospective buyers or tenants competing for the same home. Experts consider a healthy rental vacancy rate to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 5%, and there is evidence suggesting that the vacancy rate correlates strongly with the rate of rent increases over time. Take a look at this chart, based on rental data from Minneapolis. The chart reveals that when the rental vacancy rate in the Twin Cities region was high, rents stayed stable or grew at around than the rate of inflation (about 2%). When the vacancy rate was low, on the other hand, average rents grew much faster from one year to the next. Is the effect of vacancy on rents an exact science? Of course not. Will the results be predictable at the scale of a single neighborhood or street? No. Markets are complex systems with many interconnected feedbackloops. But even complex systems have an underlying mathematical logic to them. If there are more people that want to live in a place than there are places for those people to live, someone is going to lose that game of musical chairs. Seattle's Sightline Institute made this "Cruel Musical Chairs" video which starkly and powerfully illustrates the analogy. If filtering is magical thinking, how is it any more magical than believing that if we stop adding more chairs, the rich—who could easily win the game of Housing Musical Chairs—will just walk away from it, leaving enough chairs (i.e. homes) for the rest of us? 3. Your City's Zoning Limits the Creation of Less - Expensive Housing Annual Rmt Growth w. RaMaI Vi my Rau MlrwwaPM/St PAW Mwo Am Click to view larger. (Data source: Marquette Advisors Apartment TRENDS Quarterly Report) C"* MU*IW aws (or MY is PW so K011) By limiting what can be built where, zoning and other land -use regulations may well restrict the total number of new homes in a given neighborhood, city, or even region to far fewer than the market would otherwise provide. Rick Jacobus, in this fantastic 2017 piece at Shelterforce, explains how this leads to the "luxury only" phenomenon by comparing developers to car manufacturers: So no, the problem is notgreed. The development industry is... behaving exactly the way we would expect any industry to respond to an artificial cap on their production volume. The some thing would happen in the auto industry- if we limited Toyota to only 100,000 cars per year, they might well choose to keep the Lexus and scrap the Camry, even though, at volume, the Comry is more profitable. If land costs could be kept low—either by buying marginal, cheap land, or buying expensive urban land but distributing its cost over a large number of homes—developers might well find it profitable to build middle-income "Camry" housing at scale. But the first option, expansion on the suburban fringe, is fiscally ruinous for our communities, largely because of the colossal mismatch between the new public infrastructure those homes on the suburban will need and the tax actually generated by new suburban construction. And the second option, building more homes on the same amount of land, often can't happen because the zoning code says it can't. https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/7/25/why-are-developers-only-building-luxury-... 11/5/2018 "Why Are Developers Only Building Luxury Housing?" — Strong Towns Page 4 One consequence of this is the proliferation of single-family teardowns in desirable urban neighborhoods. If the land is valuable, and all you can build on it is a single-family home, why not build a very expensive single-family home? Sightline has documented the spread of large homes in Portland that don't add any net new housing to the city, but were the most profitable thing developers were allowed to build on their lots. This is why the proposal in Minneapolis's draft comprehensive plan to allow duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes throughout residential neighborhoods is such a promising idea. Single-family homes in the city's toniest neighborhoods—particularly around the Chain of Lakes in its southwest corner—are already being torn down to build larger single-family homes. What if some of those were instead torn down to build triplexes or fourplexes? These units would not be cheap, but they would be comparatively affordable, and this could have a fairly direct filtering effect. As people move into wealthy neighborhoods who might otherwise have lived in adjoining, more middle-class areas, there will be less competition for homes in those middle-class areas, and less upward price pressure. To use the argument that newly constructed fourplexes will not be affordable to low-income residents as an argument against allowing them at all is entirely misguided. 4= Other Regulations are Driving up the Cost of Development New development could be even cheaper if its costs were restricted to land and construction alone. But all sorts of other factors drive up the cost of development—and some of them are the result of well-meaning local regulations. Many building codes, for example, require fire sprinklers in residential buildings. This is most common in apartment buildings, but California, Maryland, and Washington, D.C. require them in all homes. These requirements can add six figures to the cost of a project. Yet there is no epidemic of fire deaths in older buildings that are not equipped with state-of-the-art sprinkler systems. The sprinkler regulation, in isolation, is easy to defend on safety grounds; on the other hand, its cost, in the form of unbuilt housing that could have been, is harder to quantify and grapple with. Parking minimums are one major regulatory factorthat increases the cost of new development. (Image source: Wikimedia Commons) Most cities have parking minimums for residential development. These requirements result in the unnecessary construction of wasteful amounts of parking, which can add significantly to the cost of a project (which is passed on to the tenants in their rents). Some cities require developers to use expensive materials for the facades of multifamily structures, to promote visual and architectural interest. Others require the dedication of land or money toward various public priorities as a condition of certain approvals. Still others have extensive stormwater management requirements that can make urban infill construction, in environments where there may not be much room for a lawn or retention pond, prohibitively expensive and difficult. Again, it's not that any of these things is a priori undesirable. It's that the tradeoff may hurt the affordable rental market disproportionately. Another hidden cost of development can be the time delays involved in local government review processes. These delays, and the attendant uncertainty, impose very real monetary costs on developers, who have to control their land (and thus pay property taxes on it, as well as interest on any loans used to finance its purchase) while their proposed projects make their way through the approval pipeline. One important effect of all of the above factors is to privilege large developers over small-scale ones, and those with the expertise (and cash reserves) to navigate a complicated regulatory process over those who are just learning the ropes and can't hire a fancy land -use lawyer. This, in turn, is a contributing factor to problem number five: 5. Your City Makes it Hard to Build Missing Middle Housing Development cost does not increase in linear tandem with the size of a building, nor does it increase with the number of housing units it contains. It is more of a stair -step function: there are certain points where the costjumps because different materials or construction techniques must be used, or different regulations apply. (For example, the Americans With Disabilities Act requires expensive elevators in apartment buildings, but exempts buildings that are fewer than three stories and/or less than 3,000 square feet per story.) Missies Middle housing—buildings containing anywhere from 2 to 19 units—can be a sweet spot when it comes to construction cost. Duplexes through fourplexes in particular are built in much the same way as single-family homes, but the cost of the land is distributed across multiple households. Even cheaper to build than a duplex or fourplex is an accessory dwelling unit (ADU). It's no accident that a disproportionate share of America's existing "naturally occurring" (i.e. without subsidy) affordable housing takes Missing Middle forms. https://www. strongtowns.org/journal/2018/7/25/why-are-developers-only-building-luxury-... 11/5/2018 "Why Are Developers Only Building Luxury Housing?" — Strong Towns Page 5 Unfortunately, we've pretty systematically outlawed the Missing Middle in many neighborhoods. Single-family homes are the only thing that can be built on BOX of residentially -zoned land in Seattle, 539E even in _ renter -friendly San Francisco, and 50% in Philadelphia, to name just a few cities. In suburbs, it's common for over 90% of land to be zoned for single-family residences exclusively. "Missing Middle" housing like the buildings above fill a vital gap between single-family homes and large apartment complexes. (Source: Johnny Sanphillippo) This leaves multifamily housing, more often than not, to take the form of large apartment complexes outside of such single-family areas, where a developer has able to assemble a large contiguous chunk of land. Those huge buildings are more expensive to build, both per square foot and overall. A Strong Towns Alternative to Luxury -or -Bust Is there any hope? If you want to see the market deliver new housjngrfor the middle class, not just the well-to-do, is that possible? Anywhere? It turns out there are some precedents for maintaining an affordable housing supply in big, prosperous, in -demand cities, and each one looks interestingly unlike the others and seems to offer its own lessons. Sightline profiles several success stories here. We at Strong Towns are skeptical of pat answers and one -size -fits -all solutions. This doesn't mean total agnosticism: there are undeniable mathematical realities that tell us that expensive cities ought to be building more, not fewer, new homes. Otherwise, the game of Housing Musical Chairs will have a predictable result. But "Build, Baby, Build" -by -any -means cheedeading may be a too -simplistic answer—especially if, in the process of zoning for very targeted areas of high density to encourage more building, your city ends up invitine speculation by land owners hoping for windfall gains. (Such speculation drives up land prices and works against affordability.) A Strong Towns approach to housing affordability would be focused on allowing market signals to work again in every neighborhood: the places we live must be able to change, evolve, and, yes, grow if they are successful places where more people want to be. The antidote to the disruptive effects of big change is gradual change. The next increment of development—from single-family to duplex, duplex to small apartment building, small apartment building to larger apartment-building—should always be available. The luxury -only problem is to a large extent a function of the fact that we have eliminated incremental change from most corners of our cities. Neighborhoods composed of single-family houses are declared almost entirely off-limits to development. In the remaining areas, we thus make sure that intense pent-up market demand is concentrated like a fire hose, and that development is undertaken primarily at large scales (giant apartment complexes) and in needlessly expensive ways. No wonder "they only build luxury housing." We've made it pretty hard to afford to do anything else Item Number: 4. + r ui �1 lat • yyrrmr�� CITY Ok IOWA CITY www.icgov.org November 8, 2018 Copy of article from Assistant City Manager: With 2020 Census Looming, Governments Face Many Unknowns ATTACHMENTS: Description Copy of article from Assistant City Manager With 2020 Census Looming, Governments Face Many Unknowns Pagel of 2 From Assistant City Manager Monroe 2018 ELECTIONS: Ratings & Analysis for Every State's Governor, Attorney General, Secretary of State & Legislature Race With 2020 Census Looming, Governments Face Many Unknowns Uncertainties about resources, and a question about residents' citizenship status, are making localities more nervous than usual about not counting people. by Alan Greenblatt I November 2018 Low-income neighborhoods, rural regions and those with large concentrations of minority groups often fail to respond to Census questionnaires. (Flickr/U.S. Department of Agriculture) Local governments are always concerned about Census undercounts. If all their residents don't show up in the official tallies, they can lose political power in legislatures and Congress and millions in federal funding grants. This year, there are a couple of reasons localities are more nervous than usual. The first has gotten a lot of attention. A question about citizenship that the Trump administration wants to add to the Census form has communities worried that immigrants and refugees will be much less likely to participate. That question is being challenged in court, but local governments are already thinking about ways to reassure residents that their citizenship response won't be shared with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Cities are also seeking clarity from the Census Bureau about whether forms on which the citizenship question is left blank will be counted anyway. http://www. governing.com/topics/politicslgov-2020-census-count-survey-citizenship.html 11/5/2018 With 2020 Census Looming, Governments Face Many Unknowns Page 2 of 2 The other issue is manpower. The Census is a massive undertaking, with somewhere in the neighborhood of half a million people hired to help. Back in 2010, the Census Bureau had a hard time filling those slots. That was with an unemployment rate of nearly 10 percent. Now, it's under 4 percent. Cities and states are working with local institutions to figure out how they can assist the feds in their recruiting process. At this early stage, it's all about getting prepared. The National League of Cities (NLC) is recommending that its members make sure their master address files are up to date. If a city has grown over the course of the decade, that includes adding the addresses of new buildings and residences to the right databases. Some cities are sending out teams with clipboards, writing down the addresses of backyard dwellings and other hard -to - spot housing units. "One of the easiest ways not to get counted is for the Census Bureau not to know where you live," says Alex Jones, manager of NLC's local democracy initiative. This will be the first true digital Census. Respondents will be able to fill out forms online by using a unique identifying number they'll receive in the mail. Cities and counties will be talking with managers of libraries, post offices and other public buildings about installing kiosks for filing internet responses. Even now, not everyone has a computer or smartphone. There are always "hard -to - reach" communities with which local governments have to work hardest to ensure accurate counts. Salt Lake City is used to that, with a majority of residences occupied by renters and 20 percent of the population living in poverty. The city is hiring a full-time coordinator to make sure agencies are working together when it comes to operations and outreach efforts. Salt Lake and other cities in Utah always feel shortchanged, having found that Mormon missionaries living overseas at the time of the Census get overlooked. Today's more diverse population will present new challenges, especially if there's a citizenship question, but at root the goals remain the same. "From our standpoint, there's very little difference," says Matthew Rojas, Salt Lake City's communications director. "Everyone should be counted, whether you're a missionary serving on a mission or an immigrant living in Salt Lake City." P", Alan Greenblatt I Staff Writer I agreenblatt(tgoverning.com http://www. governing. com/topics/politicslgov-2020-census-count-survey-citizenship.html 11/5/2018 I Recruiting Assistant Positions ( Excellent Pay {. Flexible Hours Paid Training Q� Temporary Positions 7-11 Cpngtjq 1nh ter. 1 Recruiting Assistants Be A Part of History! I I Help us get the word out about 2020 Census jobs. Call on local organizations to request assistance in providing information about jobs to the people they serve. Answer questions from the public about jobs, qualifications, and how to apply. Conduct formal and informal presentations about 2020 Census jobs. For more information visit: J 2020census. ov 'obs g 1 -855 -JOB -2020 (1-855-562-2020) Federal Relay Service: (800) 877-8339 TTY / ASCII www.gsa.gov/fed relay The Federal Relay Service provides telecommunications services to allow individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, and/or have speech disabilities to conduct official business with and within the federal government. Unified States' The U.S. Census Bureau is an Equal Opportunity Employer Census Form D-"3 89� September 2018 Item Number: 5. + r ui �1 lat • yyrrmr�� CITY Ok IOWA CITY www.icgov.org November 8, 2018 Memorandum from City Clerk: Proposed Council Meeting Schedule, January — December 2019 ATTACHMENTS: Description Memorandum from City Clerk CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM DATE: November 9, 2018 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kellie Fruehling, City Clerk RE: Proposed Council Meeting Schedule, January — December 2019 Below is a proposed meeting schedule (January thru December) for discussion at your work session on November 20. Please check your calendars and let me know if you'd like to make any changes in the proposal. Saturday, January 5, Budget Work Session, 8:00 AM Tuesday, January 8, Work Session, 5:00 PM January 8, Formal 7:00 PM Monday, January 14, Reception, 4:00 PM January 14, Joint Entities Meeting, 4:30 PM Wednesday, January 16, Budget Work Session (CIP), 1:00 PM Tuesday, January 22, Work Session, 5:00 PM January 22, Formal 7:00 PM Tuesday, February 5, Work Session, 5:00 PM February 5, Formal, 7:00 PM Tuesday, February 19, Work Session, 5:00 PM February 19, Formal 7:00 PM Tuesday, March 12, Work Session, 5:00 PM March 12, Formal 7:00 PM Tuesday, April 2, Work Session, 5:00 PM April 2, Formal 7:00 PM Tuesday, April 16, Work Session, 5:00 PM April 16, Formal 7:00 PM Tuesday, May 7, Work Session, 5:00 PM May 7, Formal 7:00 PM Tuesday, May 21, Work Session, 5:00 PM May 21, Formal 7:00 PM Page 2 Proposed Meeting Schedule January — December 2019 Tuesday, June 4, Work Session, 5:00 PM June 4, Formal 7:00 PM Tuesday, June 18, Work Session, 5:00 PM June 18, Formal 7:00 PM Tuesday, July 2, Work Session, 5:00 PM July 2, Formal 7:00 PM Tuesday, July 16, Work Session, 5:00 PM July 16, Formal 7:00 PM Tuesday, August 6, Work Session, 5:00 PM August 6, Formal 7:00 PM Tuesday, August 20, Work Session, 5:00 PM August 20, Formal 7:00 PM Tuesday, September 3, Work Session, 5:00 PM September 3, Formal 7:00 PM Tuesday, September 17, Work Session, 5:00 PM September 17, Formal 7:00 PM Tuesday, October 1, Work Session, 5:00 PM October 1, Formal 7:00 PM Tuesday, October 15, Work Session, 5:00 PM October 15, Formal 7:00 PM Monday, November 4, Work Session, 5:00 PM November 4, Formal 7:00 PM Tuesday, November 19, Work Session, 5:00 PM November 19, Formal 7:00 PM Tuesday, December 3, Work Session, 5:00 PM December 3, Formal 7:00 PM Tuesday, December 17, Work Session, 5:00 PM December 17, Formal 7:00 PM S:clkITENTATIVESCHEDULE/SCHEDULE PROPOSED 2019 (JAN-DEC.).doc Item Number: 6. + r ui �1 lat • yyrrmr�� CITY Ok 10WA CITY www.icgov.org November 8, 2018 Email from East Central Iowa Council of Governments: ECICOG Area Grant Opportunities ATTACHMENTS: Description ECI COG Grant Opportunities Kellie Fruehling From: ECICOG <natalie.fraehlich@ecicog.org> Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2018 2:01 PM To: Council Subject: ECICOG Area Grant Opportunities EC1Cqa'vGAREA If you have any questions about a grant or would like more information, please respond to this email. Feel free to forward this information! Iowa West Foundation Grants Application Deadline: 11/14/2018 The Iowa West Foundation seeks to create a community where families want to live and businesses choose to locate because of its quality of life and standard of living. To accomplish this, the Foundation implements a traditional grant program that addresses key strategic priorities in place -making, economic development, education and healthy families. APPLY HERE Urban Waters Small Grants Application Deadline: 11/19/2018 Funding for projects which: * Address local water quality issues related to urban runoff pollution; * Provide additional community benefits; * Actively engage underserved communities; and * Foster partnership. APPLY HERE Habitat Management Grants Program Application Deadline: 11/20/2018 The Iowa DNR's Wildlife Diversity Program is making small grants available for habitat management projects directly related to wildlife diversity conservation. Approved projects will be funded on a single -year basis but can be submitted for additional funding in subsequent years (not to exceed 3 years in succession). Proposals will be accepted from any organization engaged in management for the benefit of wildlife conservation. Projects should be closely related to the goals of Iowa's Wildlife Action Plan APPLY HERE Local Empowerment for Accelerating Projects (LEAP) Application Deadline: 11/25/2018 The Federal -aid highway program (FAHP), under which the LEAP pilot program is being administered, is a Federally -assisted, State administered program. The FAHP supports States and localities by providing financial assistance for the design, construction, preventive maintenance, and other Federal eligible costs associated with about 25 percent of the 3.9 million mile highway network of the United States, including the Interstate Highway System and the National Highway System, as well as primary highways and other major collector roads. APPLY HERE Upward Bound Program Application Deadline: 11/28/2018 The Upward Bound (UB) Program is one of the seven programs known as the Federal TRIO Programs. The UB Program is a discretionary grant program that supports projects designed to provide students with the skills and motivation necessary to complete a program of secondary education and to enter into and succeed in a program of postsecondary education. There are three types of grants under the UB Program: UB; Veterans UB; and UB Math and Science grants. In this notice we invite applications for UB grants only. The Department views the UB Program as a critical component of its efforts to improve college access and completion for students who have been traditionally underrepresented in postsecondary education by focusing on improving college readiness. To more strategically align UB grants with broader reform strategies intended to improve postsecondary access and completion, this notice includes a competitive preference priority that encourages applicants to propose activities that are supported by moderate evidence of effectiveness (as defined in this notice). The Department is particularly interested in receiving applications that include plans to provide services for students, supported by evidence, that increase the likelihood that students will complete high school and enroll in and complete a program of postsecondary education. APPLY HERE RuFal Health f,,Jetwork Developmer - Planning Program Application Deadline: 11/30/2018 This notice announces the opportunity to apply for funding under the Rural Health Network Development Planning Program ("Network Planning"). The purpose of the Network Planning program is to assist in the development of an integrated health care network, specifically network participants who do not have a history of formal collaborative efforts in order to: (i) achieve efficiencies; (ii) expand access to, coordinate, and improve the quality of essential health care services; and (iii) strengthen the rural health care system as a whole. A rural health network is defined as an organizational arrangement among at least three separately owned regional or local health care providers that come together to develop strategies for improving health services delivery systems in a community. Health care networks can be an effective strategy to help smaller rural health care providers and health care service organizations align resources and strategies, achieve economies of scale and efficiencies, and address challenges more effectively as a group than as single providers. APPLY HERE Alliant Energy Hometown Safety Grant Application Deadline: 12/01/2018 Hometown Safety Grants are awarded to organizations and projects that serve or protect the community. This includes police and fire departments, as well as schools, libraries and other public service organizations. APPLY HERE Farm t'o School Grant Program Application Deadline: 12/04/2018 Section 18 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (NSLA) established a Farm to School program in order to assist eligible entities, (schools, school districts, agricultural producers, Indian tribal organizations, nonprofit organizations, state agencies and local agencies), through grants and technical assistance, in implementing farm to school programs that improve access to local foods in eligible schools. To fulfill the farm to school mandate in the NSLA, effective October 1, 2012, $5 million will be provided to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) on an annual basis to support grants, technical assistance, and the Federal administrative costs related to USDA's farm to school program. APPLY HERE Collaborative Research Grants Application Deadline: 12/05/2018 Collaborative Research grants support groups of two or more scholars engaging in significant and sustained research in the humanities. The program seeks to encourage projects in a single field of study, as well as interdisciplinary work, both within the humanities and beyond. Projects that include partnerships with researchers from the natural and social sciences are encouraged, but they must remain firmly rooted in the humanities and must employ humanistic methods. Collaborators may be drawn from a single institution or several institutions across the United States; up to half of the collaborators may be based outside of the U.S. Partnerships among different sorts of institutions are welcome: for example, research universities might partner with teaching colleges, libraries, museums, or independent research institutions. APPLY HERE Water Quality Initiative - Urban Conservation Projects Application Deadline: 12/07/2018 IDALS is accepting pre -applications for projects that demonstrate strong ties to the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy. These projects will focus on adoption and implementation of urban conservation practices that provide nutrient load reductions to water resources in combination with outreach and education components demonstrating how projects will work to support the nonpoint source action items outlined in Section 1 of the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy. APPLY HERE Water Quality Initiative - Demonstration Projects Application Deadline: 12/09/2018 Designed to foster innovative and collaborative efforts to expand and/or augment implementation of practices on a watershed and/or regional basis that maximize benefits of particular practice targeted to locations and/or specific cropping systems with documented need for integration of these practices. APPLY HERE High Energy Cost Rural Communities Grant Program Application Deadline: 12/11/2018 The Rural Utilities Service (RUS), an agency of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), announces the availability of up to $10 million in fiscal year 2017 (FY17) and application deadlines for competitive grants to assist communities with extremely high energy costs. These grants are made available under the authority of section 19 of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, as amended, and program regulations. The grant funds may be used to acquire, construct, extend, upgrade, or otherwise improve energy generation, transmission, or distribution facilities serving communities in which the average residential expenditure for home energy is at least 275 percent of the national average. Grants may also be used for programs that install on -grid and off -grid renewable energy systems and energy efficiency improvements in eligible communities. Grant awards are not made directly to individuals or for projects that primarily benefit a single household or business. This notice describes the eligibility and application requirements, the criteria that will be used by RUS to award funding, and how to obtain application materials. APPLY HERE Solid Waste Management Grant Application Deadline: 12/31/2018 This program reduces or eliminates pollution of water resources by providing funding for organizations that provide technical assistance or training to improve the planning and management of solid waste sites. APPLY HERE This list is provided for information purposes only, and is not intended to be inclusive of all funding opportunities that may be available. If you are aware of other resources that should be added to this service, we welcome your suggestions. ECICOG, 700 16th Street, NE, Suite 301, Cedar Rapids, IA 52402 SafeUnsubscribe'm council@iowa-city.ora Forward this email I Update Profile I About our service provider Sent by natal ie.fraehlich@ecicog.ora in collaboration with CbnsftWCor#xt', i OAF Try it free today Item Number: 7. + r ui �1 lat • yyrrmr�� CITY Ok 10WA CITY www.icgov.org November 8, 2018 Bar Check Report — October, 2018 ATTACHMENTS: Description Bar Check Report - October, 2018 Iowa City Police Department and University of Iowa DPS Bar Check Report - October, 2018 The purpose of the Bar Check Report is to track the performance of Iowa City liquor license establishments in monitoring their patrons for violations of Iowa City's ordinances on Possession of Alcohol Under the Legal Age (PAULA) and Persons Under the Legal Age in Licensed or Permitted Establishments (Under 21). Bar checks are defined by resolution as an officer -initiated check of a liquor establishment for PAULA or other alcohol related violations. This includes checks done as part of directed checks of designated liquor establishments, and checks initiated by officers as part of their routine duties. It does not include officer responses to calls for service. The bar check ratios are calculated by dividing the number of citations issued to the patrons at that establishment during the relevant period of time by the number of bar checks performed during the same period of time. The resulting PAULA ratio holds special significance to those establishments with exception certificates, entertainment venue status, or split venues, in that they risk losing their special status if at any time their PAULA ratio exceeds .25 for the trailing 12 months. Note, while the resolution requires that bar checks and citations of the University of Iowa Department of Public Safety (DPS) be included in these statistics, the DPS ceased performing bar checks and issuing these citations to patrons in Mav of 2014. Previous 12 Months Top 10 Under 21 Citations PAULA Citations Business Name Visits Citations Ratio Business Name Visits Citations Ratio Summit. [The] 69 66 0.9565217 Bo -James 26 31 1.1923077 Martini's 42 39 0.9285714 Vine Tavern, [The] 13 10 0.7692308 Sports Column 44 37 0.8409091 Summit. [The] 69 43 0.6231884 Airliner 36 26 0.7222222 Sports Column 44 24 0.5454545 Union Bar 66 38 0.5757576 Fieldhouse 59 32 0.5423729 Vine Tavern, [The] 13 7 0.5384615 Airliner 36 18 0.5000000 Fieldhouse 59 30 0.5084746 Union Bar 66 29 0.4393939 Pints 16 8 0.5000000 Martini's 42 10 0.2380952 DC's 32 14 0.4375000 Eden Lounge 38 8 0.2105263 Bo -James 26 11 0.4230769 DC's 32 4 0.1250000 uniy Inose estaaiisnments with at least lU par cnecKs are listed In the cnart anove. Current Month Top 10 Under 21 Citations PAULA Citations Bo -James 9 7 0.7777778 Fieldhouse 12 8 0.6666667 Sports Column 6 2 0.3333333 Union Bar 12 3 0.2500000 Eden Lounge 5 1 0.2000000 Summit. [The] 16 2 0.1250000 Vine Tavern, [The] 1 5 5.0000000 Bo -James 9 8 0.8888889 Union Bar 12 9 0.7500000 Airliner 11 6 0.5454545 Fieldhouse 12 6 0.5000000 Sports Column 6 3 0.5000000 Blue Moose- 2 1 0.5000000 Summit. [The] 16 6 0.3750000 Eden Lounge 5 1 0.2000000 exception to 21 ordinance Page 1 of 5 Iowa City Police Department and University of Iowa DPS Bar Check Report - October, 2018 Possession of Alcohol Under the Legal Age (PAULA) Under 21 Charges Numbers are reflective of Iowa City Police activity and University of Iowa Police Activity Business Name Monthlv Totals Bar Under2l PAULA Checks Prev 12 Month Totals Bar Under2l PAULA Checks Under 21 PAULA Ratio Ratio (Prev 12 Mo) (Prev 12 Mo) 2 Dogs Pub 0 0 0 Airliner 11 0 6 36 26 18 0.722222 0.5 American Legion 0 0 0 Apres Wine Bar & Bistro 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Bardot Iowa 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Baroncini- 0 0 0 Basta 0 0 0 Big Grove Brewery 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Blackstone- 0 0 0 Blue Moose- 2 0 1 12 0 1 0 0-083333 Bluebird Diner 0 0 0 Bo -James 9 7 8 26 11 31 0.423077 1.192308 Bread Garden Market & Bakery 0 0 0 Brothers Bar & Grill, [It's] 11 0 0 54 7 5 0.12963 0.092593 Buffalo Wild Wings Grill & Bar- 0 0 0 Cactus 2 Mexican Grill (314 E Burlington) 0 0 0 2 0 7 0 3.5 Cactus Mexican Grill (245 s. Gilbert) 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 Caliente Night Club 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Carl & Ernie's Pub & Grill 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Carlos O'Kelly's- 0 0 0 Chipotle Mexican Grill 0 0 0 Clarion Highlander Hotel 0 0 0 Clinton St Social Club 0 0 0 Club Car, [The] 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Coach's Corner 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 - exception to 21 ordinance Page 2 of 5 Business Name Monthly Totals Bar Under2l PAULA Checks Prey 12 Month Totals Bar Under2l PAULA Checks Under 21 PAULA Ratio Ratio (Prev 12 Mo) (Prev 12 Mo) Colonial Lanes— 0 0 0 Dave's Foxhead Tavern 0 0 0 DC's 5 0 0 32 14 4 0.4375 0.125 Deadwood, [The] 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Donnelly's Pub 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 Dublin Underground, [The] 0 0 0 3 1 0 0.333333 0 Eagle's, [Fraternal Order of] 0 0 0 Eden Lounge 5 1 1 38 14 8 0.368421 0.210526 EI Banditos 0 0 0 EI Cactus Mexican Cuisine 0 0 0 EI Dorado Mexican Restaurant 0 0 0 EI Patron 0 0 0 EI Ranchero Mexican Restaurant 0 0 0 Elks #590, [BPO] 0 0 0 Englert Theatre" 0 0 0 Fieldhouse 12 8 6 59 30 32 0.508475 0.542373 FilmScene 0 0 0 First Avenue Club— 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 Formosa Asian Cuisine" 0 0 0 Gabes— 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 George's Buffet 0 0 0 Givanni's— 0 0 0 Graze— 0 0 0 Grizzly's South Side Pub 0 0 0 Hatchet Jack's 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Hilltop Lounge, [The] 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Howling Dogs Bistro 0 0 0 India Cafe 0 0 0 Iowa City Brewlab 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Jimmy Jack's Rib Shack 0 0 0 Jobsite 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Joe's Place 1 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 —exception to 21 ordinance Page 3 of 5 Business Name Monthly Totals Bar Under2l PAULA Checks Prev 12 Month Totals Bar Under2l PAULA Checks Under2l Ratio (Prev 12 Mo) PAULA Ratio (Prev 12 Mo) Joseph's Steak House— 0 0 0 Los Portales 0 0 0 Martini's 5 0 0 42 39 10 0.928571 0.238095 Masala 0 i 0 0 Mekong Restaurant— 0 0 0 Micky's— 0 0 0 Mill Restaurant, [The]— 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Moose, [Loyal Order of] 0 0 0 Mosleys 0 0 0 Motley Cow Cafe 0 0 0 Noodles & Company— 0 0 0 Old Capitol Brew Works 0 0 0 One -Twenty -Six 0 0 0 Orchard Green Restaurant— 0 0 0 Oyama Sushi Japanese Restaurant 0 0 0 Pagliai's Pizza— 0 0 0 Panchero's (Clinton St)— 0 0 0 Panchero's Grill (Riverside Dr)— 0 0 0 Pints 4 0 0 16 8 0 0.5 0 Pit Smokehouse 0 0 0 Pizza Arcade 0 0 0 Pizza Hut— 0 0 0 Quinton's Bar & Deli 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Ridge Pub 0 0 0 Riverside Theatre— 0 0 0 Saloon— 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Sam's Pizza 0 0 0 Sanctuary Restaurant, [The] 0 0 0 Shakespeare's 0 0 0 Sheraton 0 0 0 Short's Burger & Shine— 0 0 0 Short's Burger Eastside 0 0 0 exception to 21 ordinance Page 4 of 5 Business Name Monthlv Totals Bar Under2l PAULA Checks Prev 12 Month Totals Bar Under2l PAULA Checks Under2l PAULA Ratio Ratio (Prev 12 Mo) (Prev 12 Mo) Sonnys Tap 0 0 0 4 0 I 0 0 0 Sports Column 6 2 3 44 37 24 0.840909 0.545455 Studio 13 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Summit. [The] 16 2 6 69 66 43 0.956522 0.623188 Sushi Popo 0 0 0 Szechuan House 0 0 0 Takanami Restaurant- 0 0 0 TCB 3 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 Thai Flavors 0 0 0 Thai Spice 0 0 0 Times Club @ Prairie Lights 0 0 0 Trumpet Blossom Cafe 0 0 0 Union Bar 12 3 9 66 38 29 0.575758 0,439394 VFW Post #3949 0 0 0 Vine Tavern, [The] 1 0 5 13 7 10 0.538462 0.769231 Wig & Pen Pizza Pub- 0 0 0 Yacht Club, [Iowa City]- 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Yen Ching 0 0 0 Z'Manks Noodle House 0 0 0 Off Premise Grand T Monthlv Totals Prev 12 Month Totals Bar Checks Under2l PAULA Checks Bar Under2l PAULA Under2l PAULA Ratio Ratio (Prev 12 Mo) (Prev 12 Mo) Totals 105 23 0 0 45 0 564 298 0 0 1 222 0 0.528369 0.393617 0 0 otals 45 222 exception to 21 ordinance Page 5 of 5 Item Number: 8. + r ui �1 lat • yyrrmr�� CITY Ok IOWA CITY www.icgov.org November 8, 2018 Civil Service Entrance Examination: Maintenance Worker I — Refuse ATTACHMENTS: Description Civil Service Maintenance Worker I - Refuse -4- = -�r CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 (3 19) 356-5000 (319) 356-5009 FAX www.lcgov.org November 1, 2018 TO: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council RE: Civil Service Entrance Examination — Maintenance Worker I — Refuse Under the authority of the Civil Service Commission of Iowa City, Iowa, I do hereby certify the following named person(s) as eligible for the position of Maintenance Worker I — Refuse. Marvin Lovetinsky IOWA CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION Rick W ss, Chair 7=', ;.,- w .» '. i t� Item Number: 9. + r ui �1 lat • yyrrmr�� CITY Ok 10WA CITY www.icgov.org November 8, 2018 Civil Service Entrance Examination: Maintenance Operator - Wastewater ATTACHMENTS: Description Civil Service Maintenance Operator - Wastewater ' r 1 �_.:. P CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 (319) 356-5000 (319) 356-5009 FAX www.icgov.org November 1, 2018 TO: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council RE: Civil Service Entrance Examination — Maintenance Operator — Wastewater Under the authority of the Civil Service Commission of Iowa City, Iowa, I do hereby certify the following named person(s) as eligible for the position of Maintenance Operator — Water. Matthew White IOWA CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION ick Wys6, Chair Item Number: 10. + r ui �1 lat • yyrrmr�� CITY Ok IOWA CITY www.icgov.org November 8, 2018 Civil Service Entrance Examination: Senior Maintenance Worker - Streets ATTACHMENTS: Description Civil Service 6enior Maintenance Worker - Streets � IT CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 (3 19) 356-5000 (319) 356-5009 FAX www.icgov.org November 5, 2018 TO: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council RE: Civil Service Entrance Examination — Senior Maintenance Worker — Streets Under the authority of the Civil Service Commission of Iowa City, Iowa, I do hereby certify the following named person(s) as eligible for the position of Senior Maintenance Worker — Streets. Joshua Stratton IOWA CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION ick Wyss, Chair N �nnamra. w i Item Number: 11. + r ui �1 lat • yyrrmr�� CITY Ok IOWA CITY www.icgov.org November 8, 2018 Civil Service Entrance Examination: Development Specialist ATTACHMENTS: Description Civil Service uevelopment Specialist � r ®lab I6. �, CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 (319) 356-5000 (319) 356-5009 FAX www.icgov.org November 1, 2018 TO: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council RE: Civil Service Entrance Examination — Development Specialist Under the authority of the Civil Service Commission of Iowa City, Iowa, I do hereby certify the following named person(s) as eligible for the position of Development Specialist. Jessica Simon IOWA CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION ick Wys , Chair Item Number: 12. + r ui �1 lat • yyrrmr�� CITY Ok 10WA CITY www.icgov.org November 8, 2018 Historic Preservation Commission: October 11 ATTACHMENTS: Description Historic Preservation, October 11 MINUTES PRELIMINARY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION EMMA HARVAT HALL OCTOBER 11, 2018 MEMBERS PRESENT: Zach Builta, Kevin Boyd, Sharon DeGraw, G. T. Karr, Cecile Kuenzli, Quentin Pitzen, Lee Shope MEMBERS ABSENT: Thomas Agran, Helen Burford, Gosia Clore STAFF PRESENT: Jessica Bristow, Anne Russett, Judy Jones OTHERS PRESENT: Steve Miller RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action) CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Boyd called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: Bristow introduced new minute taker, Judy Jones, and the City's new Senior Planner, Anne Russett. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS — CONSENT AGENDA: 802 South Summit Street. Bristow explained the property is on the corner of Sheridan and Summit. She displayed the Sheridan side elevation. She said it is a Queen Anne cottage that was originally a hipped roof with projecting gables on at least three sides and another one added to the south. She displayed an historic photo that was used to recreate the porch for a past project. Bristow said the current project is to remove the exiting single -car garage, which was added sometime before 1933, and replace it with a two -car garage. She displayed a picture inside the garage showing the door to the kitchen. This door and the stairs need to remain so there is access to grade level in the garage from the house. There is a trap door in the floor that is the only access to the basement. Part of the garage addition is maintaining space to have the stairs into the main kitchen of the house and retain access to the garage. Bristow showed a back view of the house showing the back of the garage with windows that do not look original and then the south facing gable, with a little deck, and some changes to the east facing gable. Bristow explained the existing garage footprint, the dotted outline, would be converted into a breezeway so the east wall of the breezeway will be on the foundation of the existing garage. The front wall will step back a little bit, which allows this space to become that hyphen that we look for between an existing historic building and a new addition. She said this location allows the property owner to retain a useable backyard. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION October 11, 2018 Page 2 of 16 Bristow said staff has been working with this property owner and their architect since sometime last fall. They looked at the idea of just extending the existing garage to incorporate space for a second car. Since that garage has a shed roof, as it extended it was just getting to a point where the roof was too low to really have any clearance for a car or anything else. Bristow said they also looked at the idea of extending the existing garage but changing the roof line to a gable that would be similar to this gable, but there is a window in the gable that should be retained. Bristow said it also was not possible to move the garage to the backyard, because the backyard would not be usable, and the Building Official confirmed it was not possible. Bristow said the homeowner need to get minor modification approved because they are short on the required driveway length Bristow said the plan shows the stairs coming out of the kitchen area and down like they currently do, and the area for the trap door for the basement. It also includes some storage space because this would become kind of like a mud room for them, and then the two -car garage. The garage itself is very simple and follows the guidelines. Because this does include both demolition and attaching to the house it could not be a staff -reviewed garage. Bristow displayed an elevation drawing. She noted there are certain trim details on the house that we would also have them replicate, such as making sure that the window and door trim matches what would be on the house. She said the shingles will match the shingles on the house. Bristow said the windows will be metal -clad double hung, the siding will be cement board, and the trim would be wood. The garage will have two single -car, carriage house style garage doors. Bristow showed the breezeway portion and a three-quarter light door and two double -hung windows. She explained that on the south side that faces Deluxe there will be three smaller windows. She showed the back side that won't be visible from the street which includes a passage door for the garage, and one for the breezeway. She showed how the connecting roof for the breezeway is lower than the garage roof and the garage roof is below the windows in the gable so they are not blocked by the building. Bristow displayed some 3D renderings submitted. She explained that some of the details mentioned in the trim are not there, but it shows the massing and size of the addition. She explained that the garage and breezeway are clearly subordinate to the house, yet the front -facing gable roof echoes what's going on at the house on the Summit Street elevation. Bristow said staff does recommend approval of this. She said that to approve an attached garage, an exception must be allowed and staff feels that the site constraints are what allows for an exception to be made to allow an attached garage in this instance, and also finds the breezeway and the garage appropriate. Boyd asked if all plan details needed to be included in the future approval. Bristow explained these details are covered in the guidelines and would be included in any approval. She noted if the HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION October 11, 2018 Page 3 of 16 Commission did not want an item included, they should point it out. Boyd opened the public hearing. There were no comments offered by the public. Bristow noted the architect was present and available to answer any questions. Kuenzli stated she had a very strong negative reaction to the project for the following reasons: Summit Street was the first historic district in town, it is the most visible and the most traveled of the City's historic districts. She believed the attached garage was inappropriate for the historic district. Additionally, she thought the new garage was way too big in proportion to the house and there was no other house on Summit Street with a double -car or single -car garage attached and facing Summit Street. Kuenzli inquired about an alternative solution of leaving the existing single - car garage and then to add a single -car garage in the side yard. Kuenzli noted that across the street from this house on Sheridan is an 1890s house that has a breezeway and a garage, which existed before it was an historic district, but the driveway and double -car garage open onto Sheridan and it's a lot easier to drive onto Sheridan than it is to back out onto Summit Street. Kuenzli added that she found the project inappropriate for the streetscape. Kuenzli asked if it would be possible to put a single -car garage on the east side of the house where there is a pretty large side yard. Bristow said they probably would not be allowed to have an additional curb cut if a garage was added on the east side of the house. She wasn't certain how far away from the corner it had to be before an additional curb cut would be allowed per regulations. Kuenzli said she was just offering a suggestion to try to meet the homeowner's wishes Boyd and Builta noted the breezeway was not there for convenience, but for the kitchen stairs and access to the basement. Builta also noted there was a window that constrained the height of the breezeway. Shope said he understood the concern about the massing, but the issue of a garage facing onto Summit Street was already pre -established. Kuenzli agreed, but noted it was a single -car garage, not a double -car garage Shope understood but thought the issue of a garage facing onto Summit Street was not relevant because there is one there. Kuenzli believed a double -car garage would set a different precedent. Karr asked if they would be allowed to put up a two -car garage that was not attached if there wasn't the issue of the access to the basement and all those things. Bristow said if they were to remove the existing garage and finish that end of the house, the restrictions would require a distance between the house and the new garage to avoid fire -rated construction. She said from the Commission's standpoint, the greatest concern would probably be exposing the trap door and basement access, something that's been enclosed for at least a very long time, if not always. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION October 11, 2018 Page 4 of 16 Architect Steve Miller brought updated plan copies for the Commission based on Jessica's feedback. Miller noted the rendering shown might have been very early on in the process and a little more simplified and contemporary looking because of the lack of detail. He said they've worked with Jessica to narrow up the proportions and add the windows. Kuenzli asked if the garage, as drawn on the new drawing, had the same pitch of the roof as the pitch on the gable of the house. Miller said no. That would make it much taller, so it would have a lot more presence on Summit Street side. Shope asked if the pitch of the garage was the same as the front gable on the house, the one that faces Sheridan. Miller said it's actually the same as the little pitch over the porch in that rendering. Karr said he understood the significant issues and restraints with the size of the lot and the corner lot. He said we have an existing garage that we've already deemed historic and he didn't see a reason in the guidelines telling him he could not approve this, or a reason to not vote yes for this. If someone had a reason, he encouraged them to cite it so he could see that view. Kuenzli asked if he saw a problem with the mass of this garage compared with the mass of the house. Karr said no. Bristow noted the guidelines do include things about massing and rooflines, and it is true that for an addition the guidelines would want you to mimic rooflines on an existing structure. We have an issue here with the gables on the house covering a narrower part of the building than the garage is, so it is true that once you have this bigger footprint and you put a gable on it the same pitch as the house, you're going to just come up with a roof that is enormously tall. A traditional method to avoid that problem is to make the roof on a garage have a slightly lower pitch. Sometimes dormers on houses would also have slightly lower pitches, or higher pitches, because of this issue. Otherwise, the guidelines talk about having the addition be subordinate to the house and, in this case, it is set lower. It's separated by the hyphen area, and it is just generally smaller than the house. Shope noted in the new drawing the architect added a window in the gable. All the other gables appear to have double windows. He asked the architect if he considered a double window in that gable that might blend it better with the house. Miller said he would be willing to do that. Bristow said the guidelines for new outbuildings talk about having a small window or a vent in the gable. She said the idea of adding double windows might initially seem to be appropriate, at the same time, a garage is not going to be as ornamented as a house. Kuenzli said the windows should be proportional to the mass that surrounds it. She thought this looked kind of narrow. She suggested maybe just a single window HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION October 11, 2018 Page 5 of 16 Boyd asked about the Commission about the motion in the staff report. He said he was inclined to support the motion as written. He felt given the constraints of the property and given there was already a garage there a new larger garage smaller in scale than the house could be approved. He asked if there was additional discussion. DeGraw said she was inclined to vote yes. She thought it looked a little contemporary but, it was within the guidelines, so she would vote yes. Builta said he was inclined to vote yes and added that this is an exception because there are constraints on what can be done. Boyd noted there were property limitations. This is a corner property. The garage is going to face a street. It does not have alley access. Bristow noted that the guidelines do include the possibility for exceptions. There is the possibility for an exception for unique site conditions and that is the specific exception that staff was considering for this particular project. Boyd asked if the Commission was ready for a vote. MOTION: Karr moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for the project at 802 South Summit Street as presented in the application through an exception to the guidelines allowing an attached garage due to the unique conditions present at the site and existing setback. DeGraw seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 5-2. Nays: Kuenzli and Pitzen. (Aaran. Burford. and Clore absent). REVIEW OF TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS ZONING AMENDMENT Anne Russett with Neighborhood and Development Services presented a proposed ordinance for a city-wide Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program. She said she would provide a background on how we got here and explain what Transfer of Development Rights are. She said she would explain the existing Transfer of Development Rights policy in our Riverfront Crossings District and then go over what we are proposing in the ordinance. She said since this ordinance was related to historic properties, they wanted to bring it to the Commission for input. Russett said this began on May 29th when the City Council discussed considering a local landmark designation at 410-412 North Clinton Street.That motion was deferred to January 2019 based on a recommendation from the property owner's attorney to put the vote on hold for that local landmark designation until the City had an opportunity to explore a city-wide Transfer of Development Rights program. Since then, Council has discussed a city-wide transfer program. Staff presented to them at a work session on September 4th and received some direction from the Council on how they would like to move forward. Russett explained Transfer of Development Rights. She said they are an incentive to protect historic resources which allows property owners to sell or transfer development rights from historic HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION October 11, 2018 Page 6 of 16 resources, which are called the sending sites, to receiving sites, which are areas where the City wants to encourage higher density development. The development rights would be applied to another site. Russett said there are some key components to a Transfer of Development Rights program. There are the sending sites, which in this case would be historic resources. The receiving sites are areas where there could be additional development or additional density. There is the transfer calculation, that's used to figure how much density, or how much height, could be transferred from one site to another. There is also a review process and an administration procedure. Russett explained that the City does have an existing TDR program that applies to the Riverfront Crossings District. In Riverfront Crossings the City requires Iowa City landmark designation prior to requesting a Transfer of Development Rights. The receiving sites in this area are any site in Riverfront Crossings. The formula that's used to calculate the transfer potential is the lot area of the sending site x the maximum number of stories allowed on the sending site, the result is the square footage that a property owner could transfer to another site. Russett said for the Riverfront Crossings District, any request for a transfer must be reviewed and approved by City Council. She explained that while receiving sites can go above the base height in that zone, there is a max depending on which area of the district they are located in. Russett said one project has used this incentive since it was adopted into the Riverfront Crossings Ordinance, the Tate Arms Building at 914 South Dubuque. On this site the maximum number of stories is four and the area of the site is 8700 square feet, so the total development rights available for this site that could be transferred, were 34,800 square feet, The developer transferred at least 7400 square feet to the property to the north. The property to the north received an additional story, a height bonus, through this transfer. Tate Arms still has 27,400 square feet of transfer potential that could go to another site in Riverfront Crossings. Boyd asked if the owner of the Tate Arms Building had these rights, but didn't really want to develop something somewhere else, could sell those rights to another developer or must the owner of the landmark property use them. Russett said they could be sold on the private market. Shope asked if there was any restriction or requirement that those funds be used in any way to improve the historic property. If they transferred the development rights for money, would there be any requirement that the money be invested in the historic property from which the rights were sold. Russett said no. Shope asked if the Tate Arms allowance of four stories was based on current zoning for that property. Russett said it was based on the current zoning designation. Karr asked if the zoning was changed, would there then be additional rights that would be sold. Russett said staff is proposing no. Russett discussed direction received from Council regarding the proposed ordinance. She said Council asked that sending sites only include future local historic landmarks, so existing historic HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION October 11, 2018 Page 7 of 16 landmarks would not be eligible for transfer rights. They requested that staff develop a new transfer formula and not use the one that's currently used in Riverfront Crossings. City Council wants to continue to review and approve any transfer requests. For receiving sites, they wanted it to include areas in Riverfront Crossings and sites throughout the City that allow multiunit development. As a summary of the proposed ordinance, Anne said staff is proposing that properties eligible for Iowa City landmark designation would be eligible, but it only applies to future landmarks. Properties that are already landmarked, if they are already in an historic district, or if they are already in a conservation district, would not be eligible for a transfer. City Council felt that it was important to only apply this to future landmarks since these other properties are already protected, and this incentive would only apply to future designations. Russet said that receiving sites could be areas that are zoned either Riverfront Crossings, multifamily residential, or commercial zones that allow multifamily. She displayed a map of the eligible receiving sites. Russett said staff is proposing that there are two options for what could be transferred. An owner could either transfer height or transfer density, not both. The transfer could exceed the maximum height on the receiving site, as well as the maximum density on the receiving site. For the height bonus, it could not exceed 40 feet above the maximum height that is allowed in that zone. There would not be restrictions on increases in density. Boyd asked how many stories 40 feet would be. Russett said four, maybe a little less. Russett said the calculation for the bonus potential for height would be the difference between the maximum allowable height on the sending site and the existing height of the historic structure, so the maximum allowable height minus the existing height would equal the amount that could transfer. Russet said the minimum transfer would be 12 feet. She explained that a 30 -foot existing historic structure with a maximum in the zoned district of 35 feet, would only have five feet to transfer. She said that since that is not much to transfer, the minimum would be 12 feet, or a story, that could transfer. Russett presented an example of density transfer the maximum allowable dwelling units of the sending site minus the existing number of dwelling units that are currently there provide the number of dwelling units that could potentially be transferred. This would be determined at the time the landmark designation occurs based on the base zone for the district at that time. Russett provided a density example using 412 North Clinton. The maximum allowable number of dwelling units on the site is 24. There are currently 18, so the potential transfer is six dwelling units. Russett explained how review of transfers would work. Staff is proposing that transfers would be reviewed by the staff design review committee based on the guidelines in the zoning code for any design review project. The design review committee would make a recommendation to City Council, who would be the ultimate decision maker on the transfer. A proposal that was very out of scale or that didn't fit within the existing context of the neighborhood, might not move successfully through the approval process. Russett discussed how TDRs are consistent with the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION October 11, 2018 Page 8 of 16 plan has policies that talk about protecting historical resources. With the historic preservation plan there are goals related to providing economic incentives to property owners to encourage them to preserve historic buildings. TDRs are a potential incentive for property owners to landmark their buildings. Boyd noted this is for future sites and confirmed that this is local landmarks only, not National Register listed sites, but local landmarks. Boyd stated that most of the properties where development rights being discussed here are either in commercial districts or high-density residential areas. He asked if a potential local landmark is zoned at the lowest density possible it wouldn't have much to transfer, correct? Russett said that if it's a large site, such as a farmstead that might be historic on a large parcel but with only one remaining building, the site could potentially be subdivided and there could be more dwelling units built. This could result in more potential to transfer. Kuenzli noticed among the receiving sites proposed were the South Johnson/South Van Buren Streets between Court and the railroad tracks. She said the stated goal of this is to preserve an historic structure somewhere, but to be able to increase either height or density within the receiving area. Johnson and Van Buren currently are mostly two or three-story structures. Kuenzli asked if this were to pass, could a developer could come in and build eight stories or 12 stories on those streets. Russett said theoretically yes, but with the process in place it would go through design review and City Council, who would look at consistency and compatibility with the existing neighborhood. Russett added that in the proposed ordinance there would not be limitations on density, but there would be limitations on height, 40 feet above the maximum in the zoned district. 12 stories in that area would not be allowed based on the proposed TDR amendment. The maximum height in that area is 35 feet, so with TDRs a new development could still be much larger than what's there but there would be a process in place for review and approval to make sure the development was not out of scale for the area. Boyd clarified the receiving sites would be Riverfront Crossings and where there are existing multifamily units. Kuenzli said she was in favor of saving historic properties, but not if the cost is going to be the destruction of other neighborhoods. Builta pointed out if a house is preserved and they sell a floor or two somewhere, that's not going to destroy a neighborhood. Kuenzli said she is concerned that it is not going to be a floor or two judging from the discussion so far. Shope noted there are homes in residential areas that have large lots and questioned if this was based on lot size, not the existing structure size. Russett said the height was based on what's allowed in the zone compared to what the existing structure is. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION October 11, 2018 Page 9 of 16 Shope provided an example, A house is one story tall and it's on a lot that is a little over half an acre. If you figured her allowance based on that half acre for four stories, the existing house hasn't used much of that. Russett clarified that if it's in a residential district the maximum height is probably 35 feet where the most she could transfer would probably be two stories. Shope asked again about the half -acre lot size. Russett said the transfer would just be two stories. For the height, it doesn't matter what the lot size is. Shope asked if it was based on the size of the current structure. Russett said the height of the current structure. Karr said he understood it was limited and was concerned that existing homes that are already landmarked wouldn't be eligible, especially for the six or seven that were recently Iandmarked. Karr said he loved the fact that this is incentivizing preservation of individual landmarks, but he would be upset if he was one of the recent landmarks left out of this incentive. Karr wondered what happens when we look at the Downtown District. He said he felt this would have ramifications there. He noted if there were some building owners downtown who probably weren't excited about getting in the district, this would be a fantastic way to entice them. Boyd said those may not be individual landmarks. That may be a district. Karr and Boyd asked if it had to be individual properties. Russett said it must be local historic landmarks. Karr said he was asking about an entire district, such as the proposed Railroad Depot District on Clinton Street. Boyd said he thought the railroad qualified because it is currently in Riverfront Crossings. Russett clarified it is only for individual landmarks in Riverfront Crossings, as well. They need the landmark designation. Boyd asked if people could be incentivized individually to be a landmark if a Downtown District didn't happen. Karr thought that would give a landowner downtown a reason to fight the district and go on an individual landmark basis, because it'd be worth more money to them. Russett believed that may be true. Bristow asked if the downtown becomes a district, would it then be removed from the receiving sites. Russett said yes, Historic districts, conservation districts, and landmarks are not eligible as receiving sites. Bristow followed up on Karr's comments about the recent landmarks. She said that because this deferral and TDR development process came up when the five that achieved landmark status happened, she wondered if there would be any condition that included just those five because they were done at the same time when this process started. Russett said if the Commission wanted to recommend that, if they wanted to recommend changes to the proposed receiving areas, she could pass that along to the Council and the Planning Commission. Boyd said he was glad they were talking about this. He said he thought it was helpful because the Commission gets a lot of questions about the economic incentives that can be provided for landmarks. He said TDRs are being discussed because one particular property owner asked for it. Boyd asked if there were other incentives that could be considered. He said that there is an example in North Carolina where new local landmarks receive automatic property tax deduction. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION October 11, 2018 Page 10 of 16 Boyd said there may be other incentives that help achieve some of the goals in the comprehensive plan. He said he felt we were doing this because one property owner asked and the focus had been narrowed very rapidly based on a very rapid timeline and a deadline that was set by the property owner and the City Council. Boyd said he wondered if the City could consider other potential incentives, regardless of what happens with the TDRs. He wondered if the Commission was supposed to bring those ideas or if Planning and Zoning Commission came with them. Russett said if the Commission had ideas for Planning and Zoning to investigate, staff could definitely do that. She wasn't sure if the property tax idea was something we could do here, but she knew other communities do it, so staff could look into that. Bristow clarified that the property owner for 410-412 didn't necessarily come up with the Transfer of Development Rights out of the blue. The Tate Arms project had been successful and the idea of protecting historic properties this way had been considered by the planning staff in the past. Staff had always thought about the possibility of adopting something like this to protect historic properties, partly because through research, we have learned that this is something that other communities, and there are some examples in the packet, have taken on to promote the preservation of their historic properties. The first few communities that came up with the process found there were some lessons to be quickly learned, and they had to tweak the way the process happened. She said there was a document put out by the National Park Service that she may have given the Commission earlier in the year. She said it goes talks about those lessons learned and how a community can make sure TDRs work as they are supposed to. Russett asked if they could have wording for the downtown stating that if there is a proposed district, those properties cannot individually landmark for the TDR bonus instead, to avoid a non - incentive for a potential historic district. Bristow wanted clarification on whether this incentive could be possible for a future Downtown District. Russett said that once an area has been selected for a district, if the group of property owners say no to the district, then they cannot individually landmark to get the TDR. An owner can agree to the district, but you cannot strategize to reject the district in order to go for the individual landmark and the incentive of the TDR. Russett said the reason they were not allowing future districts to be eligible is that there are certain properties in an historic district that might not be contributing or might not be as historically significant and wouldn't meet local landmark requirements, so it isn't fair to provide the incentive for the entire district. She said another option is that future districts could potentially be eligible to utilize the incentive. Boyd noted that all our current historic districts are largely non-commercial districts. He said he wondered if there could be a consideration about how we think about commercial districts, which was something that needed to be considered anyway. Expectations for a residential district are different than expectations for a commercial district. The buildings are used differently now than they were historically. In the residential districts those structures are largely being used as they were when they were built, for the most part. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION October 11, 2018 Page 11 of 16 Boyd said if there is an effort to limit the scale of this proposal, commercial is one thing to think about. He said he thought high-density residential by itself, was the highest zoning piece. He thought that's largely where these properties probably are anyway, just given where our historic properties are. Boyd thought one item of consensus would be including anything that's been landmarked in 2018. Kuenzli asked about the receiving areas that allow multiunit development. Kuenzli thought that was a little vague. Boyd questioned if that was the red area on the map. Russett said yes it includes all multifamily residential zones and commercial zones that allow multifamily. Boyd said since those are the receiving sites, could those also be the categories that we use for landmarks or districts. Russett said that was a possibility and she liked the suggestion of commercial districts because residential districts, even though you could maybe get more units, have lower height limit. Commercial districts generally allow a lot more development potential, so it could be more of an incentive in a commercial district and a landmark designation could restrict the ability to develop that property to its maximum allowable density or height under the zone. She said to her, the commercial districts make sense because the base zoning designation probably allows a lot more height than is currently there. Boyd said he thought one other item for consensus was the idea of individual properties and potentially future commercial districts. Russett said we could bring this back to the Commission at the next meeting if they want to think about it more, but she needed to move it forward to Planning and Zoning next week. She asked for the Commission's feelings on if this was something they wanted the City Council to consider or if there was no interest in providing this type of incentive for historic properties. Boyd said he thought we should find incentives for landmark and district designations. He thought the City should consider it, and the Commission was one step in that consideration. He said Planning and Zoning will consider it, and ultimately City Council will consider it. He believed the Commission's job was to look at the impact on historic preservation. He said TDRs are a potential tool that helps incentivize historic preservation. He noted there were some things that needed to be worked out as a City, but he didn't believe the Commission was the one to work out all of those details. Russett restated what she'd heard from the Commission. She heard this should apply to landmarks that were designated in 2018, and maybe consider future commercial historic districts being eligible. She heard some concern about the receiving sites. She said if they wanted those changed, even if it was not a consensus, she would pass that information along. Boyd agreed there was some concern about the receiving sites, particularly those in residential areas. He didn't think there was a lot of concern when there was already a lot of density and a lot of other taller buildings. He said the Commission was open and interested in exploring what other incentives might be available outside of this particular program. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION October 11, 2018 Page 12 of 16 DeGraw said there was a concern with the calculation with regard to lot size that used with Tate Arms, because at times that would create an overly generous handing out of TDR that couldn't be honored. Shope was concerned that this is currently restricted to future landmarks. He said he understood the rationale, which is that those existing landmarks are already protected, but historic landmarks also have higher costs of maintenance. He had a bit of an issue with precluding the benefits of this from those who already own those historic landmarks. Boyd wondered if there was a way for us to think about other incentives for existing landmarks. Shope noted this is the incentive that's before us right now. He asked for a clarification on the following: On page 3 of the October 11th memo it says eligible sending sites include properties designated as an Iowa City landmark, eligible for landmark designation, registered on the National Register of Historic Places, or listed as an historically significant building per a survey. He said he thought what was presented as eligible is an Iowa City landmark, and that's not the way he read this sentence. Russett said that portion of the October 11 memo was a summary of the current ordinance in Riverfront Crossings. She clarified that if the property is in Riverfront Crossings and is registered on the National Register, it is eligible, but is still required to get local landmark designation before receiving the incentive. Russett said she would pass these suggestions forward and incorporate some of them into the draft ordinance if there was consensus. Russett said if the Commission wants to, it could move this forward to Planning and Zoning with amendments. The Commission could move that it be deferred until the next meeting and we it could be brought back. Boyd asked if the Commission could move that they are generally in favor of this, but have a few concerns that have been identified. Russett said that was an option. Boyd asked if the Commission could still revisit the amendment at some point. Russett said it could be revisited at the next meeting on November 8th, which would be before the amendment goes to City Council for public hearing. Boyd said he'd like to move that the Commission is generally in favor of the TDR amendment to the zoning code and has made some suggestions. The Commission's role is to decide if this is a tool that historic preservation should use. Russett suggested moving the amendment forward and then, for a property owner that wasn't thinking about development but still wondered what was going on with the TDR, add the offer of a simple tax reduction. That would be appealing and save that person the burden of having to research how to capture this potential. Russet said she thought some property owners would do that. MOTION: Boyd moved that the Commission is generally in favor of incentives, including this amendment. The Commission has shared some specific concerns but are broadly in HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION October 11, 2018 Page 13 of 16 favor of moving forward. Karr seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0 (Agran, Burford, and Clore absent). REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF Certificate of No Material Effect — Chair and Staff Review. 1037 East Washington Street. This project will repair about five of their original windows and replace storms, which we don't need to review, but they put it on the application anyway. 722 East College Street. This project will replace the concrete steps that were an original part of the building They have completely deteriorated. 900 North Johnson. This project is repairing siding that was deteriorated and repairing the rear deck. 430 Ronalds Street. Bristow said the owners of this property are repairing windows Minor Review —Staff Review. Bristow said the University Partnership property at the last minute had to replace the roof because it had failed suddenly. She said it was being replaced, but it would not be metal. It will be shingles. Boyd wondered if it was just staff review if they go from metal to shingles. Bristow said yes, that was something that changed at the beginning of the year. 927 South 7th Avenue. Bristow said this property was part of a series of bungalows that could have been their own historic district at the end of 7th Avenue, but they are a part of the Dearborn Street Conservation District. The siding on just the front and rear dormers was failing and so they are replacing the siding and trim. 412 S Summit Street. Bristow said this roof has been deteriorating for a long time and they are replacing it. The internal gutters will remain. 900 N Johnson. Bristow said they will be putting in a radon mitigation system in the area where all other utilities are located. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION October 11, 2018 Page 14 of 16 CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 13.2018 DeGraw thought there was one area, page 9 of 14 paragraph 4, where it says DeGraw noted. She thought that was supposed to be Kuenzli, and then the Kuenzli after was supposed to be DeGraw. Bristow said she would go back and listen to the audio copy of the minutes. She said she would go back, review, and correct it. Boyd referenced page 11, the second paragraph, second sentence, where it says, "Boyd noted if a termite of moisture will not affect them" should be attributed to Pitzen. Pitzen agreed. MOTION: Builta moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's September 13, 2018 meeting with the changes noted. Kuenzli seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0 (Agran, Burford, and Clore absent). COMMISSION INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION: Downtown District Survey: Bristow said the final survey and report from our consultant Alexa McDowell is uploaded on the City's website. It is separated on the website into parts so that readers can download smaller portions instead of the entire document. The report is the first part which includes the findings. Bristow said McDowell talks about her methodology and makes recommendations to the City based on her findings. Another section is the Multi -Property Document, which is historically what Iowa City has used to discuss the overall built history of Iowa City. This document discusses downtown history, the types of architecture, and the types of material. Bristow said McDowell also includes appendix items such as maps and the table, tax incentives, and information about the National Register Criteria. She said another appendix item is the Secretary of the Interior standards, which would be the basis for any review that would occur. Bristow said a public presentation by the consultant is scheduled in the Old Capitol Building in the Senate Chamber on October 22 at 5:30 pm. She said there will also be a presentation with a City Council work session the following morning, October 23, at 9:00 a.m. Old Settlers' Cabins Boyd noted the Old Settlers' cabins in City Park are coming along quite nicely. He thought we should look at exploring what it would take to make those a local landmark. They are City -owned. He thought it really would highlight the work the City has invested in those properties and really help talk about their history, which is really kind of interesting. Boyd asked to put this on a future agenda unless there were strong concerns not to. Bristow said staff would investigate that. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION October 11, 2018 Page 15 of 16 ... Karr received an email last week from Monica Hayes, who is in charge of ICAAR, the local realtor conglomeration, who would like to do a lunch and learn with HPC at the ICAAR building in Coralville. He didn't know if it mattered that it was not in Iowa City, but the intent would be to hopefully have some Commissioners do a short presentation to explain to them what historic preservation is, what we're trying to accomplish, and some of the guidelines, so hopefully more realtors would know what's going on when they are potentially listing or have a buyer for a house in an historic district. Boyd said that was great and that he'd love to be a part of it. Karr said they were going to try and push it into 2019, but if anybody would like to help, that would be great. He said he may also try to get the Home Builders Association involved, too, because there is a Remodelers' Council and there could be a nice group of people there. DeGraw said she could design print materials, if needed. Award Nominations: Bristow said the award season process would be beginning again. She would be putting out a call for nominations. She said staff keeps a big list of potential things that people point out throughout the year and other projects, but of course any Commissioners who know of any projects that might be eligible for an award, should nominate them. The Awards will be Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 5:30 pm in the Iowa City Public Library with a reception at 5:00 pm. ADJOURNMENT: Kuenzli moved to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Shope. The meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Minutes submitted by Judy Jones. z rO ''v^J vCJ cG C O U Z O Q W U) W IL _U FY O H 0 Of O U W W U Z Q 0 z W I� 00 0 N C) N N ` L E W aN c � � N N <z Q u n u n W x O O W Y 0 0 I X X 0 0 X X X X X I x I x X X x x X X x 0 1 1 i M N x i x x X x x I x x I 00 0 O i LLI LU I X X X X x x I 00x 0 O i NLU 0 I x x x x x 0 0 I x x I i x x X x i x x x x x I I x x O x x x x I x x x x x i x x LON i x X x x x x x x x i X x v 00 x x x x I - x x x x I I x x N X X X I X x x x x I I x x LU x x x x I 0 x x x I i x "' X x X x o o x x X ; x 'o N r x x x x I x x x x x I I - x r O 00 O O O O O O O r 00 00 a ` ` ` N � X O O O O O O O O O —0 O O O O W W M M M M M Cl) Cl) M M M M M M Cl) co O to ( (00 c(o to (D c(D i Z Ow z W_ z W < Q = U W U) Q 1- V z W J Q OW Y Q U) U' U Q D O LLJ (DLL z LU CL z F- O Q N= z O z O LLI Q m m W O W U U Q Q U Y IN— m m WQ U) N ` L E W aN c � � N N <z Q u n u n W x O O W Y Item Number: 13. + r ui �1 lat • yyrrmr�� CITY Ok 10WA CITY www.icgov.org November 8, 2018 Human Rights Commission: October 16 ATTACHMENTS: Description rluman Nigms �,ommission, October 16 Minutes Human Rights Commission October 16, 2018 Helling Conference Room Draft Members Present: Jeff Falk, Cathy McGinnis, Eliza Willis, Bijou Maliabo, Joe Coulter, Adil Adams, Jonathon Munoz. Members Absent: Barbara Kutzko, Tahuanty Pena. Staff Present: Stefanie Bowers, Kristin Watson. Others Present: Laura Cottrell. Call to Order: Willis called the meeting to order at 5:35 PM. Approval of September 18, 2018 Meeting Minutes: Coulter moved to approve the minutes with one change; the motion was seconded by McGinnis. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. Correspondence: Staff went over a recently released memo geared at employers that discussed criminal background checks in the hiring process. It included a conversation on "Ban the Box" which Iowa City follows. Ban the Box is aimed at persuading employers to remove from their hiring applications the check box that asks if applicants have a criminal record. Coulter participated in Abraham's Walk 42. It was held on October 13. Participants walked from Big Grove Brewery to the Center for Worker Justice, to the Shelter House, and then the Crisis Center. The walk is held to ensure all in the community enjoy their right to freedom, equality, and dignity. The event raised $300. Dr. Laura Cottrell, Director of Diversity and Cultural Responsiveness for the Iowa City Community School District spoke on her role within the school system. Her time is spent working on some of the responsibilities of the Equity Director, restorative justice, and staff trainings. The District is continually working on engagement because there can be gaps in communication between families, students, and administrators. The Equity Committee has a reserved spot on the agenda at all Board of Education work sessions. The Committee consists of community members, parents, and teachers. Applications forms are available on the Equity link on the Districts webpage for those interested in applying. Restorative justice circles are different than conflict resolution circles, restorative practices are proactive to build positive relationships and can be used as an alternative to traditional suspensions and expulsions. Minutes Human Rights Commission October 16, 2018 Helling Conference Room Draft Strategic Planning Subcommittees: McGinnis*, Coulter, Maliabo (Public Safety); Adams*, Falk, Munoz (Community Outreach/Support); Falk, Willis*, Kutzko, Pena (Education); Falk*, Coulter, Adams, Pena (Housing). Asterisks note subcommittee chairs. Public Safety: no update. Community Outreach: no update. Education: Willis and Kutzko attended an Equity Committee meeting. At the meeting they learned that the District has made strides on LGBTQIA. Falk mentioned that the New York Times had a recent article that tracked disparities in education throughout the country. 'You Are Still Black': Charlottesville's Racial Divide Hinders Students. Housing: no update. Host International Visitors: The Council for International Visitors to Iowa Cities will be hosting a Korean delegation. The delegation will attend the Human Rights Award Breakfast and then meet with Commission staff and members. Coulter, Adams, and Maliabo will represent the Commission. Refugee and Immigrant Recognition Dinner: Adams and Maliabo will try to attend the event being held on October 27 at the African American Museum in Cedar Rapids. Proclamations: Coulter accepted the Indigenous Peoples proclamation on October 2 on behalf of the Commission and will accept the Native American Heritage Month proclamation at the November 6 Council meeting. Social Justice and Racial Equity Grant: The Commission will hold two informational sessions on the grant on Tuesday, November 13. There will be a session over the noon hour and another in the evening. Commissioners will assist in spreading the word on the grant and these two sessions to the community. The Council has asked that the Commission intentionally reach out to organizations that assist individuals with disabilities and who serve an immigrant population. McGinnis and Maliabo will do the midday session and Coulter and Willis the evening session. Human Rights Breakfast: The event will be held on October 24. The keynote speaker will be Dr. Tammy Nyden, an advocate for persons with mental illness. Willis will introduce the keynote speaker, Maliabo the closing, McGinnis the honorees, and Pena the introduction (pending his availability). 2 Minutes Human Rights Commission October 16, 2018 Helling Conference Room Draft Reports of Commissioners: Coulter reported on Governor Kim Reynolds signing the state's first Indigenous Persons Proclamation on Monday, October 8. Maliabo spoke on her involvement in an initiative by the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics to lower the infant mortality rate of Congolese women. McGinnis presented at the crisis training for area law enforcement on the opioid epidemic. Adams mentioned the medical clinic that is currently doing outreach at the Neighborhood Centers and also his involvement with creating a Muslim school for children in the area. Munoz is the current President of the League of United Latin Americans Council. The organization will be hosting an immigration rally on the Pentacrest on October 27. Falk will be teaching a course on statistics to a class at the Iowa Medical and Classification Center on October 17. Willis will not be at the November or December Commission meetings and so this will be her last meeting as a Commissioner. She has been working with the League of Women Voters to register persons to vote and hopes to continue assisting them in this endeavor. Reports of Staff: A fair housing choice survey has been created and is currently available for members of the community to take. Adiournment: Motion to adjourn at 7:23 PM. The next Commission meeting will be on Tuesday, November 20, 2018. 3 2 0 £ U) S k E k � � @ « 0 f £22£2£±2 S $ S S S $ $ $ / % 2 o c o m m m / a �a_wa_waCLa 00 k 2 § 2&& 2 x \ 0- m I m I m a 10- C:/ k \ k S k & 2 x §& 2 x 2 ± a m w E CL EL (L I m 7 222{{D{2 IL = I M I(L w (L M ¥{ 2{ 2 2 2 2 0) % CL (LImIELICLI 2 2{ 2 { 2 2 2 © § k k} k k k k Lf) IL w w& w CL CL CL / / \ \ / / \ / # .. I a a E a I CL& { k c k c k E § § § 2 2 § § § m, I I IL I&11 -(L I (Da)(1)Qk4)ak k § § 2 § (2 § ( *. E a- E a± E 0- w kk k \ 0 OD ( 2&& 2 K 2 2 2 &, m m w E 0- I I a 0 00w S §§ 2§ 2 2& 2 a I 10- a- a I c k � \ k c c 2§ (2 2 2 2§ 7 . E a± M a (L (L M dd\/g3o3 [•d mx� 22222cq2@ CD o k E /\k�Ic m= G % o �IYLaU«R D= 2 0 o= 0 Item Number: 14. + r ui �1 lat • yyrrmr�� CITY Ok 10WA CITY www.icgov.org November 8, 2018 Telecommunications Commission: October 22 ATTACHMENTS: Description I elecornmw. nications Commission, October 22 PRELIMINARY Iowa City Telecommunications Commission 1012212098 Meeting Minutes 1 of 5 Minutes Iowa City Telecommunications Commission October 22, 2018 — 5:30 P.M. City of Iowa City Cable TV Office, 10 S. Linn St. - Tower Place, Level 3A Call to Order: Meeting called to order at 5:35 P.M. Members Present: Matthew Brenton, Paul Gowder, James Pierce Members Absent: Kyla Paterson Staff Present: Ty Coleman Others Present: Bond Drager Recommendations to Council: None Approval of Minutes: Gowder moved and Pierce seconded a motion to approve the September 24, 2018 minutes as presented. The motion passed unanimously. Announcements of Commissioners: Brenton said that the City Clerk had sent a message for those interested in engaging the community as part of the 2020 Census effort. He said there were introductory meetings scheduled for October 29 and November 1, 2018. Brenton said that if any of the commissioners were interested in attending or wanted more information, they should contact Ty Coleman at the City's Cable TV Office. Short Public Announcements: None. Post -franchise role of the Telecommunications Commission: Brenton suggested there were options to remain as a City commission or to become more of an advisory board. Coleman said that an ad-hoc committee might be another option. Brenton summarized that the Iowa City Telecommunications Commission (ICTC) was formed as part of a franchise agreement and that a number of its powers and duties, listed in the ICTC's by-laws, came from that agreement. Pierce noted that the list of duties in the by-laws is long and that he felt there were enough duties that would remain to make a case for the group to continue as a commission. He suggested that the by-laws could be revised to include three or four clear duties the ICTC would retain. Brenton agreed and said there were still plenty of issues on which the ICTC could provide input. Gowder recalled that when he began his time with the ICTC, he was surprised about the lack of PRELIMINARY Iowa City Telecommunications Commission 10/2212018 Meeting Minutes 2of5 authority held by it. He said that the one time he was glad the Commission existed was when the group of residents working on creating mesh WiFi networks presented themselves at a meeting. Gowder stated that the role of the ICTC, in whatever form it takes, should be refocused on public engagement and telecommunications matters in which members of the public have an interest. Brenton said the ICTC could have a role in providing visibility to the need and benefit of having a municipal broadband program. He said there were some hurdles and challenges that still needed to be figured out. Brenton asked if there was a legal distinction between a commission and an advisory board. Coleman said his understanding was that an advisory board could still offer recommendations to the City Council, but that it would have more flexibility with regards to the frequency of meetings and the number of members required to be present. He said he was unsure as to how an advisory board and its members would be established but didn't think it would require Council appointment. Brenton said that the flexibility of an advisory board would benefit a group like the one working on mesh WiFi if membership was decided by the board. Pierce said that it would be a good thing if a board could be officially recognized by the City while gaining some flexibility in the way it operates. Brenton asked if there are currently any other advisory boards within the City. Drager mentioned the Community Police Review Board (CPRB). Pierce said he knew someone who needed to apply for appointment to the CPRB. Coleman referred to the memo he wrote to the Commission that was included in the meeting packet and said there were likely remaining questions about the options for redefining the group. Brenton said he would like to know how the responsibilities might change if the group became an advisory board versus remaining as a commission. Brenton wondered who would be responsible for modifying the by-laws. Gowder pointed out that it is stated within the current by-laws that the ICTC can vote on amendments. Coleman wondered if an advisory board could have by-laws or if they would be required, or if they would use guidelines instead. Brenton expressed he would want to be sure the group wouldn't be giving anything up by shifting from being a commission to an advisory board. Pierce said the City's website lists boards, commissions, and committees and suggested that an existing board could provide some insight into what the differences are between a board and a commission. Brenton said that a committee would likely be more focused, such as one for municipal broadband. He suggested that the group could even make a recommendation that such a committee be formed. Pierce said that issues such as affordability and access of Internet and television could benefit from a board, commission, or committee that would focus on them. Brenton said that if the group remained a commission, perhaps it could include access and affordability of services as one of its missions listed within revised by-laws. Brenton asked if the ICTC would continue to receive information about telecommunications complaints even though the local franchise agreement had expired. Coleman said that the City's Cable TV Office would continue to receive complaints and work to facilitate resolutions by connecting with staff from local service providers. Brenton and Pierce expressed they would be interested in knowing if City Council had any particular goals or a vision for the redefining of the group. Pierce suggested that once the group PRELIMINARY Iowa City Telecommunications Commission 10/2212018 Meeting Minutes 3of5 had come up with a proposal, it could be presented to Council in hopes of coming up with something that works for both entities. Brenton asked, in a situation where the ICTC would remain as a commission, whether the group would be able to amend the by-laws or if the Council would want to play a part in revisions. Brenton suggested that once some of these questions are answered, the Commission could likely make a decision at its next meeting. Coleman said he would inquire about how the process of making a proposal to the Council would work once the group had come to a conclusion. Pierce stated that he is still willing to attend City Council meetings from time to time in order to keep the Council updated on the activities of the Commission and to receive feedback from the Council. Consumer Issues: Brenton noted there was a cable relocation issue in the Cable Complaints report that was not yet resolved. Coleman said the cable was present, but that he had learned it may not be buried until the first part of 2019 due to tight construction schedules as winter approaches. Brenton mentioned that the report referred to boring rather than trenching for getting the cable in the ground. Coleman said he was unsure as to what the specific situation was with the location, but that one possibility could be that there is some kind of rock formation the cable needs to pass through. Gowder asked if there was any compensation offered for situations where a cable must be temporarily placed on top of someone's lawn. Coleman said he did not believe that compensation was typically involved. Gowder asked about the issue in the report dealing with a customer's unexplainable high data usage and whether it was for the same customer that had presented the problem several months ago. Coleman said it was for the same customer and that this was the first time since then that he had heard of a recurrence of the issue. Gowder said it was interesting that the customer received a warning notification for high data use five days after her billing period ended and wondered if there was some kind of database problem. Gowder said that the technician's suggestion for clearing the customer's cache and cookies would not likely make a difference in the notifications sent by Mediacom. Mediacom Report: Coleman reported that he had not received any information from Mediacom. Local Access Reports: Drager said the past month had been very busy with recordings of Book Festival and Witching Hour events. Coleman referred to the hard copy of a report submitted by Public Access Television that did not make it into the packet in time. City Cable TV Office Report: Coleman referred to the report the Cable TV Office had submitted in the meeting packet and added that Cable staff had recorded some Book Fest panels. He also mentioned that he had set up a live stream of the recent University of Iowa Homecoming parade from a window in the PRELIMINARY Iowa City Telecommunications Commission 1012212018 Meeting Minutes 4of5 Cable TV Office. Coleman said that there was a decent amount of engagement with the stream on the City's Facebook page. Coleman said that live streams have become a useful tool in the City's toolkit for getting messages out to the community. All five of the League of Women Voters candidate forums recorded by City Channel 4 were live streamed. Coleman said his office had recently recorded the Iowa City Fire Department's Fire Prevention Week performance at a local school. Adjournment: Gowder moved and Pierce seconded a motion to adjourn. The motion passed unanimously. Adjournment was at 6:05 p.m. PRELIMINARY Iowa City Telecommunications Commission 1012212018 Meeting Minutes 5of5 TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 12 -MONTH ATTENDANCE RECORD (x) = Present (o) = Absent (o/c) = Absent/Called (Excused) Gowder Bergus Brenton Johnk 11/27/2017 x x x x vacant 11/30/2017 x o/c x x vacant Special meeting 01/2212018 vacant Meeting not held due to lack of quorum. 02/26/2018 x x x x vacant 03/26/2018 x x x x vacant Pierce 04/23/2018 x x x x x 06/21/2018 x o/c x x x 06/25/2018 x x x o/c x 07/23/2018 vacant vacant Meeting not held due to lack of quorum. 08/27/2018 vacant vacant Meeting not held due to lack of quorum. 9/24/2018 x vacant x vacant x Paterson 10/22/2018 x o x vacant x (x) = Present (o) = Absent (o/c) = Absent/Called (Excused)