Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-03-17 Info Packet CITY COUNCIL INFOEMATION PACKET (~ITY OF IOWA (~ITY March 17, 2005 www.icgov.org IP1 City Council Meetings and Work Session Agendas IP2 Memorandum from the City Manager: Downtown Alleys [Overhead presentation at 3/21 Work Session by City Manager of Alley Clean-up Proposals] IP3 Memorandum from Dee Vanderhoef and Regenia Bailey: FY2006 Aid to Agencies Proposal Invitation: NAMI'S Walkathon Kick-off Luncheon [Distributed at 3/21 Work Session by Council Member Bailey] MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS IP4 Letter from the City Manager to Sally Stutsman: City's Radio Communication System IP5 Memorandum from the City Manager: Meeting with Legislators; Representative Mascher's Concerns IP6 Letter from the City Manager to Dennis Bricker: North Dubuque Street/Foster Road intersection traffic signal IP7 Memorandum from the City Clerk: Revised Meeting Schedule (April-August) IP8 Memorandum from the PersOnnel Administrator to the Civil Service Commission: Police Chief Recruitment IP9 Memorandum from the Sr. Civil Engineer to the Public Works Director: Landfill Property Acquisition IP10 Memorandum from Jeff Davidson: Lexington Avenue Traffic Calming Barricade IPll Letter from Anita Walker to National Register of Historic Places: Nomination of the Gilbert- Linn Street Historic District IP12 Memorandum from the Director of Planning and Community Development: Reviewer's Guide for Proposed Zoning Code IP13 Memorandum from City Engineer to the City Manager: North Dodge Street (Highway 1) Improvements Neighborhood Meeting IP14 Capital Improvements Program FY2005-2009 March 17, 2005 Information Packet /continued/ 2 IP15 Agenda: Economic Development Committee: March 17, 2005 IP16 Police Department Monthly Liquor License (Off Premise Sales) Report: February 2005 IP17 Deer Task Force Flyer for Educational Program presented by Larry Stone - Whitetail: Treasure, Trophy or Trouble? IP18 Two Articles from Mayor Pro tem Wilburn: UI Students in City Government IP19 Minutes: January 26 Joint Meeting of the Coralville City Council, Iowa City City Council, Iowa City School Board, and Johnson County Board of Supervisors IP20 Minutes: February 8 Joint Meeting of the Johnson County Board of Supervisors and Linn County Board of Supervisors I PRELIMINARY DRAFT/MINUTES IP21 Board of Adjustment: February 9, 2005 IP22 Economic Development Committee: February 17, 2005 IP23 Historic Preservation Commission: February 10, 2005 IP24 Housing and Community Development Commission: February 17, 2005 IP25 Parks and Recreation Commission: February 16, 2005 IP26 Police Citizens Review Board: March 8, 2005 IP27 Planning and Zoning Commission: March 3, 2005 IP28 Public Art Advisory Committee: March 2, 2005 ~ '~' 1 ~-.~---~,,,7-~-;~%~a?~~ CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET CITY OF IOWA CITY March 17, 2005 www.icgov.org MARCH 21 SPECIAL WORK SESSION ITEMS IP1 Cit uncil Meetings and Work Session Agendas IP2 ME ~ from the City Manager: Downtown Alleys IP3 Dee Vanderhoef and Regenia Bailey: i Aid to Agencies Proposal MISCELLANEOUS IT I IP4 Letter from the Cit ager to Sally Stutsman: Radio Communication System IP5 Memorandum from City Manager: M with Legislators; Representative Mascher's Concerns IP6 Letter from the City to North Dubuque Street/Foster Road intersection traffic signal IP7 Memorandum from the City Meeting Schedule (April-August) IP8 Memorandum from the Personne Iministrator to the Civil Service Commission: Police Chief Recruitment IP9 Memorandum from the Sr. to the Public Works Director: Landfill Property Acquisition IP10 Memorandum from Jeff Lexim Avenue Traffic Calming Barricade ~,, o Historic IPll Letter from Anita Wa~er to National Register ~,n Places: Nomination of the Gilbert- Linn Street Histor~ District IP12 Memorandum Item the Director of Planning an~ Community Development: Reviewer's Guide for ProPosed Zoning Code IP13 Memorand~um from City Engineer to the City Managa~: North Dodge Street (Highway 1) Improvements Neighborhood Meeting \ IP14 Capital Improvements Program FY2005-2009 IP15 Agenda: Economic Development Committee: March 17,}~)5 IP16 Police Department Monthly Liquor License (Off Premise Sales) Report: February 2005 March 17, 2005 Information Packet /continued/ 2 IP17 Deer-.~Task Force Flyer for Educational Program presented by Larry Stone - Whitetail: , Trophy or Trouble? IP18 Two m Mayor Pro rem Wilburn: UI Students in City,Government IP19 Minutes: :6 Joint Meeting of the Coralville City Council, Iowa City City Council, Iowa City School ~rd, and Johnson County Board of S/0pervisors IP20 Minutes: February 8 Meeting of the Johnson Board of Supervisors and Linn County Board of Su ITES I P2'l Board of Adjustment: February 9, IP22 Economic Development Committee: Feb~ 17, 2005 IP23 Historic Preservation Commission: Fi 2005 IP24 Housing and Community Develo Cc ~: February 17, 2005 IP25 Parks and Recreation Commiss~, February 16, IP26 Police Citizens Review Board 2005 IP27 Planning and Zoning Comr March 3, 2005 IP28 Public Art Advisory March 2, 2005 ~ City Council Meeting Schedule and '"-- --~ Work Session Agendas March ~7,200~ CITY OF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org · MONDAY, MARCH 21 Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:30p Special Council Work Session · Planning and Zoning Items · Downtown Alleys and Clean Up · Allocations for Community Events · Allocation for (Human Services) Aid to Agencies · Scheduling of Future Pending Items · Agenda Items · Council Appointments · Council Time · TUESDAY, MARCH 22 Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00p Special Formal Council Meeting TENTATIVE FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS · MONDAY, APRIL 4 Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:30p Council Work Session · TUESDAY, APRIL 5 Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00p Regular Formal Council Meeting · MONDAY, APRIL 18 Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:30p Council Work Session · TUESDAY, APRIL 19 Emma J. HarvatHall 7:00p Regular Formal Council Meeting · WEDNESDAY, APRIL 27 Coralville City Hall 4:00p Joint Meeting · MONDAY, MAY 2 Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:30p Council Work Session · TUESDAY, MAY 3 Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00p Regular Formal Council Meeting · FRIDAY, MAY 6 Emma J. Harvat Hall 8:30a Special Formal Evaluations ~ ~ ' OF IOWA CITY~ ORANDUM Date: March 16, 2005 To: City Council From: City Manager Re.' Downtown Alleys Attached is a policy discussion outline I plan to use at the Work Session of March 21. Downtown Alleys Problem · Downtown alley cleanliness/appearance · Loose, blowing trash · Inattention to dumpster- overflowing · Misuse of alleys by businesses · dumping waste in alleys · Overflowing dumpsters- infrequent pickups · No effort to clean up behind businesses · Uncoordinated waste/clean up services · Location of dumpsters- fire hazards · Storm drains choked with waste debris · Unregulated, no permitted use of public right-of-way To Date · Contacted haulers · Contacted downtown businesses · Increased public services- steam cleaning · Continued investment in business frontage, streetscape, programs · Alleys are open to view- remain unsightly Causes of Problems · Constrained area - too many activities, too small a space · The location for business waste disposal · No regulation of space usage · Each business decides waste disposal services from private haulers · How- dumpsters (100+) · Who- 1 of 7/8 waste haulers · When - convenience of each individual business · Where- dumpster in a public alley · One common attribute, all businesses use the public right-of-way without permission and collectively pose health, sanitation, unsightly appearance, and fire hazard problems mgr/downtown alleys.doc 1 What to Do? · Need a goal (or 2) · Cleanliness · Continue to allow (regulate) the use of alleys for waste disposal, and fix responsibility with the user · The City provides the space (alley) Hauler removes thewaste · Business uses the space and creates the waste · Parking · Competes for space used by dumpsters · Parking enforcement may have significant consequence · Time of day parking enforcement · Time of daywaste removal Options · Current · Thursday sweep, no vacuum · steam clean 3x per year · Respond to emergencies · Occasional surface maintenance · Dumpsters are unregulated · Back of properties are not maintained · Expanded City role? · Create a downtown waste collection district- contracted waste hauler · Who gets a dumpster? · Where will it be placed? · City crews, or a contracted hauler, provides pickup services? · Complex management issue, notably how to charge for services performed, with many uses in one property, e.g., apartments, shoe store, restaurant. · Would likely be inconvenient for individual businesses Suggestion: Selected improvements · Clean, vacuum alleys - 5 days a week · All dumpsters (owned by haulers) would be licensed, inspected, locked · Business picks hauler of choice Regulated time of day and frequency of pickup · Blowing trash, trash accumulation at rear of business, "business responsibility," stricter enforcement · Create downtown waste collection district mgr/downtown alleys.doc 2 Unresolved · Recycling · New cost to City- estimated $100,000 · How to bill businesses/property owner or storm water fee / Road Use Tax / General Fund combo · Need new ordinances - enforcement · Do we need a new "alley improvement" program - encourage maintenance of rear of properties? Pitfalls · Numerous administrative hurdles · New expenses to City government · Downtown "doomsayers" will appear · Downtown gets"special treatment" · Won't be popular with some, night-time clean up · Waste haulers may not like - greater responsibility mgr/downtown alleys.doc 3 SUMMARY OF ALLEY CLEAN-UP PROPOSALS 1. Regulate dumpsters License (permit) Inspect (cleanliness, etc) Require locks Allow use of alley 2. Increase frequency of City sponsored clean-up Steam clean Vacuum 3. Minimum pickup frequency required of business and provided by haulers Could use smaller containers Improve looks, cleaner, better use of space 4. Trash must be bagged and secured 5. Boxes must be broken down 6. Dumpsters must be locked 7. Business can choose hauler, recognizing uniform alley usage/maintenance restrictions O F I O WA C I T Y 11='3 E ORANDL[ To: Iowa City City Council Members From: Dee Vanderhoef and Regenia Bailey DATE: March 10, 2005 RE: FY 2006: Aid to Agencies proposal We've attached the tables for our proposal for FY2006: Aid to Agencies funding. It is in two versions: the first is organized alphabetically by agency. The second is sorted by the United Way focus areas: Assisting the Elderly and/or People with Special Needs, Meeting Basic and Emergency Needs, Promoting Mental and Physical Health, and Supporting Children, Youth, and Families. Using the City Steps Priorities Funding has been allocated to the focus areas according to the City Steps Priority Need Level for Public Service Needs. Areas of high need receive a 3% increase over Budget 2005. Areas of medium need receive a 2% increase, and areas of low need receive a 1% increase over their budget amount for FY2005. The increases in funding look like this by focus area: United Way Focus Area Funding Increase Assisting the Elderly and/or People with Special Needs 2% Children, Youth & Families 3% Meeting Basic & Emergency Needs 1% (note: this category does not appear in City Steps. It receiued the increase.for Iow need) Mental and Physical Health 3% The following projects did not receive the same increase as other agencies in their focus areas. · The Arc of Johnson County (Assisting the Elderly and/or People with Special Needs} and 4C's submitted requests for City funding for the first time this year. Both agencies requested $2,000 for FY2006. This budget grants both agencies their requested amounts. · Mayor Youth Employment Program was granted only 94% of the amount in its 2005. · The collaborative Youth Pre-Employment and Job Training Grant that the council directed received a 12% increase over its 2005 budgeted amount. · The STAR Program run by Shelter House is a matching grant opportunity. In this proposed budget, the City is provided half of the required match of $10,000. This budgeted $5,000 is contingent upon Shelter House receiving the Federal grant for this program. This proposed budget leaves $12,295 in the contingency fund. We recommend using $2,295 of this contingency fund to support Neighborhood Centers with some start-up costs for the Grant Wood School project. This should be part of the discussion as we move forward to ensure that we have earmarked adequate funds for this. Agency United Way Group Actual FY04 Budget 2005! Request 2006 City2006StepsPrOpoSalprioritiesUSing Z~ssisting the Elderly and/or People w~ Special Elder Services Agency ~leeds $ 59,530 $ 56,554 $ 58,816 $ 57,685 4ssisting the Elderly and/or People w~ Special The Arc of Johnson County (new request) Needs $ 2,000 $ 2,000 4 Cs (new request) Children, Youth, Families $ 2,000 $ 2,000 Big Brothers/Big Sisters Children, Youth, Families $ 35,160 $ 33,402 $ 35,072 $ 34,404 vlayor's Youth Employment Children, Youth, Families $ 22,309 $ 21,194 $ 25,000 $ 20,000 '4eighborhood Centers Children, Youth, Families $ 60,521 $ 57,495 $ 76,400 $ 59,220 Jnited Action for Youth Children, Youth, Families $ 62,558 $ 59,430 $ 80,000 $ 61,213 Youth Pre-employment/Job Training ;ouncil directed $ 15,000 $ 14,250 $ 16,000 ~4eeting Basic & Crisis Center Emergency Needs $ 39,805 $ 37,815 $ 39,805 $ 38,193 ~eeting Basic & Domestic Violence Program Emergency Needs $ 52,303 $ 49,688 $ 52,172 $ 50,185 Meeting Basic & Jo Co Office of the American Red Cross Emergency Needs $ 5,510 $ 5,235 $ 6,000 $ 5,287 Meeting Basic & Rape Victim Advocacy Emergency Needs $ 11,590 $ 11,011 $ 11,450 $ 11,121 ihelter House Meeting Basic & lotal =$32,500--$10,000 for STAR pmgram) Emer~lencyNeeds $ 17,100 $ 16,245 $ 22,500 $ 16,407 ~4eeting Basic & STAR Program Emergency Needs $ 10,000 $ 5,000 Free Medical Clinic ~4ental/Physical Health $ 6,350 $ 6,033 $ 6,214 $ 6,214 ICARE ~ental/PhysicalHealth $ 8,883 $ 8,439 $ 8,900 $ 8,692 MECCA Mental/PhysicaIHealth $ 28,654 $ 27,221 $ 28,600 $ 28,038 HACAP withdrew mquest $ 8,203 $ 7,793 $ $ lo Co Juvenile Crime Prev/Youth Dev $ subtotal $ 433,476 $ 411,805 $ 464,929 $ 421,659 ;ontingency use $ 9,510 $ - $ 12,295 otal $ 464,929 $ 433,954 6) nflml LU fl LILS NAM I's ,.,_. _= Walkathon ..... ,o.,,,m,,,0,,m,.,~, r~cK-on Luncheon Walk Coordinator Please join us for the 2005 Joanna Mouming Walh for the Mind of America Walk Chairperson Walkathon Kick-Off Soumya Palreddy Luncheon March 22, 2005 ll:30am- l:00pm Brown Deer Golf Course 1900 County Club Drive, Coralville Iowa This Kick-Off Luncheon is free for anyone interested in learning more about the The 5K Johnson County Walk for Walk and how they might participate in it. the Mind of American will be held on May 7, 2005 at Lower City RSVP requested by March 14 Park, Iowa City. RSVP or questions to: Joanna Mouming at 319-337-5400 or namij ohnsoncountyC-Wyahoo.com flAmlWALI{$ ~ * ~, ~ ~ I~ORTXI~IIIIIIDOI~Itm(~RlClt You're invited to NAMI's Walkathon Kick-off Luncheon March 22, 2005 11:30 am - 1:00 pm Walk with NAMI for the Mind of America! Luncheon catered by: Chef Mickey's Catering Walk sponsored by: Chef Mickey's Catering City Carton North Dodge Athletic Club Press Citizen Quality Care Randy's Carpets Technigraphics Inc. US Bank Zephyr Copies and Design [] The people listed below will be attending the Kick-Off Luncheon on March 22, 2005 2. 3. 4. 5. rq No, we are not able to attend the Luncheon, but would like more information about the Walk. rq No, we are not able to attend or participate in the Walk, but enclosed is our contribution to NAMI. See Reverse Contact Person: Company (if applicable): Address: City: State: Zip: Phone: E-mail: Families and companies are welcome to send as many guests as they would like to the Luncheon. The Kick-Off Luncheon is free for anyone interested in learning more about the Walk and how they might participate in it. Please RSVP by March 14 via mail or phone by calling Telephone Number: 319-337-5400 flflmlWflLKS dr ,k dr , dr fORTHEIlilnDOFIim(~RICA NAMIJC 122 East Market Street PO Box 3087 Iowa City, IA 52244 CITY OF IOWA CITY www. icgov.org March 4, 2005 Johnson County Board of Supervisors Ms. Sally Stutsman OFFICE OF THE 913 S. Dubuque Street CITY MANAGER Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Sally: Stephen J. Atkins City Manager steve~atkins~iowa-city.org We are currently reviewing the RFPs received for a comprehensive study Of replacement/upgrade needs for the City's radio communication system. In Dale E. Helling Assistant City Manager the RFP process we asked for a review not only of the City's radio dale-helling~iowa-city.org communication system, but also a cost figure to review the system operated by the Johnson County Sheriff. This was intended to provide us with an assessment in order to propose alternatives as to the possibility of a joint communication system. We felt, given the expressions of interest at JCCOG and by the Johnson County Sheriff, that we could assume a shared interest with respect to this issue. With this in mind, we would envision three roles for the County; 1) that a County representative or two would serve as a member of our RFP review ~,~ ;, team to recommend a consultant; 2) serve as a member of a project ~ oversight committee and; 3) financial sharing in the cost of the study. It is estimated the County share to be approximately $25,000 - $45,000. With the consultant selected and the price negotiated the cost sharing between the respective City and County interests can be decided. Interviews are being scheduled for early April. If the sharing in the cost of this study is of interest to the County, I would leave to you how and who you would like to have participate. I do believe the Sheriff would be an important member of the review and oversight teams. If it would be helpful, I would be happy to appear before the Board of Supervisors and the Johnson County Sheriff in whatever forum you believe appropriate to discuss this matter. Please let me know. Sincerely, Stephen J. Atkins City Manager 'cc: City Council Andy Rocca Chief Winkeihake 410 E. Washington Street Mary Niichel Iowa City, IA 52240 Phone: (319) 356-5010 Fax: (319) 356-5009 mgr/ltrs/ECS-RFP2.doc Date: March 7, 2005 To: City Council From: City Manager Re: Meeting with Legislators; Representative Mascher's Concerns At our March 4 State Legislator/City Council luncheon, Representative Mary Mascher raised concern about Iowa OSHA violations, Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) issues, and enforcement of the Building Code at The Lodge apartment house project. I checked with our Building Inspection staff, and they were aware that from time to time Iowa OSHA would appear on the construction site of The Lodge. The OSHA inspectors seemed to perform their duties in accordance with their responsibilities to the State of Iowa. City building inspectors were not asked to be involved in the OSHA inspections. We were not officially informed of their particular findings and the resolution that they may have reached with the construction company building The Lodge. We did not find anything in our City records that would indicate we had received any official OSHA notification as well as any action/records/findings concerning the INS, an agency of the federal government. Our inspectors have assured me the project was built in accordance with our code requirements. mgr/mem/mascher,doc CITY OF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org March 3, 2005 OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER Dennis Bricker 1926 Meadow Ridge Lane Iowa City, IA 52245 Stephen J. Atkins City Manager steve-atkins~iowa-city.org Re: Your letter of February 13, 2005; North Dubuque Street/Foster Road intersection traffic signal Dale E. Helling Assistant City Manager dale-helling~iowa-city.org Dear Mr. BrJcker; In your letter to the City Council of February 13, 2005, you requested an update on the plans for a traffic signal at the North Dubuque Street/Foster Road intersection. Final plans are complete and have been submitted to the Iowa Department of Transportation for approval. The bid letting for the project is projected to be in April 2005. Construction will begin after the contract is awarded. The project involves complete reconstruction of the intersection, left turn lanes on Dubuque Street, and installation of a traffic signal. The project is expected to be completed this construction season. Feel free to contact Project Engineer Ron Gaines at 356-5145 or ron- .,,.~: gaines@iowa-city, org with any questions. ' Sincerely, Stephen &~tkins City Manager cc: City Council Anissa Williams Ron Gaines Ron Knoche jccogadm/Itrs/bricker.doc 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Phone: (319) 356-5010 Fax: (319) 356-5009 IP7 klm DATE: March 16, 2005 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk ~1~ RE: Revised Meeting Schedule (April - August) At your work session of February 28 Council agreed to retain the regular meeting schedule throughout the summer as follows: April 4, 5 April 18, 19 May 2, 3 May 6 (special/staff evaluations) May 16, 17 June 6, 7 June 20, 21 July 5 (special work session & regular formal) July 18, 19 August 1, 2 August 15, 16 Special meetings will be called as necessary. Please let me know if you will be unavailable anytime during the summer months. I do have some meetings that not all 7 Council Members will be attending during this time. Cc: Department Heads Cable TV Maintenance U: schedule (April - August) HUMAN RESOURCES/PERSONNEL MEMO DATE: March 11, 2005 TO: Civil Service Commission FROM: Sylvia A. Me jla, Personnel Administrator~~' RE: Police Chief Recruitment Police Chief R,T Winkelhoke has announced his retirement and, as a result, we must now begin the selection process to find a new Chief of Police. The City Manager, Assistant City Manager, and T met recently to discuss the method that would be most effective in recruiting a new Police Chief. As a result, the following process is being recommended. 1. Resumes will be accepted from applicants through May 27, 200§. Advertising deadlines and distribution schedules in major publications necessitate this response time. Applicants submitting a resume who meet the minimum requirements will receive an acknowledgement letter, recruitment brochure, and an application to be completed and returned. Applicants who do not meet the minimum requirements will receive an acknowledgement letter only. 2. We anticipate receiving a large number of resumes. Following the deadline the resumes and applications will be reviewed by staff to reduce the applicants to a manageable number. These resumes will be forwarded to a selection committee to further screen them for interview purposes. 3. A selection committee will be formed and at a minimum will include the City Manager, the Chair of the Civil Service Commission or her designee, a Police professional from another community, and up to two other individuals. The selection committee will interview candidates using a structured interview format. 4. Extensive background checks and reference checks will be conducted at an appropriate time in the process. A psychological profile of the top candidates will be required. §. Second interviews and follow-up review will be conducted for a small number of finalists. The City Manager will attend your next meeting to answer any questions you might have. Cc: City Council City Manager Assistant City Manager First Assistant City Attorney Policechief§.doc City of Iowa City IP9 MEMORANDUM DATE: March 8, 2005 TO: Rick Fosse, Public Works Director FROM: Dan Scott, Sr. Civil Engineer Re: Landfill Property Acquisition On March 1, 2005, City Council approved a resolution, which authorized mailing and publication of the notice of intent to commence a public improvement landfill construction project. This project is necessary for future operations of the landfill. This resolution also included the notification of the owner of the property and set a public hearing for April 5, 2005, to discuss the project and property acquisition. The notification also included an invitation to the public hearing all as required by the State law governing acquisition of agricultural property. Date: March 14, 2005 To: City Council ~/ From: Jeff Davidson Re: Lexington Avenue traffic calming barricade At your February 14 work session you requested that staff re-survey the Lexington Avenue neighborhood as to whether or not they wish to have the traffic calming barricade remain in place. This was in response to a letter from three residents of the Lexington Avenue neighborhood requesting the re-survey be conducted. The re-survey has been completed, and resulted in 17 in favor and 5 opposed to the traffic calming barricade remaining in place April through November. This 77% approval rate is the highest percentage of the neighborhood to date that has indicated their support of the traffic calming barricade. Please indicate at your March 21 work session if there is a majority of Council opposed to the retention of the traffic calming barricade. Otherwise, we will proceed to inform the neighborhood that the barricade will be reinstalled shortly after April 1 and remain in place until November. We do not intend to consider any requests to re-survey the neighborhood again regarding the traffic calming barricade for at least one year. Let me know if you have any questions. cc: City Manager Director of Planning Director of Public Works Police Captain City Engineer Neighborhood Services Coordinator JCCOG Traffic Engineering Planner jccogad m/mem/lexington.doc _iSTATE ISTORICAL IP'I 'I Iow^ A Division of tile Iowa Department of Cultural Affairs March 8, 2005 Ms. Carol D. Shull gi Keeper of the National Re ster of Historic Places ':- National Register, History, and Education National Park Service 1849 C. Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20240 Dear Ms. Shull: co The nomination of the Gilbert-Linn Street Historic District in Iowa City (Johnson County) to the National Register of Historic Places is enclosed for your review and, if acceptable, listing. It represents a revised nomination of an historic district that your office had reviewed as part of an appeal filed in November 2004 and about which you sent a letter of comment and recommendations to me on December 30, 2004. In accord with your suggestion, the state historic preservation office had provided a copy of the original nomination, with corrections, to Iowa's state review board. This was for them to take into account when reviewing a revised nomination of the historic district at its meeting on February 11, 2005. The consideration ora revised nomination that contained reduced boundaries came about as the result of the City's failure to carry out required public input as a Certified Local Government. Accordingly, the SHPO agreed to a request from Iowa City that further action by SHPO on the nomination that the state review board approved in June 2004 be withheld to allow additional time for the City to satisfy its obligations. The result was a revised nomination which was placed on the February 11, 2005 agenda for members of the state review board to review. The state review board determined that the revised district nomination also met eligibility requirements for the National Register. The original June 2004 nomination, however, was judged by that body to be the better nomination and recommended that it be forwarded to the Keeper instead of the revised nomination. The Keeper's suggestion to provide the original June nomination, with corrections, "to members of the board at the February meeting to assist them in reconsidering the boundary of the district" had been followed. Permitting the board to then consider which nomination to forward to the keeper--the original or revised nomination may have been inappropriate, however. Only the revised nomination was on the agenda for consideration and, in reviewing the matter, a fair reading of the Keeper's suggestion could conclude that the June nomination was only meant to provide background context to consideration of the revised document. Accordingly, being in agreement with the state review board's finding of eligibility for the revised district, I am forwarding to you the revised district nomination for review. Part 60 of the Code of Federal Regulations for the National Register of 600 EAST LOCUST STREET, DESMOINES, IA 50319-0290 P:(515)281-5111 Historic Places does not speak to this particular form of SHPO disagreement with a recommendation of the state review board. And, since both I, as SHPO, and the state review board agree that the revised nomination meets eligibility requirements, I am sending forward the revised nomination with SHPO signature. Because this sf~bmittal revises boundaries to a previously submitted nomination, I certify that the affected property owner(s) and the chief elected local official have been renotified. The following National Register Nomination and notarized statements of owner objection are enclosed for your review. At this time the list of obi ecting parties does not constitute a majority of owners within the boundaries of the district being submitted for review. Sincerely, Walker, State Historic Preservation Officer Iowa Department of Cultural Affairs Cc: ~/Mayor, City of Iowa City. .~ Karin Franklin, Planning Director Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attorney Gordon Henddckson, Public Trust Division, State HistoriCal Society of Iowa Beth Foster Hill, National Register Coordinator Date: March 15, 2005 TO: City Council From: Karin Franklin, Director, ProD_ Re: Reviewer's Guide for Proposed Zoning Code Attached is a Reviewer's Guide to assist you in your review of the new Zoning Code. Although there will be some changes in the Public Review Draft as a consequence of input received during the Planning & Zoning Commission's open houses and public discussions, this guide should give you some understanding of most of the major changes in the Code. The guide is a compilation of a number of memos sent with drafts of the Code as it went through the initial Commission review; the guide has been updated to reflect the decisions of the Commission that resulted in the Public Review Draft. Please contact Karen Howard, Bob Brooks, Bob Miklo, or myself if you have any questions. Cc City Manager Bob Brooks, Chair, P & Z Karen Howard Bob Miklo Reviewer's Guide , Iowa City Zoning Code - Public Review Draft The following reviewer's guide is intended to help citizens, policy-makers, and city staff review the proposed new Zoning Code. It highlights and explains the intent of the major substantive changes within the draft. Please note that there is a significant amount of reorganization proposed. While the content of some sections has not changed, the order and format in which they are presented may be different than in the current code. Please take a moment to read through the "How To Use This Document" section located at the very beginning of the draft code. It describes the organization of the code and some commonly used methods for using the code. Chapter 1 - Introductory Provisions (14-1A & 14-1B) This chapter is quite short, but contains some important statements of purpose and explains how the Zoning Code should be applied and interpreted. These sections are necessary to assert and establish the legal parameters for the City's authority to regulate land development. Chapter 2, Article A- Single Family Residential Zones (14-2A) This article describes the intent, land uses allowed, dimensional standards, and site development standards for the single family residential zones. Section 1: Establishment and Intent of Sin.qle Family Residential Zones - No significant changes are proposed for the intent statements of the various single family zones. However, the name of the Neighborhood Conservation Residential (RNC-12) Zone is changed to Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-12) Zone. The name is being changed to avoid confusion with "conservation districts" adopted as overlay zones according to Article 14-3B, Historic District and Conservation District Overlay. Secondly, the Factory Built Housing Residential (RFBH) Zone is no longer listed, because this zoning designation is proposed to be eliminated. Manufactured homes, modular homes, and mobile homes are considered detached single family dwellings. These types of dwellings are currently allowed in any single family zone, provided they are converted to real property and taxed as a site built dwelling. However, in the case of a lease lot development where a owner of a mobile or manufactured home leases the lot on which the home is located from a separate individual or organization, the land must be zoned RFBH. The zoning code currently has a process for rezoning land for developments where the land is commonly owned or owned by a separate entity, with the dwelling units sold individually. It is the "planned development" process described in Article 14-3A. In the proposed code manufactured housing parks are treated in a similar fashion to other types of planned developments, making the RFBH Zone redundant. Section 2: Land Uses Allowed - Table 2A-1 lists all the principal land uses allowed in the various single family zones. The subsection, "Determining the Principal Uses Allowed," describes how to use this table. Within Table 2A-1, please note the following changes: · Residential Uses: Note that Two Family Uses (duplexes) and Attached Single Family Dwellings are listed as provisional uses in the RS-5, RS-8, and RS-12 Zones. The provisions under which these uses would be allowed are listed in Article 14-4B (pp.168-176). Duplexes would only be allowed on corner lots in the RS-5 and RS-8 Zones. Currently duplexes are not allowed in the RS-5 zone and duplexes are allowed on both interior and corner lots in the RS-8 zone if they meet the lot size requirements. In the proposed Code for the RS-5 zone the intent is to allow some additional opportunities for this more affordable housing option within lower density neighborhoods. Limiting duplexes to larger corner lots will ensure that this housing type will not predominate along any given street. In addition, each of the units within a duplex would be required to face a different street, so that along a street frontage the dwelling unit will function and give the appearance of a single family house. With regard to the RS-8 Zone, the proposed Code establishes this zone as a small lot single family zone. Limiting duplexes to corner lots will shift the focus away from what has become a largely duplex zone toward small lot single family with duplexes mixed in on the corner lots. This may help small lot single family neighborhoods remain stable over time and encourage more affordable home ownership . opportunities. If you are interested in this particular issue, please take the time to review the approval criteda on pages 168-176. · Commercial Uses: No substantial changes proposed. · Institutional and Civic Uses: Familiarize yourself with the new institutional use categories: Community Service; Educational Facilities; Religious/Private Group Assembly (See Article 14-4A, Land Use Classification). Due to recent changes in federal law cities must be careful to treat religious institutions in a similar fashion to all other public a'ssembly-type uses. In the proposed code public assembly uses are allowed under similar conditions within the same zones. Refer to Article 14-4B to review the approval criteria for uses listed as provisional or special exceptions. · Parks and Open Space Uses: Note that parks and open space uses are listed as provisional in all the single family zones. While open space is always a permitted use of land, accessory uses located within private shared open spaces within a development, such as swimming pools, tennis courts, golf courses, boat ramps, and other recreational facilities are subject to additional regulations (See p.192, Parks and Open Space). Public parks will always be zoned "Public" and will continue to be located and planned according to the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Section 4: Dimensional Requirements - Section 4 contains the dimensio'nal standards for all single family zones. The standards are listed in Table 2A-2 on p. 16. The preceding pages contain the intent of the various dimensional standards, regulations that apply in certain circumstances, and any exceptions to the rules. Within the table dimensional standards are listed by zone and by land use. For example, duplexes in the RS~5 zone have different dimensional standards from detached single family homes. A number of significant changes are proposed to allow a wider variety of housing types and to allow reductions in minimum lot width and lot size through density bonus provisions. This new flexibility is built into the proposed code in order to encourage compact development and to provide opportunities for more affordable housing options. The proposed changes are described in more detail bel'ow. · For Detached Single Family Dwellings, the minimum lot width listed in the table for the RS-5 Zone is 70 feet, for RS-8 and RS-12 it is 55 feet. These standards reflect typical lot sizes in recent RS-5 and RS-8 subdivisions in Iowa City. A 70-foot wide lot allows enough lot width to fit a house with a street-facing, two or even a three-car garage, which are becoming more common. A 55-foot wide lot is the minimum necessary to fit a house with a street-facing 2-car garage with enough front yard space left over to maintain the residential character along the street. · In reality the standards in the table are only a starting point. As you can see from the footnote, these standards can be reduced through bonus density provisions, if certain site development standards are met. Review the Single Family Density Bonus Options on p. 20 and the garage placement standard for small lots (14-2A-6C- 6 on p. 18, 19, and 20)~. Modifications to the lot size and width are not currently allowed except through the planned development overlay rezoning process. These bonus provisions will allow more compact single family development through a more streamlined administrative review process, rather than requiring a legislative rezoning. · Another type of housing that is becoming more and more popular in Iowa City is townhouse development (Attached Single Family). In Table 2A-2, the minimum lot width for attached single family dwellings has been reduced from 45 feet to 20 feet. The minimum lot size has been reduced from 5,000 square feet to 3,000 square feet. This will development of townhouses without having to go through the aforementioned planned development rezoning process. The planned development rezoning process is a more discretionary process that allows careful scrutiny by the public and by policy-makers into the design of higher density neighborhoods. The reason for this more lengthy review process is that higher density housing is more difficult to do well. With less space on each lot, placement of the dwelling and the parking must be carefully planned so that there is room for front yard green space, and so that privacy within homes is maximized without sacrificing the residential character of the neighborhood. For narrow lot developments, measures to minimize front yard paving are necessary to maintain space along the street for on-street parking and reduce interruptions to the public sidewalk. Because these issues are so important to the development of neighborhoods that will remain stable and attractive over time, modifications to the lot width and size standards are not recommended without adoption of the proposed site development standards. (See pp. 18-20 and provisions for attached single family dwellings on pp. 170-173). · Another change proposed in the dimensional standards is to reduce the minimum front setback for principal buildings from 20 feet to 15 feet. This change will allow houses to be built closer to the sidewalk, allowing the opportunity to create a consistent and well-defined building line along the street and allow additional buildable area to the rear of the lot. 1 Note there is a typo on p. 20, Subparagraph 14-2A-7A-1a. references paragraph C.7. This should be "paragraph C.6 on p. 18. Section 6: Sinqle Family Site Development Standards - Most of this section contains standards that are already in the current zoning code. Note the following changes: · In paragraph 4, the required driveway length is increased from 20 feet to 25 feet to allow cars to be parked in front of garages without extending over the public sidewalk and blocking pedestrian movement along city streets. With the larger vehicles of today, the proposal is to increase the standard to 25 feet. · Paragraph 6 is new. See discussion of dimensional requirements for narrower home lots above. Section 7: Special Provisions - This section includes the density bonus provisions described above. In addition, it contains new historic preservation provisions that will help to promote adaptive reuse of valuable historic properties within the community. Special provisions for the Neighborhood Stabilization Zone (RNS-12) remain the same as in the current code, but these paragraphs have been re-worded to make it clear that it is the use and density that is allowed to remain conforming, but other standards of the Zoning Code must be complied with. Chapter 2, Article B, Multi-Family Residential Zones {14-2B) Section 1: Intent of Multi-Family Residential Zones ~ No significant changes have been made to this section, other than to change the name of the Neighborhood Conservation Zone (RNC-20) to Neighborhood Stabilization (RNS-20). The name is being changed to avoid confusion with "conservation districts" adopted as overlay zones according to Article 14-3B, Historic District and Conservation District Overlay. Section 2: Land Uses Allowed - The land uses allowed within the multi-family residential zones are listed in Table 2B-1 on p. 25. You may want to read over and become familiar with the various residential dwelling types listed in the table, particularly the distinction between Household Living Uses and Group Living Uses. Refer to Article 14-4A, Land Use Classification (starting on p. 142) for a full description of these categories. Remember that uses that are listed as Provisional (PR) and as Special Exceptions (S) have additional approval criteria listed in a separate article of the Code (See Article 14- 4B, Minor Modifications, Variances, Special Exceptions, and Provisional Uses). · Residential Uses: You will note that most housing types, except for multi-family and detached single family are listed as provisional uses. Refer to Article 14-4B to read the additional provisions required for these uses. All residential uses allowed are the same as in the current code, except for Independent Group Living Uses. In the current code, rooming houses, categorized in the proposed Code as Independent Group Living, are subject to an unrealistic lot size/density requirements, making it nearly impossible to establish new rooming houses. New residential density and occupancy standards would apply as specified in Article 14-4B on pp. 178-179. Because rooming houses are a higher intensity residential use, the proposed code does not list them as an allowed use in the RM-12 Zone, RNS-20 Zone, and the R/O Zone, zones intended for lower density multi-family development or for mixed single family and multi-family development. · Commercial Uses: Note that we have created an opportunity for small commercial guesthouses in the highest density multi-family zones. These would be similar to Bed and Breakfast Inns, except the owner would not have to reside on the premises. · Institutional Uses: No significant changes here except for those mentioned for the SF article, above. Section 4: Dimensional Requirements - Section 4 contains the' dimensional standards for all the Multi-Family Zones. The standards are presented both in text form and in a table. The text is similar to the text included in the Single Family Zone article, with the same purpose statements and explanations of the standards. Look over Table 2B-2 carefully to get an idea of how the various standards differ between zones. Similar to how the The dimensional standards table is organized in fashion similar to how it was done in the Single Family Zones, listing the standards both by zone and by land use. In Table 2B-2, please note the following changes to the existing requirements: · For the Multi-Family Zones that allow single family uses, the minimum lot sizes and widths for detached SF houses and attached single family dwellings have been changed to be consistent with the minimums allowed in the highest density RS-12 Zone. The minimum setbacks for single family uses are reduced to allow a 15-foot setback, similar to the change made in Article 14-2A, Single Family Residential Zones. · Some changes to the lot coverage standards have been proposed, increasing the allowable lot coverage to 50% in most zones. Since the RNS-20 Zone is intended to be a "stabilization" zone, the standard remains the same as in the current code at 45%. · In the PJO Zone, we are proposing both a minimum setback and a maximum setback, so that new buildings are located close to the street, similar to existing buildings. If we use this zone in new neighborhoods, this will ensure a consistent street wall for the various uses that are allowed in this transition-type zone. In the R/O Zone buildings are limited to 2-1/2 stories, so that commercial or multi-family buildings do not tower over single family uses along the street. Another change to note in this zone is that buildings no longer have to have commercial on the ground floor. Single family, townhouses, apartments, and small retail and office uses are allowed in this zone. The scale and building placement is controlled so that problems of compatibility between differing land uses will be reduced. Section 5: Maximum Occupancy for Household Livin.q Uses The proposed Zoning Code establishes maximum occupancy of a dwelling unit based on the size of a "household" as defined for each zoning district in the City. One "household" as defined in Article 14-9A, General Definitions, is allowed in each dwelling unit. A household may consist of a family, a group household, or set number of unrelated persons (See the definition in the proposed Code for a full description of persons that constitute a "household."). Generally, higher density zones allow larger households. The definition of household sets an upper limit on the number of unrelated persons that may reside within one dwelling unit based on zoning district. It should be noted that this maximum occupancy is not guaranteed, because the occupancy may be further limited by other factors, such as a lack of available parking. In the current code maximum residential occupancy is not something that is grandfathered, it can change with a change in the zoning or the occupancy standards. However, the City's Housing and Inspections Services Department is currently determining the legal occupancy of each rental property in the City and recording this occupancy on each respective rental permit. This makes it possible to grandfather legal occupancy in the new code and allows the City to examine our current occupancy standards and make changes without affecting existing rental properties that are in compliance with the current occupancy standards. Iowa City, being a college town, has a large number of housing units occupied by groups of unrelated persons, rather than families. In general, an apartment with 5 unrelated individuals will tend to have more cars, generate more traffic, more garbage, and in some cases more noise than would a family with five persons. Groups of unrelated individuals tend to operate less as a household and more as individuals living together for convenience and financial reasons. While these housing opportunities are essential in a college town, the potential impacts may become more manageable by both residents and landlords if the number of unrelated persons allowed within each dwelling unit is reduced in neighborhoods that have a mix of single family and multi-family housing. To that end, in the proposed code, the number of unrelated persons allowed within a dwelling unit is reduced by one in the RR-1, RS-12, RNS-12, RM-12, R/O, RNS-20, RM- 20, and CO-1 Zones. These are zones that allow a mix of housing types within the same neighborhood and also tend to have a mix of rental and owner-occupied housing units. No changes are proposed for the highest density multi-family zones (RM-44 and PRM), since these are intended exclusively for multi-family development and do not have lower density single family and two family dwellings mixed into the neighborhood. With the exception of the CO-1 Zone, occupancy would also remain the same in commercial zones that allow upper floor apartments (CC-2, CB-5, CB-10, CN-1). These changes will encourage a mix of housing - single family, duplex, and multi-family - and may help to stabilize older neighborhoods and keep a balance between owner-occupied and rental housing. In summary, the new definition of "household" would change the current occupancy standards as follows: · In the RR-1 Zone, the maximum number of unrelated persons would be reduced from 4 to 3. In the RS-12 and RNS-12 zone the maximum number of unrelated persons in single family and multi-family uses would be reduced from 4 to 3 per unit; duplexes would remain at 3 per unit. · In the RM-12 and R/O ZOnes, maximum occupancy of single family, duplexes, and multi-family would be reduced from 4 to 3 unrelated persOns per dwelling unit. · In the RNS-20 Zone, RM-20, and CO-1 Zones, the maximum occupancy of single family, duplexes, and multi-family uses would be reduced from 5 to 4 unrelated persons per dwelling unit. · In the RM-44, PRM, CC-2, CB-5, and CB-10, the occupancy would remain the same for all residential uses at 5 unrelated persons per dwelling unit. In the CN-1 Zone, the occupancy would remain the same at 3 unrelated persons per dwelling unit. Section 6: Multi-Family Residential Site Development Standards - This section is intended to ensure that multi-family buildings are developed in a way that will promote pedestrian-friendly streets and create compatibility between multi-family buildings and surrounding zonesand uses. In Iowa City we have tried to create the opportunity for a variety of residential uses to locate throughout the City. The Comprehensive Plan describes the desired mix of housing as follows: A mix of housing types within a neighborhood provides residential opportunities for a wide variety of people, including singles, young families, elderly persons, large families, childless couples, owners and renters. When diverse housing sizes are dispersed throughout all neighborhoods, large concentrations of apartments can be avoided. The predominant land use in most neighborhoods will be single-family homes. However, the mix of housing within a neighborhood may also include homes on smaller lots, townhouses, duplexes, small apartment buildings, and accessory apartments above garages (Iowa City Comprehensive Plan, p. 21). To this end, most of the Multi-Family Zones allow single family houses, duplexes, townhouses, and apartment buildings. In addition, multi-family zones are often immediately adjacent to single family zones. In reality, however, this mix of uses can result in problems of character, scale, and compatibility. Tall apartment buildings with blank facades and expanses of parking can be quite out-of-scale with adjacent single family homes and duplexes. Due to these types of problems, the City adopted the Central Planning District Multi-Family Design Standards in June of 2000. In our district planning meetings and in a number of rezoning cases, citizens often question why we do not apply standards similar those in the Central Planning District in other parts of the City. While some of the current Central Planning District standards are specifically designed for infill development in older parts of town, many of the standards would have equal value in new neighborhoods and in older neighborhoods west of the Iowa River. We have, therefore, revised the existing Central Planning District Multi-Family Design Standards that are currently located in 14-5H of the Code and moved them into the Multi-Family Article of the Zoning Code. We have revised the standards to make them more objective and easier to administer and have applied the standards more broadly in all the MF zones, rather than just in the Central Planning District. In the Central Planning District and in the PRM and PJO Zone additional specific standards apply in order to further the intent of these zones. For example, on page 46, there are additional standards for the P,/O Zone to address the variety of uses that might locate in this zone. Residential uses are currently not permitted on the ground-level floor of new buildings in the PJO zone. We are proposing to ease that restriction and allow all types of residential uses, detached single family, attached single family (townhouses), duplexes; and Multi- Family. However, the ground-level floor of all commercial, group living, and multi-family buildings must be designed to accommodate commercial uses. This will allow buildings to be re-used and easily adapted to different uses over time based on market demand. Section 7: PRM Zone Bonus Provisions - The PP, M Zone currently has bonus provisions to encourage excellence in site and building design. There is only one change proposed for this section. We have added a bonus provision to encourage rehabilitation of historically significant buildings. See subparagraph c. on page 50. Section 8: Special Provisions - This section contains the special provisions for historic properties and for the Neighborhood Stabilization Zone, RNS-20 (what is currently RNC- 20). We have added a new special exception option to allow the possibility for historic properties to be converted into a Community Service Use (such as a community center) or a Hospitality-Oriented Retail Use (such as a meeting facility or guesthouse). The content of the special provisions for the RNS-20 zone is not being changed. However, they have been re-worded to make it clear that it is the use and density that is allowed to remain conforming, but other standards of the Code must be complied with. Chapter 2, Article C, Commercial Zones (14-2C) Section 1: Intent Statements: The intent statement for the C1-1 Zone has been clarified to explain the reasons while retail uses are limited in this zone. Also note that the CB-2 Zone is no longer listed, because we are proposing to eliminate the CB-2 Zone. We have combined the uses of the CB-2 Zone and the CB-5 Zone, so that few nonconformities will be created if the CB-2 areas are rezoned to CB-5. Gas stations and car washes, which are currently permitted uses in the CB-2 zone, will be allowed as provisional uses in the CB-5 Zone. However, vehicle repair uses will not be permitted. Some existing CB-2 Zones may also be appropriately rezoned to other designations, such as PRM or PJO depending on the specific location and the surrounding zoning. Section 2: Land Uses Allowed: You should familiarize yourselves with the various commercial use categories, particularly the retail categories. Refer to Article 14-4A, Land Use Classification, for detailed descriptions and lists of examples. Then review the use table in this Article to get a sense where vadous commercial uses are listed as permitted, provisional, and special exceptions. In most cases, we have tried to remain consistent with what is currently allowed in the various commercial zones. However, given that the new use categories are somewhat broader, there will be some change. In most instances the new use categories will allow a broader range of businesses to locate within commercial zones, which should make it easier to locate new businesses in Iowa City. Some other changes to note: · The concept of auto- and truck-oriented use has been eliminated from the code. This term has been problematic in our current Code, because it has included everything from drive-through restaurants to vehicle repair shops. In some instances, the proposed code separates the auto and truck-oriented aspect of the business and regulates that separately. For example, drive-through facilities will be regulated as accessory uses (See Article 14-4C, Accessory Uses and Buildings). New use categories have been created for auto-oriented principal uses, such as gas stations and auto repair shops, making it easier to address their specific externalities (See Quick Vehicle Servicing and Vehicle Repair in the table). · In the proposed Code some changes were made to the C1-1 Zone, since it has become somewhat of a dumping zone for all types of land uses. Similar to other zones, the proposed Code assigns uses to the various zones based on their compatibility with other uses in the zone and the intent of the particular zone. For example, this includes limiting the types of retail uses allowed in the C1-1 Zone (See Article 14-4B, p.183, Sales-Oriented Retail in the C1-1 Zone) or the establishing a size limit, such as in the CN-1 Zone or the PJO Zone (See p. 182,183, Sales- Oriented and Personal Service-Oriented Retail in the CN-1 Zone and the PJO Zone). Section 4: Dimensional Requirements - Section 4 contains the dimensional standards for all the Commercial Zones. The standards are presented both in text form and in a table. The text is similar to the text we included in the other base zone articles, with similar purpose statements and explanations of the standards. Look over the Table 2C-2 carefully to get an idea of how the various standards differ between zones. You will note that the dimensional standards for the commercial zones are not differentiated by use, so the table is shorter and less complex. In Table 2C-2, please note the following changes to the existing requirements: The allowed residential density in the CO-1, CN-1, and CC-2 Zones is reduced from 1 unit per 1800 square feet of lot area to 1 unit per 2725 square feet of lot area. The proposed density is equivalent to what is allowed in the RM-12 Zone. Since these zones are intended primarily for commercial uses and are often located adjacent to single family zones, limiting the density to that equivalent to our Iow-density multi- family zone may allow more of a balance between commercial and residential uses on a property. ,, Residential dwellings are no longer listed as an allowed use in the C1-1 Zone. · The minimum front setback requirement in the CO-1, CH-l, C1-1, and CC-2 Zone is reduced from 20 feet to 10 feet. This reduction would allow buildings to be located closer to the street leaving more room on other parts of the lot for parking. A minimum setback of 10 feet will allow enough room at the front of the lot for landscaping. Of course, this standard is a minimum, so buildings could still be located further from the street than 10 feet. · The CB-5 and CB-10 zones have minimum height requirements in order to encourage the efficient use of land and to ensure that there is a consistent street wall in our highest density commercial zones. Section 5: Maximum Occupancy for Household Livinq Uses - See the previous description of the changes to the residential occupancy standards in the Code on pp. 5-6 of this Reviewer's Guide. Section 6: Commercial Site Development Standards -The next several sections of the Commercial Zone article are intended to ensure that buildings are developed in a way that will promote attractive commercial areas and create compatibility between commercial development and surrounding zones and uses. The standards in this section apply to all commercial zones, except the CN-1, CB-5, and CB-10 Zones. However, the more auto-oriented zones (CH-1 and C1-1) are treated somewhat differently than the commercial zones that are intended for pedestrian- oriented retail and office uses (CO-1, CC-2). This section contains new standards for parking lot setbacks; pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular circulation; landscaping and screening, and standards for outdoor storage and display. There has been some confusion about exterior storage and display of materials and merchandise and the City has been inconsistent about enforcement of the existing standards. Currently, exterior storage is only allowed in the Industrial Zones. However, there are some commercial uses, particularly the quasi-industrial type commercial uses that require some outdoor storage. In addition, many of the larger retail stores have been using outdoor display area. For example, it is typical for a grocery store to have plants, larger items, and seasonal displays adjacent to the building. Therefore, in the proposed code new standards have been created that allow outdoor storage and display in commercial zones, but also include rules about screening and location. You will note that screening requirements reference standards, such as Sl, S2, and S3, These are the new screening standards described in detail in Article 14-5F, Screening and Buffering Standards. Section 7:CN-1 Zone Site Development Standards - Section 7 only applies to properties located in the CN-1 Zone. The standards in this section are similar those currently in the Code for the CN-1 Zone. However, it has been re-worded in some instances so that the standards are consistent with what is required in other commercial zones. Section 8:CB-5 and CB-10 Zone Site Development Standards - The standards in Section 8 apply only to properties located in the CB-5 and CB-10 Zones. The standards in this section are similar to what is currently required in the CB-5 Zone. They are intended to promote a pedestrian-oriented downtown business district. The proposed code extends those same standards to the CB-10 Zone. Chapter 2, Article D: Industrial and Research Zones ('14-2D) Sections 1, 2, and 3: Intent, Land Uses Allowed, and General Provisions - There are few changes to the intent statements and the land uses allowed other than to incorporate existing uses into the new use categories. You may want to review Table 2D-1 to see what land uses are allowed in the various industrial and reseamh zones. Remember that uses that are listed as Provisional (PR) and as Special Exceptions (S) have additional approval criteria listed in a separate chapter of the Code (Chapter 4, ^rticle B). Section 4: Dimensional Requirements -_Section 4 contains the dimensional standards for the four Industrial and Research Zones. The standards are presented both in text form and in a table. The text is similar to the text we included in the other base zone articles, with similar purpose statements and explanations of the standards. However, some of the language has been tailored specifically for the types of uses allowed in the Industrial and Research Zones. Look over the Table 2D-2 to get an idea of how the various standards differ between zones. You will note that the dimensional standards for the industrial zones are generally limited to minimum lot size, setbacks, and height. The standards are not differentiated by use. Section 5: Industrial and Research Zone Site Development Standards - Section 5 of this Article is intended to ensure that industrial uses, parking areas, and outdoor storage areas are set back and screened from dissimilar uses, such as residential or institutional uses. This section also includes certain minimum safety standards for outdoor storage of potentially flammable or toxic materials. Most of the standards in this section already exist in the current Code and have simply been moved to this centralized location and the language clarified if necessary. However, the Code proposes a significant change to the existing standards in the RDP Zone. Currently, there is a requirement that a master plan be submitted at the time of rezoning. This requirement has never worked well. It is cumbersome and difficult to predict what kinds of businesses might locate in the RDP zone over time. If a developer establishes standards that are too specific or inflexible, the master plan may prove unworkable over time. If these standards were private standards, the developer could 10 easily amend the master plan. However, if this same master plan is adopted as part of the zoning, the City is by law required to enforce it, even when all parties agree the standards are unreasonable. Master planning requirements can work well if they are carefully crafted to address general issues of building placement, parking, landscaping, and other shared amenities within a business park. However, these types of standards as just as easily established by the developer and enforced through Private covenants and restrictions. Chapter 2, Article E: Interim Development Zones ('14-2E) The Interim Development Zones are intended for areas that are located within the City limits, but that do not have City services available. Certain limited uses are allowed in these areas until such time as services are extended. Currently we have the following ID designations: ID-RS for areas intended for future single family residential neighborhoodsl ID-RM for areas intended for future multi-family development and ID- ORP and ID-RDP for areas intended for future research park development. Given that these designations should reflect the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, we have added two additional designations for areas intended for future commercial and industrial development, ID-C and ID-I, respectively. In addition, since the RDP and ORP zones are quite similar, it makes sense to simplify the Code and merge the ID-ORP and ID- RDP Zones into just one, the ID-RP Zone. Section 2: Determininq the Principal Uses Allowed - The uses allowed are similar to those allowed currently. With the use categories, there will be a few uses allowed that are not allowed today. For example, currently kennels and stables are allowed in the ID Zones. In the new Code kennels and stables are grouped into the category Animal- Related Commercial, which also includes vet clinics. As a consequence vet clinics would also be allowed in these areas. Similarly, clUbs are currently allowed in the ID Zones. In the new Code clubs are grouped into the Religious/Private Group Assembly category. As a consequence churches would be allowed in these areas as well. It is important to remember that the market will be somewhat self-regulating with regard to the uses likely to locate in the ID zones,' given that these areas will be along the edges of the City with few City services available. The one new use that is added to the list of provisional uses is Outdoor Commercial Recreational Uses. This category includes such uses as commercial campgrounds, golf driving ranges, archery ranges, outdoor miniature golf facilities. These uses are typically land-intensive and have limited opportunities in more centrally located commercial zones. These types of uses could act as interim uses until services are available and the land becomes more valuable for other uses. Section 4: Dimensional Standards - There are no changes proposed for the dimensional standards, other than simplifying the front setback requirements. The general dimensional standard rules for setbacks and height, etc., along with the exception process are the same as for the other zones in the City. Section 5: Special Provisions - As is currently the case, the ID Zone requires that all uses provide approved private water and sanitary sewer facilities until such time as the City extends services to the area. The ID Zones also include the Historic Preservation exceptions allowed in the other zones, as discussed previously. 11 Chapter 2, Article F: Public Zones ('14-2F) The Public Zone designation provides notice to neighboring property owners that the land is publicly owned and will be used for public purposes. The current Code does not contain any development standards for public uses in a Public Zone. However, there are a number of public uses that typically locate within or in close proximity to residential neighborhoods, including schools, parks, police and fire stations, community centers, and recreation facilities. While these uses provide needed services and amenities to surrounding neighborhoods, they might also generate additional traffic, have large parking lots, and bright lights, and contain buildings of a larger scale than surrounding development. If poorly planned these factors may detract from or become a nuisance to adjacent properties. In the proposed draft two zoning designations are proposed: P-l, Neighborhood Public; and P-2, Institutional Public. The Neighborhood Public zone will include all property owned by the City, the County or the Iowa City Community School District. The Institutional Public Zone will include all property owned or otherwise controlled by the State and Federal government. We have added several new sections to the Public Zone article, so that there is some means to ensure that development on publiCly owned property is compatible with surrounding development. For P-1 uses (City, County, and the school district), the City can enforce City zoning regulations, but these rules may be subject to a balancing of the public interests between the various government entities. For properties designated P-2 (State and Federal properties, including p!'operty owned by the University of Iowa), the City does not have the authority to enforce its zoning rules. However, the site development and dimensional standards can act as guidelines or a set of expectations for the State and Federal government as they develop property in the future. Section 3: General Provisions - This section gives reference to those sections of the larger zoning ordinance to which P-zoned properties are subject. These include basic guidelines for locating and designing vehicular access points and sidewalks, maintaining visibility at street intersections, and designing outdoor lighting so that it is not a nuisance to surrounding properties. Section 4: Dimensional Requirements - In general, there are no setback requirements or height restrictions in the Public Zones, except for properties that are adjacent to or across the street from property zoned Residential. For such properties, the setbacks must be the same as for the abutting property. For example, if the front setback is 20 feet, the front setback for the P-zoned property must also be 20 feet. The same is true for height standards. If a P-zoned property is adjacent to a Residential Zone, the height limit would be 35 feet. However, as is the case in other zones, if the building is setback further from the street or property line, the height may be increased accordingly. These standards should not be difficult to meet, since most P Zone uses, such as schools, tend to be located on larger sites, with the buildings set back from the front and side property lines. 12 Section 5: Site Development Standards - The site development standards that are included in the draft are also quite limited. They include setback and screening standards for parking lots and outdoor storage and work areas, so that such uses are screened from public view. These are similar to the standards required for non- residential uses in Other zones. Sections 6: Special Provisions - All land zoned P-1 or P-2 must be owned by a government entity. If sold to a private entity, the property must be rezoned. However, the government may lease their property to private users. If the property is leased for private use, other than for an agricultural use or a privately-owned communication transmission facility (such as a cell tower), then the property must be rezoned to an appropriate zone in which the use is allowed. In such a case the property will retain the Public Zone designation, with the new zoning acting as an overlay zone. All dimensional and site development standards of the overlay zone would apply to the property. If the government leases property for an agricultural use or a privately owned communications facility, an overlay rezoning is not necessary, but any standards listed in the code for such uses must be met. Chapter 3, Article A: Planned Development Overlay (14-3A) Section 1~ - This section describes the purpose of the Planned Development Overlay Zone. Section 2: Applicability - Planned developments are only allowed if they meet the criteria of this section. There are several new elements added to this section: · A planned development would be allowed on property that is zoned Commercial, whereas in the current Code the property has to be zoned Residential. The language also clarifies that a planned development that is required due to the existence of regulated sensitive features may occur on any property, regardless of the underlying zoning. · The categories listed in subsection C are also new. These will provide some guidance for the Planning and Zoning Commission, the City Council and the applicant. Applicants will be required to identify the purpose behind the request for a planned development, i.e. what kind of development can be expected. Section 4: Approval Criteria. - The approval criteria in the current code for planned development overlay rezonings are not clearly stated, making it difficult and frustrating for both developers and city decision-makers alike. The proposed code reorganizes the existing standards and adds new approval criteria as follows: · Subsection A: General Standards - These are currently the general standards for planned developments that are less than 2 acres in size. However, they seem equally applicable to any planned development. · Subsection C: Land Uses Allowed - Language was added to this section to make it clear that while there is greater flexibility to mix land uses within a planned development, the standards for the various types of land uses must comply with the applicable base zone standards. 13 · Subsection D:/V/aximum Residential Der~sit¥ - There is a new table to clarify how residential density is calculated. There is an incentive for alleys and rear lanes by stating that that these areas do not have to be subtracted from the gross area when calculating the maximum number of dwelling units. This subsection a~so makes it clear that the maximum density listed in this table is not always what will be achievable or allowed. The intent of a planned development should not be to maximize density, but rather to allow a density that is compatible with the natural topography of the site and with surrounding development. · Subsection E: Zoning Requirements - ^ planned development must comply with the zoning requirements of the underlying base zone, unless modifications are approved. This subsection indicates which of the underlying zoning requirements may be modified or waived in a planned develop~ment. However, if zoning requirements are waived Or modified then the development has to meet the approval criteria listed in subsection K, Standards for Modified Developments. · Subsection G: Streets - This subsection is similar to subsection E. ^ planned development must comply with City's standards for streets, unless modifications are approved according to the provisions of subsection K, Standards for Modified Developments. · Subsection H: Pedestrian Facilities - Just as in the base zones, planned developments must be designed to foster a pedestrian-oriented living environment for area residents. The term "pedestrian-oriented" is used repeatedly in Iowa City's Comprehensive Plan and the various District Plans to describe the kind of living environment desired by citizens. The requirements of the zoning ordinance are intended to implement the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Because planned developments are often laid out differently than a conventional development, the developer must ensure that safe, attractive, and functional pedestrian routes and connections are established throughout the development, particularly along streets, where conflicts with vehicles are most likely. Establishing pedestrian standards will ensure that a balance is struck between vehicular and pedestrian access to property and important public spaces, such as streets. · Subsection I: Tree Requirements - This subsection is a cross-reference to the existing tree standards for residential uses. · Subsection J: Open Space Requirement- This subsection provides a cross- reference to the existing Neighborhood iOpen Space Requirements that will be moved to a separate ^rticle in the Code. It also explains what must occur if additional open space is to be retained under private ownership and shared by area residents. The concern here is that there is an ongoing expectation by residents that shared open space will be maintained. If it is not, the City often gets complaints. The City needs to have a mechanism tO enforce or recover costs of maintenance if the homeowners' association fails in its responsibility to maintain these open space areas over time. Note there is a new paragraph added to this section that provides a mechanism for a developer and the City to share costs of putting in certain amenities within the areas dedicated to the City as open space, if those amenities will be used by residents of 14 the planned development. The most common example would be a trail connection from the proposed development to a larger regional trail system. · Subsection K: Standards for Modified Developments - The current planned development regulations lack specific standards of review when modifications to the underlying zoning and street standards a~re requested. Since the ordinance provides little guidance, developers often do not know what is expected and the City has little basis for review. This uncertainty can lead to frustration for both developers and the City and may result in a longer review and approval process. Longer review and approval processes may drive up costs fer both the developer and the City. The planned development process is intended to allow for flexibility in the design and layout of the development so that development can be clustered away from sensitive areas, open space, or shared site amenities, or to accommodate a unique mix of land uses. However, if the zoning requirements that apply to all other developments in the City are to be waived or modified for a planned development, it is important for the developer to demonstrate how the proposed development will equ~ally or better meet the spirit and intent of the zoning requirements that are being waived or modified. For example, if the underlying base zone is RM-12 and the developer is proposing taller buildings than what would be allowed in the RM-12 Zone, then it is the responsibility of the developer to demonstrate how the site will be developed such that it feels and functions in a manr~er that is similar to a RM-12 Zone. The proposed standards in the draft identify the intent of the various zoning requirements and indicate how a development can equally or better meet this intent.. We already have some standards in the Sensitive Areas Ordinance that address these issues, because modifications to underlying zoning requirements are routinely requested in order to avoid regulated sensitive features. Duncan and Associates, the consultant hired to analyze our curre~nt regulations, recommended moving and revising these standards and applying them to any planned development where modifications to the underlying zoning requirements are requested. The standards included in this draft were adapted from the Residential Development Guidelines contained in the current Code 14-6K-IN, This subsection also contains new language to clarify the City's policy regarding private streets and any requests to modify existing street standards. Private streets are generally discouraged in Iow density residential areas. Any request for private streets should be carefully reviewed and the reasons for such requests clearly stated. Over time as properties are sold to individual homeowners, residents in these neighborhoods do not realize that their streets are private and not subject to city snow removal, maintenance, or garbage pick-up. The expectation is that the City will maintain these streets similar to other streets in the City. When this does not occur, the City receives complaints and local residents become quite frustrated. · Subsection L: Other Conditions - The "other conditions" in this subsection provide standards to ensure that a planned development fits in with surrounding development. Since planned developments often have land uses and site design that is different from the surrounding neighborhoods, there needs to be some assurance that the site will be developed in a manner that will not detract from surrounding development. These standards are currently used for planned 15 developments that are less than 2 acres in size. However, they are equally valid for larger developments. Section 5: Additional Approval Criteria for Sensitive Areas Developments - Land that requires a planned development due to the presence of sensitive environmental features must also comply with the requirements of Article 14-51, Sensitive Lands and Features. Section 6: Additional Requirements for Manufactured Housing Parks - The current zoning code includes a separate zoning category and standards for manufactured housing parks, primarily due to the fact that the land is not subdivided into individual lots for sale, but instead is divided into lease lots. Residents own the dwelling, but not the underlying land. Typical zoning rules are not easily applied to these types of developments. Manufactured housing parks are not dissimilar to condominium-style planned developments, where the dwelling units are separately owned, but the land and surrounding facilities are jointly owned by all dwelling owners within the development. To simplify the Code and to ensure that similar developments are regulated in a similar fashion, we are proposing to eliminate the Factory Built Housing Residential Zone (RFBH) Zone and Article 14-4D in the current City Code and incorporate the essential standards into the planned development article. Accordingly, section 6 contains standards that are necessary due to the unique nature of these types of developments. Otherwise, manufactured housing parks will be approved according to the same standards as other planned developments. Section 6: Exceptions - We moved the exception process from the current Sensitive Areas ordinance to the planned development article to provide some additional flexibility for unique situations. Chapter 3, Article B: Historic District and Conservation District Overlay (14-3B) This article includes the regulations for Historic Districts and Conservation Districts. ^ new section with maps was added to illustrate the locations of all the designated districts. This will be quite helpful to property owners and city staff. In addition, all the current local landmarks and their addresses are also listed. Section 3: Historic Review - This section contains the regulations for the Historic Review process, i.e. when it is required and what level of review is necessary. New subsections were added to describe the various levels of review: Minor Review, Intermediate Review, and Major Review. This will help clarify what type of review is necessary depending on whether a property is within a Historic District or a Conservation District and whether the type of change proposed is "minor" or "major." Essentially the process remains the same as it is today, but the regulations are easier to read and understand. These regulations will work in conjunction with the newly drafted Historic Preservation Handbook. The handbook contains all of the specific approval criteria for each district. Section 4: Certificate of Economic Hardship - This is a new section. It creates a process to provide some relief from the regulations of this article in cases of economic hardship. There are many jurisdictions that include such a process with their historic district regulations. This process is not intended as a means to provide for cases where there is individual financial hardship. Rather it is a process to provide relief for properties that 16 are unique or peculiar in a way that make it nearly impossible to comply with the historic preservation regulations. Section 7: Prevention of Demolition by Neqlect - This section is also new. This section gives notice that the Historic Preservation Commission has the authority to request an investigation of any historic property if there is evidence that it is being neglected to a point that it is in violation of the City Code. Any person or persons, including the Historic Preservation Commission already have the right to file a complaint with the Building Official for neglect of residential buildings under Section 14-5E-19 of the City Code. However, this section will extend this oversight function to all buildings, both residential and commercial, that contribute to a Conservation or Historic District or th:at are listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The code section referenced (17-5E-19) is currently section 14-5E-19 of the Housing Code, which lists all the various types of structural elements that must be maintained. Chapter 3, Article C: Design Review (14-3C) The current design review regulations are scattered throughout Title 14 of the City Code. We have centralized the general design review regulations into this Article, which in turn references the other parts of the Code where more specific design review standards and procedures are located. For example, in the Central Planning District the design review committee currently reviews plans for new apartment buildings according to the Central Planning District Multi-Family Residential Design Standards. However, this particular task of the design review committee is not currently referenced in the design review section of the Code. With the proposed re-draft of these regulations, we have referenced all the various areas, buildings, and structures that are currenUy subject to design review. These are listed in Section 2, Applicability. Section 3: Desi.qn Review - The two tracks for design review are described in this section. In a Level I review, the Design Review Committee makes decisions regarding design review. In a Level II review, the Design Review Committee reviews and sends a recommendation to the City Council regarding design review applications. The City Council makes the final decision. Please note that we are proposing to change the review process for sidewalk cafes and projects in City Plaza so that these do not have to go through the extra step of Council review. The approval criteria for design review are listed for each designated design review area. While a number of these designated areas are subject to the general design review guidelines listed in subsection C, some are not. For example, the Central District Multi-Family Design Review standards are listed in the Multi-Family article of the Code (See Article 14-2B-6). The standards for sidewalk cafes are listed in the sidewalk caf6 regulations in Title 10 of the City Code. Urban renewal or revitalization plans may have their own set of design guidelines. Note that the "appeals" section of this article has been deleted. This will not eliminate the appeal option, but merely provide the same appeal option as other provisions in the Zoning Code. The Board of Adjustment is generally the appeal body for most regulations in the zoning code. 17 In the proposed code the "remedy of dangerous conditions" section is deleted. We have a similar section in the Historic Preservation regulations to provide the opportunity for the Historic Preservation Commission to assist in finding ways to safeguard historic features of a building that have been determined to be dangerous in some way. There is really no reason for the staff design review committee to be involved in a similar way, because the buildings subject to design review are not necessarily "historic" buildings. The definitions section in the current code was also deleted. All of the definitions were unnecessary or were terms that did not need explanation. Chapter 4, Article A: Land Use Classification (14-4A) This article explains in some detail a new process for classifying land uses into a more manageable number of "use categories." Similar land uses are grouped together in categories rather than being listed as separate specific uses in each zone. For example, a florist shop, a shoe store, and a hardware store are all classified as "Sailes-Oriented Retail." Gas stations, quick lubrication services, and car washes are all classified as "Quick Vehicle Servicing." There are several advantages to this approach: When an application comes in for a use that is difficult to classify, staff will have a centralized and organized set of definitions and criteria to review it against. This approach will provide on way to maintain consistency in our land use review over time and a more flexible means to accommodate new types of businesses that wish to locate within the city. e Grouping similar uses together rather than providing a long list of specific uses will make it easier to establish similar and consistent parking, setback, landscaping and other site development standards for uses that are similar in impact, · Creating a use category section will also help policy-makers make more informed decisions regarding future changes to the Code with regard to where and how land uses should be allowed and regulated. In general, land uses that have similar land use impacts should be allowed in the same zones and be subject to the same development standards. Chapter 4, Article B: Minor Modifications, Variances, Special Exceptions, and Provisional Uses (14-4B) This Article contains all of the approval criteria for minor modifications, variances, special exceptions and provisional uses. Providing these types of processes in the Code allows for development in unusual situations, where the typical zoning rules are difficult or impossible to apply. Section 1: Minor Modifications - A number of new minor modifications would be allowed with the proposed code. The following paragraphs are new: 2, 13, 14, 1=5, 16. A number of these are previously allowed as special exceptions. The proposed cede allows these minor changes without having to get approval from the Board of Adjustment. Section 2: Variances - No change to the approval criteria for variances. These are based on State Code. 18 Section 3: Special Exceptions - This section contains the general approval criteria applied in all requests for special exceptions. There are no changes proposed. Section 4: Specific Approval Criteria for Provisional Uses and Special Exceptions - This section contains all of the approval criteria for land uses listed in the base zone chapter as provisional uses or special exceptions. The current code contains some of these approval criteria. However, there are a number of special exceptions listed in the current code that do not have any specific approval criteria making it difficult for the Board of Adjustment to review and decide on these cases. Adding review criteria will make it clear to the applicant What is expected and will provide guidance to the Board of Adjustment so that consistent decisions are made over time. Note that sometimes the approval criteria are zone specific and sometimes the criteria apply to more than one zone. You may want to leaf back and forth from the base zone chapter (Table 2A-1,2B-1, 2C-1,2D-1, etc.) to these requirements to get a sense of how these sections of the Code will work together. I have underlined the ;approval criteria that are new to the Code.' One of the problems with our current Code is that some uses are listed as special exceptions, but do not provide the Board of Adjustment any specific approval criteria, so staff and the Board must rely on past cases and institutional memory when cases come before the Board. Some significant changes to note: · New approval criteria for duplexes on corner lots in the RS-5 and RS-8 Zone · Approval criteria for attached single family dwellings (townhouses). · The current separation standard for veterinary clinics has been eliminated. · New standards for gas stations, car washes, and other quick vehicle services that are currently considered auto- and truck-oriented uses. · New standards for public assembly-type institutional uses - schools, churches, community service uses. The lot size standard is eliminated for churches to create options for smaller churches. · New standards for communication transmission facilities, such as cell towers. Chapter 4, Article C: Accessory Uses and Buildings (14-4C) Section 1: General Approval Criteria - Since it is nearly impossible to think of all the potential accessory uses, structures and buildings that might occur on all the various types of properties throughout the city, the accessory use chapter is set up to allow any accessory use or structure that meets these general approval criteria. However, for those accessory uses and structures for which greater regulation is warranted, additional and specific standards are listed in Section 2. The wording in Section 1 is not much different from what is currently in the Code. As in the current code any accessory building or structure must be subOrdinate to the principal building and use on the property. Section 2: Specific Approval Criteria - Each of the lettered subsections in this section list specific approval criteria for a particular accessory use, structure, or building. Following is a list of significant changes to the existing regulations: 19 Accessory Apartments: Changes proposed include: · reducing the number of years an accessory apartment rental permit is valid from 3 to 2 years; · establishing the permitted occupancy of an accessory unit and the principal unit to clearly state that no additional roomers are permitted; · reducing the number of bedrooms allowed in an accessory apartment that is located within the principal structure from 2 to 1 and reducing the allowed floor area from 800 to 650 square feet; · increasing the allowed square footage in an accessory building, such as a garage from 500 square feet to 650; and · deleting the requirement that one of the units has to be occupied by an elder or a person with disabilities. · Establishing a clear and enforceable requirement that one of the dwelling units has to be owner occupied. Accessory Uses within Parks and Open Space Uses: This is a new category that will provide the opportunity for shared, private open space uses, such as tennis clubs, swimming pools, golf clubs, etc. In other words, one could establish a subdivision with shared open space with a tennis club or swimming facility intended to be used by all residents of the subdivision. These kinds of shared private open space facilities would be operated by a homeowners association or an entity hired by the homeowners association. It is not likely that we will see this very much, but the opportunity will be there. Bed and Breakfast Homestays and Inns: A provision is added that would allow a non-resident employee through the Minor Modification process. This is similar to what is currently allowed for other home occupation uses. Drive-Throuqh Facilities: Currently these facilities are regulated as "auto and truck- oriented uses" in some zones and specifically called out as drive-throughs in other zones. We have consolidated all the current regulations into a table and added the special exception approval criteria. Currently, the Code provides no guidance on these uses to the Board of Adjustment. We have attempted to codify !the issues that the Board usually considers when reviewing these applications, such as screening, setbacks, traffic congestiOn and circulation. Home Occupations: We have added a permit requirement for home occupations where a significant number of customers come to the property or if the home occupation hires an employee that does not reside on the premises. These are home occupations that may create more impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods, so owner/operators should be aware of the rules and regulations that apply to their business. There have been a few cases where home occupations have been problematic. We have tightened and clarified the regulations accordingly. We have also extended the list of prohibited uses. However, psychiatrists, psychologists, chiropractors, and physical therapists were added to the list of allowed uses. Private Recreational Uses: We have added some lighting standards for properties with swimming pools, hot tubs, and tennis courts, since it is these types of facilities that are more likely to be brightly lit, such that it might infringe on the privacy of neighbors. 2O Section 3: Development Standards - Section 3 of this Article outlines the general development standards for accessory structures and buildings. These are to be distinguished from the setbacks, lot coverage, and height standards specified for principal structures in the base zone chapter. In the new Code we are substituting the concept Of "required setback" for the concept of "required yard." Our use of the term "required yard" has been somewhat problematic in that most people think of their yard as the area between the dwelling and the property line. The current Code uses the term yard to mean only that area that is required by Code. So for example, in most residential zones the required rear yard encompasses only the area within 20 feet of the rear property line, whereas most lots have considerably mo~e area than this between their house and their back property line. By replacing the concept of yards with that of setbacks, we eliminate some of the confusion and we can also specify distinct setbacks for various types of structures. For example, accessory structures may have different setbacks than the principal structure. Note that the street-side setback for attached and detached .qara.qe is 25 feet. This allows enough driveway area for cars to be parked in front of a garage without the vehicles extending over the public sidewalk. The current standard is 20 feet, but with today's larger vehicles, it has not been sufficient to prevent interruption of the sidewalk in many cases. Another change requested by a number of property owners, particularly in older neighborhoods is to increase the allowed height of accessory buildings so that garages could be built with a second floor for a work studio or accessory apartment - so called "carriage-house" designs. The proposed code allows 1-1/2 story or 2 story accessory buildings to be up to 20 feet in height. Chapter 4, Article D: Temporary Uses (14-4D) This article outlines the regulation of temporary uses. The listed temporary uses are allowed, subject to administrative approval by the Building Official. The ~egulations have not been changed to any significant degree, since they have been working fairly well. There has been some concern about temporary outdoor storage and display, such as garden centers, given that what may be initially approved as temporary sometimes becomes more permanent over time. We have added a few additional approval criteria that will hopefully clarify the difference between "temporary" and "permanent." Chapter 4, Article E: Nonconforming Situations (14-4E) Every zoning code has a section regarding nonconform!ng uses. These regulations are intended to be a sort of relief valve for the myriad ways that properties can become nonconforming over time as City regulations change. In general the regUlations are intended to give some flexibility for nonconforming uses to continue, but as the uses or structures are changed, abandoned, or become obsolete over time they can be brought into conformance with the current policies and regulations. Nonconforming situations that are less permanent in nature or are deemed more of a nuisance are required to 21 come into compliance more quickly. Others are allowed to continue as long as they are maintained in a manner that is safe and compatible with surrounding uses. We have added a number of new sections to this article in order to clarify existing regulations. We have also added some language that we think will provide additional flexibility for nonconforming uses that may actually be an asset to the community. Changes are highlighted in the sections below. Section 1: Purpose - A new purpose statement was added. Section 2: Types of Nonconformin.q Situations - Currently the various "categories" of nonconforming situations are listed in the definitions section of the Code. Listing these categories in the nonconforming section of the Code will make it easier to decide what type of a nonconforming situation is under review without having to flip back and forth to the definitions section of the Code. A new category called "nonconforming development" is added to the code, which includes nonconforming parking, signs, landscaping/screening, outdoor lighting and other elements of a development not covered by the other types of nonconforming situations. Currently, by default, any property that was nonconforming with regard to any of these elements was considered a "nonconforming use" and, as a consequence, was highly restricted with regard to any proposed changes to the property. Adding this category will provide a more reasoned approach to these kinds of nonconforming situations and will allow the City to be more flexible with what are sometimes small issues with little impact on neighboring properties. "Nonconforming Residential Occupancy" is also a new category that was added to the Code. The regulations for nonconforming residential occupancy relate to properties that have a legally established occupancy that is not in compliance with the current occupancy standards in the Code. Section 3: General Provisions and Restrictions - These provisions set the framework for the following sections and make it clear that uses established unlawfully are not considered "nonconforming" and are therefore not granted any rights to continue. If there is ever any question about the legality of a nonconforming situation, the burden of proof is always on the owner of the nonconformity to prove it was established lawfully. Section 4: Nonconforming Single Family Uses - Zoning codes often treat nonconforming single family uses more leniently than other uses. This is also the case in Iowa City. The reasoning behind this is two-fold: single family uses are typically viewed as having little impact on adjacent properties; and if a property is difficult to develop due to nonconformities (shape and size of the lot, etc) at least the owner can establish a single family house on it. One clarification to note is in paragraph 2. The second sentence makes it clear that if you are going to add roomers to a single family use, the property must have all of the parking spaces required by the code. This is not a change from how the City regulates these situations currently, but there is often confusion about this situation, so it is important to be more explicit in the Code. 22 Section 6: Regulation of Nonconforminq Uses - Subsection A, Enlargement or Alteration, the language was clarified to address some confusion about what kinds of changes could be made to nonconforming uses. Paragraph B.2. of this section is new. This is a change from how we currently address changes to nonconforming uses. Currently, if you have a nonconforming use, it may not be converted to anything but a .conforming use. There are occasions when an older building is not easily converted to a conforming use, but may still be used in a manner that is an asset to a neighborhood. In those instances, our current regulations may be too strict and cause older buildings to be abandoned or to fall into disrepair. Paragraph 2 outlines a procedure to allow a special exception for such buildings to be re-used in a manner that is compatible with surrounding properties. Another proposed change is subsection E. Damage or Destruction. Currently, we allow a nonconforming use to be rebuilt even if it is almost totally destroyed. Given that the intent of the nonconforming use provision is to bring properties into compliance over time, this standard is overly lenient. In our research, we found no other zoning codes that allow reconstruction of nonconforming uses after they are completely or almost completely destroyed. Other codes that we looked at had similar provisions, but the percentage of destruction ranged from 50 to 75 percent of the assessed value. Previously, Iowa City's Code allowed reconstruction only if a structure was damaged less than 50 percent of the assessed value. The proposed code includes a reasonable reduction from 100 down to 70 percent. Section 6: Regulation of Nonconforminq Structures - There is little change to the regulations for nonconforming structures, aside from the change to the damage and destruction provision reducing the percentage from 100 to 70 percent as mentioned in the previous section. There is an exception allowed for damage or destruction of an historic property allowing such a building to be reconstructed even if damaged to 100 percent or more of its assessed value as long as it is reconstructed as nearly as possible to the original design. Section 7: Re.qulation of Nonconformin.q Lots - Not much was changed in this section of the code except to clarify the existing language. As it is written today, it is very difficult to understand. We have re-written it, but the intent remains the same. Section 8: Regulation of Nonconforminq Development - As mentioned previously, this is a new section of the Code. However, we have moved some language that dealt with relevant nonconforming situations to this section. For example, we currently have some provisions for dealing with nonconforming parking, signs, and landscaping. This section reflects the existing language. We have added a subsection regarding nonconforming outdoor lighting, since there have been occasions when nonconforming outdoor lighting has become a nuisance for nearby properties. Sometimes, simple solutions such as redirecting the fixture would reduce the nuisance, the City has not had a means to require these types of remedies. Section 9: Regulation of Nonconforminq Residential Occupancy - This is another section that was added to reduce confusion about the occupancy of residential structures when there is a change to the zoning or the development regulations. Since occupancy will now be a standard that can be grandfathered as legally nonconforming, these provisions will be helpful in determining what changes can be made to such properties over time. 23 Chapter 5, Article A: Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards (14.5A) Sections 1 &2: No changes are proposed. Sections 3: Maximum Parkin.q Allowed - We currently have a number of zones in the City that have limits on the amount of parking that can be provided on a lot. However, these regulations are currently scattered in different parts of the Code. We have included this new section, so that it is clear why we have such limitations and where to go in the Code to find them. A couple of changes to note: · In the CB-5 zone, there is currently a blanket maximum of 1 parking space per 500 square feet of building area regardless of the type of use. The general concept is that this parking ratio is sufficient to meet the demand for most land uses that would locate in the CB-5, given the density of development, mixture of uses, and the shared parking opportunities in the downtown area. We currently allow a higher amount of parking for hotels, motels, and convention facilities in the CB-10 Zone, so it makes sense to allow the same type of allowance for such uses in the CB-5 Zone. · In the CB-10 Zone, we generally do not allow private, off-street parking without a special exception. However, there is little guidance for the Board of Adjustment regarding when and under what conditions parking should be allowed downtown. Based on the City's current policy for parking downtown, some new approval criteria were drafted for any requests for private parking downtown. Section 4: Minimum Parkin.q Requirements - Cities typically require a minimum number of parking spaces for new development in order to ensure that there is enough parking to meet the demand generated by a particular land use. If insufficient parking is available it may cause increased traffic congestion or spillover into surrounding residential neighborhoods. However, if parking minimums are set too high, developers are forced to build more parking than is needed. When parking is oversupplied it is often treated as a costless good. However, parking is not really "free." It only has value to the extent that it is used. Otherwise it is an economic burden on a development project. Since parking tends to take up a lot of land area, high parking requireme,nts that impose costs in excess of benefits cause developers to favor outlying suburban locations with lower land costs. Such practices contribute to Iow-density sprawl, leave less room for more productive uses, and make it more difficult to re-use established commercial areas, where land is not available to satisfy such high requirements. Iowa City is typical of many cities in that we have tended to try to micro-manage parking by establishing fine-grained requirements for a myriad of different types of businesses. We currently have a parking requirement table that is 19 pages long. However, if you look at parking demand studies, it is generally true that similar land uses have similar demands for parking. It is also true that most commercial enterprises will tend to provide the amount of parking that they need, because parking is important to the success of their business. In other words, most retail/personal service/office businesses will provide the amount parking they need even if the City had no minimum requirement. For residential uses, the demand and supply of parking is somewhat different. There is not 24 always as strong a connection between tenants' demand for parking and the amount that the developer provides. With these factors in mind, we have simplified the parking requirement table, grouped like uses together using our new land use categories, reduced parking requirements where it appeared that our ratios might be causing more parking to be provided than is needed, and increased parking requirements in some zones for multi-family dwellings. Another significant part of Section 4 is subsection F. Alternatives to Minimum Parking Requirements. We currently have a number of different ways that properly owners can reduce their parking requirements. These various options provide flexibility to adapt our parking regulations to specific situations. These include a means for different properties to share and consolidate parking facilities and opportunities to reduce requirements when they are clearly too high for particular circumstances. Section 5: Const('uction and Desiqn Standards - Much of this section of the code is unchanged. Most of the parking location, setback, and landscaping standards are located in the baSe zone chapters (Chapter 2) and are cross-referenced here. The proposed Code establishes general standards for surface parking lots in tJhe various base zones and applies consistent parking lot setback and landscaping standards across our commercial, multi-family, and industrial zonbs. Since structured parking is becoming more common, the standards for this type of parking has been imodified to address the various situations and potential impacts on surrounding properties that can occur with parking structures. Subsection H contains the standards for the layout and design of surface parking lots. New standards are added for very large parking lots to ensure that they are designed to provide safe vehicular and pedestrian circulation. Subsection I contains the landscaping and tree requirements for parking lots. The proposed Code provides a little more guidance for placing planting islands within a parking lot. This will help with traffic circulation by establishing a means to separate parking aisles from drives and also helps to distribute the landscaping islands throughout the parking area. The number of trees required remains the same as in the current code. While drainage swales have not been used much in parking lots in Iowa City, the proposed changes will allow property owners to establish swales, provided that hardy, salt-tolerant species are used. Subsection L regarding "special vehicle parking" was adopted several ye{ars ago and has worked fairly well as a means of providing the opportunity to park large recreational- type vehicles, without detracting from neighboring properties. Few changes are suggested here. Section 6: Off-Street Loading Requirements - Few changes were made to the off-street loading section of the Code. Location, setback, and screening requirements for loading areas are similar to and correspond to the location, setback, and screening requirements for parking areas. These standards are located in the base zone chapter (Chapter 2). .Chapter 5, Article B: Sign Regulations (14-5B) In general, we have not proposed many significant changes to the existing sign regulations. However, the current regulations are not well organized and in some cases 25 are confusing and difficult to understand. Therefore, we moved some of the provisions around to make the progression more logical and grouped the regulations into two main categories: zone-specific sign regulations and regulations for non-permanent, off- premise, and other special signs. Sections 2-7 - The first several sections of this article includes regulations that apply to all signs, such as general location, construction, maintenance, nonconforming situations, and a list of prohibited signs. It also includes a section regarding how to measure sign area, which in the current ordinance is overly complex and thus not very useful. Note that in subsection 4D some significant changes were made to the allowance for electronic changeable copy signs. Previously, electronic changeable copy signs were considered animated signs and were, therefore, prohibited. The proposed code clarifies the definition of "animated sign" and makes allowance for electronic changeable copy signs that are not flashing, scrolling, or contain changing video images. Section 8: Signs Permitted by Zone - The City's zoning districts are divided into groups in this section of the Code and for each group of zones there is a table that lists the types of signs allowed, the maximum sign area, the maximum height, and any special provisions that apply. For the most part, the regulations have remained the same. Some of the text changes are clarifications of existing language and not substantive changes. However, please note the following changes: · We deleted "institutional signs" from the both the regulations and the ~deflnitions. This sign type is similar to other types of signs already allowed and as such serves no real purpose. · Masonry wall signs were added to the list of allowed signs in the CH-I, CC-2, and C1-1 Zones. These signs can be an attractive way to mark the entranceway to a commercial development or office park. · The provisions that specify the number of monument, freestanding, and wide-base freestanding signs that are allowed on any one lot or tract have been combined and modified. In the CO-1, CN-1, and P,/O zones, there is currently no limit on the number of monument signs allowed. This was an oversight that needs to be corrected to prevent sign clutter in these lower intensity commercial zones. A formula was added to the table to allow signage based on the length of the frontage of a lot or tract, similar to how it is done in the other commercial zones. In thie CH-l, Cl-1, and CC-2 Zone, the existing formula was expanded to allow one additional monument sign for tracts that have more than 600 feet of frontage. In addition, in these zones, the maximum number of freestanding signs, freestanding wide-base signs, and monument signs per lot or tract was increased from 4 to 5. Currently very large tracts are not allowed the same amount of signage as small tracts based on the linear frontage of the lot, particularly if the tract is on a corner with frontage along two different streets. This change will allow additional non-building signage for these large tracts. · The formulas to determine sign area in the CB-5 and CB-10 Zone are deleted. Since buildings are often built right up to the property line in these high inteinsity commercial zones, most signage is located on the building. Monumelnt signs are rare. The existing sign area formulas for monument signs are overly complex and have never been used. Given that the lot coverage is usually quite high in these zones, any monument sign would likely be located within 10 feet of the property line. 26 Therefore, the proposed maximum sign allowance is set at 24 square !feet per sign face for a total of 48 square feet for a double-faced sign, the amount that is specified in the current ordinance for signs within 10 feet of the property line. Section 9: Non-Permanent, Off-Premise, and Other Special Si.qns - There are just a couple of changes to note in this section: · Since permanent window signs are listed in the tables for the various zones, we do not need a reference in this table for "informational window signs." HOwever, non- permanent window signs, such as posters are allowed in windows without a permit. · "Directory signs" have been deleted from the list of allowed signs. This type of sign is allowed under other provisions of this article, so calling them out as a distinct sign type is not necessary. More importantly, since there are no size limits on this type of sign, it could be misused. Section 10: Privately-Owned Signs in Public Places - It makes sense to have all of the sign regulations in one location in the Code. These regulations were moved from Title 14, Chapter 1, Streets, Sidewalks, and Public Right of Way (14-1E). Sign Definitions: (These definitions are located in Article 14-9C, beginning on p. 411.) The following sign definitions have been added to the Code: · Canopy Roof Si.qn - This definition was supposed to have been added when the ordinance was amended several years ago to allow these types of signs. It was an oversight in the ordinance that should be corrected. · Siqns in Public Places - Since we moved the section concerning these signs from 14-1E, we also need to include the relevant definition. · Storefront Proiectin.q Siqn: Adding this definition will distinguish these signs from time and temperature signs. The following definitions have been modified or deleted: · Animated Sign: clarified this definition to be more explicit about what is considered animated. · Changeable copy/changeable copy si.qn: changed this definition to electronic changeable copy signs, provided they are not animated. · Directory Si.qn - deleted · Institutional Si.qn - deleted · Provisional Sign - deleted; we no longer need this definition because ~all the provisions for each type of sign are specified in the relevant table in the ordinance, so we don't need to make a distinction between pbrmitted and provisional signs. · Monument Si.qn - We deleted the language that restricts the content of monument signs, so that these signs can be used interchangeably with freestanding signs. Making these signs more useful may encourage use of monument signs instead of freestanding signs. · Temporary Signs - the proposed change to the definition will restrict temporary signs to one of three types: yard sale signs, temporary identification signs, and political signs. This will prevent commercial sites from being blanketed with flimsy, non- permanent advertising signs. · Time and Temperature Sign: modified to make this consistent with the changes made for the electronic changeable copy signs. 27 Chapter 5, Article C: Access Management Standards {14-5C) The Zoning Code does not currently contain standards for vehicular access to public streets. There are currently some rules for access in the Iowa City Municipal Design Standards that are administered by the Department of Public Works. However, since these standards are mainly technical engineering standards, they often d,o not take into account matters of zoning and transportation planning. They also do not have a good mechanism for balancing the various functions of the City's street network, to provide access to adjoining property and to provide for safe pedestrian and vehicular traffic circulation. This article fills this gap and provides some basic access management rules and standards. Section 3: Permit Required - The Department of Public Works currently issues "curb cut" permits based on the Municipal Design Standards. This section creates an administrative review process in the Zoning Code for "access permits" that will replace the current curb cut permit process. The specific procedures for applying for and obtaining an access permit will be included in the Procedures section of the Code. Section 4: Driveway Spacin.q Standards - This section contains standards for spacing between driveways and between driveways and street intersections. These spacing standards are intended to preserve the safety of street intersections and reduce congestion by reducing potential conflict points from driveways that are located too close to the intersection or too close to an adjacent driveway. Note that as the functional classification of the street goes up, the required spacing between driveways and between driveways and intersections also goes up. Section 5: Location and Dimensional Standards for Driveways - The standards in this section are intended to establish a balance between the property access function of streets and the traffic circulation function (including pedestrian circulation) based on the type/intensity of the land use. New rules have been added for determining the location of driveways, particularly if more than one access point is requested or it' a lot has frontage along more than one street. There are also limits on the number and dimensions of driveways in this section in order to prevent unnecessary expanses of pavement, which can increase stormwater run-off, reduce on-street parking, and cause excessive interruption of the sidewalk network. For the most part, these limitations coincide with the current standards contained in the Iowa City Municipal Design Standards. There are separate subsections for Single Family Uses, Multi-Family Uses, and Commercial and Industrial Uses. Section 6: Arterial Street Access Requirements - This section codifies what is currently the process for granting driveway access to an arterial street. Since the primary function of an arterial street is the movement of traffic (vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian), requests for driveway access to individual lots should be carefully considered. The use of shared access points and cross-access easements is encouraged. Along high volume streets or for uses that generate large amounts of traffic a traffic study may be necessary in order to determine whether a proposed access point will be safe and whether road improvements are warranted. 28 Section 7: Cross-Access Easements - Cross-access easements provide a means of shared access for adjacent lots along an arterial street. Each property along a frontage provides an easement across their property for adjacent properties to use to gain access to a shared access point. For new development, driveway locations can be carefully planned. For existing development, the requirement for cross-access easements allows consolidation of access points over time as properties redevelop. Chapter 5, Article D: Intersection Visibility Standards (14-5D) This article brings together the various standards that are currently scattered throughout the Code with regard to maintaining clear lines of sight at street intersections. It clarifies the dimensions of vision triangles on corner lots and describes more clealrly what is prohibited within these areas. Chapter 5, Article E: Landscaping and Tree Standards (14-5E) Section 4: Tree Plantin.q Requirements - There are a number of separation requirements scattered throughout the current tree regulations chapter. In the proposed Code these are put into a table for ease of use. Some additional design flexibility is allowed if the property owner wants to cluster trees or preserve an existing cluster of trees or shrubs on a site. Section 5: Protection and Maintenance - There have been problems with ongoing protection and maintenance of required plantings and trees. Therefore, language was added to address infractions. Section 6: Preservation of Existinq Trees - The City's current regulations allow preservation of existing trees, but do not provide any incentives to do so, nor do the regulations give much guidance regarding the process to follow and howto protect the trees during construction. Section 6 outlines the process for preserving existing trees and also establishes a means to give additional credit toward the tree re~luirements based on how large the tree is that is being preserved. Chapter 5, Article F: Screening and Buffering Standards (14-5F) Iowa City currently has only one screening standard listed in the Code; arborvitae, 6 feet tall. Obviously, this standard is not appropriate to the many situations where uses, parking, mechanical equipment, and outdoor storage and display areas need to be screened from view or buffered from sidewalks. As a consequence, screening often is not required, or is required, but not consistently or at the same standard. To response to this deficiency in our Code, a series of standards has been added to the proposed code that will provide more options when screening is needed. These standards will be used like a toolkit. For example, if there is a parking lot or outdoor storage area that needs to be screened, then the Code will refer to the a~ppropriate 29 screening standard from this Article. You have probably already noticed these standards scattered throughout the draft Code. For example, in Chapter 4, Article B, Provisional Uses and Special Exceptions, screening is often required as a condition of approval. To understand how these standards will be used, read the following paragraph, which is excerpted from the requirements for drive-through lanes: Drive-through lanes must be landscaped and separated from any adjacent lot lines and the public right-of-way to at least the S1 standard. If the drive-through is located adjacent to a residential use or property zoned Residential, it must be screened from view of these properties to at least the S3 standard. The Board of Adjustment may increase or reduce these standards according to the specific circumstances affecting the site. These standards will provide a consistent method for screening and buffering various outdoor display, work, and storage areas. Table 5F-2 lists a number of different plants that would be appropriate for various types of screening or buffering. Local landscape architects have been consulted in developing this list. Both evergreen and deciduous species are listed, with the mature height, form, color and recommended spacing. These recommended plants will replace the current inflexible requirement for arborvitae. Chapter 5, Article G: Outdoor Lighting Standards (14-5G) In the proposed code the lighting standards are moved from the site plan ordinance and from the Performance Standards article of the current Code into a separate article. A number of changes are proposed. A purpose statement and applicability section have been added that more clearly specify exemptions. In addition, specific standards for the control of glare and light trespass have been added. The City has received some complaints about property owners installing in improper lighting fixtures in parking lots that cause excessive glare and light trespass onto adjacent residential properties. Some properties are also overlighted. Once the fixtures are in, it is often difficult to resolve such problems. A number of the proposed changes are based on research conducted by the International Dark-Sky Association and on recommended practices established by the Illumination Engineering Society of North America (IESNA). Section 3: Standards for Sinqle Family and Two Family Uses - The current code does not have any controls on outdoor lighting for single family homes or duplexes. In most cases, outdoor lighting is not problematic in these areas. However, if floodlights are incorrectly directed toward neighboring properties, it can be a nuisance and invade the privacy of the residents next door. The proposed code includes some very basic standards for shielding and directing light fixtures properly to prevent nuisance issues. Section 4: Physical Controls - The height limitations for lighting fixtures remains the same as in the current code. Under the Glare Control Section, a requirement was added requiring that under canopy lights (such as you find at gas stations) use flat or recessed lenses. This requirement would cut down on the glare that often results from the bright under-canopy lights often used for convenience stores and gas stations. 3O In the light trespass section, language is added to ensure that lighting is properly located and aimed so that it does not spill over onto adjacent properties and lights only what is intended. These provisions would be standard practice for a lighting engineer, but not as apparent for those that are inexperienced. In other words, people don't realize what a difference a properly aimed and located light fixture can do to prevent nuisance light onto their neighbor's property. A minor change was made to the light trespass standard. Illumination cannot exceed 0.5 horizontal footcandles and 2.0 maximum footcandles at the property line. The current standard is 1.0 footcandles, but does not specify how the footcandles are measured. Consulting with lighting specialists, it was re<:ommended that we split this standard into two different, measurements to better control light tresp'ass onto neighboring properties. Section 5: Total Outdoor Li.qht Output Standards - These are new standalrds proposed in the Code. The standards provide an upper limit on the total amount of light for a given amount of land based on whether it is in a higher or lower intensity zone Within the City. They are intended to prevent excessive overlighting and general light pollution. Crime prevention experts advise that overlighting is often not a deterrent to crime, because excessive amounts of light create glare and intense shadows, providing opportunities for criminals to hide. The proposed maximums are based on suggested limits in the USA Pattern Lighting Code. They are intended to allow adequate, even generous outdoor lighting for most uses. There are a few uses, such as recreational facilities and car dealerships that need or desire greater amounts of light. These uses are exempted from the lumen caps if they meet recommended standards established by the IESNA (See Section 6) Section 6: Prohibited Liqhtin.q and Bulbs - This section lists a number of types of lighting that can be dangerously distracting to drivers (laser lights/search lights) or can create dangerous levels of ultraviolet radiation if damaged. :Mercury vapor bulbs are typically not used in new installations, since there are other types of bulbs that are more efficient and create better color rendition. Section 7: Exemptions for Special Uses - For recreational facilities and outdoor product display lots, that typically require or desire large amounts of light that may exceed the maximum output standards, we've established an exemption process, provided that a qualified engineer certifies that the lighting standards recommended by the IESNA for the specific use have been met. Nonconformin.q Development - The proposed new standards are not intended to create problems for existing development. As with most new regulations, the provisions of this article apply to new development. Existing lighting fixtures can remain in place, but in the future if fixtures are replaced, the new standards would apply. The rules for nonconforming lighting are stated in Article 14-4E, Nonconforming Situations. Chapter 5, Article H: 'Performance Standards (14-5H) A number of the performance standards in the current code are outdated, The lighting and outdoor screening standards that are currently in this section of the code have been moved to separate sections of the Code (Screening standards are in Article 14-5F and 31 outdoor lighting standards are in Article 14-5G), The remaini'ng sections are intended to protect property from off-site impacts that might occur due to intensive commercial and industrial activity. These regulations establish standards to prevent excessive noise, air pollution, odor, and excessive vibrations. The standards also include rules for safe storage of combustible and flammable materials with reference to the latest version of the International Fire Code. Section 5: Air Quality Standards - Since emissions of smoke, particulate matter, and chemicals are regulated by the Iowa Deparlment of Environmental Quality, there is no need for the City to duplicate that effort, nor do we have the staff expertise to do so. Therefore, we have eliminated several outdated sections of the code and replaced them with a reference to the State regulations. Section 8: Storaqe of Combustible and Flammable Materials - In an effort to ensure that the zoning code in consistent with the International Fire Code, as amended, changes have been made to the existing code based on input from the Iowa City Fire Marshal. Chapter 5, Article I: Sensitive Lands and Features {14-51) There are very few substantive changes proposed in this draft of the sen~sitive areas ordinance. There were some significant revisions completed last year to make more of the regulations subject to administrative review rather than requiring a sensitive areas overlay rezoning. There are no changes proposed in this draft that modify the decisions made last year. Most changes proposed in this draft involve moving sections around to make the process more clear, deleting repetitive language, and supplying clarifying language where there has been some confusion in the past. Following is a summary of various sections of this Article and the proposed changes. Section 2: Applicability - This section lists the sensitive features that are subject to this Article, the exemptions, and the various uses, activities and structures that are allowed in protected sensitive areas. · Note that we have clarified that properties that have "groves of trees" as defined in this Title are subject to these regulations. This is currently the case (See section 9, Wooded Areas starting on p.318). However, groves were inadvertently left out of this list. This omission should be corrected. · On page 307 under"exemptions," note that the wetland exemption is deleted. This paragraph is misleading because only wetlands [hat are regulated by the Army Corps of Engineers are subject to Iowa City's sensitive areas ordinance. It is the Army Corps of Engineers that determines and establishes the exemptions to the wetlands regulations. If we keep this paragraph in our ordinance we will have to monitor the federal regulations and amend our Code every time the federal regulations are changed. Section 3: Levels of Environmental Review - This section describes the two levels of review: Level I Sensitive Areas Review, which is conducted administratively through the site plan review process; and Level II Sensitive Areas Review, which requires review by the Planning and Zoning Commission and approval of the City Council through the Planned Development Overlay Rezoning process. These are a clarification of the 32 existing review processes. No changes have been made with regard to what kinds of sensitive areas are subject to a rezoning process (Level II review). Section 4: Modifications to Zoning and Subdivision Requirements - The Sensitive Areas Development Plan Design Guidelines, which exist in the sensitive areas ordinance within the current zoning code (14-6K-1N), have been moved to the Planned Development Overlay article of the Code (Article 14-3A) and applied more broadly to any planned development where modifications to the underlying zoning requirements are requested. These standards are intended to ensure that development that is clustered on smaller lots will be carefully planned so that the resulting development will enjoy the same neighborhood environment as would be developed if it was developed with standard size lots. Granting the opportunity to cluster development provides developers a means to transfer density from sensitive areas on a site to areas that are more suitable for development. Section 5: Compliance Measures - This section describes how a Sensitive Areas Development Plan and the associated legal papers provide a mechanism to protect sensitive features at the time of development and into the future. Sections 6 through 12 - These sections establish the purposes and standards for protection of each type of regulated sensitive feature, i.e. wetlands, stream corridors, slopes, wooded areas, fully hydric soils, prairie remnants, and archaeological sites. There are no substantive changes proposed for these sections. New language added is for clarification and ease of use purposes. Section 13: Exceptions - The exception process has never been used, most likely because there is already quite a bit of flexibility built into this ordinance. Since the standards of approval for such a special exception are similar to that of a variance, staff suggests that this section be deleted. Those seeking relief from any provision of this article can avail themselves of the general variance process provided in Article 14-4B. Chapter 5, Article J: Floodplain Management Standards (14-5J) There are few significant changes proposed for this article of the Code, just a general clean-up of the language. These regulations were established to be in conformance with federal regulations, so changes to this ordinance were reviewed and approved by FEMA and the Iowa Department of Natural Resources. Please note the following changes: · Section 4 - Compliance with Provisions; Nonconformin.q.Situations - The current language needs to be corrected. Nonconformities with regard to the floodplain management standards should not be considered "nonconforming uses" because then very few changes would be allowed, even small changes. This section has been rewritten to make it clear that changes that do not constitute "substantial improvements" are allowed on structures that are not in compliance with these regulations. "Substantial improvement" is defined to allow, for example, the addition of a porch or stoop on a residential building. Such an addition would not be allowed if these buildings were considered "nonconforming uses," as defined in the Zoning Code. 33 · Section 7: General Flood Plain Management Standards - Language to make it clear .that alternate methods of elevating a building would be allowed by special exception. It isn't clear in the existing code whether this would be considered a variance or a special exception. It is much easier to meet the special exception approval criteria than to get a variance. We contacted the DNR and they do not need or want to participate in this special exception process, so the DNR approval part of the process was deleted from the ordinance. · Section 9: Variances - The proposed code clarifies how this variance process relates to the general variance process in the Zoning Code. If a variance is requested, the applicant must demonstrate that the general variance standards are met (See Article 14-4B) in addition to the specific standards related to floodplain management. Chapter 5, Article K: Open Space Requirements (14-5K) In the proposed code the neighborhood open space requirements have been moved from within the planned development article into a separate article. In this way these regulations will not have to be repeated within the subdivision title and ca~n instead be easily cross-referenced and applied to both subdivisions and planned developments. Language is added to make it clear that land that is being dedicated as open space must have all required improvements installed prior to dedication. This is not a change from the current practice, but adding this language makes the process more apparent. This is also true of paragraph C.4. on page 335. This paragraph was added to make it clear that the developer is required to protect land intended for dedication from erosion and development activities that might disrupt or damage intended open space. This is a codification of current practice. Chapter 7, Article A: Boards and Commissions (14-7A) This article includes a description of the purpose, powers and duties of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Board of Adjustment, and the Historic Preservation Commission. The changes made to these sections of the Code are primarily clean-up and reorganization. Since most of the details of how these bodies function are spelled out in their respective rules of procedure and bylaws, it is not necessary to include them in the ordinance. Any approval criteria and specific procedures listed in the current zoning code have been moved to more appropriate locations in the proposed code. Chapter 7, Article B: Development Fees (14-7B) Currently, the only development fee regulations in the Zoning Code are those pertaining to the Near Southside Neighborhood Parking Facility District. These regulations have been in force for several years and are intended to ensure that new residential development in the Near Southside Neighborhood beam a proportionate share of the capital improvement costs necessary to meet the parking demand generated by new residential development in this area. There are no changes proposed for this section, other than in section 6 on p. 345, where the wording is changed so that it is clear that the fee is only collected on those properties 34 where additional parking is required as a consequence of redevelopment or a change in use, Chapter 7, Article C: Penalties and Enforcement (14-7C) This article identifies the violations and penalties and enforcement mecha~nisms for the Zoning Code. In large part the language mirrors and elaborates on the enforcement language in Title 1 of the City Code. New language proposed in Section 14-7C-5A, Penalties (p.350), is language that was previously in the Code, but was inadvertently deleted in a previous Code amendment process. Since this language identifies the persons that can be cited for a violation, it is important to add it back into the Code. Please note that paragraph A.3. is a new penalty clause that is proposed for historic properties. Monetary fines for municipal infractions provide little disincentive for persons that are determined to tear down or significantly alter historic properties without approval of the Historic Preservation Commission. Requiring that a building be rebuilt to its former appearance and setting will provide more of a deterrent. This type of penalty clause has been used by other municipalities for the same reasons. Subsection 14-7C-5B, Stop Work Order, was added to the zoning code. It mirrors the language that is currently in the building code. It is repeated here for ease of use. No changes have been made to the content, process, or practice of issuing stop work orders. Chapter 8: Review and Approval Procedures (14-8) One of the recommendations from Duncan & Associates, the consultant hired to analyze the current code, was to include a more detailed procedures section, so that persons applying for permits and approvals would be aware of where to apply, what materials to submit, and what the approval process would entail. The chapter is divided into five Articles: General procedures; Administrative Approval Procedures; Board of Adjustment Approval Procedures; Planning and Zoning Commission Approval Procedures; and Historic Preservation Approval Procedures. The various sections include information about where to apply for various permits and approvals, which public body or bodies are charged with reviewing and approving the procedures, and how the application is processed and approved. The current code language is inconsistent with regard to descriptions of administrative, quasi-judicial, and legislative procedures. Some parts of the ordinance describe processes in detail right down to the listing of supporting materials that must be submitted with an application. Other procedures are not described at all or only in brief. In general, we have tried to get rid of extraneous language that does not pertain to the process and add language and procedures where the Code is lacking. The attached chapter is quite lengthy, but most sections, with a few exceptions, do not contain regulations, but rather the process for obtaining approval. As such, many are repetitive. For example, there are various types of"rezonings:" regular rezonings; 35 planned development overlay rezonings; design review overlay rezonings; historic and conservation district overlay rezonings. All of these types for rezonings follow the same general approval process. Following are a list of substantive changes that you may want to review. Article A: General Procedures Section 1: General Application Requirements In the current Code submittal requirements are listed in detail for some procedures and not at all for others. Rather than trying to list in the Zoning Code all supporting materials that might be needed to assess an application the City will update and improve the current application forms, so that each lists the materials that are required when a person applies. Instead of a list of necessary supporting materials, the proposed code states, "Supporting materials must be submitted as specified on the application form." You will notice that this language is repeated throughout the Chapter for most procedures. Section 2: Nei.qhborhood Meetinq Required This section contains requirements for a mandatory neighborhood meeting prior to application for certain types of major development applications: annexations, comprehensive plan amendments, upzonings that are adjacent to existing residential areas; planned development rezonings; and sensitive areas rezonings. This is a codification of our current voluntary "good neighbor" policy. This was a change recommended in the initial development regulations analysis conducted by Duncan and Associates. Article B: Administrative Approval Procedures Section 2: Access Permits The City currently requires a curb cut permit prior to construction of any driveway or access from any street. This section explains the process for obtaining such a permit. We have renamed these permits, "access permits" to coincide with the access management standards contained in Chapter 5, Article C. Section 6: Home Occupation Permit The City currently does not require a permit for home occupations. However, in the proposed code a permit is required for home occupations where a non-resident employee works at the site or where customers frequent the site on a regular basis. Examples include counseling, tutoring, and hair cuffing, and similar. The reason for requiring a permit is to inform people of the standards for home occupations, so we can prevent neighborhood nuisance issues that may occur with home occupations that generate more activity. Section 7: Level I Sensitive Areas Review To simplify the sensitive areas regulations, we have eliminated the terms "sensitive areas site plan" and "sensitive areas rezoning." If regulated sensitive features are on a property, then either a Level I or a Level II Sensit!ve Areas Review will be required. The Level I review is an administrative review, which is completed concurrently with a subdivision plat or with site plan review. The Level II Sensitive Areas Review is conducted through the planned development overlay rezoning process. These are not 36 changes in our current approval processes, but rather a means of reducing the number of different terms we use to describe these processes and a means to reduce confusion between sensitive areas review processes and other processes in the Code. Both Level I and Level II reviews will require submission of a Sensitive Areas Development Plan" that delineates sensitive features on the site, Section 9: Performance Guarantees The City occasionally requires performance guarantees from applicants to ensure completion of required site improvements. For ease of use, we copied the performance guarantee section from the Building and Housing Title and placed it here. No changes are proposed to when and how these provisions will be applied. Article C - Board of Adjustment Approval Procedures Section 4: Reliqious Institution Appeals This is a new type of special exception process that the City Attorney has recommended for inclusion in the Zoning Code. This appeal process is in response to passage of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA). To avoid possible litigation under this federal act, the City Attorney's Office has suggested adding an exception process to provide relief from requirements of the Zoning Code in cases where enforcement of a particular requirement is demonstrated to be a "substantial burden" on a person's religion. There are currently many challenges to this Federal Act making their way through the court system and it is likely that the Supreme Court will eventually have to rule on the constitutionality of this law. However, in the mean time, it is suggested that we include this appeal process in the Zoning Code. Article D - Planning and Zoning Commission Approval Procedures Sections 1 & 2: Annexations These sections have been updated to correspond with State Code and State administrative rules. Section 3: Comprehensive Plan Amendment The current Code does not have procedures for amending the Comprehensive Plan. Note that in Subsection G, City Council Public Hearing, a supermajority vote of the Council is required for passage of an amendment that is counter to the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Given the extensive public involvement process that the Planning and Zoning Commission conducts when adopting elements of the Comprehensive Plan, including the District Plans, amendments should receive careful consideration with regard to how a proposed amendment will affect other policies and goals of adopted plans and an analysis of how circumstances have changed since plans were adopted such that an amendment is in the public interest. Section 5: Zoning Map Amendments (Rezoninqs) and Zoninq Code Text Amendments There is a substantive change in subsection H of this section, Effect on Development Activity. Paragraph 2 provides a means of putting a temporary moratorium on development activity that currently does not require a permit if such activity would be counter to or prohibited by a proposed rezoning or text amendment. Such a moratorium would require publication of a notice. Paragraph 1 also contains some revisions to make 37 it clear that a temporary moratorium will be in effect for zoning map amendments or zoning text amendments. Any requests for permits or approvals could be approved during this moratorium period, but would have to comply with both the existing code and the proposed amendment. Section 6: Level II Sensitive Areas Review This section clarifies the procedure for obtaining a "sensitive areas overlay rezoning." Since this type of rezoning has been incorporated into the planned development regulations, the term "sensitive areas overlay rezoning" has been deleted. A Level II Sensitive Areas Review will be conducted as a part of a Planned Development Overlay Rezoning process, similar to the way it is currently conducted. Section 8: Vacation of Public Riqht-of-Way The City currently does not have a codified procedure for vacating a public right-of-way. There are certain State requirements that cities must follow and the City has developed a practice of involving the Planning and Zoning Commission and providing notice to adjacent property owners. This section codifies the current practice. This will help both citizens and city staff to understand and be consistent about this process. Article E: Historic Preservation Commission Approval Procedures Section 1: Desiqnation of Historic Districts, Conservation Districts, and Local Historic Landmarks The legislative process for designating a Historic District, Conservation District and local Historic Landmark is the same. The research and study of historic areas of the City for possible designation is the charge of the Historic Preservation Commission. The process of studying an area is not a legislative act. In the current preservation regulations in the zoning code, there is a confusing mix of legislative procedure and research procedure, particular with regard to Conservation Districts. While the content of studies and reports that underpin legislative action is very important, it is not typically enumerated in the Zoning Code. Therefore, the language has been simplified to make clear the process for legislatively designating an area for preservation or conservation. Language regarding the content of Conservation District Reports and preliminary reports has been deleted. For review of the current language see 14-6J-4C of the current Code. Section 3: Certificate of Economic Hardship The section enumerates the process for obtaining a certificate of economic hardship. Chapter 9: Definitions This chapter pulls together definitions that are currently spread throughout the zoning code. It will act as a glossary for the code. The definitions within the various articles of this chapter have been modified to reflect the changes made in the body of the zoning code. Significant changes to specific definitions include: 38 · Grade - "the lowest point of elevation" is changed to "the average point of elevation" · Household - This is a new definition intended to clarify residential occupancy standards. · · Setbacks - setbacks are currently defined as required "yards." However, many people get confused about the concept of required yards. People generally think of a yard as all the space between a building and the adjacent sidewalk or adjacent properties. Therefore, the term setback is used in the proposed code in place of the term "required yard." · Yard - The definition is changed to reflect the change described for setbacks above. · Outdoor Stora.qe and Outdoor Display - New definitions were added to distinguish these two types of outdoor areas. These definitions are important for the new screening requirements in the code. · The definitions have also been changed to reflect and cross reference the new "use categories" contained in Article 14-4A. · New definitions were added for the various nonconforming situations described and regulated in Article 14-4E. · New outdoor lighting definitions are included to reflect the changes made in Article 14-5G, Outdoor Lighting Standards. 39 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM TO: Steve Atkins, City Manager FROM: Ron Knoche, City Engineer DATE: March 16, 2005 RE: North Dodge Street (Highway 1) Improvements Neighborhood Meeting A neighborhood meeting was held on Thursday, March 10th at Shimek Elementary School for the North Dodge Street Project. Forty-three people signed in and well over fifty people were in attendance. The meeting introduced the contractor and inspection staff to the neighborhood. A slide show was given to help the neighborhood see what this construction will look like. The citizens were given the opportunity to ask questions and to look at the construction plans. This meeting was well attended. The neighborhood will be kept informed of the construction progress through newsletters. Meetings may be held, if necessary. IP14 City of Iowa City Capital Improvements Program FY 2005-2009 March 10, 2005 2005 Construction Season 1. Iowa River Power Dam Project This is a joint project with the City of Coralville. · This is a $1.7 million project that was awarded to Schmidt Construction. · The project will renovate the dam to maintain a river level to allow for the Iowa City Water Plant to draw raw water from the Iowa River, if necessary. · The project installs a pedestrian bridge on top of the dam and over the emergency spillway. The bridge will also be used for staging emergency personnel when necessary. · The project should be done in the Summer of 2005. · The completion of the project has been delayed by high river levels. 2. Water Works park I Butler House Trails · This is a $122,000 project that was awarded to Metro Pavers. · This project will trails at the park, which include accessible walkways to the historic Butler House, a concrete pad for the small "amphitheater" and will finish the hard-surface trails. · The project should be complete in the Summer of 2005, 3. Court Street Transportation Center · This is a $8.6 million dollar multi modal transportation center project. · This project base bid of $5.97 million was awarded to Knutson Construction. · The base bid included level three. There are alternate bids to build up to level three. · This project includes a daycare and bus station space. · The project, including the alternate work, will be'complete Summer of 2005. 4. Mormon Trek Boulevard Extension - Highway 1 to Highway 921 · This is a $9.3 million project. · The first phase contract was awarded to Metro Pavers. This contract is $2.95 million. · The first phase will build Mormon Trek from Highway 1 to the west Airport property line. It also will build sanitary sewer to the VVB Development on the west side of Highway 218. · The first phase is complete. · The second phase will begin in the Summer of 2005. · The second phase will build a box culvert on the west side of the airport property. · The second phase will be bid on March 15. 2005. · The future phases will build a box culvert under Old Highway 218 and make the connection of Mormon Trek. · This depends on working with the Airport and the University of Iowa. · This project will open to development over 400 acres of land. 5. North Dodge Street Improvements - Governor Street to Interstate 80 · This is a $7,2 million project that will begin Spring of 2005. · The contract was awarded to Metro Pavers. · This is a joint project between Iowa DOT and Iowa City. · This project will reconstruct North Dodge to a three-lane cross section from Governor Street to Scott Boulevard and a four-lane cross section from Scott Boulevard to Interstate 80. Governor Street between Dodge and Kimball will also be reconstructed. · The Prairie Du Chein intersection and South 1-80 interchange will be signalized. · The water main will be reconstructed along the corridor. A new sanitary sewer main will be built from ACT Circle to Scott Boulevard. · During construction, traffic will be maintained. · This project should be completed in the Fall of 2006. 6. Dubuque Street and Foster Road Intersection Improvements · This is a $2.5 million project that will be bid on April 19, 2005. · This project will reconstruct the 1600 feet of pavement on Dubuque Street and 1100 feet of pavement on Foster Road. The project will signalize the intersection. · This project is a proactive response to the future growth of the area east and west of Dubuque Street. · Traffic will be maintained during construction of the project. · This project will be complete in the Fall of 2005. 7. Asphalt Resurfacing Project · This is a $450,000 project that will be bid in April of 2005. · The project will overlay various streets. Some parking lots in City parks will be overlayed and an access to the Lower Peninsula Park will be improved. · This project will be done In the Summer of 2005 8. Camp Cardinal Road Improvements · This is a $6.5 million that will be bid in April of 2005. · This is a joint project between Southgate Development, Coralville and Iowa City. · This project will construct a new arterial connection, mainly on a new alignment. The arterial will connect the Deer Creek Road intersection with Melrose Avenue in Iowa City to 22r~ Avenue in Coralville. · This project is scheduled to be complete in the Summer of 2006. 9. Meadow Street Bridge Replacement · This is a $750,000 project that will be bid on April 19, 2005. · This project will replace the current bridge that is embargoed to 6 tons. · This project will include storm sewer to eliminate a detention basin on Dover Street. · The project will also have a trail component that as a minimum will buy the additional trail easements necessary to construct the Court-Hill Sewer. · This project should be complete in the Fall of 2005 10,South Grand Avenue Improvements - Melrose Avenue to Grand Avenue · This is a $400,000 project that will begin in the Spring of 2005. · The project was awarded to Metro Pavers, Inc. · This is a joint project between Iowa City and the University. · The project is being built in conjunction with the new field house parking ramp. · This will be built following the recommendations of the Grand Avenue Study. 11. Melrose Avenue and Grand Avenue Improvements · This is a $390,000 project that will bid in the Spring of 2005. · This is a joint project between Iowa City and the University. · The project is being built in conjunction with the South Grand Avenue Improvements. · This will be built following the recommendations of the Grand Avenue Study. This will create a one- way loop system. 12. Missing Link Trail · This is a $200,000 project. · This project will be constructed in the Summer of 2005. · This trail will connect the Iowa River Corridor Trail to the Water Works Park. · The trail will go under interstate 80 Iowa River Bridge. · This is being built jointly with the Mackinaw Village Subdivision. 13. Mormon Trek Boulevard and Walden Square/Cameron Way Signalization · This is a$100,000 project. · This is installation of a signal only. No turn lanes will be added at this time. t4. Scoff Boulevard and Court Street Intersection Signalization · This is a $250,000 project. · Turn lanes will be added with this project. 2006 Construction Year and Beyond 15. South Gilbert Street and Sand Road Improvements · This is a $4.3 million project that will be bid in the Summer of 2004. · It is a joint project between Johnson County and Iowa City. · The project will reconstruct South Gilbert Street and Sand Road from Napoleon Lane south to Sycamore Street to an urban cross section. From Sycamore Street south to 480th Street, the road will be reconstructed to a rural cross section. Paved shoulders will be constructed to accommodate bicycle traffic. · South Gilbert Street and Sand Road will be closed from Napoleon Lane to Sycamore Street in the Summer of 2005. · This project will be complete Fall of 2005. 16. Fire Station ~ · Council has only given approval to purchase the property. · The location will be at the corner of Dodge Street, Scoff Boulevard and Dubuque Road. · The site will be used as a borrow area for the Dodge Street Project. This will allow for the site work to be partially completed. · The construction cost of the fire station is $1.5 million. 17. Highway 6 Improvements - Lakeside to 420th Street · This is a $2,0 million project that will be bid in the Fall of 2005. · It is a joint project with the Iowa DOT. · The project will be constructed in the Summer of 2006. · It will widen Highway 6 to a three lane cross section. · It will also make intersection improvements at Heinz Road and Scott Boulevard. · Intersection improvements at Industrial Park Road and 420th Street are also being evaluated. 18. FY06 Landfill Cell Construction · This will be the didth cell in the West half of the landfill. · This cell is expected to last 8 years. 19. McCollister Boulevard · This project will extend from the end of Mormon Trek Blvd at Old Highway 218 to Gilbert Street. · The project is estimated to be $6.2 million. · The City will be obtaining a Federal earmark. 20. Sycamore Street Improvements - Burns Street to City Limits · This project is estimated to be $2,0 million. · The project is proposed to be constructed in the Summer of 2008. · Engineering Alliance is contracted to establish the alignment and profile for this project, 21. McCollister Boulevard Alignment Study · This study helped to narrow down the location of McCollister Boulevard from Gilbert Street to Highway 6. · This is the south arterial, · The alignment corridor will be preserved as the area develops. IP15 AGENDA City of Iowa City City Council Economic Development Committee Thursday, March 17, 2005 2:00 p.m. City Hall Planning & Community Development Conference Room (2nd Floor) 410 East Washington Street 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Minutes - February 17, 2005 3. Discussion of Request for CDBG Assistance - Extend the Dream Foundation 4. Adjournment MEMORANDUM DATE: March 9, 2005 TO: City Council Economic Development Committee FROM: Steven Nasby, Community and Economic Development Coordinator RE: Application for CDBG Funding from Extend the Dream Foundation Extend the Dream Foundation, the parent organization for Uptown Bill's Small Mall, has submitted an application for $147,000 through the CDBG Economic Development Fund (please see application in packet). ~[n addition, an application has also been submitted to the City's Housing and Community Development Commission (HCDC) for FY06 CDBG\HOME funding for this project. HCDC is scheduled to make recommendations on FY06 CDBG\HOME funding to the City Council on March 17. Extend the Dream Foundation is requesting CDBG funds to assist them with the acquisition of an existing commercial property located at 912 2nd Avenue. The proposed project would enable them to expand micro-enterprise programming for persons with disabilities through supporting the opening of a new retail store and developing a new training facility for e- commerce. Extend the Dream Foundation estimates that within the micro-enterprise training services and retail opportunities 6-10 part-time jobs will be created and maintained at the facility. ~[n addition, other part-time or home based businesses may also be created through the e-commerce training program. ~[n addition to the commercial space, the property at 912 2nd Avenue also has three rental units on the upper floor, which they would use as affordable housing units for their clients. The total acquisition cost of the property is $245,000. An evaluation by a local realtor has placed the value of the commercial portion of the building at $147,000 and the residential portion at $98,000. Extend the Dream Foundation has requested that if CDBG funds are awarded it would be as a grant or deferred loan (payable at some future point when the property is sold) so they can maintain the facility as self-sustaining through the commercial and residential income it would receive from tenants. MINUTES CITY COUNCIL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 17, 2005 CITY HALL, LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM Members Present: Ernie Lehman, Bob Elliot, Regenia Baitey Members Absent: NONE Staff Present: Steve Nasby Others Present: Brian Pedrick, Dave Helm, Dave Neipp, Joe Raso CALL MEETING TO ORDER Chairperson Lehman called the meeting to order at 9:05AM APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 1,2005 Motion: Elliot moved to approve the minutes from February 1, 2005 meeting as written. Bailey seconded. Motion passed 3-0. DISCUSSION OF REQUEST FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE- LEAR CORPORATION Nasby said that the Lear Corporation is making an application to the State of Iowa for Community Economic Betterment Account (CEBA) funding, and also for the State's New Capital Improvement Program (NCIP). He mentioned that the State of Iowa's CEBA program requires at least 50% match from the City funds. He added that the City is the official sponsor of the application. In response to a question, Nasby said that the City has sponsored CEBA applications before for Oral B and United Natural Foods. He added that Lear Corporation is asking CEBA for $500,000, so the minimum City match would be $250,000. He noted that Lear Corporation has requested that the City's assistance could be I the form of public improvement. He said that there are some improvements to the industrial park road that are proposed and storm water or storm sewer work. Nasby said that City's money would go into these public improvements which would help the efficiency of the plant. He added that if the road would be widened, the sto~'m drainage would need to be taken into account as it is now an open ditch along the road. Elliot asked if the improvements are all complementary with the plans that exist for the Highway 6 renovations. Nasby answered that an improvement to Industrial Park Road was not in the original Highway 6 improvement plan, but the timing is good. Elliot said that from reading the application, Lear's material transportation is the most important consideration in the competitive nature of the business. Pedrick said that transportation is a very important part of their business as about 80 semi-trailers arrive or depart daily. Lehman asked how the committee would like to proceed. He added that everybody appears to agree that the City should support the project. Nasby added that the committee should discuss if they are supportive of the $250,000 to meet the minimum CEBA match and then move to what types of assistance could be offered. Helm said that the proposed improvements are not serving just the Lear facility but it is tied to the improvements on Highway 6. Elliot asked if there is a reason why to do this now with these funds instead of doing it for typical capital improvement. Bailey asked what are the sources for money that could be used for this project. Nasby answered that there are several sources that could be used for these public improvements, which included General Obligation Bonds and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. Economic Development Committee Minutes February 17, 2005 Page 2 Bailey said that the project would achieve some of the City's economic development goals for providing economic opportunities for well-paying jobs with benefits. Elliot said that other economic development projects the City has assisted are done are in order to add employees, this project however, would assist an existing firm to retain employees and to more effectively compete for business. He asked if there would be any way for accountability of retaining the jobs. Nasby said that there would be an agreement, which would contain enforcement methods, and the company would have to maintain a certain number of full time positions, and pay wages at a specific threshold. Helm said that of the 318 jobs to be retained, 69% qualify as Iow income according to HUD's guidelines, 47% live in Iowa City, and 59% are minorities. Raso asked if there would be more issues that would rise by using two different programs for the improvements. Lehman said that an inconvenience might be the requirements of each program. Pedrick asked if the City would approve the money, if that money would have to necessarily go into the specific projects. Lehman said that the stoplight to be put on Highway 6 would also have a direct impact on Lear, but it would also improve the traffic in the city. He said that it would be a really strong case that the improvement proposed could be tied with the improvement of the SE part of the Highway 6. Elliot asked how many deliveries the Lear Corporation gets daily. Pedrick answered that in the previous day, there were 101 deliveries by semi-truck. Elliot said that anything that could be done to ease transportation in Iowa City is welcome. Lehman asked whether this would be a project that all members of the committee would agree to support. All members answered positively. Lehman added that there would be two possible scenarios. One, he said, would be using CDBG funds, a second one would be using road use taxes, or third, a combination of the two sources. Lehman said that he would prefer a combination of the two. Elliot said that he would like to have Nasby look at the distribution of funding sources and come up with a recommendation on how it is divided between those two funds. Lehman said that the Committee would support the project, but the funding details would need to be worked out internally to determine what sources to use. MOTION: Elliot moved to support the project. Bailey seconded the motion. Motion passed 3-0. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:30 AM. Minutes submitted by Bogdana Rus. s:/pcd/minutes/ecodev/2005/edc02-17-05.doc CITY OF IOWA CITY APPLICATION FOR BUSiNESS FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE BUS1NESS REQUESTING FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE Business Name: Extend the Dream Foundation Name of Authorized Person to Obligate the Business: Allan Young Business Address: 401 S. Gilbert St., Iowa City, 52240 Business Contact Person: Thomas Walz Title: Executive Director Telephone: 339-0401 Fax: 339-0401 E-mail Address: Thomas-Walz~,uiowa.edu Business ID #:421465808 Date of Application Submittal: 1 / 17/05 Release of Information and Certification NOTE: Please read carefully before signing I hereby give permission to the City of Iowa City (the City) to research the company's history, make credit checks, contact the company's financial institution, and perform other related activities necessary for reasonable evaluation of this proposal. I understand that all information submitted to the City relating to tiffs application is subject to the Open Records Law (1994 Iowa Code, Chapter 22) and that confidentiality may not be guaranteed. I hereby certify that all representations, warranties or statements made or furnished to the City in connection with this application are true and correct in all material respects. I understand that it is a criminal violation under Iowa law to engage in deception and knowingly make, or cause to be made, directly or indirectly, a false statement in writing for the purpose of procuring ec,~ development assistance from a state agency or political subdivision. representation, warranty or statement made in connection with this application is incorrect, false, misleading or erroneous in any material respect. If assistance has already been provided by the city prior to discovery of the incorrect, false or misleading representation, the city may initiate legal action to recover city funds. Section 1: Description of Business and Proposed Project l.l. Describe in detail the proposed "project" (for example, company relocation, plant expansion, remodeling, new product line, size of building expansion, number of new jobs, amount of investment in machinery and equipment etc. Proposed is the purchase of the commercial space at a building located at 912 2nd Ave. for the purposes of housing a Micro Enterprise Development Center. The MED Center would provide space for a demonstration "vintage" store and for a training and service program aimed at preparing low-income persons with disabilities with e commerce skills they could use as self-employed persons in their own residences. An upper floor in the building would provide for three low-income apartments for persons with disabilities associated with activities in the MED Center (funding for the housing component of the building is being explored through HOME). The project is an expansion of several business operations that have been going on at Uptown Bill's small Mall since shortly after its start up in July 2001. The business to be located in the proposed facility would be a "vintage" store (the upper scale products from Leslies Luxuries, Bill's Bookmart and Gretchen's Vintage Apparel in the small Mall) and an e commerce business and training service. These two enterprises would be located on the first floor and basement of the building to be acquired. Three of the micro businesses in the small Mall have experimented with Internet sales. Their experience has been that Internet sales often produces more revenue than in-store sales. The result has been the acquisition of knowledge and skill in Internet sales, marketing and shipping and handling. This experience has demonstrated that we can successfully transfer these skills to persons with disabilities. 1.2 Provide a history and description of the business: EDF is an outgrowth of the International Bill Foundation (IBF), which was informally organized in 1974 to administer Wild Bill's Coffee Shop on the University of Iowa campus. The IBF merged with EDF in 1999 and the latter's mission was redirected to promote education and service to the elderly and persons with disabilities. In July 2001, EDF started Uptown Bill's small Mall project with the assistance of a CDBG grant, while contracting with the University of Iowa to continue operation of Wild Bill's Coffee Shop. The small Mall provided opportunities for persons with disabilities to become owners of and/or workers in a series of small businesses located in the current 401 s Gilbert St. location. The businesses started and currently in operation include a coffee shop, a bookstore, a antique/collectible shop, a vintage clothing store, a computer graphics business and an alcohol and smoke free family music venue. At other locations, EDF sponsors a furniture refinishing and small home repair service (Mick's Workshop) and a lawn and garden service (Funks Grove). Both services are housed in a rented building at 2218 F Street. In the past two years, two other micro enterprises have been incubated - Uptown Arts (now a private fbr profit business called the school of Performing Arts and Akebuland, an African boutique that has been moved to Minneapolis. The small Mall is also home to AA Intergroup office and serves as host to ten AA meetings weekly in its music venue space. The success of the small Mall is measured by the number of work opportunities created (currently 11.5 FTE's). This includes providing ownership opportunities for (8) persons, and some level of paid work opportunity for another 12-15 persons. Other persons with disabilities work as unpaid volunteers, along side the 50 or so community and university student volunteers who weekly make their presence felt at the small Mall. The commitment to CDBG of providing work opportunities to 10 FTE/persons with disabilities was met by the end of the second year of the grant. The utilization of the small Mall by low-income persons, homeless and persons with disabilities is significant (with about 30-40 stopping in daily). With long hours (average 13 hours daily) and being open 365 days a year, the small Mall offers a supportive and welcoming environment for many persons with limited family resources and with limited social skills. Revenues generated by the small Mall have grown to well over $200,000 per year. EDF has been able to meet more than 50% of rent and utilities and 100% of operating expenses from small Mall revenues. Its potential for sustainability beyond its current CDBG grant is good. In 2003, EDF assisted two of its owners with disabilities in becoming owners of a "rent to own" Section 8 home at 2218 B Street and in finding another live-in caregiver with a disability help one of the wheelchair bound owners. EDF assists with handling the finances of the home and in dealing with problems of daily living. EDF has also taken on the fund raising and oversight of a ninety minute documentary project on the life and legacy of Bill Sackter. The purpose is to help the Bill story become part of folklore, which features a handicapped man as hero. The local filmmaker is a noted documentary producer who recently won an Emmy for his documentary on the Nazi drawings of Maurice Lazansky. This film is expected to draw positive attention to the City of Iowa City. EDF has earned a solid reputation in the community as both a business and a service. It is a member of the Iowa City Chamber of Commerce and the IC/Coralville Convention Bureau. The organization and its project have received considerable positive publicity in the local press. The organization was recently covered in an article in the new Corridor Business Journal. The small Mall has been a popular referral resource for other local disability serving organizations and is used by the Arc, Goodwill, and Shelter House. The space has become a regular meeting place of the Johnson County Coalition on Disabilities, the Brain Injury Association, the AA Intergroup Board of Directors, Iowan's for Peace, the Unsung Forum (song writers group), the Mud River Music Cooperative, the New Peace Movement, the Irish Slow Session music group and others. Over the past three years, EDF has raised nearly $150,000 from local sources to fund the documentary and to build an endowment from which to subsidize rent/utilities after 7/2007 when CDBG support ends. A total of (52) individual or corporate donors have made a contribution to one or another of its projects. River Run, which sponsors a run associated with the University of Iowa River Fest, has selected EDF as its principal charity. An experienced administrator, Dr. Tom Walz, a retired university professor and academic administrator, directs the EDF. Walz commits nearly 70 hours per week as EDF director and small Mall manager. His volunteer commitments have been widely recognized. He was named a top ten finalist in the Volvo for Life' Awards program and was selected Iowa Volunteer of the Year in 2003. Other staff includes two full-time VISTA volunteers and a part-time contracted bookkeeper. EDF maintains a professional accounting of its activities and has shared copies of all its reports with Steve Nasby and the staff at the CD office. EDF has a close working relationship with the University of Iowa Small Business Center and the Boyd Non-profit Center. Letters of support have been requested from both organizations. 1.3 Describe the organizational structure of the business: The Extend the Dream Foundation is a private non-profit 501-C3 organization founded in 1977. It is governed by a 15-member Board of Directors composed of local business and community leaders, University of Iowa leaders, and persons with disabilities. EDF is headed by a volunteer Executive Director, Dr. Tom Walz, a long time University professor and department head. The office of EDF is in the small Mall, which is its most visible project of micro enterprise development. The office and the Mall are located at 401 S Gilbert. EDF also supervises the Bill Sackter House, a private residence owned by persons with disabilities at 1821 B Street and rents a 1600 sq foot furniture workshop (Mick's Workshop) located at 2218 F Street. 1.4.List the names of business owners: Business owners within the small Mall include Allan Jordison and Roman Schoenberger (Uptown Bill's Coffee Shop), Leslie O'Leary (Leslies Luxuries), James Davis (Bill's Bookmart), Gretchen Gentsch (Gretchen's Vintage Apparel), Del Atkins (the Mad Hatter Room), Ed Gaines (Mr. Ed's Super Graphics). Owners in other locations include Mick Vevera (Mick's Workshop) and Ray Funk (Funk's Grove Lawn and Turf Care). The ownership of each is 100%, though only Ed Gaines is currently independently incorporated. 1.5. List the business five digit and six digit North American Industry Classification codes or the primary and secondary Standard Industrial Codes 453, 454112 1.6 Will the project involve a transfer of operations or jobs: Transfer of jobs: the project will involve the movement of one person from Uptown Bill's small Mall to the new facility, where this person will become the owner the vintage shop and one of the instructors in the e commerce center. 1.7 What date will the project begin and be completed: The project will begin on July 1, 2005 and is designed to be on going. 1.8 Has any part of the project been started? Three small shops in Uptown Bill's small Mall have been doing small amounts of eBay sales and will use this experience in establishing the more upscale "vintage shop" and in expanding the eBay sales program as part of the e commerce development. SECTION 2. FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 2.1. What type and amount of financial assistance are you requesting from the City? We are requesting a grant of $147,000 to purchase the commercial portion of a building in which to house the proposed MED Center project. The business developments would occupy the main floor and basement of the proposed building located at 912 2nd Ave. The second floor, for which a separate housing (HOME) grant is being explored, would be used for low-income housing for persons associated with the MED center as contract workers or self-employed persons.. 2.la How does the proposed project address the priorities, strategies and goals cited in CITY STEPS: According to CITY STEPS, micro-enterprise development is ranked as a high priority need. EDF's focus has been on helping persons with disabilities with supportive employment and start up businesses, including persons with substance abuse problems, chronic mental illness, developmental disabilities and physical disabilities. These are sub populations identified in CITY STEPS as high need groups. In addition, all of the client group to be served by the new project are low-income persons, also a high priority need category. In most instances, our targeted clientele receives some form of permanent disability payment (e.g. SSI). However, these payments barely cover subsistence (if and when they do) and most need to find some form of employment to augment their government support. This is a group for whom total income self-sufficiency is not likely given the nature and level of their disabilities. Nonetheless, they are persons who wish to work and have some residual talent to earn something through sale of a product/service to the general community. Priority Need: HIGH Priority Need. Level: HIGH 2.2 Explain why assistance is needed from the City: The project is being sponsored by a non-profit organization with limited capital and a three a half year presence in the community. To secure a bank loan would be difficult, if not impossible at this point. A grant would not only make the building purchase possible, but would allow a cash flow from the building (rental of apartments units on upper floor) to help in paying utilities and building maintenance until the micro enterprises themselves begin to turn a profit. Without City support it is unlikely that the project could proceed. EDF has had reasonable success in moving towards self-sufficiency. It has built up some savings and investments that it intends to use to "endow" the small Mall project. Like any other successful businesses, there is a need to "grow" in the directions in which success has been experienced and by so doing expand its mission of creating employment and ownership opportunities for low-income persons with disabilities. Given the social nature of this mission, EDF must rely on combinations of government support and private donations. 2.3 In what form is the business contribution to the project?: The Extend the Dream Foundation solicited unrestricted donations from the local community sufficient to cover the planned upgrade of the facility (e.g. repaving asphalt parking area, building patio and ramp, interior repainting and utilities upgrade. With regard to the operations of the project voluntary contributions of time and talent will amount to ($ 96,000 ) over the first year. 2.4 Institutions and Agencies involved: University of Iowa Small Business Center - technical assistance and consultation University of Iowa Non-profit Center - consultation Other University of Iowa departments - student volunteer support River Run - matching funds $5000 Goodwill Industries and the Star Program- client referrals Shelter House - referrals Everett Conner Independent Living Center - referrals, research information Maeglin Storage, Muscatine - donation Iowa City Ready Mix - donation Hall Books - technical assistance Iowa State Bank - donation Hill's Bank- donation Coldwell Banker/Jeff Endberg - donated (50%) of real estate agent fee. The Mansion - donation Iowa City Ready Mix - donation 2.5 Type of Security: It is our expectation that the City would hold the mortgage to the property $245,000), with the understanding that in the event of the sale of the building, the City would recover its investment with some designated interest. The building is being purchased at below assessed value and would immediately be treated to nearly a 20% of value upgrade of the building. The property is in a commercial location that has been greatly enhanced by the arrival of 1st Ave HyVee and property values are inclined to remain strong in the Towncrest commercial district. Mortgage $ What seniority or position? Lien on $ What seniority or position? Personal guarantee $_20,000 upgrade of building within first year. Other $ None (if none, please explain) 2.6 Summary of Project Costs and Proposed Financing Sources SOURCES (Summarize Ali Sources From USE OF FUNDS Question 2.7) Activity Cost A B C D Land acquisition $ Site preparation $ Building acquisition $147,000 X city Building construction $ Building remodeling $20,000 X donations Machinery & equipment $1000 × Univ of Iowa Furniture & fixtures $500 X EDF Permanent working capital $ (detail:) interior decorating [ $1000 X EDF Real estate fees [ X donations Building Permits $250 X EDF Other - Lead Testing Other $ TOTAL: /~tTf0 $147,00 *20,000 * iS z./ t enn~ ut true, used Financins Code Source (include all sources in Question 2.6) Amount Type(a) Rate Term Source A: City of Iowa City $ ! Source B: Community $ Donations Source C: Applicant $1750 Organization _ Source D: Univ of Iowa Surplus $1000 Total: 2.8 Urgency for a Decision: There is no urgency for a decision by the City on this application as the current contract to purchase is in effect until mid-May 2005. SECTION 3: QUALITY OF THE JOBS TO BE CREATED 3.1 Number of Employees Currently Employed?: There are approximately (8) full-time equivalent employees with disabilities working in some capacity within the small Mall program. In total numbers, there are an additional (15) part-time employees and equal number of persons with disabilities who serve as volunteers in the program. This does not include three full time staff 40-volunteers (40-75 hours per week) as well. 3.2. Number of Individuals Employed This Past Year: This is an existing Iowa City business and the numbers reflect the past year. 3.3. If awarded funds, how many new full-time employees will you add to the payroll at the Iowa City facility within 12 and 24 months of the award date? Our first year estimates are that (2-4) new jobs would be developed to provide retail power for the new vintage store and (4-6) new jobs would be developed to staff the e commerce program. Another (3) temporary jobs would be developed associated with the building renovation efforts. An estimated (10-12) self-employed home-based positions would be created through the training program and internship. All of these positions will be filled with low-income persons with disabilities. In the second year, we would hope to train and graduate between 12-20 additional persons for self-employment in their residences. Depending upon the success of both of the small business ventures, 2-3 new permanent positions could be created. 3.4 Estimated annual payroll for new employees resulting from this project?:: This is difficult to establish since the positions are mostly related to profit shares and dependent upon success of the business venture. The payroll costs, hence, are not fixed. Most of the operation staff are volunteers. Best estimate is that the payroll will be below $50,000. The (3) temporary positions related to building upgrade will be paid at a rate of $10 per Hour. 3.5 Starting wage: Workers involved in the building renovation will be paid $10 per hour. All other persons are paid either trainee stipends or profit share. These amounts vary according to business success and restrictions that may be associated with their disability status. For new and existing employees, the pay levels $9,840 for the two full-time VISTA workers; $25 per hour for the part-time accountant consultant, $10 per hour for the one student work-study position, and $1 a year for the full time Executive Director. 3.6 Job Classification Table: as follows using application form. List of Positions and Hourly Rate for Created and Retained Positions Iditional sheets if needed) No. Hours Hourly Create Retain Position Title Per Week Rate of Pay 1 yes Co-owner vintage store 20-30 Profit share 1 yes Retail clerk 20-30 >rofit share 2-4 yes Internet salespersons 20 Profit share 3 yes ShipPing clerk 20-30 Profit share 3 no Temporary construction labor 20-30 $10/hr 8-12 no E commerce interns 20-30 Stipend No. Hours Hourly Create Retain Position Title Per Week Rate of Pay Note: Every applicant should provide average hourly wages for all new and existing jobs which meet or exceed the average county wage rate by industry. Ninety percent of the project positions should have a wage greater than the federal poverty wage rate for Iowa City (30% of median income for a four person household in Iowa City). Under special circumstances, consideration will be given to those companies who cannot meet this requirement. (Contact the Economic Development Coordinator at the City for current figures.) 3.7 Will any of the current employees lose their job is the project does not proceed: None of the current employees would lose their jobs if this project were not funded. 3.8 Describe the type of worker safety programs: Our safety programs have had to do essentially with handling theft, robbery and dealing with any attempted personal violence and emergencies around serving persons with chronic illnesses and disabilities. 3.9 Insurance Availability to Workers: The Extend the Dream Foundation "employs" persons who have some sort of retirement or disability benefit. Their insurance protections come with their situation (e.g. Medicare, Medicaid, Med Path). All persons working in the organization are either volunteers, independent contractors or are receiving stipends from another source for their internships or job retraining. SECTION 4: ECONOMIC IMPACT 4.1.Expenditures in Johnson County: All of our operating expenditures will be spent in Johnson County. This amounts to an estimated $200,000 per year. Inventory replacement may come from auction purchases in Washington and Iowa County on occasion. Likewise, we will do some small amount of buying (books or clothing) nationally through eBay. 4.2 Sales to companies in Johnson County? We do sell about 10% of our services to the University of Iowa, whose policies are to buy local when possible. Another 10% is to Intergroup (AA). Another source of sales is Sharpless Auction. 4.3 What other Johnson County companies could be considered your competitors: To some extent Goodwill, Salvation Army and Crowded Closet are competitors, as are Housework's and Stuff with regard to the recycling of books, clothing and furniture. Second Act is the only other major outlet for vintage clothing. There are no competitors with any of these product areas in the Towncrest business district. 4.4 How will this project benefit the City and County: The proposed project a. Provides opportunities for employment tailored to the limitations and special circumstances of low-income persons with disabilities and those facing other problems in reentering employment (e.g. felons). With this project a large part of the focus is on incubating self employed persons in-home based e commerce. b. Provides an investment in a property whose value should increase and assure no or limited risk to the City, while suggesting the possibility of a return on their investment. c. Provides an opportunity to monitor an experiment in connecting housing with employment. d. Provides an economical service and products to the citizens of the community. e. The creative nature of the project should provide the city/county with considerable positive publicity. f. Provides valuable information on the viability of e commerce as accommodating type of employment for persons with disabilities. 4.5. How will this project grow the property tax base of the Iowa City?: The building eventually would probably return to the tax roles upon its resale. The increased value of the property through the planned upgrade should increase its appraised value and, hence, its eventual appraised value and tax base.. 4.5.a Beyond the present project, what future growth potential is there for the Iowa City operation?. · The concept of computer-based employment doing e commerce is relatively new (to low-income disabled persons) but seems especially suited to their physical limitations. The future possibilities of e commerce work with this targeted group could go along way to bringing some marginalized handicapped persons into income producing employment. This is especially true if it can lead to self-employment in their residences. Both the non-profit and for profit businesses in the recycling of household goods and clothing have been successful and have not saturated the market. A well-run vintage store should do well in the Towncrest area, given the limited competition and the high demand from students and middle income people.. The shops currently operated through Uptown Bill's small Mall have demonstrated steady economic growth. SECTION 5. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 5.1 Please describe the energy and resource efficiency programs, waste reduction, waste exchange, and recycling programs at your Iowa City operation: Uptown Bill's has been one of the first used book-sellers to take their books through book recycling, rather than adding them to landfills. 5.2. Do you use recycled materials in the production of any product or through the provision of any services at your facilty? Most of what we do is to recycle products (books, clothing and furniture). We use recycled materials in all of our printing and recycled cardboard for our shipping and handling. We are a distribution point for Table to Table food for low-income persons and disabled shut ins. In addition, we are reclaiming people who have been outside the workforce or pushed to its margins because of their disabilities. 5.3. Hazardous Materials: The proposed project would not utilize any hazardous materials eliminating the waste disposal issue. 5.4 Energy Conservation: Our project would not make a direct contribution to energy conservation except insofar as getting the public to buy recycled items reduces the need for new energy demanding manufactured items. SECTION 6. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT; COMPLIANCE WITH LAW, REPAY MENT AGREEMENT 6.1 Organizational Capacity and Experience: EDF is an outgrowth of the International Bill Foundation (IBF) which was informally organized in 1974 to administer Wild Bill's Coffee Shop on the University of Iowa campus. The IBF merged with EDF in 1999 and the latter's mission was redirected to promote education and service to the elderly and persons with disabilities. In July 2001, EDF started Uptown Bill's small Mall project with the assistance of a CDBG grant, while contracting with the University of Iowa to continue operation of Wild Bill's Coffee Shop. The small Mall provided opportunities for persons with disabilities to become owners of and/or workers in a series of small businesses located in the current 401 s Gilbert St. location. The businesses started and currently in operation include a coffee shop, a bookstore, a antique/collectible shop, a vintage clothing store, a computer graphics business and an alcohol and smoke free family music venue. At other locations, EDF sponsors a furniture refinishing and small home repair service (Mick's Workshop) and a lawn and garden service (Funks Grove). Both services are housed in a rented building at 2218 F Street. In the past two years, two other micro enterprises have been incubated - Uptown Arts (now a private for profit business called the school of Performing Arts and Akebuland, an African boutique that has been moved to Minneapolis. The small Mall is also home to AA Intergroup office and serves as host to ten AA meetings weekly in its music venue space. The success of the small Mall is measured in the number of work opportunities created (currently 11.5 FTE's). This includes providing ownership opportunities for (8) persons, and some level of paid work opportunity for another 12-15 persons. Other persons with disabilities work as unpaid volunteers, along side the 50 or so community and university student volunteers who weekly make their presence felt at the small Mall. The commitment to CDBG of providing work opportunities to 10 FTE/persons with disabilities was met by the end of the second year of the grant. The utilization of the small Mall by low-income persons, homeless and persons with disabilities is significant (with about 30-40 stopping in daily). With long hours (average 13 hours daily) and being open 365 days a year, the small Mall offers a supportive and welcoming environment for many persons with limited family resources and with limited social skills. Revenues generated by the small Mall have grown to well over $200,000 per year. EDF has been able to meet more than 50% of rent and utilities and 100% of operating expenses from small Mall revenues. Its potential for sustainability beyond its current CDBG grant is good. In 2003, EDF assisted two of its owners with disabilities in becoming owners of a "rent to own" Section 8 home at 2218 B Street and in finding another live-in caregiver with a disability help one of the wheelchair bound owners. EDF assists with handling the finances of the home and in dealing with problems of daily living. EDF has also taken on the fund raising and oversight of a 90 documentary project on the life and legacy of Bill Sackter. The purpose is to help the Bill story become part of folklore, which features a handicapped man as hero. The local filmmaker is a noted documentarian who recently won an Emmy for his documentary on the Nazi Drawings of Maurice Lazansky. EDF has earned a solid reputation in the community as both a business and a service. It is a member of the Iowa City Chamber of Commerce and the IC/Coralville Convention Bureau. The organization and its project have received considerable positive publicity in the local press. The organization was recently covered in an article in the new Corridor Business Journal. The small Mall has been a popular referral resource for other local disability serving organizations and is used by the Arc, Goodwill and Shelter House. The space has become a regular meeting place of the Johnson County Coalition on Disabilities, the Brain Injury Association, the AA Intergroup Board of Directors, Iowan's for Peace, the Unsung Forum (song writers group), the Mud River Music Cooperative, the Irish Slow Session music group and others. EDF is run by a 15-member board of directors consisting of community lay and business leaders, university representatives and persons with disabilities. This board meets quarterly, with an Executive Committee, a Community Relation Committee, and a Long Range Planning Committee that meet monthly. A separate University Relations Committee meets twice annually. Over the past three years, EDF has raised nearly $150,000 from local sources to fund the documentary and to build an endowment from which to subsidize rent/utilities after 7/2007 when CDBG support ends. A total of (52) different individual or corporate donors have made a contribution to one or another of its projects. River Run, which sponsors a run associated with the University of Iowa River Fest, has selected EDF as its principal charity. An experienced administrator, Dr. Tom Walz, a retired university professor and academic administrator, directs the EDF. Walz commits nearly 70 hours per week as EDF director and small Mall manager. His volunteer commitments have been widely recognized. He was named a top ten finalist in the Volvo for Life Awards program and was selected Iowa Volunteer of the Year. Other staff includes two full time VISTA volunteers and a part time contracted bookkeeper. An average of (50) student and community volunteers work an average of 3 Hours per week throughout the year in support of the small Mall micro businesses. 6.2. Has the business been cited for violations of any federal or state laws or regulations within the last five years? The Extend the Dream Foundation has not been cited for any infractions of federal or state laws. 6.3 Repayment clause: It would be our understanding under a grant or loan agreement that with the disposal of the purchased property, there would be a repayment of the grant amount and if appropriate any accrued interest on the City's investment.. SECTION 7. REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS Over the past three years, EDF has raised nearly $150,000 from local sources to fund the documentary a to build an endowment from which to subsidize rent/utilities after 7/2007 when CDBG support ends. A to of (52) different individual or corporate donors have made a contribution to one or another of its projec River Run, which sponsors a run associated with the University of Iowa River Fest, has selected EDF as principal charity. An experienced administrator, Dr. Tom Walz, a retired university professor and academic administrat, directs the EDF. Walz commits nearly 70 hours per week as EDF director and small Mall manager. His volunteer commitments have been widely recognized. He was named a top ten finalist in the Volvo for Life Awards program and was selected Iowa Volunteer of the Year. Other staff includes two full time VISTA volunteers and a part time contracted bookkeeper. An average of (50) student and community volunteers work an average of 3 Hours per week throughout the year in support of the small Mall micro businesses. 6.2. Has the business been cited for violations of any federal or state laws or regulations within the last five years? The Extend the Dream Foundation has not been cited for any infractions of federal or state laws. 6.3 Repayment clause: It would be our understanding under a grant or loan agreement that with the disposal of the purchased property, there would be a repayment of the grant amount and if appropriate any accrued interest on the City's investment.. SECTION 7. REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS (x) Business plan attached (x) Profit and loss statements attached (x) Balance sheets and cash flow statements (x) Letter of Commitment of key volunteers; copy of purchase agreement attached (x) Description of fringe benefits attached (x) There is no conventional payroll as all staff are volunteers and all other "employees" are independent contractors. (x) Map attached (x) Cost estimates attached (x) Corporate certificate attached (x) Certificate of incumbency (x) Corporate resolution attached (x) Corporate signatory authorization attached (x) Business plan attached (x) Profit and loss statements attached (x) Balance sheets and cash flow statements (x) Letter of Commitment of key volunteers; copy of purchase agreement attached (x) Description of fringe benefits attached (x) There is no conventional payroll as all staff are volunteers and all other %mployees" are independent contractors. (x) Map attached (x) Cost estimates attached (x) Corporate certificate attached (x) Certificate of incumbency (x) Corporate resolution attached (x) Corporate signatory authorization attached BUSINESS PLAN: EDF MICRO ENTEt~PR1SE DEVELOPMENT CENTER 1. Business Identitication - the following is a business plan lbr the Micro enterprise Development Center (MED Center) to be sponsored by the Extend the Dream Foundation. the currenl sponsor of the lllicr0 cntcrprlses associated with its Uptown Bills small Mall project. 2. Company History and Milestones - Extend the Dream Foundation dates back to 1974 the year of the ibunding of Wild Bill's Coffee Shop when it was known as The International Bill Foundation (un-incorporated until 1998). It has continued to co-operate Wild Bill's with the University of Iowa to this date. In 1981 the Coffee Shop was thrust in national attention through its depiction in the award wirming television movie Bill. In 1999, the Bill Foundation merged with the Extend the Dream Foundation and in 2001 began its development of Uptown Bill's small Mall. With the merger the EDF mission was changed to reflect service to the elderly and disabled. In 2003, EDF helped with the development of the Bill Sackter House, a universal- Ly designed house located at 1821 B Street. h~ 2003, the organizations director was named a top ten finalist in the Volvo For Life Awards program. h~ Jan 2004, EDF rented a space at 2218 F St and opened Mick's Workshop and Funks Grove Lax~-n and Turf Care. 3. Organizational Mission - EDF's mission is 1) to emSance the well being of persons with disabilities through promoting access to employment and housing and 2) to educate the public about the needs of disabled persons in these arenas. The goals are to provide opportunities for 1) employment and ovmership in local micro businesses for persons with disabilities 2) to provide volunteer opportunities for Students and co~mrmnity persons to work with persons with disabilities and 3)To mount educational initiatives to inform the community about the needs of those with disability. The goals of MED Center are to 1) open a more upscale vintage shop featuring' Refinished furniture, rare books and vintage clothing and 2) to develop an e commerce service and training center to train persons to be self employed doing Internet buying and selling and 3) to connect three low-income renters in apartments in the MED Center building to their employment and training. 4. Description of the business. EDF sponsors a small mall of (8)micro enterprises Which are owned and operated by persons with disabilities. They recruit community volunteers to assist. Six of the micro enterprises are located in the Mall at 401 S.Gilberl St.. Iowa City and (2) are located in another rented building At 2218 F Si. EDF is als0 the producer of a major documentary ou the life of its "founder", Bill Sackter. This video is due to public viewing by late 2205. EDF is currently pursuing the purchase of a building in which to establish a micro-enter prise development center to assist persons with disabilities become self employed in their homes. The new project would provide a retail shop for vintage goods and internet service and training center. The vintage shop would sell both in store m~d on intemet. Those handling the buying, selling and shipping on internet would be persons with disabilities being prepared for self-employment.. 5. Products and Services - EDF chief products are emplyment/ownership of a micro Enterprises by persons with disabilities and the nurturing of these small businesses to a point of incubation into a more independent envirorLment. These micro enterprises in the small Mall currently offer - convenience store food and coffee, books, music, vintage clothing, furniture, furniture refinishing and small- scale home repair. The proposed project would focus on retail sale of books, clothing and furniture and the e commerce sale of the same items, with experimentation as buying and reselling other items over the internet. 6. Clientele - the first level of service is directed at persons with a more than moderate disability, defined as people who have a govermr~ent disability income, Yet remain low-income and subsistent in their economic survival. Included in Tlfis group are the (8) o~mers of the micro enterprises that make up the small Mall, along with 20 or so low income persons with disability who receive some Income working with these businesses. The second level of customers is those who are the customers of the various shops in the mall or who buy services from Mick's Workshop or Funks Grove. Lawn and Turf care. They also include the 20 or so who daily attend an AA Meeting in the mad hatter room of the small Mall. The level of persons served is the 50 or so community volunteer who are Active at any one time assisting with the various business operations and functions of the small Mall. The clientele would be approximately the same with the new initiative. 7. Market Analysis and Envirom-nent - the market for smaller, homey shops with Low cost recycled items to sell are significant in a University community. The Proposed project in the Tovmcrest area has a good reputation as a market area. The Hy Vee grocery across the street from the new' location serves nearly 10,000 Local residents daily. The new location is across the street from Mick's Workshop~ a fm-niture refinishing, and small home improvement shop, which is one of the projects of EDF. 8. Competition - there are numerous shops selling used furniture, books and cloth- in (e.g. Housework's? Second Act, Stufl; the Bookery~ etc). Most have been reasonably successful. The Second Act, in flct? was localed in the proposed building we have identified for the new project, and did well in that location. The presence of competition in the e commerce area is difficult to identify. Most of the intender buyers and sellers are unincorporaled and self-employed. Most would not have the organization we me proposing in our e con~merce service and training center. 9. Risks - the purchase of the building as a site for the project could be a risk. However, the building would be purchased at its below appraised value. The Bids received for building upgrade based on inspection indicate the building is ha good condition and is structurally sound. The building upon upgrade would have excellent resale potential with increased valuation. The risks in this project are minimal. 10. Location - the project location is in Census Tract 15, a priority census tract In terms of addressing the needs of low-income persons and those with disability. The location is in on the edge of the Towncrest area with its shops, banks and medical services. The proposed project would be adjacent to another of our projects that would be involved in the management and upgrade of the property. 11. Facilities and Offices - the proposed building has tl~ree low income apartments on its upper floor and would be rented to low income persons involved in the retail or e conm~erce services on the first floor. The apartments are in good condition, as are the three store fronts located on the first floor. Most of the Upgrade needed for the facility inside will be cosmetic. Outside there is a need To reasphalt the parking area and to build a ramp/patio so the first floor enterprises would be accessible to physically handicapped persons. 12. Management - the proposed project would have direct supervision from EDF Director (about 20% time). The two full time VISTA volunteers would have Prominent roles in helping with businesses start ups with the new project. Tttree prominent businessmen have conLmitted to give 5 hours a week, each, to the project. While this adds adnrinistrative demand in the new' location, it lessens Slightly at the small Mall with movement of Gretchen's Vintage apparel to the new combined vintage shop in the new location. 13. Key Employees - the key employees include Dr. Tom Walz, EDF director, the two full VISTA volunteers, the eight micro enterprise owners and the additional workers with disabilities that assist them. Since the entire enterprise is operated with volunteers, the cenlral staff is those who are for the mosl part full time and lhe persons with disabilities who receive a profit share or slipend. 14. Financial Information - EDF maintains does tile accounting and bill paying for all Of the micro enterprises. 1l would assume the same for the new project. The small Mall gross revenues have reached a poinl of $200,000 per year. The new projecl's gross revenues have been projected at $50,000 the firs! year with a $100,000 by the end of the third year of the pro j ecl. This is apart fi'om the $1200 a month rent received from the ttu-ee apartment renters on the upper floor of the new building. The cost of replenishing inventory auld buying for purposes of intemet selling is estimaled at 75% of gross revenues. This would assure a 20-25% profit margin before profit share and ally wage stipends. The rents received would cover the Costs of utilities and building maintenar~ce. 15. Cash Flow Analysis - all sales are by cash at the time sale, including the intemet where we use pay pal. Retail sales and intemet sales should be steady at a rate of $500-600 per month. Rents are less secure, since non-payment of rent or breaking of a lease could disrupt projected cash flows. PROFIT AND LOSS STATE]X/lENTS - 2001/20(}4' (Jul> 2001-June 2002) BUSINESS INCOME EXPENSE NET GA]-N Extend the Dream 45591 43518 2073 Coffee Shop 22,969 23226 -257 Bookmart 10,776 10271 +505 Leslies Luxuries 40,404 38599 + 1805 Tea Room 3,350 3,378 -28 (Juls' 1 2002 June 30 2003) Extend the Drea~n 46,346 Coffee Shop 25,187 Boo~x~art 10,657 Leslies Luxuries 45,467 Tea Room 3,681 (July 1 2003-Jm~e 30 2004) Extend the Dream t 05,205 102,215 +2990 Coffee Shop 30,528 28054 +2474 Bookmart 18,669 16,992 + 1677 Leslies Luxuries 45,135 45768 -633 Tea Room 7,147 5805 +1342 o Statement does not include tkree micro-enterprises which manage(d) their ov~ accounts: Mr. Ed's Super Graphics, Uptown Arts and Akebuland (the latter Two businesses of which have been incubated. Statement does not include several modest outside grants that were placed directly in escrow accounts and from there into investment accounts. UPTOWN BILL'S SMALL MALL EXPENSE vs REVENUE 2004 EDF COFFEE SHOP EXPENSE vs. REVENUE EXPENSE vs, REVENUE MGMT FEE EXPENSE REVENUE DIFFERENCE "' MGMT FEE EXPENSE REVENUE DIFFERENCE January $900.00 $14,13817 $9~060.66 -$5,077.31 January $300.00 $2,531.77 $2,216.17 -$315.60 February $1,150.00 $6,740.84 $12,829.08 $6,088.24 February $300.00 $1,613.74 $2,535.91 $922.17 March $1,500.00 $7,547.40 $6,701.94 -$845.46 March $600,00 $3,008.76 $2,985.83 -$22.93 April $3,000.00 $13,348.81 $12,71155 -$637.26 April $1,500.00 $2.729,47 $2,696.14 -$33.33 May $3,000.00 $12,069.06 $10,245.76 -$1,823.30 Vlay $800.00 $2,75405 $2,341.00 -$413.05 ,June $1,800.00 $12,435.76 $15,00415 $2,568,39 June $300.00 $1,820.11 $2,339.93 $519.82 i July $2,450.00 $9,104.36 $8,369.07 -$735.29 July $500.00 $2,435.81 $2,295.09 -$140.72 &u~ust $2,100.00 $6,415.05 $3,751.81 -$2,663.24 ~.u~ust $500.00 $2,715.69 $3,469.51 $753.82 September $1,650.00 $7,709.63 $6,960.73 -$748.90 September $700.00 $3,106.54 $2,877.44 -$229.10 October $2,515.00 $10,798.86 $13,630.45 $2,831.59 )ctober $500.00 $2,478.24 $2,397.31 -$80.93 lovember $3,700.00 $8,291.01 $6,921.04 -$1,36997 November $1,200.00 $3,179.26 $2,319.49 -$859.77 December $2,700.00 $5,746.95 $13,967.13 $8,220.18 December $500.00 $2,540.05 $2,526.95 -$13.10 Total $26,465.00 $114,345.90 $120,153.57 $5,807.67 Total $7,700.00 $30,913.49 $31,000.77 $87.28 BOOKSTORE LESLIE'S LUXURIES EXPENSE vs. REVENUE EXPENSE vs. REVENUE MGMT FEE EXPENSE REVENUE DIFFERENCE aGMT FEE -'XPENSE REVENUE DIFFERENCE January $300.00 $1,163.93 $823.02 -$34091 January $300.00 $3,892.83 $3,314.35 -$578.48 February $250.00 $3,629.93 $4,319.34 $689.41 February $300.00 $3,579.50 $4,152.12 $572.62 March $300.00 $1,310.28 $1,606.89 $296.61 March $600.00 $3,175.72 $4,212.84 $1,037.12 April $300.00 $1,031.43 $1,148.56 $117.13 April $1,000.00 $4,274.41 $2,836.10 -$1,438.31 May $800.00 $1,325.56 $713.51 -$612.05 May $400.00 , $2,267.03 $1,943.91 -$323.12 June $500.00 $1,148.22 $2,09267 $944.45 June $500.00 $3,500.18 $3,186.48 -$313.70 July $700.00 $1,853.76 $1,998.20 $14444 July $550.00 $2,709.21 $2,755,30 $46.09 Au~lust $900.00 $1,813.04 $2,302.51 $489.47 August $200.00 $3,133.94 $4,932.11 $1,798.17 September $700.00 $1,694.73 $1,736.89 $42.16 September $250.00 $5~816.70 $6,463.11 $646.41 Dctober $800~00 $2,449.28 $1,507.83 -$941.45 October $1,000.00 $4,854.73 $3,232.66 -$1,622.07 November $1,500.00 $2,370.14 $2,104.05 *$266.09 November $500.00 $4,460.61 $5,142.09 $681.48 December $1,000.00 $2,343.23 $2,262.24 -$80.99 December $1,000.00 $5T107.97 $5,184.73 $76.76 Total $8,050.00 $22,133.53 $22,615.71 $482.18 ~'otal $6,600.00 $46,772.83 $47,355.80 $582.97 TEA ROOM Vintage Wear EXPENSE vs, REVENUE EXPENSE vs. REVENUE MGMT FEE EXPENSE REVENUE DIFFERENCE MGMT FEE EXPENSE REVENUE DIFFERENCE January $270.00 $957.25 $687.25 January February $300.00 $745.00 $538.96 -$206.04 February March $6.00 $636.63 $651.00 $14.37 March April $200.00 $363.76 $1,893.50 $1,529.74 April May $I ,000.00 $1,344.96 $475.00 *$869.96 May June $500.00 $722.00 $414.01 -$307.99 June July $700.00 $371.10 $552.00 $180.90 July $0.00 $32.98 $180.00 $147.02 August $500.00 $798.87 $295.00 -$503 87 Au~lust $0.00 $52.00 $509.00 $457.00 September $200.00 $481.00 $635.50 $154.50 September $0.00 $444.00 $577.00 $133.00 October $500.00 $686.93 $401.75 -$285.18 October $215.00 $436.60 $668.50 $231.90 INovember $200.00 $635.00 $300.00 $335.00 November $0.00 $557.64 $273.00 -$284.64 $0.00 $188.13 $688.75 $500.62 December $200.00 $404.13 $745.24 $341.11 December Total $4,300.00 $7,459.38 $7,859.21 $399.83 Tota $215.00 $1,711.35 $2,896.25 $1,184.90 ESCROW ACCOUNT AS OF DECEMBER 31,2004= $14,146.54 2004 BY QUARTERS EXPENSE/REVENUE EDF COFFEE BOOKSTORE ALL BUSINESSES 15t 2003 1st 2004 /st 2003 1st 2004 1st 2003 1st 2004 IT°tal I 2003 *2004 REVENUE $7,880.55 $28,591.88 REVENUE $6,010.35 $7,737,91 REVENUE $2,926.05 $6,749~25 ~REVENUE15165,653.09 $232,242.16 EXPENSE $9,801.66 $28,426.41 EXPENSE $5,45514 $7,154.27 EXPENSE $2,611.69 $6,104.14 ~EXPENSE $158,219,60 $223,187.02 piff $7,433.49 $9,055.14 2nd 2003 2nd 2004 2nd 2003 2nd 2004 2nd 2003 2nd 2004 * $26,465 were MGMT Fees REVENUE $20,205.50 $37,961.46 REVENUE $7,774,53 $7,737.91 REVENUE~ $2,893.37 $3,954.74 EXPENSE $15,205.55 $37,853.63 EXPENSE' $8,489.29 $7,154.27 iEXPENSE $2,972.91 $3,505.21 3rd 2003 3rd 2004 3rd 2003 3rd 2004 3rd 2003 3rd 2004 REVENUE $16,392.89 $19,08161 REVENUE $8,642.04 $8,642.04 REVENUE $4,68121 $6,037.60 EXPENSE $11,348.22 $23,229 04 EXPENSE $8,25804 $8,258.04 EXPENSE $4,571,72 $5,361.53 4th 2003 4th 2004 4th 2003 4th 2004 4th 2003 4th 2004 REVENUE $22,259.12 $34,518.62 ~.EVENUE $7,381.94 $7,243.75 REVENUE $3,283,53 $5,874.12 EXPENSE $25,955.41 $24,836.82 EXPENSE $6,298.97 $8,19755 EXPENSE $3,267,40 $7,182.55 Tot. al 2003 2004 Total 2003 2004 TotaL i 2003 2004 REVENUE $66,738.06 $120,153.57 IREVENUE $29,808.86 $31.36161 REVENUE $13.78416 $22.61571 EXPENSE $62,308.84 $114,345 90 EXPENSE $28,501.44 $30,764.13 EXPENSE $13,42372 $22,13343 LESLIE' LUXURIES 'EA ROOM GRETCHEN'S VINTAGE WEAR 1st 2003 15t 2004 1st 2003 1st 2004 1st 2003 1st 2004 REVENUE $10,186.18 $11,679.31 REVENUE $1,170.50 $2,14721 REVENUE EXPENSE $9,662.88 $10,648.05 EXPENSE $1,25065 $1,651~63 EXPENSE 2nd 2003 2nd 2004 2nd 2003 2nd 2004 2nd 2003 2nd 2004 REVENUE $16,036,81 $7,96649 REVENUE $848.20 $2,782.51 REVENUE / EXPENSE $15,601.20 $10,041.62 EXPENSE $731.51 $2,43072 EXPENSE, 3rd 2003 3rd 2004 3rd 2003 3rd 2004 3rd 2004 3rd 2004 REVENUE $14,934.66 $14,150,52 REVENUE $894.50 $1,482.50 ~.EVENUE $1,266 00 EXPENSE $15,977.18 $11,659.85~ EXPENSE $1,01170 $1,650.97 EXPENSE $52898 4th 2003 4th 2004 4th 2003 4th 2004 4th 2003 4th 2004 REVENUE $10,502.19 $13,559.49 REVENUE $74897 $1,446.99 REVENUE $1,630.25 EXPENSE $9,068.37 $14,423.31 EXPENSE $682.10 $1,726.06 EXPENSE $1,182,37 iTotal 2003 2004 Total 2003 2004 Total 2003 2004 REVENUE $51,659.84 $47,355.81 REVENUE $3,66217 $7,859.21 REVENUE $0.00 $2,896.25 EXPENSE $50,309.63 $46,772.83 EXPENSE $3,675.97 $7,45938 EXPENSE $0,00 $1,71135 1, CASH ON HAND (be~]. of month) (a) Cash Sales (b) Collection from Credit Accounts (c) Loan or Other Cash Injection (Specify) (a) Purchases (Merchandise) (b) Gross Wages (Excludes withdrawals) (c) Payroll Expenses (Taxes, etc.) (f) Repairs & Mainlenance (9) Advertisin~ O) Rent (k) Telephone (m) Insurance (n)(o) TaxeSlnterest(Real estate, etc.) (p) Other Expenses (Specifl/each) (q) Miscellaneous (Depreciation) (r} SUBTOTAL: (s) Loan Principal Payment (t) Capitat Purchases (Specify) (u) Other Start-Up Costs (v) Reserve and/or Escrow (Specify) (w) Owner's Withdrawal 6. TOTAL CASH PAID OUT {Total 5a through 5w) OWNER: I TYPE OF BUSINESS: PREPARED BY: ! DATE: NAME OF BUSINESS: ADDRESS: Estimated Estimated Estimated [ Estimated Estimaled Estimated Estimated Eslimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated YEAR MONTH Start-Up Pos. I TOTAL ' 1. CASH ON HAND (beg. of month) 2. CASH RECEIPTS I (a) Cash Sales (b) Collection from Credit Accounts (c) Loan or Other Cash Injection (Specify) 3, TOTAL CASH RECEIPTS i 4. TOTAL CASH AVAILABLE 5, CASH PAID OUT (a) Purchases (Merchandise) lb) Gross Wages (Exctudes withdrawals) (c) Payroll Expenses (Taxes, etc.) (d) Outside Services (e) Supplies (Office & Operating) [ (f) Repairs & Maintenance (g) Advertising (h) Car, Delivery & Travel (i) Accounting & Legal (,j) Rent (k) Telephone (I) Utilities (m) Insurance (n) Taxes (Real estate, etc.) I (o) Interest I (p) Other Expenses (Specify each)I (q) Miscellaneous (Depreciation) ('r) SUBTOTAL: (s} Loan Principai Payment (t) Capital Purchases (Specif~) (u) Other Start-Up Costs (v) Reserve and/or Escrow (Specify) (w) Owner's Withdrawal 6. TOTAL CASH PAID OUT ITotal 5a through 5w) 7.(4 m nas 6CASH POSITION AT MONTH END [ p pdcdbg/monthlyca sh flow doc PROJECTED BALANCE SHEET Year One ASSETS AMOUNT Current Assets Cash on Hand $ ~ ~, Accounts Receivable $ .2._~ Inventory $ ~-~ Prepaid Expenses $ Other ~6t1" I10V'¢,~T-c~e_~I'T' ¢~¢_6-T" $ ~ ~-: TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS $ ~0 Fixed Assets Equipment Land and Building Less Depreciation NET FIXED ASSETS TOTAL ASSETS LIABILITIES Current Liabilities Accounts Payable Notes Payable - Bank Current Portion LTD TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES Long Term Debt $ Officer's Debt $ TOTAL LIABILITIES Common Stock Paid in Capital Retained Earnings (Less) Treasury Stock TOTAL NET WORTH TOTAL LIABILITIES AND NET WORTH PROJECTED BALANCE SHEET Year Two ASSETS AMOUNT Current Assets Cash on Hand $. ~4, ~:~ ~ Accounts Receivable $ ;2,,/,5 ~ O Inventory $ ~ ~ ~) ~ '~ Prepaid Expenses $ Other R ~1'"1---' $ ~! ~ 42 O TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS $_ '7 '"7, ~'-"~ O Fixed Assets Equipment Land and Building Less Depreciation NET FIXED ASSETS TOTAL ASSETS LIABILITIES Current Liabilities Accounts Payable ~l~-rA Notes Payable- Bank Current Portion LTD TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES Long Term Debt $ Officer's Debt $ TOTAL LIABILITIES $ Common Stock $ Paid in Capital · $ Retained Earnings $ (Less) Treasury Stock $ TOTAL NET WORTH $ (-~ ! '~'~::) TOTAL LIABILITIES AND NET WORTH $ LETTERS OF COMMITMENT There are tlzree letlers of commitmenl of board me~nber volunteers Io serve as trainers and consultants in the proposed E commerce ser¥ice and training center: 1. Letter from Steve Hall, Independent Book Dealer 2. Letter from David Maeglin, co owner of Maeglin Storage in Muscatine 3. Letter from Jeff Larsen, independent da3' trader and former lowa City Businessman. 4. Letter from Allan Young, Board Chairperson, Extend the Dream Foundation Regarding the cormnitment of private funds for upgrade of building. January 2, 2005 To Whom It May Concern: This letter is written in support of a grant application by The Extend tl3e Dream Foundation. Included in the application is a plan to create employment for handicapped individuals in the area of e-commerce. It is proposed that 5 to 7 individuals be trained in the aspects of e-commerce related to selling moderately priced items mainly on ebay. This wbuld be a considerable expansion of the effort currently in place at Uptown Bill's Small Mall. Over the past two years, I have provided training to several individuals at the Small Mall in product selection, presentation, closing the sale, and shipping of donated items over the Internet. To substantially increase the number of people who could be involved, it will be necessary to find sources of supply and strategies that are not dependent on donations. I am a full-time independent bookseller and I derive my entire income from e-commeme. I consider myself particularly well qualified to provide assistance and mining in this area and will commit to at least five volunteer hours per week for training and advice (for at least the first year of the project--renewable upon evaluation at that time). The strategy which has been discussed, and which I support fully, is to identify niche areas of e- commerce, which have potential for not only selling items through the Intemet, but buying them there as well. This is a common practice and one that I employ very successfully. There are hundreds (maybe thousands!) of items that can be purchased in quantity; and with the correct presentation, sold individually with an excellent return and virtually no risk. The advant_age of this approach is that once the commodities have been identified, purchased, and a sales presentation prepared; they can be offered repeatedly with very little additional effort. As individuals acquire the expertise and the confidence that results from successful efforts, they could move from the marginal employment of what amounts to a sheltered workshop to home- based independent selling. I invite you to look with favor upon this proposal with the hope that a aumber of handieapped individuals can find meaningful employment. Steven A. Hall Iowa City, Iowa DAVID O. MAEGLIN 20 N.LOWELL ST. IOWA CITY, IOWA 52245 319.339.4788 563.260.2505 January 10, 2005 To whom it may concern: I write this letter in support 0fthe grant application by the Extend A Dream Foundation toward the acquisition of the property located at 912 Second Avenue in Iowa City, Iowa. I have been acquainted with the Foundation through it's work as Uptown Bill's Small Mall for the past several years as a visitor and customer. It wasn't until the fall of 2004 that I started to volunteer time and services to the Foundation that I realized the impact it has on the disabled community locally. As I developed a deeper understanding of the value of the Foundation to the many, many individuals served and supported, I personally chose to make a greater commitment of my time and financial resources for the greater good of those served. As I have observed Executive Director Tom Walz's frugality in the management of the Foundation's operations and his association and assembly of a dedicated team of support to the Foundation, I have little question in my mind that the concept and implementation of the plan for the property will succeed. I believe that the property location offers several marketable oppommities both to the disabled commtmity served for transitional educable employment and to a buying public for the property's services offered. To that end, I have agreed to volunteer my services initially to help in any means with the acquisition and rehabilitation of the property and beyond that with the donation of my time to support training of disabled persons within the operations of the property to the value of at least five hours per week for the upcoming year of 2005. I would ask that the grant application be supported so that the Extend A Dream Foundation may extend further into the community. Additionally, I may be reached at the above address or telephone numbers with any comments or questions that you may have. Yours sincerely, David O. Maeglin DESCRIPTION OF FRINGE BENEFITS OFFERED TO EMPLOYEES Almost all of the "employees" of the Extend the Dream Foundation are persons on a public disability program and/or are low income and qualify for public medical benefits. Only one person can be identified who does not receive Medicare or Medicaid benefits. The agency director is covered by Medicare and University health benefits. Thc two VISTA are covered through the Americorps-VISTA program. 2000 Census Tracts Iowa City and Coralville CHESTER J. CULVER STATI=MENTOFCHANOI= .... OF REGISTERED OFFICE Secretary of State AND/OR -' State of Iowa REGISTERED AGENT Pursuanl ~o Iowa law. lhe undersigned submils Ibis Slatemenl Io change the business entity's regislered office and/or registered agent in Iowa Please read the INSTRUCTIONS on the back side of this form before completing the Information and signing below. 1. The .NAME oflhe business entity is: ~".¢~'0.. ~ ,~,/~,~--,~.-t ~z~.,__/-.~-u~,,L 2. The ~treet address of Ihe CURRENT registered OFFICE is: 3. The street address of the NEW regislered OFFICE ~s: slreel city stale zip 4. The name of the CURRENT registered AGENT is: 5. The name of the NEW registered AGENT is: 6. If the REGISTERED AGENT has changed, the NEW Registered Agenl must sign here. consenting to their appointment, or attach their written consent to this I'orm. Stgnalure of NEW Regislered Agenl Complete ONLY if the Regislered Agenl changes. 7. If the REGISTERED AGENT chanqes the street address of their business office on this form, the Registered Agent must sign here indicaling that NOTICE of the change has been given to lhe business entity. Complete ONLY if the Registered Agent changes the slreet address of their business office. B. After any/all change(s) are made, the ~;treet addre,~s of the reqist~r~d Qffic~ and the ~treet address of the business office ~ the reqi~tered aqent will be identical. /~' ~ Slgna,ure by author,zed' repre efl~i'~e:'' ' -,~/~ ~ / ~.~ ~ee inslrucfion ~9 o~ back Name INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY DISTRICT DIRECTOR P. O. BOX 2508 CINCINNATI, OH 45201 Employer Identification Number: 42-1465808 Date:j~ ~ ]~ DLN: 17053314075007 EXTEND THE DREAM FOUNDATION INC Contact Person: 1203 ROCKFORD ROAD SW D. A. DOWNING CEDAR RAPIDS, IA 52404 Contact Telephone Number: (513) 241-5199 Accounting Period Ending: December 31 Foundation Status Classification: 509(a)(1) Advance Ruling Period Begins: September 12, 1997 Advance Ruling Period Ends: December 31, 2001 Addendum Applies: -- No Dear Applicant: Based on information you supplied, and assuming your operations will be as stated in your application for recognition of exemption, we have determined you are exempt from federal income tax under section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code as an organization described in section 501(c)(3). Because you are a newly created organization, we are not now making a final determination of your foundation status under section 509(a) of the Code. However, we have determined that you can reasonably expect to be a publicly supported organization described in sections 509(a) (1) and 170(b)(1)(A)(vi). Accordingly, during an advance ruling period you will be treated as a publicly supported organization, and not as a private foundation. This advance ruling period begins and ends on the dates shown above. Within 90 days after the end of your advance ruling period, you must send us the information needed to determine whether you have met the require- ments of the applicable support test during the advance ruling period. If you establish that you have been a publicly supported organization, we will classi- fy you ae a section 509(a)(1)or 509(a)(2) organization as long as you continue to meet the requirements of the applicable support test. If you do not meet the public support requirements during the advance ruling period, we will classify you as a private foundation for future periods. Also, if we classify you as a private foundation, we will treat you as a private foundation from your beginning date for purposes of section 507(d) and 4940. Grantors and contributors may rely on our determination that you are not a private foundation until 90 days after the end of your advance ruling period. If you send us the required information within the 90 days, grantors and contributors may continue to rely on the advance determination until we make a final determination of your foundation status. If we publish a notice in the Internal Revenue Bulletin stating that we Letter 1045 (DO/CG) -2- EXTEND THE DREA}4 FOUNDATION INC will no longer treat you as a publicly supported organization, grantors and contributors may not rely on this determination after the date we publish the notice. In addition, if you lose your status as a publicly supported organi- zation, and a grantor or contributor was responsible for, or was aware of, the act or failure to act, that resulted in your loss of such status, that person may not rely on this determination from the date of the act or failure to act. Also, if a grantor or contributor learned that we had given notice that you would be removed from classification as a publicly supported organization, then that person may not rely on this determination as of the date he or she acquired such knowledge. If you change your sources of support, your purposes, character, or method of operation, please let us know so we can consider the effect of the change on your exempt status and foundation status. If you amend your organizational document or bylaws, please send us a copy of the amended document or bylaws. Also, let us know all changes in your name or address. As of January 1, 1984, you are liable for social security taxes under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act on amounts of $100 or more you pay to each of your employees during a calendar year. You are not liable for the tax imposed under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA). Organizations that are not private foundations are not subject to the pri- vate foundation excise taxes under chapter 42 of the Internal Revenue Code. However, you are not automatically exempt from other federal excise taxes. If you have any questions about excise, employment, or other federal taxes, please let us know. Donors may deduct contributions to you as provided in section 170 of the Internal Revenue Code. Bequests, legacies, devises, transfers, or gifts to you or for your use are deductible for Federal estate and gift tax purposes if they meet the applicable provisions of sections 2055, 2106, and 2522 of the Code. Donors may deduct contributions to you only to the extent that their contributions are gifts, with no consideration received. Ticket purchases and similar payments in conjunction with fundraising events may not necessarily qualify as deductible contributions, depending on the circumstances. Revenue Ruling 67-246, published in Cumulative Bulletin 1967-2, on page 104, gives guidelines regarding when taxpayers may deduct payments for admission to, or other participation in, fundraising activities for charity. You are not required to file Form 990, Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax, if your gross receipts each year are normally $25,000 or less. If you receive a Form 990 package in the mail, simply attach the label provided, check the box in the heading to indicate that your annual gross receipts are normally $25,000 or less, and sign the return. If a return is required, it must be filed by the 15th day of the fifth month after the end of your annual accounting period. A penalty of $20 a day is charged when a return is filed late, unless there is reasonable cause for Letter 1045 (DO/CG) -3- EXTEND THE DREAM FOUNDATION INC the delay. However, the maximum pehalty charged cannot exceed $10,000 or 5 percent of your gross receipts for the year, whichever is less. For organizations with gross receipts exceeding $1,000,000 in any year, the penalty is $100 per day per return, unless there is reasonable cause for the delay. The maximum penalty for an organization with gross receipts exceeding $1,000,000 shall not exceed $50,000. This penalty may also be charged if a return is not complete. So, please be sure your return is complete before you file it. You are not required to file federal income tax returns unless you are subject to the tax on unrelated business income under section 511 of the Code. If you are subject to this tax, you must file an income tax return on Form 990-T, Exempt Organization Business Income Tax Return. In this letter we are not determining whether any of your present or proposed activities are unre- lated trade or business as defined in section 513 of the Code. You are required to make your annual return available for public inspection for three years after the return is due. You are also required to make available a copy of your exemption application, any supporting documents, and this exemption letter. Failure to make these documents available for public inspection may subject you to a penalty of $20 per day for each day there is a failure to comply (up to a maximum of $10,000 in the case of an annual return). You need an employer identification number even if you have no employees. If an employer identification number was not entered on your application, we will assign a number to you and advise you of it. Please use that number on all returns you file and in all correspondence with the Internal Revenue Service. If we said in the heading of this letter that an addendum applies, the addendum enclosed is an integral part of this letter. Because this letter could help us resolve any questions about your exempt status and foundation status, you should keep it in your permanent records. If you have any questions, please contact the person whose name and telephone number are shown in the heading of this letter. Sincerely yours, Dis~tor ' Enclosure(s): Form 872-C Letter 1045 (DO/CG) CORPORATE AUTHORIZATION STATEMENT On behalf of the Board of Directors of the Extend the Dream Foundation I am authorizing our Executive Director, Thomas Walz, to submit an application for economic assistance to the City of Iowa City in pursuit of funds to purchase a building at 912 2nd Ave. The building would serve to house two micro enterprise developments which would add ownership and employ ment opportunities for low-income persons with disabilities. Authorizing Agent Chairperson, EDF Board of Directors Date LIST OF BOARD MEMBERS AND OFFICERS 1/2/05 A. Board Members Allan Young Charles Skaugstad Josh Gerslen Marilyn Austin Holly Hart Carol Fisher Jeff Larson ,Dave Maeglin Thomas Gilsenan Jeffery Portmm~ Philip Jones Peter Blanck Steve Hall Elizabeth Beaseley B. Officers Allan Young, Chairperson Steve Hall, Vice Chairperson David Maeglin, Treasurer Liz Beaseley, Secretary Chuck Skaugstad, Chair, Cormnunity Relations Committee Steve Hall, Chair, Long Range Planning Committee Signed by Chairperson of the Board of Directors ' Date January 5, 2005 To Whom It May Concern: As Chairman of the Board of The Extend the Drean~ Foundation, I heartily support the grant application in full and especially the plan to c~eate employment for handicapped individuals in the area of e-commerce. It is proposed that 5 to 7 individuals be trained in the aspects of e-cormnerce related to selling moderately priced items, primarily on Currently, books are being sold on ebay via Bill's Boo-kMart with increasing success. I believ~ this effort could be expanded to include other items available for resale. Some items could be purchased in quantity and resold individually. Other items could be obtained thru our "normal" sources(auctions, gifts, donations) and advertised for sale on ebay I hope you will look favorably on this proposal so that we may bring a greater sense of achievement to those with as yet um'ecogmized potential. Chair, Extend the Dream Foundation 44 SI~UR(;IS COI,'N[ R DRIV[ lO\VA (11 Y, IA 52240 BUS (319) 351-3355 'lOLL FREt 1-800-399-8485 FAX (~10) 351-6880 REAL ESTATE w~sg~ ~ ,,,,,, ~'~,,~'~ ....... PROFESSIONALS January 13, 2005 Mr. Tom Walz Extend the Dream Foundalion 401 Gilbert Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Re: Valuation of 912 2nd Avenue, Iowa City, Iowa Dear Toni, The subject building is a two story frame building with brick veneer with three efficiency apartments on the second level and three office suites on the first level. The building has a full basement, an asphalt parking, and is very well located at the corner of 2nd Avenue and F Street, just one block west of the Ist Avenue Hy Vee superstore. The commercial suites need some interior upgrading and the parking lot needs to be re surfaced. These improvements are estimated to be between $25,000 - $30,000. I have attached two valuation reports. One is a Marshall and Swift depreciated cost report and the other is a capitalized income report. There are no recent sale for similar buildings so a market data report is unavailable. The Marshall and Swift depreciated cost report indicates a value of $286,297. This includes the land at the assessed value of $48,000 and assumes the building to be in good, but depreciated condition. I will adjust this value by the anticipated cost of improvements of $30,000 which results in an "as is" valuation of $256,300. The income method uses the actual income of $375.00 per month for the apartments, and a pro-forma income of $575.00 per month for the commercial units. Normal expenses are deducted and the Net Operating Income is then capitalized at 7.1%. This indicates a value of $275,000.00 but again, this is in good condition. When the anticipated cost of improvements is deducted ($30,000) the net "as is" valuation is $245,000. To reconcile these two values I estimate the actual "as is" value to be $250,000. The income attributed to the apartments is 40% of the income and the income attributed to the commercial units is 60% of the value so I would assign the overall value Each Office Is Independently Owned And Operated. of the apartments as 40% of the total and the overall value of the commercial milts to be 60% of the total value Thank you for the opportunity to provide this assessment for you. Please feel fl'et to contact me for any explanation or clarification you may require. Sincerely, Broker / Owner Coldwell Banker Real Estate Professionals Analysis of: 2nd Ave Building 9'12-914 2nd Avenue, Iowa City, Iowa Jeff Edberg, CCIM Coldwell Banker Real Estate Professionals, LLC 44 Sturgis Corner Drive Iowa City, Iowa 52246 319.351.3355 (Note: The information contained herein is deemed reliable, but is not guarnateed.) Assumptions: Property Name: 2nd Ave Building Address: 912-914 2nd Avenue, Iowa City, Iowa Size of Site in acres: 0.5 Purpose of Analysis: Broker's Projection Price: $275,000 Down Payment: $68,750 New Loan Balance: $206,250 New Loan Interest Rate: 6.00% New Loan Term in Years: Bo ICost of Sale Upon Disposition (%): 5.00% Appreciation Projection per year (%): 4.00% Income Increase per year (%): 400% Percent of Total Property to Depreciate: 8c oo% Years to Depreciate Improvements: 27.5 I Owner's Personal Income Tax Rate (%): 31% Capital Gains Tax Rate (%): 20% Owner',s Discount Rate: 10% Owner s Safe Rate: 5% Owner's Reinvestment Rate: 12% Income: Type Unit Size # of Units Rent Apartments 550 3 $375.00 Commercial Suites 550 3 $575.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.oo $0.00 Vacancy & Credit Loss: 0% As a % Other Income: $0 as monthly $$ Expenses: Real Estate Taxes: $8,274 Insurance: $B50 Gas & Electric Utility: $600 Sewer & Water: $1,440 Refuse: $720 Landscape Maintenance & Snow Removal: $1,200 Building Maintenance: (5%) $1,710 Building Repair: $0 Supplies: $0 Administration: $0 Payroll: $0 Pest Control: $0 Management Fee: $0 Leasing Commissions: $0 Miscellaneous: $0 Coldwell Banker Commercial Jeff Edberg, CCIM Real Estate Professionals, LLC 319.351.3355 319.338.5333 Property Pro Forma Name: 2nd Ave Building Address: 912-914 2nd Avenue, Iowa City, Iowa Purpose: Broker's Projection Each office independeltly owned. Price: $275,000 Down Payment: $68,750 New Loan: $206,250 New Loan Detail: I Interest Rate Loan Term (yrs) Monthly Payment ~ 6.00% 30 $1,236.57 Income: Type Unit Size # of Units Rent Apartments I 550 3 $ 375 Commercial Suites 550 3 $ 575 o o 0 $ 0 0 0 $ o o o $ o o o $ 0 0 0 $ Total Square Feet: 3,300 Total Monthly Income: $ 2,850 Less vacancy & Credit Loss / month: $ Plus Other Income / month: $ Total Annual Income: I $ 34,200 Expense: Real Estate Taxes: $ 8,274 Insurance: $ 850 Gas & Electric Utility: $ 600 Sewer & Water: $ 1,440 Refuse: $ 720 Landscape Maintenance & Snow Removal: $ 1,200 $ 1,710 Building Maintenance: (5%) $ Building Repair: $ Supplies: $ Administration: $ Payroll: Pest Control: $ Management Fee: $ Leasing Commissions: $ Miscellaneous: $ Total Annual Expenses: 43.3% (%ofSGI) $ 14,794 Net Operating Income: 7.1% (cap rate) $ 19,406 Annual Debt Service: $ 14,839 Annual Cash Flow: 6.6% (Cash on cash) I $ 4,567 Coldwell Banker Commercial Jeff Edberg, CCIM Real Estate Professionals, LLC (319) 351-3355 (319) 338-5333 Cash Flow Analysis Date: 13-Jan~05 PROPERTY: 2nd Ave Building ADDRESS: 912-914 2nd Avenue, Iowa City, Iowa PURPOSE: Broker's Projection Each office independeltly owned. PRICE: $275,000 MORTGAGE DATA: Loans: I Loan Balance Term Rate P+I Annual P+I I Loan Information: $206,250 30 6.0% $1,237 $14,839 I Year 1: Year 2: Year 3: Year 4: Year 5.'.1 Loan I Balance EOY: $203,717 $201,028 $198,173 $195,142 $191,925 Principal Reduction: $2,533 $2,689 $2,855 $3,031 $3,218 ITAXABLE INCOME: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Gross Income: $35,568 $36,991 $38,470 $40,009 $41,610 - Operating Expenses: $15,386 $16,001 $16,641 $17,307 $17,999 NOh $20,182 $20,990 $21,829 $22,702 $23,610 - Interest: $12,223 $12,062 $11,890 $11,709 $11,515 - Cost Recovery $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 Taxable Income: ($41) $766 $1,939 $2,994 $4,095 ICASH FLOW: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 NOh $20,182 $20,990 $21,829 $22,702 $23,610 - Annual Debt Service: $14,756 $14,751 $14,745 $14,739 $14,733 Before Tax Cash Flow: $5,426 $6,239 $7,084 $7,963 $8,877 - Income Tax: ($13) $238 $601 $928 $1,269 After Tax Cash Flow: $5,439 $6,001 $6,483 $7,035 $7,608 ISALE BASIS: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Starting Basis: $275,000 $267,000 $259,000 $251,000 $243,000 + Cost of Sale: $14,300 $14,872 $15,467 $16,086 $16,729 - Cost Recovery: $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 Adjusted Basis at Sale: $281,300 $273,872 $266,467 $259,086 $251,729 IGAIN: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Sales Price: $286,000 $297,440 $309,338 $321,711 $334,580 - Adjusted Basis: $281,300 $273,872 $266,467 $259,086 $251,729 Gain (Loss): $4,700 $23,568 $42,871 $62,626 $82,851 ISALE PROCEEDS: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Sale Price: $286,000 $297,440 $309,338 $321,711 $334,580 - Cost of Sale: $14,300 $14,872 $15,467 $16,086 $16,729 - Loan Balance: $203,717 $201,028 $198,173 $195,142 $191,925 Before Tax Proceeds: $67,983 $81,540 $95,697 $110,483 $125,926 - Tax on Sale: $940 $4,714 $8,574 $12,525 $16,570 After Tax Proceeds: $67,043 $76,826 $87,123 $97,958 $109,356 IRETURN: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Before-tax Cash Flow: $5,426 $6,239 $7,084 $7,963 $8,877 After-tax Cash Flow: $5,439 $6,001 $6,483 $7,035 $7,608 Gross Rent Multiplier: 7.73 7.43 7.15 6.87 6.61 Before-tax Equity Return: 7.9% 9.1% 10.3% 11.6% 12.9% After-tax Equity Return: 7.9% 8.7% 9.4% 10.2% 11.1% Internal Rate of Return at Sale After-tax: 5.4% 13.8% 16.2% 17.2% 17.6% The information contained herein is believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. Coldwell Banker Commercial Jeff Edberg, CClM Real Estate Professionals, LLC 319.351.3355 319.338.5333 Unit Analysis: 2nd Ave Building 912-914 2nd Avenue, Iowa City, Iowa Each office independently owned (Values at acquisition) Price per foot: $83.33 Price per unit: $45,833.33 Units per acre: 12.0 Income per foot / Year: $10.36 Income per foot / Month: $0.86 Expense per foot / Year: $4.48 Expense per foot / Month: $0.37 Gross Rent Multiplier (GRM): 8.0 Capitalization Rate: 7.1% Loan to Value Rate (LTV): 75.0% Debt Coverage Ratio (DCR): 1.31% (Values at year of sale) Internal Rate of Return (IRR): 17.55% Net Present Value (NPV) at Discount Rate of 10%: $21,322.65 Financial Management Rate of Return (FMRR) at Sale: 16.88% The information contained herein is believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed, Coldwelt Banker Commercial Jeff Edberg, CCIM Real Estate Professionals, LLC 319.351.3355 319.338,5333 Sensitivity Analysis: 2nd Ave Building 912-914 2nd Avenue, Iowa City, Iowa Capitalization Rate Sensitivity: Cap Rate Value on Existing NOI 4.6% $425,876 5.1% $383,766 5.6% $349,234 6.1% $320,404 6.6% $295,971 7.1% $275,000 7.6% $256,804 8.1% $240,867 8.6% $226,792 9.1% $214,272 Capitalization Sensitivity $350,000 ; ' 8. ~ $300,000 ~'""--~ ~7.1% ~"'"----~ I. 7.6% tt ; ; >>, $25o,ooo : : ' ------ ~ ~ ! % ~ $~50,000 5.0% 5.5% 6.0% 6.5% 7.0% 7.5% 8.0% 8.5% 9.0% 9.5% Capitalization Rate Coldwell Banker Commercial Jeff Edberg, CCIM Real Estate Professionals, LLC 319.351.3355 319.338.5333 Investment Analysis Charts 2nd Ave Building 912-914 2nd Avenue, Iowa City, Iowa Cash Flows $35,000 $30 000 $25,000 I E]After Tax Cash Flow: $20,000 $15,000 E]NOh $10,000 $5,000 $0 2 Year 4 5 L Sale Proceeds E2Afte~ Tax Proceeds:' $120,000 $100,000 $80,000 $60,000 $40,000 $20,000 $0 2 Y~ar 4 5 Investment Return 20.0% 18.0% 16.0% 14.0% 12.0% ~ 10.0% 8.0% 6.0%, 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% , 1 2 3 4 5 Year Coldwell Banker Commercial Jeff Edberg, CCIM Real Estate Professionals, LLC 319.351.3355 319.338.5333 1/13/2005 Summary Report Page: 1 Estimate Number 0 Estimate ID 2nd Avenue Building Property Owner Kent and Melissa Williams Property Address 912 2nd Avenue Property City Iowa City State/Province Iowa ZIP/Postal Code 52240 Section 1 Occupancy Class Height Rank 100% Office Building Wood or steel framed exterior walls 10.00 2.0 Total Area : 1,650 · Number of Stories (Section) : 1.00 Shape : 2.00 Components Units/% Other Exterior Walls: Stud -Brick Veneer 100% Land and Site: Land 48,000 Site Improvements 25,000 Section 2 Occupancy Class Height Rank 100% Apartment Wood or steel framed exterior walls 9.00 2.0 Total Area 1,650 Number of Stories (Section) 1.00 Shape 2.00 Components Units/% Other Exterior Wails: Stud -Brick Veneer 100% Cost as of 01/2005 Units/% Cost Total Basic Structure Base Cost 3,300 60.21 198,677 Exterior Walls 3,300 16.02 52,866 Heating & Cooling 3,300 9.98 32,934 Basic Structure Cost 3,300 86.21 284,477 Extras Site hnprovements - Depreciated 25,000 Replacement Cost New 3,300 93.78 309,477 Less Depreciation Physical & Functional 23.0% 7 I, 180 Depreciated Cost 3,300 72.21 238,297 Cost Data by Marshall & Swift ~/~3/2oo~ Suminary Report P~g~: 2 Estimate Number : 0 ZIP/Postal Code : 52240 Miscellaneous Land 48,000 Total Cosl 3,300 86.76 286,297 Cost Data by Marshall & Swift Iowa City Assessor - General Parcel Info Page 1 of 2 home I pa!ice! search I residential sale search [ co~_m__er, cialsale sea~13 F.i -~, 1014194005 WILLIAMS, NORMAN KENT,WILLIAMS, MELISSA J 912 2ND AVE . 'u: ~,::: IOWA CITY IA 52240-0000 C!;~:;t COMMERCIAL 21200-Com ~%th;'; 10-14-1S Ls¢~ 0823-6-4 EAST IOWA CITY N 1/2 LOT 4 BLK 6 Land Value Dwelling Value Improvement Value Total Value 48,000 0 190,460 238,460 Building or Addition Occupancy Year Built Gross building area Bui]d!Qg 201 Store - Retail Small 1972 3,300 Yard E×~a informatic~*, Description Item Count Year Built Paving 1 1972 Lot Basis Square Feet Acres Sq. Ft. x Rate 6,000 0.14 Sale Date Amount NUTC Recording ¢/1!~!~91 167,000 049 Unuseable Sale- Other 1201-179 Sketch http://iowacity.iowaassessors.com/parcel.php?gid= 14133 1/13/2005 Iowa City Assessor - Genel:al Parcel Info Page 2 of 2 30 5 BLOG 1 COr~IC BALC:Ofg"r' 55 [1~,50] [170] Tax Information _M~a.p_s Property Record Card Report Property Record Card Report (Adobe PDF fite.) .._P_rjn_ter Fri e_R.d!.y___v_e r_s i o n_ home I parcel search I residential sale search I commercial sale search http://iowacity.iowaassessors.com/parcel.php?gid= 14133 1/13/2005 Treasurer Page I of 1 JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA ~ QUICK LINKS DEPARTMENTS Parcel Number [[1014194005 L. cec,~' '~'. ,o ..... ~; I[WILLIAMS, NORMAN KENT Contract Owr~er .Pa¢ c:e~ Address J[912 2ND AVE ce 2002 - 03 2003 - 04 8274.00 .00 2003 - 04 2004 - 05 8764.00 4382.00 Ta~, Yea: Ag Land Credit Hcr'~es~e:~dCre:~. Faro yF~:,~'~ 2002 - 03 .00 .00 .00 2003 - 04 .00 .00 .00 2002 - 03 .00 .00 .00 2003 - 04 .00 .00 .00 Tax Year Street/Sidewaik Refuse/Garbage 2002 - 03 .00 .00 .00 2003 - 04 .00 .00 .00 Tax Year Sewer Weed/Mowh~9 Removal/~¢;isc 2002 - 03 .00 .00 .00 2003 - 04 .00 .00 .00 Spec~a~ Assessment Specia~ Assessmer~t Spade; Assessment Ne~ Special Asscssn' e-'~t Tax Year Aging/~ncome Credit Tax OutsR~r;d n~: .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 ,00 if you have any questions please contact Thomas L. Kriz, Johnson County Treasurer H IPAA Privacy 'Any questions regarding this page should be addressed to Tim Knipper Updated: 01/13/2005 19:35:34 http://www.j ohnson-county.corn/treasurer/taxes/TaxLookupDetail.cfm?Parcel= 1014194005 1 / 13/2005 Yahoo! Maps - Iowa City, IA 52245-4510 Page 1 of 1 Yahoo! My Yahoo! Mail Sea 200 m 1000 Pr ©2004 NAVTEQ Yahoo! Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved. http://maps.yahoo.com/pmaps?csz=iowa+City%2C+iA+52245_4510&state=IA&uzip=52245 &ds... 1/13/2005 Iowa City Police Department ~--C~ r:~'~'~' Monthly liquor license (OFF PREMISE SALES) Report I ~P16 2005 Year 2005 Monthly Total I I Year to Date Totals Arrest/Visit Business Name AI I _S I I_AI I _B YTD AAJAXXX LIQUOR STORE 1 0 0 ALDI INC. 0 0 CUB FOODS ': 0 0 DELIMART-E. BENTON 0 0 DELIMART-MORMON TREK 0 0 DELIMART-HWY 1 0 0 DEUMART-LWR MUSCATINE 1 1 0 0 D RUGTOW N 1 0 0 1 o 0 EL PASO MEXICAN STORE FAREWAY STORES Commerce 1 1 0 0 FAREWAY STORES Westwinds 0 0 GASBY'S- S. GILBERT 1 0 0 ..... ; 2 0 0 GASBY'S EAST-2303 MUSCAT GOOSETOWN 0 0 HANDIMART-DUBUQUE ST. 1 1 0 0 o o HANDIMART-N. DODGE HANDIMART-WlLLOWCREEK : 0 0 HARTIG DRUG-MORMON TREK 0 0 HAWKEYE CON ST-COMMERCE HAWKEY CON ST-KIRKWOOD 0 0 o 0 HY-VEE-N. DODGE 0 0 HY-VEE-S. 1ST AVE 0 0 HY-VEE GAS 1 0 0 HY-VEE-WATERFRONT 1 0 0 JOHN'S GROCERY INC 2 2 0 0 KUM & GO-GILBERT/BURLI. 2 3 0 0 KUM & GO-MORMON TREK 0 0 KUM & GO- S. RIVERSIDE 0 0 KUM & GO- W. BURLINGTON 0 0 L&M MIGHTY SHOP INC 0 0 LIQUOUR HOUSE 1 ' 0 0 MINI MART 0 0 NEW PIONEER COOP 0 0 NORTH DODGE ESPRESS 0 0 ON THE GO CONV. STORE INC 1 0 0 OSCO DRUG 2 0 0 Parth MINI MART- 2153 ACT CR 0 0 r-- 0 0 PETRO-N-PROVISIONS SUBURBAN AMOCO 2. 0 0 SUBURBAN AMOCO-KEOKUK 4 0 0 T&M MINI MART 1 2 0 0 TOBACCO OUTLET PLUS-S. RIV. 1 ' 0 0 TOTAL 8 0 33 0 0 Column A is the number of times a license holder is visited specifically checking for underage sales. Solumn B is the number of people charged with possession under the legal age. Note, this is not the total number of chargess. IP17 Larry Stone's new book, Whitetail: Treasure, Trophy or Trouble? - A History of Deer in Iowa, documents the initial decline, and eventual dramatic recovery, of Iowa's deer herd. Larry also has prepared a slide program based on the book and his more than 40 years of studying Iowa deer. The book and the slide lecture chronicle our state's early history of resource abuse, followed by protection, management, and adaptation by wildlife. Sponsored blt: For more information the Johnson County Conservation Board ~ co.t~ct /~ra~ /~rei~he/.at ~ ,~ the Iowa City Deer Task£orce ~ /[ 9) ~-10~' Submitted by Mayor IP18 SA The Gazette, Wed,, March 9, 2005 OPINION Pro tem Wilburn THE GAZETTE'S EDITORIAL Engag,ing Ui students in city government U NIVERSITY OF IOWA stu- dents should be more in- volved in Iowa City govern- ernment leaders when asked to do ment, but not via a proposed so; since January they've been non-voting seat on the City Council. asked to meet one time. The position simply isn't needed. When council member Ross Wil- More important, it sets a precedent burn was on that subcommittee, the City Council would likely come from 2000 through 2001, the subcom- to regret, mittee met with student leaders sev- UI Student Government Vice Pres- eral times, talking about substan- ident Jason Shore suggests the crc- rive issues including a proposal ation of a liaison position for a full concerning rental housing regula. time student nominated by the stu- tions and enforcement, recycling in dent legislature and approved by apartment buildings and parking. the City Council. The student, while Wflburn said then-UISG President unable to vote, wou]d participate in Andy Stoll checked in with him on regular council duties, including a regular basis to talk about council creating a budget, issues. Students' suggestions result- ed in tangible actions by the coun- Shore is to be commended for cil, including the use of debit cards wanting to improve communication to pay parking ramp fees. between city government officials and the UI Student Government -- Such communication could be ex- and the student body as a whole -- panded if the student government designated someone to attend coun- to make it more frequent, more con- sistent and more meaningful, cil meetings. That representative Having a student serve on the could interact with the council and City Council would be terrific -- if keep student leaders informed about that student were duly elected. But council activities. creating a seat for a special interest Another avenue for students who group -- a disparate one at that, as want a voice in city government is board and commission app6int- UI students are not a cohesive group on city government issues -- ments. There, not only would they be able to participate in discussions, should send up a red flag for the they would have ¥oting power. council. Other distinct groups prob- That's a positive way for students, ably want more say in council dis- as Shore hopes to see happen, to let cussions. While they may not be as city residents know students want large in number, their needs are no to be a part of the community. less worthy of consideration. In council discussion, s about this proposal, mention has been made of senior citizens and the homelmild- ers association as other interested groups. How about the city's low-in- come population? What about people who don't own property? More important, a means to give students a voice in city government already exists. For years, two mem- bers of the City Council have been appointed to serve on a Student Sen- ate subcommittee. This year those council members are BOb Elliott and Dee Vanderhoef. They meet with University of Iowa student gov- Submitted by Mayor Pro tem Wilburn OPINIONS IOWA BASKETBALL? Send your thoughts to: daily-iowan@uiowa.edu ~ o ~ A~ TONY ROBINSON Editor · PETE WARSKI Opinions Editor · GRANT SCHULTE Managing Editor · ANNIE SHUPPY News Editor ~/ AMIRA JADOON, ERIK OWOMOYELA, MARGARET POE, ROBERT SCHNEIDER, BRITTANY SHOOT Editorial writers EDITORIALS reflect the majority opinion of the DI Editorial Board and not the opinion of the Publisher, Student Publications Inc., or the University of Iowa. Student liaison, not councilor, the best option UI Student Government Vice Presiden~ ,Jason Shore was given ~he one member isn'~ allowed to vo~, it undermines tha~ member's purpose. authority last week by the Student A~ssembly ~ advance a plan to ere- If UISG would like ~o create bet~r lines of eommurdeation with ~he ate a nonvoting student seat on the Iowa City City Council. He has said council which few would argue is not impo~ant, particularly in ~ha~ ~his move would help unit~ students with the city and crea~e be~- reeen~ times, with proposed ordinances tha~ direcQy affect: s~udents -- ~er communication, i~ would perhaps be simpler and more effective to send a student liai- That's an importan~ issue ~ address, bu~ there are problems with ~his son ~o all council meeQngs and repo~ back on what was discussed. proposal that make it~ efficacy and feasibility necessary ~ reconsider. These meetings are open ~o ~he general public, ~o i~ isn't necessary l*irst of all, managing and faeili~ngdialoguebe~ween~he s~uden~s and obtain any special permission or status ~ go. In fac~, it's perfectly ei~y officials is already pm of UISG's job. Student representaQves are acceptable to simply show up, which is what some community members elec~d ~ work with city officials on the s~udent~' behalf, and crea):ing one do on a regular basis. They also can'~ vo~e on council issues, but they more posihon ~ do ~his seems superfluous. Perhaps more import~mtly, can listen in on what the councilors talk abou~ and even voice ~heir eon- the idea may no~ be possible under ~he ¢ons~rain~ of current sta~ law, cerns to ~he council. Many s~uden~s actually took this opportunity a few which at present doesn'~ allow the council ~ have a nonvoting member, years back when the infamous 21~only ordinance was being considered. But bigger ~han both of ~hese factors is our eoneem that the student Additionally, all documents presen~d a~ meeQngs (including letters represen~five on ~he City Cou_n¢il and her or his assistant, who would ~he council from Iowa City residents) are public record and may be also sit in on meetings and eventually become ~he successor of the rep- obtained in a packet form by anyone who so desires. resentaQve would no~ have the power ~ vote, as do all ~he other ¢ou_n- We understand and fully suppor~ UISG's efforts ~o maintain a solid cilors. A~ best, ~his makes ~he posiQon seem merely symbolic; at worst, relationship wi~h the City Council. Because university students repre- it's simply unfair ~o the individual who is assigned ~ represent UI stu- sent such a large propo~ion of ~his ciB?s populaQon for most of dents on the City Council. If ~he designated studen~ councilor can go to year, they should have a voice in ~he cons~rueQon of local policy. Ci~ Hall mad lis~n to the other councilors, make contributions, and However, a nonvoting councilor doesn'~ have ~he clou~ ~ha~ most s~u- address concerns, but no~ ae~aally vo~ on those concerns and help shape dents would probably wa~n~. IfUISG wishes t~ ~ake a s~p of this nature policy, ~here seems little point ~ ~he position. Afar all, the City Council righ~ now, we'd suggest simply designating a liaison ~o at,nd ~he mee~- is ~he governing body of officials whose job is ~ se~ municipal policy; if ings as a member of the commtmi~y. MINUTES OF THE JOINT MEETING OF THE CORALVILLE CITY COUNCIL, IOWA CITY CITY COUNCIL, IOWA CITY SCHOOL BOARD, AND JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS JANUARY 26, 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 12th Avenue and Forevergreen Road Projects Update .................................................................... 1 School Facility Update ..................................................................... ............................................... 2 Transportation For Students Attending New Alternative High School ........................................... 2 New High School In North Corridor ............................................................................................... 3 City And County Plans For Redevelopment in the Near Southside (Burlington to Railroad Tracks) ....................................................................................................................................... 4 Indication of Interest for Joint Emergency System .......................................................................... 4 Location of New Schools ................................................................................................................. 4 Forevergreen Road Extension .......................................................................................................... 5 Coordinating Regional Planning ...................................................................................................... 5 Federal Issues for the Washington D.C. Chamber Trip in February ............................................... 6 Centralized Law Enforcement Evidence Facility ............................................................................ 7 Scheduling Date and Time of Next Meeting ................................................................................... 7 Inquires from the Public .................................................................................................................. 7 Chairperson Stutsman called the joint meeting to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 3:07 p.m. Coralville City Council members present were: John Lundell. Also present: Coralville Mayor Jim Fausett. Iowa City City Council members present were: Regenia Bailey, Bob Elliott, Emie Lehman, Dee Vanderhoef, and Ross Wilburn. Iowa City School Board members present: Gayle Klouda, Jan Left, and Peter Wallace. Johnson County Board of' Supervisors members present were: Pat Harney, Mike Lehman, Sally Stutsman, and Rod Sullivan. North Liberty City Council members present were: Matthew Bahl, Dave Franker, James Moody, and Tom Salm. Also present: North Liberty Mayor Clair Mekota. Other city and county officials and staff present were: Coralville City Manager Kelly Hayworth, Iowa City Clerk Marian Kart, Iowa City Planning and Community Development Director Karin Franklin, Iowa City School District Superintendent Lane Plugge, Johnson County Board of Supervisors Executive Assistant Mike Sullivaq,, Johnson County Council of Governments Executive Director Jeff Davidson, and County Auditor's Recording Secretary Casie Kadl¢c. 12TH AVENUE AND FOREVERGREEN ROAD PROJECTS UPDATE Iowa City Community School Board Member Peter Wallace thanked North Liberty, Coralville, and Johnson County for their support in working on the 12th Avenue and Forevergreen Road projects. Coralville City Manager Kelly Hayworth said that they have received all of the easements for 12th Avenue and they are currently working on the 28E agreement with the County for the construction. There is a March 15, 2005 bid letting Informal Minutes: January 26, 2005/page 2 date through the DOT, which is a month later than had been originally planned. Hayworth said that there is no way the project will be finished by the time the school is opened but it might be finished by early October. Hayworth explained that there is an agreement with North Liberty for the Forevergreen Road project. Hayworth and North Liberty City Manager Brian James are trying to meet with homeowners along Forevergreen Road to get that portion of the road finished sometime in 2005. North Liberty City Council Member Matt Bahl said that they are trying to make sure that even if, in the unlikely event, the agreements fall through the project will still be done this year. SCHOOL FACILITY UPDATE Iowa City School District Superintendent Lane Plugge reported that they've opened up the first of ten projects funded by the bond issue. The ninth grade center, the West High addition, was opened to great approval of the people involved. In addition to completion of the ninth grade center there is construction being done on Tate and Van Allen and both are scheduled to be finished around June or July. Plugge said that City High is under construction and is expected to be completed on December 31, 2005 and that the classroom addition will be finished in time for school next year. They have received favorable bids on the new junior high school, and the naming committee has been working so they should have a name for the school soon. Work is being done on Lucas. On February 3, 2005 the bids for Warren will be opened and the bids for Wood will be opened on February 25, 2005. April will bring bid openings for Coralville Central. Kirkwood will have their bid opening in May. Iowa City City Council Member Ross Wilbum said that the practice of space sharing often comes up as an issue and there will probably be more interest in the future to creatively use space. Plugge said that there have been many steps toward the schools, and other governmental entities working together. Plugge said that they are registered to be the first Lead Certified K-12 building in the State of Iowa. He said the certification is sponsored by a group of builders that are looking at building buildings in a green fashion. Wilbum asked for an inventory of collaboration that exists with space and programming. Iowa City City Council Member Dee Vanderhoef said that the State Legislature is trying to tie collaboration to future incentives on dollars for government funded groups. She said that if they had the inventory they would be able to hand it over when issues come up. Plugge said that he will take the steps to put together a draft for what collaboration that exists in the schools. Iowa City City Council Member Regenia Bailey suggested they also list collaborations they would like to see in the future. Stutsman suggested the inventory of collaborations as an agenda item for a future meeting. TRANSPORTATION FOR STUDENTS ATTENDING NEW ALTERNATIVE HIGH SCHOOL North Liberty City Council Member Dave Franker said that they are happy with the updates the School District has been doing but they know there have been problems with Informal Minutes: Jgnuary 26, 2005/page 3 transportation. He said that there are two things to think about; if someone were to take public transportation there is now an additional transfer needed, and with the numbers increasing there could be a critical mass of kids who need to have reliable transportation. Plugge said that there are currently nine students from North Liberty who are attending the Senior High Alternative Center and they are transported to West High School then transferred to their site. As numbers increase, this will become less effective and they are looking for other possibilities. Franker said that new routes straight to Regina would be something to look at. Bahl said that they appreciate the new busing system but that he is disappointed with the School District's ability to notify parents of how to set their schedules. They aren't so concerned about the high school students, but they are worried about the young elementary students. Bahl explained that elementary students don't fair well with having schedules and routes being changed with little or no notice and not knowing when they are getting off the bus can be problematic for them. He said that parents are willing to adapt but they need to know what is going on before they can do so. NEW HIGH SCHOOL IN NORTH CORRIDOR Plugge said that a few years ago they did not think a new high school would be needed in the North Corridor with the construction of the new alternative school, but it now seems that they have underestimated the need. They are now actively looking for a third site. He said that it may be ten years before the actual building is put up but it is important to acquire property now because the property that is available is dwindling. They would like to have a minimum of 80 acres. West High School sits on 80 acres and City High only has 40, but at West the entire 80 acres cannot be used. He said there might be a need for another elementary school also. North Liberty Mayor Clair Mekota said that many schools are over crowded and that expansion is needed. He added that the need for land is pressing as once it is purchased and developed it is gone and there are limited large tracts left as it is. Plugge said that the Clear Creek Addition was what changed his mind, as there is enough room for 7,000 to 7,200 new residents and 3/4 of that would go into the Iowa City Community School District. Mekota said that they certified their population estimates and according to building permits they should be around 8,000 to 8,200 now. Stutsman said that in the last two building projects the entities that have been responsible for roads have been caught off guard by the planning and that she wants to know what can be done to avoid that in the future. She added that land negotiations are generally done in private, but when the responsibility to build roads that aren't in the 5 Year Road Plan falls to the County there is a problem. Plugge said that the County should take this meeting as a signal that they are definitely looking in the North Corridor. He added that all of the cities regularly talk about plans together so possibly they need to have a designee from the County to be involved in those conversations. R. Sullivan suggested the Board appoint a liaison to work with the School District, as they do with the towns. The Board agreed. Plugge said that they could share their demographic studies. He added that they usually meet with the cities once a year to update them on possible impact. Informal Minutes: January 26, 2005/page 4 CITY AND COUNTY PLANS FOR REDEVELOPMENT IN THE NEAR SOUTHSIDE (BURLINGTON TO RAILROAD TRACKS) Iowa City Planning and Community Development Director Karen Franklin said that recently there was a story in the newspaper reporting that the County was looking at the Federal parking lot. She said that the County needs to know about the City plans adopted for the near south side. She pointed out that this is a potential opportunity for the City and the County to work together on these projects. Franklin said that there is a design plan that was adopted by the City Council in 1995 and that it is a vision of what can potentially happen in the designated area. She added that the area that the County has been talking about for the new jail and a possible Federal land swap was seen as a potential site for a civil plaza in the Council Plans. She said that the main goal was to have more parking to enable development of the near south side. Franklin said that there could be opportunity for combined effort when looking for land space. The City has acquired two properties in the area on Harrison and Capital Streets that would go toward the project on a future date. R. Sullivan asked if there are any plans for south of the railroad tracks. Franklin said that there is nothing to date, but it would be part of the Central Planning District. Stutsman said that the University is also a player in this particular area and that it may be worthwhile for all three entities to get together and discuss possible ideas and development. Hamey asked where the plaza was envisioned to be placed. Franklin said they would like to put it in the block with the Federal Parking Lot. Hamey said that there may be a problem with long term expansion but that issue can be discussed at a later date. Stutsman emphasized that the County plans are very tentative and that nothing has been decided. INDICATION OF INTEREST FOR JOINT EMERGENCY SYSTEM Iowa City Mayor Ernie Lehman said that they are in the process of looking for a consultant for a joint emergency system that would serve everyone. He said that something has to be done about the communication problem. Stutsman said that JCCOG did a study and referred it to a consultant. She added that she thinks there is support from the Board to contribute to the consultant fee so that the County can be part of the system. E. Lehman said that the support seems to be across the board. Johnson County Sheriff Lonnie Pulkrabek said that his understanding is that as soon as the City puts together a proposal to decide how all of the entities will work together there is a concern that they may have to start paying for a communication system that they aren't paying for now. He pointed out that this is not exactly true because they would just be paying in a different way. He added that he is interested and hopes that everyone will work together to see what the consultant comes up with. LOCATION OF NEW SCHOOLS Coralville Mayor Jim Fausett said that it is important that everyone advise all entities as to what will be needed before a property is purchased. He said that there have been Informal Minutes: January 26, 2005/page 5 problems with the last three schools, and the cost of properties can go very high because of these oversights. Stutsman said that the unplanned costs cause the biggest problems. Vanderhoef said that Weber came as a surprise to the City and creating good transportation out there for school buses was a problem. FOREVERGREEN ROAD EXTENSION Hayworth said there are a lot of questions about the developments that have come up over the past few months and that the government bodies need to make a decision as to where the Forevergreen Road Extension will go. Stutsman asked how moving to the next step would be accomplished. Hayworth said that everyone should have received the packet of public comments and those should be reviewed and that everyone should get together and decide how to proceed. Wallace said that 25 years ago the communication between the entities was lousy. He said that too often municipalities are receiving development plans and they are not sharing that information and that catches people by surprise. Wallace said that they are not yet a unified group and that if they were the surprises would be limited. Terrence Neuzil entered at 3:45 p.m. COORDINATING REGIONAL PLANNING Assistant Planning and Zoning Director R. J. Moore said that the Board has identified a need to coordinate planning among all of the governmental entities of Johnson County to head off problems and conflicts. The County was unprepared to deal with the improvements to 12th Ave and Forevergreen Road, but because of the need the Board has moved forward and worked with other entities on the project. Moore said that the Board would like to pursue regional coordinated planning, which would involve everyone working together, pooling resources and ideas, and taking a regional approach to problem solving. He said that tax dollars would then be used in the best way possible for the good of the entire County. Moore said the best thing would be for each entity to assign someone to a task force to see if this is something that they want to do, and if so, think of ideas and issues to be worked on. Moore explained that the Board sees JCCOG as the regional planning agency and as such they would be the facilitator of this new alliance and a shared vision of the future. Wilbum asked what the Board would like to see happening as opposed to what is currently happening. Stutsman said that the School District and the other entities would be included in plans for development of schools and of residential areas. She added that they have been talking about doing this for awhile, but that it is really time to take the next step. Vanderhoef said that she is never aware of all of the 28E agreements and that a review of all of them would be a good place to start working together. Moore said that they would want representatives to identify issues and opportunities that are important to them to see if they can work together. He said that the task force would identify those items and set the order of preference. Wilburn asked if that is what Moore sees as the Informal Minutes: January 26, 2005/page 6 first step. Moore said that it is. E. Lehman asked how it would differ from JCCOG. Moore said that it wouldn't differ much, it may just be that they prioritize regional planning more. E. Lehman asked if this could be a further function of JCCOG. Moore said that it could be, but everyone who is identified as needing to be involved in regional planning also needs to be involved in JCCOG. Bailey said that it needs to be timely and they need to see if a current collective body could serve this function instead of building a new task force. Vanderhoef said that she doesn't disagree with E. Lehman, but this would put a lot more work on JCCOG. Franker said that in order for it to be genuine regional planning they need to think in terms of institutionalizing a liaison at all levels of govemment from Federal to local. Stutsman said that she hears a lot of people being supportive of the idea and that as Chair of JCCOG she would be willing to work with JCCOG Executive Director Jeff Davidson to lay out some ideas to be considered at the next JCCOG meeting. Franker, North Liberty City Council Member James Moody, Bailey, and Vanderhoef all agreed to assist Stutsman. E. Lehman said staff will need to be involved so that everyone will know what is going on and how they impact each other. FEDERAL ISSUES FOR TIlE WASHINGTON D.C. CHAMBER TRIP IN FEBRUARY Hamey said that he and Stutsman have been designated by the Board to go on the Chamber of Commerce trip to Washington D.C. He explained that Johnson County is trying to get the appropriations made for the Readiness Center in the Melrose Avenue area. They are looking for community support through letters to demonstrate support for the facility. They are looking for community participation as well. A classroom facility could be offered that would be theater style that would hold about 150 people and could be used for various activities. The classroom would cost about $200,000 and it would be open to the public for use. Hamey explained that there are 600 plus troops in the area and that continues to expand so the economic impact is also an issue. Harney said that they are also trying to get dollars to improve the SEATS program. He explained that they have space next door to the proposed Readiness Center and Secondary Roads so maintenance facilities can be shared. Davidson said that Iowa City and Johnson County will have a joint effort in the SEATS facility. He said that Coralville and Iowa City have identified projects. Coralville's project is the Coralville Intermodal Center and that $11 million is needed to complete the request. Davidson said that Iowa City wants to extend Mormon Trek Boulevard. He said that there have also been discussions with North Liberty that there may be some improvements needed for the Penn Street-380 interchange. Chamber of Commerce Representative Jim Griffith said that the pieces of the trip are being pulled together right now and that it will pertain to all corridor region development. He said that this trip will be more put together and better organized than last year so hopefully it will be even more successful. Informal Minutes: January 26, 2005/page 7 CENTRALIZED LAW ENFORCEMENT EVIDENCE FACILITY Stutsman said that County Attorney J. Patrick White would like there to be consideration of a joint evidence storage' facility. Mekota expressed interest in the idea. Iowa City City Manager Steve Atkins said that it is a logical extension to incorporate it into the Communication Center. Fausett said that Coralville Police Chief Barry Bedford would be very interested as there is evidence in practically every crime and something has to be done with it. Elliott said that they need to tip their hats to the League of Women Voters who have tried to spear head just such conversations on these topics. Stutsman said they will pass on the interest in pursuing the joint facility to White. SCHEDULING DATE AND TIME OF NEXT MEETING The group scheduled their next meeting April 27, 2005 at 4:00 p.m. at Coralville City Hall. INQUIRES FROM THE PUBLIC League of Women Voters Representative Carol Spaziani said that it is good to see everyone leaping ahead of not only the League of Women Voters, but also the State Legislature regarding coordinated land use planning. She thanked the group for the meeting. Adjourned at 4:20 p.m. Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor By: On the day of ,2005 By Casie Kadlec, Recording Secretary Sent to th~ Board of Supervisors on March 3, 2005 at 1:30 p.m. MINUTES OF THE JOINT MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND LINN COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FEBRUARY 8, 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Gartner Group Representative Mark Gilbert: Technology and Economic Development, Government Convergence and Cooperation ............................................................................. 1 Linn County Sheriff Donald Zeller and Johnson County Sheriff Lonnie Pulkrabek: Communications Inter-Operability ............................................................................................ 2 ISAC Supervisors Lobbyist Mike Wentzein and Linn County Lobbyist Larry Murphy: Governor's Governance'Committee, Update and Report ......................................................... 3 Future Direction of Public Leadership Summit Group .................................................................... 5 Scheduling Next Meeting Date and Location .................................................................................. 5 Chairpersons Stutsman and Langston called the Boards of Supervisors to order in the Howard R. Green Co. Conference Room, 8710 Earhart Lane SW, Cedar Rapids, Iowa at 4:33 p.m. Members present were: Johnson County Board of Supervisors Pat Hamey, Mike Lehman, Terrence Neuzil, Sally Stutsman, and Rod Sullivan; and Linn County Board of Supervisors Lu Barron, James Houser and Linda Langston. Also present: Johnson County Sheriff Lonnie Pulkrabek, North Liberty Mayor Clair Mekota, University Heights Mayor Gloria Jacobson, Linn County Sheriff Donald Zeller, Coralville Mayor Jim Fausett. GARTNER GROUP REPRESENTATIVE MARK GILBERT: TECHNOLOGY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT CONVERGENCE AND COOPERATION Linn County Supervisor Linda Langston said that there has been a cooperative contract with the Gartner Group between Linn County, the City of Cedar Rapids, and the Cedar Rapids School District over the last nine months to assess and investigate future technology system changes. Gartner Group Representative Mark Gilbert said that he has prepared slides to address the collaboration between governments. Gartner is an international research and consulting organization with over 2,000 researchers globally and about 500 consultants. Gilbert explained that from the short term perspective there are four things people think about when trying to collaborate systems: cost containment, cost avoidance, technology consolidation, and revenue maximization. He said that people need to ask how to select and justify services to share, how to select and implement the best model, how to manage the transition between services, and how to allow for and make improvements over time. Shared services always happen under mandatory or voluntary circumstances and are either broad or limited in their scale of scope. Gilbert explained that some of the potential services to share are supply, corporate, domain, and constituent processes. He said they also see enabling capabilities. Informal Minutes: February 8, 2005/page 2 Gilbert said that they often see sharing of integrated technologies infrastructure. This could mean the sharing of radio systems and broadband infrastructure. Gilbert said that in the past many governmental agencies have duplicated technological investments. Now, there is a lot of strategic consolidation among different entities that have also used outsourcing in efficient ways. A lot of the data sharing takes place in the public safety arena. The Public Safety sector alone has increased spending on communications by 24%. Gilbert explained that by joining databases the costs go down because there is little duplication of information and time is saved because all of the information is in one area and easy to get to. In the report that was prepared for the Linn County entities they looked at the cost of developing independent networks versus developing a collaborative system. Gilbert said that because each entity brings something to build the foundation of a shared network, costs can be lowered by working together. Gilbert explained that there are many areas around the country that are building joint systems including broadband access, and information technologies. Because of the growth that is going on in the area there are many opportunities to advance that growth and make the most of going forward. Langston said that there are upcoming issues related to inter-operability. Linn County Sheriff Donald Zeller said that one thing the public is always asking for is cost saving measures and inter-operability. For Zeller, cost saving is more important so his concern was that they work on needs before wants. He said that last year many public safety organizations from several counties met to discuss technology plans. At that meeting Motorola pointed out that if they consolidated, their buying power would increase dramatically. Zeller said that he has not been the biggest advocate of joint communication centers, but if they could incorporate some of these plans and increase the quality of services to the public while reducing costs that would be good for everyone. He pointed out that there are already 28E agreements in place for many issues between the various entities. Langston said that the more robust the communication network, the more benefits there will be for every segment of government whether it be schools or law enforcement. Gilbert said that it sets the foundation for a broad ubiquitous umbrella of information. He said that this umbrella would also allow for better transfer of information. LINN COUNTY SHERIFF DONALD ZELLER AND JOHNSON COUNTY SHERIFF LONNIE PULKRABEK: COMMUNICATIONS INTER- OPERABILITY Langston said that they wanted to include Johnson County in what is going on in Linn County with communications inter-operability because in a perfect world Johnson County would be included in the synergy. She said that there are many similar issues for both Counties and that the possibilities are exciting but many conversations need to take place. Langston said that they just received the results of the study within the last couple of days. The next step would be to put a contract out for the design of a network that would be reflective of the Gartner Group's recommendations. Linn County Administrative Services Director Mike Goldberg said that all of the entities seem ready to go forward with the entire project. They are looking at combining locations and putting in their own Informal Minutes: February 8, 2005/page 3 fiber network. They are also outsourcing the management of the fiber network. He said that the network would be infinitely expandable. The cost estimate for the new network is $1.4 million to be shared between the Linn County, the City of Cedar Rapids, and the Cedar Rapids Community School District. Langston said that this is not totally new territory, it is just the collaboration that is new and that they will keep everyone up to date on what is going on. Houser said that they were innovative seven years ago and implemented advanced technologies with McLeod. The equipment has reached its life expectancy and now cost savings will come through collaboration. He said that it was nice to know that they had made the right choice seven years ago. He continued that they need to continue to do the right thing when taking the next steps toward building a network. Houser added that they have been very fortunate to have McLeod in the area as they have been very innovative and on the cutting edge of technology. Johnson County Sheriff Lonnie Pulkrabek asked if the radius of coverage could really go out to fifteen miles. Goldberg said that conservative estimates say that the coverage would be in a five mile radius, but that it could go out to fifteen under good circumstances. Houser said that the hot spot sites would have five to fifteen mile radii and the coverage across the County could be seamless. Pulkrabek said that he had envisioned small town fire departments having hotspots as well as the schools, but that he had never heard of this kind of range before. Goldberg said that they are even talking of sharing the ICN network to create the hotspots. Pulkrabek said that this is a different way to look at things and it would be outstanding if they could move in that direction. He said that in Johnson County they are behind in technological advances in the Public Safety Department. He said that they are not even able to receive mobile data in the squad cars. ISAC SUPERVISORS LOBBYIST MIKE WENTZEIN AND LINN COUNTY LOBBYIST LARRY MURPHY: GOVERNOR'S GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE, UPDATE AND REPORT Stutsman said that the Governor appointed a task force to look into ways to make local governments more efficient. The Supervisors asked ISAC Supervisors Lobbyist Mike Wentzein and Linn County Lobbyist Larry Murphy to give an update on what they are finding out. Langston said that both Wentzein and Murphy are attending weekly meetings as the committee is set to report by March 21, 2005. Wentzein said that the approach has been divided three ways: dealing with government and how to better deliver services; property taxes; and education. Wentzein said that there have been many people involved in gathering information and working with the task force. He said that all of the 28E agreements will be available on www.iowa.gov. Wentzein said that there have been many issues talked about including townships and regionalization. There is a top ten list of what the committee works with including criminal justice, la~v enforcement, fire detection, regionalization of basic public services, using COGS, using existing legislative districts, modernizing 28E agreements, flexibility in financing, and tracking State and Federal funding to local governments. Wentzein said that there is a tax proposal that ISAC and the League of Cities presented to the legislative body that is still being worked on but there shouldn't be any big changes. He said that the tying on the ag formula with Informal Minutes: February 8, 2005/page 4 the residential housing could be eliminated. He added that there is always an ongoing argument about the funding of credits. ISAC would like to see the credits go away and create exemptions instead. There have been continuous discussions and it will be very difficult to make everyone happy. Wentzein said that education may be the easiest area because everyone wants the schools to be equal. He said that the committee is very serious and there is a lot of effort being put in to make sure that the right recommendations are made. Murphy said that the Governor is sincere in trying to find ways to better serve governments. He said that Johnson and Linn Counties need to be informed about the implications of the possible $0.80 tobacco tax and what effects it could have on the area if passed. Murphy said that there is a general movement toward regionalization and that a lot of the changes being talked about make sense. The Governor's intent is not to cut local government, but to make it more efficient. Murphy said that their local discussions should identify and qualify what is already done well. Another thing to do is look at implications of the property tax bill as it is being discussed currently. He added that there will be many options of what to do and it is important to think about those options to make an informed decision. Murphy said that staffing public safety can be a problem. There is also the issue of the perception of overlap in services. He said that collective bargaining could be put into a regional system. He suggested that governments identify things that the States mandates that have prevented efficiency. Wentzein said that the Public Strategies Group had no involvement from the lobby. He said that the guidelines for any changes should be that whatever happens, they should be positive, not punitive and don't think that one thing will fit for everyone. Stutsman asked if the group will draft legislation. Wentzein said that they will give general recommendations on March 21, 2005 and then that group will pick pieces they think are viable. He said that quantifying anything that is done currently is the best way to communicate with legislators. The legislators don't know everything that is going on and it is up to local governments to explain what will work and what they need. Murphy said that legislators are general thinkers and they forget that each case is individual and needs different things. He said that the best thing to do would be to help write the language as it is better to lead in the process then complain at the end. Neuzil said that legislators always want everyone to work together but they themselves lack any spirit of cooperation between the Legislature and the Governor. Langston said that one of the most creative ideas that came up during another project was dealing with barriers. She said that as an example when trying to coordinate municipal services and a hospital there is no model to follow and no money to explore opportunities. Wentzein said that when presenting ideas to legislators they need to be kept simple and to the point as the best ideas are straightforward. Neuzil said that there has always been talk of getting rid of parts of government in some areas of the State. He asked if there has been talk of consolidation in the legislature. Murphy said that legislators react to numbers. Iowa is in the top ten states with the highest number of government employees because of the township trustees. If Informal Minutes: February 8, 2005/page 5 the trustees are removed from the equation Iowa drops to the twenties or thirties. Langston said that when they were discussing township trustees with their legislators they pointed out that trustees are only paid $1,500 and if they had to hire someone to do the job it could cost almost $60,000 a year. Murphy said that the problem is that property tax bankrolls everything. He said that they want to revamp the system but everyone is nervous as to how to do it. Wentzein said that another problem is that everything that is done has to be revenue neutral. Barron asked if they are looking at the Brookings Study that was distributed. Wentzein said that they don't really have time to do that. Murphy said that they have looked at many other sources since the Brookings documents. He said that the best thing to do is identify three to five things that would help the County get the job done. Murphy reported that the issue about funding property tax credits is still sticky and that the credit was only funded last year because it was an election year. He said that the local officials need to let their legislators know what effects the unfunded credits have on local areas, that they are punitive not positive. Neuzil said that it would be nice to know if the credits were going to come through or not and that it is disrespectful to hold local governments in limbo. Murphy said that they forget March 15 and it signifies a lack of understanding with local governments. FUTURE DIRECTION OF PUBLIC LEADERSHIP SUMMIT GROUP Langston said that there are planning and zoning opportunities that have come up in various settings. She said that there are also opportunities to look at Johnson County SEATS and Linn County LIFTS to see how the transportation issues affect a broader area. She pointed out that there will always be a need to look at economic development areas and that the challenge is to get feedback from local mayors about progress. R. Sullivan said that he was thinking they could talk to some of the vendors that do business in both Counties and ask them what they like or dislike about the Counties. The Supervisors agreed to have ECICOG Executive Director Doug Elliot draw up a proposal for the Public Leadership Summit. SCHEDULING NEXT MEETING DATE AND LOCATION The Supervisors scheduled their next meeting for April 5, 2005 with Linn County hosting, and a possible March 24, 2005 meeting with small cities. Adjourned at 6:05 p.m. Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor By: On the day of ~, 2005 By Casie Kadlec, Recording Secretary Sent to the Board of Supervisors on March 9, 2005 at 1:00 p.m. MINUTES DRAFT IP21 IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FEBRUARY 9, 2005 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL-IOWA CITY, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Alexander, Michael Wright, Ned Wood MEMBERS ABSENT: Karen Leigh, Vincent Maurer, STAFF PRESENT: Robert Miklo, Sarah Holecek OTHERS PRESENT: Allan Berger, Tim Krumm CALL TO ORDER: Vice chairperson Alexander called the meeting to order at 5:1 Opm. CONSIDERATION OF THE JANUARY 12, 2005 BOARD MINUTES MOTION: Wright moved to approve the minutes from January 12, 2005. Wood seconded the motion. Motion passed 3:0. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: EXC05-00002 Discussion of an application submitted by Alan Berger for a special exception to allow the operation of a smal[ animal veterinary clinic on property located in the Commercial Office (CO-1) zone at 3030 Northgate Drive. Before beginning the staff report Miklo showed a map with the location of the property. He said that the property is zoned Commercial Office (CO-1) which allows a variety of Commercial Office uses, and contemplates possibility of small animal or veterinary clinic by special exception. Miklo said that there are three specific requirements: 1) all aspects of the operation of the clinic, including any accessory use, must be conducted completely indoors within a single, soundproofed building, 2) the structure housing the clinic cannot be located within 200 feet of a residential zone, and 3) no odors or noise from the clinic shall be discernible from any lot line. Miklo mentioned that the applicant is aware that no aspects of the clinic are allowed outdoors. He said that the clinic is proposed near the center of the property which should provide sufficient buffer space between the clinic and future office uses in vicinity. He said this property is well over 200 feet from any residential property. Miklo said that the seven general standards are met. Staff recommends that EXC05-00002 an application submitted by Alan Berger for a special exception to allow the operation of a small animal veterinary clinic on property located in the Commercial Office (CO-1) zone at 3030 Northgate Drive be approved, provided that the applicant demonstrates to the building official that the portion of the building containing the clinic will be soundproofed. Public Hearin.q Opened Alan Ber.qer, 3005 Highway 1 NW, said that he would be happy to answer any questions that the board would have. Public Hearin.q Closed MOTION: Wright moved that EXC05-00002 an application submitted by Alan Berger for a special exception to allow the operation of a small animal veterinary clinic on property located in the Commercial Office (CO-1) zone at 3030 Northgate Drive be approved, provided that the applicant demonstrates to the building official that the portion of the building containing the clinic will be soundproofed. Wood seconded the motion. Wright said that he would vote in favor of the application. He said that the specific provision required for animal clinic are met, and that the proposed except[on would not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the Iowa City Board Of Adjustment Minutes February 9, 2005 Page 2 neighborhood. The establishment of the specific proposed exception would not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the zone in which such property is located, adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. Adequate measures would be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. He mentioned that adequate utilities, drainage and access are in place, and it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Alexander would also vote in favor. She said that in addition to general standards, the specific standards all seem to be met. The clinic would be conducted completely indoors, the clinic would not be located within 200 feet of a residential zone, and no odors or noise from the clinic should be discernible from any lot line. Wood would also vote in favor. He said that the biggest concern is that it would not be injurious to the property in the immediate vicinity, and the soundproofing, and odor control. He said that these aspects are taken care off. Motion passed 3:0. EXC05-00001 Discussion of an application submitted by Craig Fairlinger for a special exception to allow for the separation of two non conforming parcels into two residential lots for property located in the Low Density Single-Family Residential{RS-5) zone at 1518 Crescent Street. Miklo said that there is a provision in the City Code that says that if a nonconforming lot of record becomes in a single ownership with an adjacent parcel, both parcels are considered to be a single parcel. He said that the zoning ordinance recognize that there are certain situations when these small non conforming lots could be developed in ways that are conforming to the surrounding neighborhood, and therefore provide a special exception that the Board can review. He said that the Board is asked to determine that it is an appropriate single-family development, compatible with the neighborhood. Miklo presented illustrations with the proposed plan, and pictures of other houses in the neighborhood. Staff recommends that EXC05-00001 an application submitted by Craig Fairlinger for a special exception to allow for the separation of two non conforming parcels into two residential lots for property located in the Low Density Single-Family Residential(RS-5) zone at 1518 Crescent Street be approved, subject to the following conditions: 1) the single-family dwelling constructed on the lot substantially conforming with the attached plans provided by the applicant, and 2) the vehicular access to the two lots be restricted to the alley and no driveways be permitted to Crescent Street. Alexander asked if most of the lots of similar size in the neighborhood have single-family houses. Miklo answered that it is true. Wood asked if the height of the new building would have a similar height as other existing buildings. Miklo answered that it would be similar to other houses from the vicinity. Public Hearin.q Opened NONE Public Hearin.q Closed MOTION: Wood moved that EXC05-00001 an application submitted by Craig Fairlinger for a special exception to allow for the separation of two non conforming parcels into two residential lots for property located in the Low Density Single-Family Residential(RS-5) zone at 1518 Crescent Street be approved, subject to the following conditions: 1) the single-family dwelling constructed on the lot substantially conforming with the attached plans provided by the applicant, and 2) the vehicular access to the two lots be restricted to the alley and no driveways be permitted to Crescent Street. Wright seconded the motion. iowa City Board Of Adjustment Minutes Februaw 9,2005 Page $ Alexander would vote in favor of the application. She said that the requirement of being a single-family house it s met, the design would fit well within the neighborhood. She added that it should have little or no impact on the near-by properties, so it would not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. The specific proposed exception would not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property. Adequate measures would be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. Wright would also vote in favor. He said that it meets the requirements for the specific standards by being a single-family unit, and in concordance with the general aspect of the neighborhood. It meets all general and specific standards required. Wood would vote in favor of the application. He mentioned that the standards would be met. It would not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity. It would fit nicely with the neighborhood. Motion passed 3:0. OTHER: EXC04:00016 consideration of an extension for the expiration date of EXC04:00016 to permit Transient housing in the Intensive Commercial (C1-1) zone located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Southgate Avenue and Waterfront Drive. Miklo said that the decisions of the Board are good for six months, and within this time the applicant should start the activity approved. He added that the Zone Ordinance does provide that there can be an extension of the period for good cause, without any public notice, or hearings. He said that the applicant has submitted a letter asking for an extension, and presenting the reasons. He added that the applicant has asked for a 6 months extension starting after the litigation regarding this property ends. Public Hearing Opened Krumm said that he is a lawyer that represents the Shelter House. He said that the decision of the Board was filed on August 3, 2004, and they could not pursue the construction of the facility because of litigation that is pending. He said that the trial is set for April 19 and would be hopefully followed by a supportive decision. Krumm said that the Shelter could not construct the building while being in litigation and that would be the reason for requiring an extension. He said that they are asking, if possible, for a 6 months extension starting after the litigation's end. Public Hearinq Closed MOTION: Wright moved that Board of Adjustment extends the special exception £X004:00016 to permit Transient housing in the Intensive Commercial (C1-1) zone located at the southeast corner of the intersection of $outhgate Avenue and Waterfront Drive for 6 months starting after the litigations and any appeals end. Wood seconded the motion. Alexander would vote in favor. She said that the standard for extenuating circumstances is easily met. Wright would vote in favor. He said that the circumstances are beyond the control of the applicant. Wood would also vote in favor. He said that it is beyond the control of the applicant. Motion passed 3:0. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 5:42pm s:/pcdlrninuteslBON2OO5102-O9-O5.doc Board of Adjustment Attendance Record 2005 TerlTl Name Expires 01/12 02/09 03/09 04/13 05/11 06/08 07/13 08/10 09/14 10/12 11/09 12/14 Carol Alexander 01/01/08 X X Ned Wood 01/01/10 .... X Karen Leigh 01/01/07 X O/E Vincent Maurer 01/01/06 X O/E Michael Wright 01/01/09 X X Key: X = Present 0 = Absent 0/E = Absent/Excused NM = No Meeting ..... Not a Member MINUTES CITY COUNCIL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 17, 2005 CITY HALL, LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM Members Present: Ernie Lehman, Bob Elliot, Regenia Bailey Members Absent: NONE Staff Present: Steve Nasby Others Present: Brian Pedrick, Dave Helm, Dave Neipp, Joe Raso CALL MEETING TO ORDER Chairperson Lehman called the meeting to order at 9:05AM APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 1, 2005 Motion: Elliot moved to approve the minutes from February 1, 2005 meeting as written. Bailey seconded, Motion passed 3-0. DISCUSSION OF REQUEST FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE- LEAR CORPORATION Nasby said that the Lear Corporation is making an application to the State of Iowa for Community Economic Betterment Account (CEBA) funding, and also for the State's New Capital Improvement Program (NCIP). He mentioned that the State of Iowa's CEBA program requires at least 50% match from the City funds. He added that the City is the official sponsor of the application. In response to a question, Nasby said that the City has sponsored CEBA applications before for Oral B and United Natural Foods. He added that Lear Corporation is asking CEBA for $500,000, so the minimum City match would be $250,000. He noted that Lear Corporation has requested that the City's assistance could be I the form of public improvement. He said that there are some improvements to the industrial park road that are proposed and storm water or storm sewer work. Nasby said that City's money would go into these public improvements which would help the efficiency of the plant. He added that if the road would be widened, the storm drainage would need to be taken into account as it is now an open ditch along the road. Elliot asked if the improvements are all complementary with the plans that exist for the Highway 6 renovations. Nasby answered that an improvement to Industrial Park Road was not in the original Highway 6 improvement plan, but the timing is good. Elliot said that from reading the application, Lear's material transportation is the most important consideration in the competitive nature of the business. Pedrick said that transportation is a very important part of their business as about 80 semi-trailers arrive or depart daily. Lehman asked how the committee would like to proceed. He added that everybody appears to agree that the City should support the project. Nasby added that the committee should discuss if they are supportive of the $250,000 to meet the minimum CEBA match and then move to what types of assistance could be offered. Helm said that the proposed improvements are not serving just the Lear facility but it is tied to the improvements on Highway 6. Elliot asked if there is a reason why to do this now with these funds instead of doing it for typical capital improvement. Bailey asked what are the sources for money that could be used for this project. Nasby answered that there are several sources that could be used for these public improvements, which included General Obligation Bonds and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. Economic Development Committee Minutes February 17, 2005 Page 2 Bailey said that the project would achieve some of the City's economic development goals for providing economic opportunities for well-paying jobs with benefits. Elliot said that other economic development projects the City has assisted are done are in order to add employees, this project however, would assist an existing firm to retain employees and to more effectively compete for business. He asked if there would be any way for accountability of retaining the jobs. Nasby said that there would be an agreement, which would contain enforcement methods, and the company would have to maintain a certain number of full time positions, and pay wages at a specific threshold. Helm said that of the 318 jobs to be retained, 69% qualify as Iow income according to HUD's guidelines, 47% live in Iowa City, and 59% are minorities. Raso asked if there would be more issues that would rise by using two different programs for the improvements. Lehman said that an inconvenience might be the requirements of each program. Pedrick asked if the City would approve the money, if that money would have to necessarily go into the specific projects. Lehman said that the stoplight to be put on Highway 6 would also have a direct impact on Lear, but it would also improve the traffic in the city. He said that it would be a really strong case that the improvement proposed could be tied with the improvement of the SE part of the Highway 6. Elliot asked how many deliveries the Lear Corporation gets daily. Pedrick answered that in the previous day, there were 101 deliveries by semi-truck. Elliot said that anything that could be done to ease transportation in Iowa City is welcome. Lehman asked whether this would be a project that all members of the committee would agree to support. All members answered positively. Lehman added that there would be two possible scenarios. One, he said, would be using CDBG funds, a second one would be using road use taxes, or third, a combination of the two sources. Lehman said that he would prefer a combination of the two. Elliot said that he would like to have Nasby look at the distribution of funding sources and come up with a recommendation on how it is divided between those two funds. Lehman said that the Committee would support the project, but the funding details would need to be worked out internally to determine what sources to use. MOTION: Elliot moved to support the project. Bailey seconded the motion. Motion passed 3-0. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:30 AM. Minutes submitted by Bogdana Rus. s:lpcdlminutes/ecodev120051edcO2-17-O5.doc Council Economic Development Committee Attendance Record 2005 Term Name Expires 02/01 02/17 00/00 00/00 00/00 00/00 00/00 Regenia Bailey 01/02/08 X X Bob Elliott 0 !/02/08 X X Ernest Lehman 01/02/06 X X Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No Meeting ..... Not a Member IP23 MINUTES DRAFT HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 10, 2005-7:00 P.M. EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Carlson, James Enloe, Michael Maharry, Mark McCallum, Justin Pardekooper, Jim Ponto, Amy Smothers, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Gunn STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Sunil Terdalkar OTHERS PRESENT: Michael Brennan, Helen Burford, Shelley McCafferty, Zoe Eckstein, Barbara Eckstein, Jim Throgmorton, Joyce Hofmann, Ben Hofmann, Bob Orend, Bill Frantz, Michael Wright, Dan Lammers, Rita Sandhagen CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Michael Maharry called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Maharry stated that the order of proceedings for each application will be an oral report by staff summarizing the issues of the application, an opportunity for the applicant to speak, the Commission will then' discuss the application in relationship to applicable standards and guidelines contained in the Preservation Handbook. After deliberation, the Commission will state its findings and vote on a motion. Motions are always made in the affirmative. Approved certificates authorize the building official to issue permits for the approved work. Decisions of the Commission will be filed with the City Clerk within five days of the meeting at which the decision is made. An applicant desiring to appeal a decision of the Commission must do so by letter delivered to the Commission staff no later than ten business days after the decision is filed with the City Clerk's Office. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. INTRODUCTION OF STAFF - SUNIL TERDALKAR: Maharry introduced Sunil Terdalkar as the new City staff person. Terdalkar stated that his undergraduate degree is in architecture, and he worked as an architect for a year and half. He said he then received his degree in planning from The University of Cincinnati. Maharry welcomed Richard Carlson as a returning Commission member. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION: 604 Grant Street. Terdalkar said that this is a reapplication after an earlier denial of a certificate of appropriateness. He said the owners have proposed to replace the windows as per specifications attached with the application. Maharry said these windows were suggested by Knebel Windows as windows that meet the guidelines. Joyce Hofmann said that these windows had been approved by the Commission for previous applications. She said the lawyer for the company that installed the first windows is now saying that a portion of the installation has been completed but that the Hofmanns had refused to complete the installation and had not paid for the work. Joyce Hofmann said they would not pay the company for something the company did not get a permit for. She said they have consulted their own ~awyer. Maharry said the Commission would support the Hofmanns in this matter. Justin Pardekooper said that he would be willing to work with Knebel on a voluntary basis regarding the installation of the windows. Tim Weitzel asked if the windows are six over six. Terdalkar confirmed this. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes February 10, 2005 Page 2 MOTION: Mark McCallum moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for the replacement of windows at 604 Grant Street. Weitzel seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. Joyce Hofmann said she probably won't pursue going forward with this until the matter is resolved with the company that replaced windows recently. Maharry said the Commission's decision had no time limit. 814 Ronalds Street. Jim Throgmorton, one of the owners of the property, said the contractors were also available to answer questions about this project. He said he and Barbara Eckstein bought the house several months ago, intending to renovate it, to contribute to the neighborhood, and to contribute to the City by investing in it. Throgmorton said he has hired some really good people to work on the house, with Lammers Constructions and Rita Sandhagen doing most of the work. Dan Lammers provided photographs of the existing 3076 wood door, with transom above, that would be moved to a new location as indicated on the drawings. Terdalkar said this is a single-family house, and the applicant is making a request for an alteration. He said the applicants propose to remove two awning windows, install a new bay window and relocate the rear entrance door. Lammers said the existing door to be reused was originally an exterior door that now leads out into a porch. He said the porch will be incorporated into a new kitchen. Lammers said the door in place will have the transom over it. Lammers said he would try to duplicate the bay window on the front of the house as closely as possible. He said the new window will be an Andersen thermalpane window with wide trim. Lammers said the drawings show steps coming directly off the door, but City Code will not allow that. He stated that he will have a three-foot landing there to conform to the Code. Lammers added that there will not be brackets under the bay window as indicated in the original drawings. Richard Carlson asked about the north window that is eliminated on sheet three of the drawings. Sandhagen said there is currently a window there, but it will be removed because that is where the kitchen cabinets will be located. Maharry asked about the material for the soffit and the fascia on the bay window. Lammers replied that everything else in the house is just the standard dimensional wood, so that is what he will use there. Maharry asked if there are updated plans for the baluster design on the exterior stairs. Sandhagen said that the stairway is an existing stairway that will just be moved around. MOTION: James Enloe moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the revised drawings for the project at 814 Ronalds Street with the provision that the trim for new and replaced openings and everything be done in wood as explained at the meeting. McCallum seconded the motion. Jim Ponto asked if having the wider landing would push the stairs in front of the basement window. Lammers confirmed this and said he will therefore probably have to discontinue the window and block it in. He said he would use cast block. Ponto asked about the existing window air conditioner, and Lammers responded that it would be removed. Eckstein said the future plan is to have a screened porch off of the door. She said they will do all these things that make it up to Code, but they planned to add a screened-in porch in that area. AMENDMENT TO THE MAIN MOTION: Enloe amended the main motion to approve the removal of the basement window on the north. McCallum seconded the amendment. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes February 10, 2005 Page 3 Maharry said this project is a good example of rehabilitating historic space. He said this involves removing and adding a few windows that are modern yet match the historic design of the house allowing update the kitchen and provide more reasonable space; this is a good design. Maharry said he appreciates the recycling of the historic door. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. 815 Roosevelt. Terdalkar stated that this property is a contributing structure in the Longfellow Historic District. He said this is a two-story, single-family residence in the craftsman style. Terdalkar said the applicants propose an addition to the rear of the property and have submitted revised drawings. He said the addition would now be offset by twelve inches from the existing south wall of the house to differentiate between the new and existing structure as per the guidelines. Terdalkar said the plan showed an eight-inch offset from an existing wall on the north side of the addition. Terdalkar said that he would suggest not offsetting the wall by eight inches and making the addition a size of nine feet six inches by ten feet two inches. Wright said he had no problem with losing the offset. Lammers said he would be duplicating everything that is on the house with the addition. He said the soffits will be the exposed beaded soffit, and stonework around the bottom will be cast stone. Enloe asked if this is basically increasing the offset from the side to comply with the twelve-inch guideline. Terdalkar said the guideline requires only the offset from the existing plain of the building. Michael Wright asked if the recommendation is to eliminate the little popout on the one side. Terdalkar confirmed this. He said the applicant could either go for an addition of nine feet six inches by nine feet six inches or increase it to ten feet six inches by nine feet six inches. Wright said he would prefer to keep it as nine feet six inches by nine feet six inches. Terdalkar said it would not make any difference on compliance with the guidelines. Carlson said it is more an aesthetic thing than anything else. He said there is no reason to have the jog, but if the owner wants to have the jog, the Commission has no objection to it. MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for an addition to the house at 815 Roosevelt. Weitzel seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. 13 South Linn Street. Terdalkar stated that this building is one of the Iowa City historic landmarks, built in 1917 with great influence of the Georgian Revival style. He said the exterior was altered in the form of an installation of an ATM. Terdalkar said the Georgian revival style is characterized by its symmetry, the geometric proportions, hipped roofs and sashed windows. Terdalkar said the ATM and the opening created to fit it breaks the symmetry. Bill Frantz said he represents Frantz Construction. He said that Frantz Construction was hired by Liberty Bank to install the ATM machine. Frantz said the bank had contacted the owner of the building, after which a representative of Frantz Construction asked a Building Department official what would have to be done to relocate a forced water main. Frantz said that through that, there was a misunderstanding on the part of the Frantz Construction representative as to what was required, as he believed no permit was needed. Frantz said he found out after completion of the work that the building was designated as a historic building. He said he then talked to Tim Hennes at the Building Department, who informed him as to what the procedure is. Frantz said he had contacted the City Engineer to find out the use of the public right-of- way, and the City Engineer informed him that agreement was not required. Frantz said that the brick that was removed has been salvaged and could be reused at some later date if the ATM is removed. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes February 10, 2005 Page 4 Weitzel asked if the removal of the sprinkler system main would require a building permit. Frantz said it did not; he said he was told that it is governed by the State and was directed to the Fire Department to get information regarding that, although they did not say that a permit was required for that. Maharry asked if the changes in the electricity for the ATM would require a permit and inspection. Frantz said he was unsure what was required there for that. Miklo said that generally, any electrical work requires a permit, although he was not 100% certain that it would have been required in this case. Frantz said that his company is in the construction business, and they know what permits are required. He said that they get permits for all of their new construction and remodeling. Frantz said the first thing they did was to approach the Building Department. He said the misunderstanding is unfortunate, but Gene Nisly from his office did speak directly with Tim Hennes, the Chief Building Inspector, before any work was done. Weitzel asked if landmarks have historic overlay zoning. Miklo said that they do and are designated on the zoning map. Maharry said that would be triggered by the City process if the address of any landmark in the City came up, whether in a historic district or not. Miklo said it would then bring it to the attention of the building official that an additional step is required before a permit could be issued. Maharry asked if other ATMs have been installed recently and if building permits were required in those cases. McCallum said that a lot of them are interior to buildings. Maharry said he assumed that a permit would be required to install an ATM to the exterior of a brand new building, particularly with the electrical consequences and the right-of-way issues. Pardekooper said the real-apparent ..problem is that, as per the applicant, there was a failure in communication. He said the Fire Department is usually the entity that should be consulted with regard to fire sprinkler concerns. Pardekooper said the issue is in where the fault lies and thought it would be helpful to talk to Henries regarding this application. Maharry proposed that the Commission's scope is to decide whether or not this is an appropriate alteration of a historic building, regardless of whether it is already in place or whether it is planned for the future. He said that is the Commission's only purview. Maharry said the unfortunate situation doesn't change what the Commission is supposed to do, which is to decide whether or not this is an appropriate thing for this particular building. Enloe said it would, however, be useful to follow up on this situation to make certain it does not happen again. MOTION: Enloe moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the installation of an ATM at 13 South Linn Street. McCallum seconded the motion. Enloe said the ATM is inappropriate in this location and ruins the symmetry of the facility's design. Ponto said if this had come to the Commission before installation, he would have asked about other options and other potential locations. Weitzel pointed out that this is a landmark structure and this does not comply with the Secretary of Interior's guidelines for treatment of a historic building. McCallum said he has been in a similar situation where he has had to really ferret out from the Building Department what was approved and what was not approved. He said he does not think this is the fault of the construction company, although he does not like the location of the ATM. Maharry said the Commission has been put in this position all too frequently. Weitzel said the Commission cannot be the judge of what went wrong or why it went wrong. He said the Commission needs to be the arbiter of what is appropriate in terms of architecture and history and apply the guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior's standards. The motion failed on a vote of 1-7, with McCallum voting in favor. Maharry said the decision may be appealed within ten business days after it is filed with the City Clerk's Office, which is done within five days. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes February 10, 2005 Page 5 503 Melrose Avenue. Bob Orend stated that he is the Facilities Manager for the Latter Day Saints Church. Terdalkar said this is an Iowa City historic landmark. He stated that the architecture of the structure is influenced by Victorian and Italianate and a little bit of colonial revival style. Terdalkar said that the columns of the porch were removed and so were the balustrades. He said the reason given for this was the cost of maintenance. Orend said there was no intent to circumvent the Commission. He said he instructed the contractor, Stephens Concrete, that a permit was required for this project. Orend said he questioned Stephens at length, and Stephens said he had contacted the Building Department and was told that a permit was not required. Orend said that when Stephens inquired about a permit he did not volunteer the address nor did the clerk he spoke to ask for the address. Orend said the columns are installed and the intent was to match what was existing there. He said that matching materials were not used; these are aluminum columns. Orend said one of the reasons for that was maintenance. He said there are other exterior things planned for the building for 2006, and this meeting was very educational for him. Maharry said that it is of concern that this is the second time this property is before the Commission with a project that did not comply with the guidelines. He said there was an issue with vinyl replacement windows a year or two ago. Orend said the pillars do not match the existing color of the house, but the intent is to eventually have them match. Orend said that recently a bay window was replaced, but was approved by the Commission. Maharry said that approval came after the expensive windows were already purchased. The applicant came to the Commission and said that they had purchased custom made replacement windows before seeking Historic Preservation approval because the building owner did not realize a permit was required. McCallum said the pillars that were replaced were not necessarily original. Maharry asked if there was thought to returning the building to its original and more simple structure as shown in the 1910 photograph. Orend said no, that the thought was to match what was replaced as nearly as possible. He said the porch is considerably different, because the floor is all concrete now. Orend said that a few years ago wood epoxy was used on the balusters, but that only lasted a couple of years. McCallum asked if a center rail is required by Code. Weitzel said that if the deck is 30 inches or below, a center rail is not needed. Miklo said this was not the original porch design and said the pillars were installed sometime between 1912 and 1966. He said there is a Secretary of the Interior standard that says that changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. Miklo said the Commission may want to discuss whether that would apply in this case. He said this is an issue because what was replaced was architecturally significant. Weitzel asked Carlson what he thought about the significance of the porch. Carlson responded that the porch was clearly an early 20th century replacement because of the style and building materials. Carlson asked if any of the replaced materials were salvageable or salvaged. Orend replied that the only things remaining are some of the wood columns, which may not be in good enough condition for load bearing capacity. He said the balusters were destroyed when they were demolished. Orend said there are only a couple of the capitals left. MOTION: Ponto moved to approve an application for a certificate of appropriateness for the installation of aluminum columns and balusters at 503 Melrose Avenue. Enloe seconded the motion. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes February 10, 2005 Page 6 Weitzel questioned whether the Commission could require the owners to put back what was taken out because it has been destroyed now. He said, however, that it was significant historically and architecturally. Carlson asked if the items that were replaced would have been salvageable. Smothers said she would need to see the materials. She said, however, that there are people and companies in the State who can replicate what was removed. Smothers said it would cost more, but the replacements would follow the Secretary of the Interior's standards and guidelines. M¢Callum asked if the aluminum columns can be painted, and Smothers confirmed this, but mentioned difficulties. Weitzel stated that if the Commission looks at the guidelines, this cannot be approved. He said that based on the guidelines, the original feature was significant, and the guidelines prohibit the removal of the feature. Maharry summarized that this clearly did not meet the requirements and that it would not likely have been approved if the applicant had requested it before doing the work. If an application had been submitted the Commission would have explored solutions to repairing the existing materials rather than compete replacement with inappropriate new materials. He said that the Commission did approve the window replacement in the previous application for this property because the windows being replaced were not historic but were from a recent remodeling. Although the porch design was not the original it was installed early in the 20th Century and was historic in its own right. MuCallum asked if the Commission would approve restoring the porch to it original design shown in the 1912 photograph. Enloe said that if the Commission votes no on this, the applicant will need to come back with a different proposal. Orend stated that the owners have spent $20,000 on this already. The motion failed on a vote of 0-8. Maharry said the decision may be appealed within ten business days after it is filed with the City Clerk's Office, which is done within five days. 618-622 Iowa Avenue. Terdalkar said the applicant has asked for a deferral of this item. MOTION: Weitzel moved to defer consideration of a certificate of appropriateness for a project at 618-622 Iowa Avenue. Enloe seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. 416 South Summit Street. Terdalkar stated that this is a contributing property in the Summit Street Historic District. He said this is a single-family house built between 1910 and 1920. Terdalkar said the house has some influence of prairie style and is a good example of foursquare design. He said the application is for a certificate of appropriateness for additions and alterations. Pardekooper said that because he is the general contractor for this project, he would recuse himself from participation in the discussion. He said that McCafferty would answer any questions about the project. McCafferty said that this house was a rental property that was purchased by the neighbors with the intent to rehabilitate it and put it back on the market as a single-family house. She said there are a few minor alterations plus the deck that they would like to add. McCafferty said the railing for the proposed addition is decorative, but she would also like to get approval of a standard railing with 2 % inch spacing as an alternative. Maharry asked about the height of the skirting below the deck. McCafferty responded that it is pretty tall, close to six feet high. She said there is no way to modify the grade there to raise that, because of the driveway and garage right next to it. McCafferty said there is a cistern there also, and she did not want to Historic Preservation Commission Minutes February 10, 2005 Page 7 do anything with the cistern because it is so close to the house and foundation and she was afraid that the added soil pressure from filling it might damage the foundation of the house. She said she expected the skirting to be vertical slats of about 2 ¼ inches. Weitzel asked if that would historically have a skirting. Smothers said that the skirting is a 19th century style for a lot of recreational homes along water bodies, and to be that high is actually quite natural. Smothers asked about the proposal to replace the existing awning windows on the north elevation with a glass block. McCafferty said that was done at the owners' request, although they were informed that it might not be approved by the Commission. She said her request would be that if the Commission does not approve the glass block, to either leave the frame in place and use obscure glass or to get rid of the awning windows altogether. McCafferty said the window is above the shower wall so that a conventional window could not be installed there. Smothers asked if the owners would object to putting more substantial trim around the glass block. McCafferty said that right now there is just a two-inch standard trim as drawn. Smothers said that giving the window some depth might make it recede a little bit. Carlson said it does not look like there is any kind of recess, and there should be an eight-inch recess from the side wall for the deck. Weitzel said he did not know if the setback requirements would apply to a deck. McCallum said the deck makes sense the way it is lined up now. He said because the window is there, an offset would move the deck over to go against the existing window. McCafferty said she ended up needing a fairly wide deck to get the width of the stairs so that the stairs would not interfere with the driveway. She pointed out that this is fairly far back from the street. Ponto said the reason for an offset is to distinguish a new addition from an existing building, and if it is a deck, it is already distinguished. Weitzel agreed and said the Commission did not want to force the change of an existing window in order to get an offset. Carlson read from the guidelines under recommended, "Decks: Locating a new deck on the back of the primary building, opposite the street-facing fa(;ade and set in from the side walls at least eight inches." Maharry said it is recommended but not required. Carlson said the Commission then needs to make very clear why no offset is required, if the certificate is approved. MOTION: Weitzel moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for a project at 416 South Summit Street with the options of either 1) leaving the existing windows, 2) using opaque glass in the existing, or 3) removal of both the awning and window entirely on both sides of the bathroom and with the option of using the alternate, simple rail design for the deck. Enloe seconded the motion. Weitzel pointed out that the rationale for not requiring the deck to be set back is that the setback is a recommendation and not a requirement in the guidelines and because a setback would interfere with the existing window. The motion carried on a vote of 7-1~ with Carlson votin.q no. MINUTES: January 8, 2005. MOTION: Weitzel moved to approve the minutes of the January 8, 2005 meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission, as written. Enloe seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. January 13, 2005. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes February 10, 2005 Page 8 Carlson said there was a typographical error on page two, the misspelling of the word "application." MOTION: Enloe moved to approve the minutes of the January 13, 2005 meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission, subject to one typographical correction. Weitzel seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. DISCUSSION AND INFORMATION: Historic Preservation Week Activities. Miklo said that because the staff position supporting the Commission is half time and because of the number of applications in recent months, staff cannot put in as much time in preparing for preservation awards as in the past. He said staff therefore wanted to start discussions early to get volunteers for various tasks and possibly have more input from Friends of Historic Preservation. Miklo said the other possibility is to do a different activity for Preservation Week in May and hold the awards program at a different time of year. Maharry stated that there was discussion at the annual Friends of Historic Preservation meeting regarding changing the awards program to Irving Weber Week in August. He said that would give more time in the spring and summer to arrange the program and also allow for more projects to be completed during the year of presentation. Maharry said the tasks to be assigned include advertising and soliciting nominations, which could be started at any time and possibly have a closing date. McCafferty said that as the past staff person for the Commission, she would offer some suggestions for consideration. She said often projects are begun in the summer with the intention of finishing them the next spring. She said that if the project is not completed before the awards ceremony and the nominations are closed too early, there will be a wait of two seasons in order for it to be recognized. McCafferty said she would support presenting the awards in August so that projects can be recognized as soon as they are finished, and doing something else to recognize Preservation Week, such as walking tours, editorials, and/or educational exhibits. Burford said she has made some inquiries with the Johnson County Historical Society to see if it would be open to greater participation. She said she is waiting to hear back to see what the scope and expectations could be for additional volunteers. Maharry suggested the Englert Theatre as a potential location for the awards presentation. Miklo suggested appointing a subcommittee to meet with a similar subcommittee of the Friends of Historic Preservation to discuss these issues. Maharry, McCallum, and Weitzel volunteered to serve on such a subcommittee. Maharry said that Friends of Historic Preservation meets on February 16th, and between that time and the March Historic Preservation Commission meeting, the two subcommittees can get together to discuss Preservation Week. MOTION: Weitzel moved to create a subcommittee to talk to other organizations regarding moving the Awards Ceremony to Irving Weber Week in August. Enloe seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. Historic Review Subcommittee: Maharry said that the subcommittee framework is in place if the Commission chooses to enact it. He said this might be a good time to do that, especially since it would help Terdalkar learn the process. Terdalkar read from Section 10 of the By-laws of the Handbook describing the purview of the subcommittee: "The Commission shall have the authority to establish a Historic Preservation Design Review Subcommittee to review and make recommendations to the Commission regarding the applications of certificates of appropriateness. Said subcommittee shall consist of three members of the Commission appointed annually by the Commission to serve one-year terms." Historic Preservation Commission Minutes February 10, 2005 Page 9 Maharry said the subcommittee would hold discussions and question and answer sessions and formulate an opinion to forward to the Commission as a whole. He stated that the subcommittee meetings would also be open public meetings that would need to be advertised. Enloe said he felt the subcommittee would expedite the work of the Commission as a whole. Maharry said the Commission could discuss this further at its next meeting. OTHER: McCollister Farmstead: Terdalkar said that drawings depicting conceptual ideas for the land on the McCollister Farmstead were submitted, and the developer is looking for guidance from the Commission. He said the designs are for the replacement of the barn with a mixed-use commercial and apartment structure. Weitzel said he likes the board and batten and the stone elements proposed for the barnlike structure. Terdalkar pointed out the elevation that would be seen from the street. Smothers said this structure is a classic Iowa barn. She said that in terms of shape, size, scale, and use of space, that is what comes to her mind. Smothers said that she did like some of the elements used here in terms of the rhythm and fenestration. Terdalkar said there is a kind of dilemma to having so many openings on the side, and you would not find that on a barn. Maharry said he did not believe that people would want to live in a building so stereotypically like a barn. Miklo said this will be new construction and the developer is asking for feedback. Enloe said the consensus of the Commission is to have something in between the two designs. Maharry said that because there will be five other structures on the site, it will not appear like a farmstead. McCallum said that one is used to seeing the barn from the road, and he would like to see something with a similar size and footprint to the old barn and perhaps something not so commercial looking. Maharry said he would like to see the design have less of an arts and crafts feature. Miklo said he would inform the developer that of the two designs, the Commission would prefer the second one but would like to see something that is a little more barn-like and simple, without the obvious arts and crafts style. He said he would inform the developer that the Commission would like to see this on its agenda again. Maharry said that the Commission would hold a meeting on Tuesday, February 15th at 5:30 p.m. to consider a certificate of appropriateness. Miklo stated that Kerry McGrath from the State Historical Society would be in Iowa City in March and would like time on the agenda of the Commission's March meeting. Terdalkar said the City is sending out over 1,100 informational letters, including maps, to every property owner of landmark properties and of properties in the City's conservation and historic districts. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:12 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte s:/pcd/rnin utes/hpc/2OO5/hpc02-10-05.doc iistoric Preservation Commission Minutes :ebruary 10, 2005 'age 10 Historic Preservation Commission Attendance Record 2005 Yeti13 Name Expires 1/8 1/13 2/10 3/10 4/14 4/28 5/12 5/26 6/9 6/23 7/14 7/28 8/11 8/25 9/8 10/13 11/10 12/8 R. Carlson 3/29/07 ........ X J. Enloe 3/29/06 X X X M. Gunn 3/29/07 O/E X O/E M. Maharry 3/29/05 X X X M. McCallum 3/29/06 X X X J. Pardekooper 3/29/06 O/E X X J. Ponto 3/29/07 X X X A. Smothers 3/29/05 O/E O/E X J. Weissmiller 3/29/06 O/E O/E O/E T. Weitzel 3/29/05 O/E O/E X Key: X - Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM - No Meeting ..... Not a Member IP24 MINUTES PRELIMINARY HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION FEBRUARY 17, 2005 Members Present: Jerry Anthony, Erin Barnes, Lori Bears, William Greazel, Matthew Hayek, Brian Richman, Jayne Sandier, Rita Marcus Members Absent: Mark Edwards Staff Present: Tracy Hightshoe, Steve Long, Steve Nasby, Steve Rackis Public Present: Jim Swain, Bob Burns, Peggy Loveless, Alaina Welsh, Mark Patton, Theresa Kopatich, Christina Canganelli, Karl Dixon, Kristie Doser, Gerald Sorokin, Karen Kubby, David Wellendorf, Kelly Thornburg, Joanna Mouming, Joyce Carman, Burgess Adam Smith, Brian Loring, Sue Freeman, Mike Townsend, Al Axeen, Charlie Eastman, Paul Shultz, Sandy Pickup, Jill Smith, Tom Walz, Dave Maglan, Steve Hall, Allan Young, Mike Lehman, Kay Evans, Carol Spaziani, Marva Abel, Ray Haas, Brad Langguth, Bruce Friedrich, Rose Marie Friedrich, Eugene Spaziani, Mary Donovan, Delores Slade, Del Miller, Tim Smith, Roger Stutsman, Andy Johnson, LT Smith, Susan Simon, Melissa Grant, Susan Assouline, Michael Kaler CALL MEETING TO ORDER Chairperson Hayek called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM JANUARY 20, 2005 Barnes said that on page 3 there is a correction about the Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship update. It states the Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship serves mostly white families. She said that it is not accurate. One particular program (owner-occupied community land trust) has a higher percentage of white families served. Of the 12 owner- occupied households, there is a Bosnian, Asian and an African-American family served. Motion: Greazel moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Anthony seconded the motion. Motion passed 8-0. PUBLIC COMMENT OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Hightshoe said that Habitat for Humanity has three lots left to purchase with FY05 funds. Habitat identified one lot on Crescent Street within the Twain Elementary attendance area. Upon discussion with the HCDC chair, it was decided to submit Habitat's request directly to Council for location approval. Council approved the use of federal funds for that site. Of all the FY05 housing projects, only Habitat has funds remaining for lot acquisition. All other recipients, except Blooming Garden, which is next of the agenda, have identified and purchased real property. Hightshoe asked if there was a consensus on HCDC to submit additional requests for lots within "impacted" school attendance areas, for FY05 projects, directly to Council or if the commission wants to review the site before going to Council. There are only two possible site locations with FY05 funds left to consider. Anthony said that there should be an update about the Scattered Site Housing Taskforce. Matt said that the Taskforce continues to meet about every two weeks, and have met some consensus on basic things: avoid concentrations of poverty, encourage scattered site affordable housing, and a continuous commitment to provide affordable housing. He said that the Taskforce is currently discussing ways to define and implement these objectives. Anthony noted that the Council rejected a request to locate 16 rental units in an "impacted" area, but then approved a lot acquisition for an owner-occupied project in an "impacted" area. There was a consensus of commission members to submit site location requests directly to Council until a policy is approved. Part of the commission's rationale was that there are often time constraints for the applicant to purchase land and there is usually a purchase offer pending which will need timely consideration. OLD BUSINESS United Action for Youth Jim Swaim said that the issue that had been delaying them was getting the necessary approval/concurrence from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). He said the SHPO had several questions about the exterior improvements. Swaim stated they found a window company to provide the necessary metal storm windows, which he believes the SHPO will approve. He added that the addition would have wood siding, that the SHPO was particularly concerned about replacing the windows and questioned the reference to the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. home. Swaim stated a letter was submitted to the SHPO in reference to their concerns, a copy of which was sent to staff. They are awaiting SHPO's response. Swaim said that they do not plan on starting the project until May because they are still working on the Youth Center (facility within Tower Place). This space must be available to free up space at the Iowa Ave. location for the project to proceed. Blooming Garden IHA Limited Partnership "Blooming Garden" Hayek said, as noted in the memo from the City Attorney's office, that Blooming Garden was not in compliance with the Unsuccessful or Delayed Projects Policy as they did not enter an agreement with the City and have not provided a statement or evidence that they applied for Low-Income Housing Tax Credits in the first available round after receiving City HOME funds. The City Attorney's office submitted a memo to the commission that can be found in the packet. It is legal's opinion that the FY05 funds ($200,000) must be recaptured. Hayek added that the memo stated that HCDC may make recommendations to the Council regarding the reuse of those funds. Hayek stated the commission could either submit a recommendation to the Council for the re-use of the funds or do nothing and allow the matter to be resolved between Burns & Burns (Blooming Garden) and the City. Hayek stated he believed this matter was between the Council and Burns & Burns to resolve. Richman asked if one of the options would be to recapture the funds for the current round of allocations (FY06 allocation round). Hayek answered that is his understanding. Motion: Greazel made a motion to do nothing and allow the matter to be resolved between the City and Blooming Garden. Sandier seconded the motion. Anthony asked what would happen if the City includes the FY05 recaptured funds in the current round (FY06), and there is a future lawsuit? Anthony questioned if the City was required to reallocate funds to Burns & Burns, how would that be handled? Nasby said that it would likely be resolved through the direction of the court and the City would then have to review its options. 3 Richman said that the project should be passed to the City without recommendations. Sandier said that the worst thing that could happen would be that the money would not be available for the current allocation process, but for a later date if they are recaptured. Motion passed 8:0. Motion: Greazel made a motion to expand the deadline for UAY progress to June 1st. Marcus seconded the motion. Motion passed 8:0. DISCUSSION REGARDING APLICATIONS FOR FY06 CDBG AND HOME FUNDING Johnson County Permanent Supportive Housing Bob Burns introduced Mary Loveless and Alaina Welsh. Burns said that the applicant had hired them to assist them through the process of applying for Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC). He said that Chatham Oaks Inc. is the general partner in the limited partnership, and the limited partner is the National Alliance for the Mentally III of Johnson County. Burns introduced members of the boards of both partners. Hayek asked if they could explain the per-unit costs. Burns said that the cost is directly proportional to the size of the building and amenities included. There are more common areas and the building would be sprinklered. He said that it would include common kitchen and dining areas, laundry area, a computer learning center, and all the equipment and furniture. Greazel asked if the land would be leased or donated. Burns said that the land would be leased from the County to Chatham Oaks, which would then donate it to the project. Richman asked for clarifications regarding the ownership structure of the partnership. Burns said that there is a general and a limited partner. He added that the general partner would always be Chatham Oaks. He mentioned that currently the limited partner is the National Alliance for the Mentally III of Johnson County. He added that before construction starts, an investor limited partner would substitute for the National Alliance for the Mentally III of Johnson County, and the investor, through the LIHTC, would contribute 56% of the total building cost of approximately $1.1 million. Burns said that the ownership structure would continue through the affordability period and at the end of the affordability period (50 years) all the properties would be given back to the County, who is the landowner. Anthony asked the likelihood that the project would receive the LIHTC. Burns said he believes that the chances are excellent. The application would qualify for service enriched projects which are the first category of funding that is taken into account for tax credit allocations. Hayek asked if the project has any partnerships with area service providers. Welsh answered that the tenant would be able to choose the service provider they want. She said that Chatham Oaks would coordinate with the service provider chosen to assure that the tenants have continuity of services and care while they live in the apartment. Burns said that the $550,000 supplemental application would replace the State HOME loan. Sandier asked what the impact of less funding would be on the project. Burns said that if the supplemental application were not awarded they would apply for a state loan. He 4 said that the $275,000 request on the main application is critical for the project. Burns stated he thought the $550,000 supplemental application would guarantee that the project receives tax credits because the State runs out of HOME funds before they run out of tax cred its. Habitat for Humanity - Homeownership Mark Patton said that they have a scattered site single-family house proposal. He added that the funds requested are to buy land. He said that Habitat raises the money for the construction of the building, and uses volunteer labor extensively to build the houses. Patton said that habitat houses tend to be modest, with garages if needed due to subdivision convenants. Patton said that Habitat's goal is to stockpile lots 6-18 months in advance to raise the necessary funding for construction. He added that they plan to build 7 houses this year, 6 of which will be in Iowa City. Richman asked how many lots would be bought with the requested amount? Patton said that the last lots that were purchased cost anywhere from $37,000 to $42,000 each depending on the market. Anthony asked what was the problem for not spending the money allocated last year. Patton said that not everybody sells to Habitat. He added that the reason could be the fact that they do not build large, "fancy" homes. Habitat for Humanity - Property Acquisition (ReStore) He said that a month ago they started a ReStore in Coralville. He said that they have temporarily leased a warehouse that is rented to them by the City of Coralville. The Restore takes in used or new building materials. What can not be used for a Habitat home is sold to the public, it operates very similar to a Goodwill store, except home improvement merchandise. He said that this scenario represents a win-win situation. He said that it saves space in the local landfill, puts the materials back into use, while generating funds to build homes for Habitat. Patton said that Coralville provided a verbal assurance that they would have the warehouse until fall. He added that after the first two weekends they were open, they sold over $2,000 worth of materials. Patton said that they would need a permanent space in Iowa City. Hayek asked if they have any sites in mind. Patton said that are looking. Richman said that the application mentioned some other ReStore facilities, and he asked whether those facilities are owned by Habitat. Patton said that the facility from the Quad Cities is lea~ed. Barnes asked if the training opportunities are paid? Patton said that the first targets for training are the persons that will occupy the homes and they do not get paid for the duration of training. TTC Housing Program Kopatich said that TTC has partnered with Town and Campus Apartments to provide on- site supportive services to people who live there. The apartments would be available for transitional and permanent housing. Kopatich said that they are requesting money to be able to provide the on-site services. Barnes asked what some needs among the residents are. Kopatich said that there are problems with mental illness, substance abuse, and/or physical disabilities. Hayek asked what kind of training background the staff would have who would be providing services. Kopatich said that they would have social work backgrounds and experience working with persons with disabilities. Sandier asked if the tenants are receiving any social services at the current time. Kopatich answered that, for many it is only the services that the Town and Campus Apartments staff can provide. She added that some of the renters are connected with community agencies. Sandier asked what would the impact be if they do not receive full funding. Kopatich answered that not receiving the full funding would slow them down, but they would still work towards providing services. Shelter House - Emergency Assistance Christina Canganelli introduced Karl Dixon, program manager for STAR. Dixon said that they are requesting funds for the security deposit program that is used for emergency rent deposits or utility payments. Emergency assistance helps maintain housing for those households near homelessness. She added that the short-term cost of such assistance is much lower than the long-term expense to support the same household in emergency facilities. Dixon said that this program is offered only on a one-time basis. Hayek asked how much money was allocated to the program last year. Canganelli said that they got the full amount requested, $5,000. Hayek asked how much of those funds were paid out. Canganelli said that there is a revolving aspect to it in the sense that if a tenant vacates the property, the security deposit goes back to the program, not to the City. The FY05 project will spend ail the allocated funds by the end of the fiscal year. Richman asked what percentage of funds return to the program. Canganelli said that less than 20% of the funds come back. She added that the situation has been improving, as they have been able to spend more time with people who have been given units, and provided tenant/landlord education. Canganelli mentioned that the staff report states there is a similar program with the Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship. She added that the two programs are very different because they are working with different types of populations. She said that Shelter House works with persons that have not qualified to receive assistance from the Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship security deposit program. As such, there is no duplication of services. Shelter House - Operational Dixon said that they are requesting funds for the STAR outreach services coordinator. She said that the position is currently providing direct services to homeless persons. STAR is a vocational program funded by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. Its goals are to help persons pass the unemployment barrier. She said that the plan is to serve 80 people, but they expect to exceed this number. Canganelli added that those activities are funded heavily through this program, and would not exist in the manner that they exist today without the program. She said that the CDBG funds used for this project go toward their cash match of $106,750. This cash requirement leverages approximately $448,000 in federal funds (STAR grant). Domestic Violence Intervention Program (DVIP) Kristie Fortmann Doser said that last year HCDC supported DVIP's request for security cameras at the shelter's main entrance and additional cameras inside and outside the facility. She said that this application is for an additional camera to monitor the kitchen area and funds to replace the toilets. Doser said that there is no direct line of vision towards the kitchen area and that is a place that causes a lot of hazards. She mentioned that there are a lot of children in the shelter and it is not uncommon to have just one staff person. She said that it is difficult to catch children who are in the kitchen area. She added that there is a rule of not being in the kitchen area, but the rules are not always followed. Doser said that having a camera in the kitchen would be very beneficial; it would allow seeing what is going on in the kitchen, while answering the crisis line. She added that the women that live in the shelter identified that it would be good to have a camera in the kitchen area. Doser stated that the building is 12 years old and the toilets that were installed were residential grade toilets. She estimated that over 4,000 people have used the facility and there are routine plumbing problems with the toilets. She said that a plumbing company offered to replace the toilets with commercial grade toilets at a reduced price. Doser mentioned that they had to do some rehabilitation due to the toilets flooding at different times. Hayek said that according to his calculations, a toilet would cost around $360 each. He added that two toilets would match the price for one camera. Hayek asked what would they do if they do not get the full amount. Doser answered that the camera is their first priority. Anthony asked about the capacity of the shelter. Doser said that they generally have around 35-40 persons per night. Greazel asked if they thought about changing the carpet, because it seemed dangerous when he visited the site. Doser said that they have to take everything step by step. She added that in the current year they had to replace some tiling because it was cracking, and due to safety issues they had to replace those first. Doser said that carpeting and doors are another priority that would be taken into account for next year. Doser added that they do have emergency funds for improvements, but they are to be used only in cases of extreme emergency. Aliber/Hilel Jewish Student Center Accessibility Renovation Gerald Sorokin said that they put an application for funding to improve the accessibility of their building. Sorokin said that they have done all previous renovations on their own, but they are trying to achieve a goal that is high priority for their Board and to increase the use of the facility by groups that are outside of their organization. He added that usually they are thought of as a religious organization, and therefore not eligible for the funds, but in the past years they have been providing offices, classrooms and space to other organizations within their building. The National Alliance for the Mentally Ill uses one of the classrooms as their office, and holds weekly meetings and classes there. The Emma Goldman Clinic and Women's Resource and Action Center use the facility as well. Sorokin said that they also rent to the Princeton Review Company, which runs test preparation classes in their classrooms. He mentioned that they try to expand the access of their building to the community, and they realize that the situation of the building severely limits their ability to serve the community. Richman asked if any of the organizations pay to use the building. Sorokin said that they try to provide their space free of charge when possible for the non-profit organizations. He added that the for-profit corporations pay rent, and that represents a source of income for the organization. Sorokin said that the first thing that they would do is to install a mechanical door opener, and second complete the restroom renovation, particularly to transform the upper floor men's restroom into a unisex fully accessible restroom. Emma Goldman Clinic - Facility Rehabilitation Karen Kubby said that there is an addition to the front of the building that has a flat roof. She mentioned that there are a lot of people that access the second level of the building for non-healthcare reasons (the flat roof/patio is used as an entrance for the second level offices). She said that they tried to make some site repairs to the roof, but it did not help. Kubby said that they continually have 2 buckets sitting in the entrance area because of the leaking roof. She added that the roof problem impedes their use of last year's CDBG funding, because they can not install a lighting/electrical system in a place that has problems with water. She said that the clinic has an operating reserve fund that has very specific parameters that the Board has set up, and can only be used for extreme emergencies. She said that they do not have a capital reserve fund. Kubby said that they are trying to get donations for their projects. She mentioned that it would be possible that some of the labor for fixing the roof may be donated by local agencies. Kubby said that they might need to talk with a couple of roofers to get a consensus of what the problems are, and then have roofers bid on the project. Kubby said they would request a 10-year declining balance loan from the Council. Emma Goldman Clinic - Operational Kubby said that they requested $5,000 to help them subsidize their sliding fee scale due to a large increase of clients gained recently from the closing of the University of Iowa Family Planning Clinic (FPC). She stated that most of the FPC clients are used to receiving free services. She said that this would not be the case at their facility, but CDBG funds would help subsidize their sliding fee scale. Kubby said they are focusing on young teens. She added that they are expecting a 50% increase in the young adults/teen clients. Iowa City Housing Authority Tenant Based Rental Assistance (ICHA) Steve Rackis said that the proposed project would mitigate the impact of federal budget reductions in the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program, allow the ICHA to provide immediate assistance to elderly and/or disabled families currently on the waiting list, and maintain assistance to Iow income families up to their approved baseline of 1,213 families. Rackis said that the waiting list is approximately 2 years, and not receiving sufficient funds would extend the length of waiting period. Rackis said that he has done an analysis of where HCV families are currently living. He said that in elderly households, 69% live in Iowa City, 11% in Coralville, 10% North Liberty, and 11% all other communities in Johnson County. He mentioned that the percentages of disabled households are similar, Iowa City 74%, Coralville 17%, and North Liberty 4%, all other communities in Johnson County 6%. He said that when you take the head of household, both elderly and disabled, 74% live in Iowa City, 17% in Coralville, 4% North Liberty, and 4% all other communities. Bears said that in the paper there is a different number regarding the waiting list. Rackis stated that the waiting list is fluid and different lists exist for different programs offered by the ICHA. Rackis said that they are just now beginning to process the applications from May 2003. Greazel asked what would people do for those two years. Rackis said that they stretch their social security or any other source of income that they may have available. Old Brick Repointing Project David Wellendorf said that Old Brick was one of the first seven lots purchased in Iowa City. He mentioned that it is the second oldest building in Iowa City and needs to be repointed. He added that the building has holes through the mortar that let water in the building. He said that type of erosion might easily destroy the structure. Hayek said that the estimate is dated from last August and asked if the prices are still good. Wellendorf said that the prices are pretty close. Wellendorf said that they are trying to provide value to the community through rental to non-profit organizations and the use of the auditorium for a variety of community uses. Anthony asked what is going on with the last year funded project. Wellendorf said that the project is going well and that it should be done by early May. Richman asked what the impact would be if HCDC allocates less than the requested amount. Wellendorf said that they would work harder. He said that they are good at getting volunteer work, but repointing is not an area that they can utilize volunteers. The west wall was repointed with the wrong type of mortar and may damage the building. This area must be repointed soon, however to be cost efficient they would prefer to do the whole project at once due to the high cost of equipment rental. Planned Parenthood of Greater Iowa Kelly Thornburg said that she has worked with Planned Parenthood since the opening in Iowa City in 1990. In 1999 they had to relocate within a short timeframe. She stated they have a great facility, but parking and their front entrance creates problems for them. In 1999 they had to move quickly and the acquisition of a facility was a huge expenditure. Hayek questioned if they own or lease the facility. She stated that they have a long-term lease. Greazel questioned if this improvement will benefit the owner if the applicant moves. Thornburg stated they signed a 10-year lease, with two 5-years options. Thornburg stated they plan on remaining in the facility for a long time. The parking lot they use is unpaved and creates problems during the spring and after it rains. Clients park at neighboring businesses and some are more hospitable than others. She added that there was a 52% increase in the number of patients they serve after the University of Iowa Family Planning Clinic closed. She said that they were the direct referral from the Family Planning Clinic due to their subsidized cost, about a 60% discount. Greazel said that it is less expensive to lease than to own. He said that they pay a lot of property taxes there (indirectly through monthly rent) and adding that cost to the leasing cost would most likely be similar to owning. Thornburg stated the facility entrance creates safety problems, as it is adjacent to the alley. As the alley is public right-of-way, they also encounter protesters following their clients right up to the doors of the facility. Compeer Program Joanna Mouming introduced some members of their Board. Mourning stated that there are 16 people on the waiting list waiting for a companion. She said that they are trying to do some marketing for the program to create more interest. Mouming said that the program increases socialization and friendship. She said that they are trying to organize meals and other activities to those who are still on the waiting list. She added that they are considering doing a call program to check-in on some of the persons on the waiting list, as it is important to have someone to talk to from time to time. Joyce Carman said that they are organizing a benefit concert. She said that during the same event last year they raised $2,500. Their goal for the current year is $3,500. She said that they would be happy with any contribution to their budget. River City Housing Collective- Property Acquisition Smith said that they are a non-profit organization, collectively owned by their members. He added that they currently own two residential properties, and are looking to expand. Smith said that they are trying to buy the property located at 932 East College Street. He mentioned the house has 13 rooms (SRO units), and one 2-bedroom apartment. They hope to attract a family to live in the apartment. Smith said that they are pre-approved to get financing from banks. Sandier asked if they ever requested funds through the CDBG program. Smith answered that he personally did not, however Long stated the Collective submitted a funding request about seven years ago that did not receive funds. Sandier asked why they did not attend one of the workshops. Smith said that they did not hear about this funding opportunity until the last minute. Long stated the applicant did come in to discuss the project and the application process with staff. Richman said they mentioned that one type of population served is a single-parent household, and he asked if according to the configuration of the house they would be able to attract any families. Smith said that the unit on the first floor would accommodate families. He added that there are other units large enough to accommodate a parent and a child rather than a larger size family. Richman asked if they would go on with the project if they receive less than the requested funds. Smith said that they would try to, but it would be very hard to achieve, and it depends on the purchase price. Marcus asked if they were seeking $550,000 in private funds? Smith said that is true. Greazel asked if they looked at other locations. Smith said that they looked at a couple of other houses, but the collective has a lot of special requirements that need to be met and the other properties were not feasible. Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County- Broadway Building Improvements Loring said that they are looking for funds for renovations at the Broadway site. The funds are to be used for the childcare space, common space, office space, and parking lot. They have increased programming; thus they are able to serve more kids. Freeman said that the ]0 cabinets are stapled and duct-taped. She said they are looking to replace flooring throughout the facility. Loring said the parking lot is cracked, and would not be able to be used for activities usually held there. NCJC holds their summer basketball tournaments on the parking lot, but it has become unsafe due to the cracks and uneven surfaces. Freeman said that they have been able to increase their staffing due to operational grants; however they have 3 offices for 25 staff members. They are constantly looking for ways to best utilize their limited space. Sandier asked what's the progress of last year's funds. Loring said that half of the funds are for replacing windows. Freeman said it took a while to get bids going on, but the work is in progress. Hayek questioned if not fully funded, what are the priority items? Loring stated he would review, list items in priority order, and send to staff for distribution to HCDC members. Goodwill Industries of Southeast Iowa - Air Conditioning Townsend said that they would like to provide air conditioning to the production area at the First Avenue facility. Hayek asked if they had a bid on the project. Townsend said they did not have a contractor's estimate, but their architect provided the estimate. Hayek requested if Goodwill could submit the estimate. Townsend stated he would send to staff within 2-3 weeks. Barnes asked if employee's conditions make it imperative that air conditioning must be installed? Townsend said that, in general, people prefer to work in an air-conditioned environment. Many of their clients working in the production area are medically fragile and are sensitive to the heat and humidity and some are not able to come to work during very hot, humid days. Anthony said that it was mentioned in the application that they raised $350,000 for capital improvements, and asked if part of that could be used for this project. Townsend said they could use part of that money. They plan to do facility-wide improvements to the building, such as window and door replacements, office reconfigurations, accessible restrooms. He said that they would try to find a way to pursue the project in case of partial or no CDBG funding, but it would be very difficult to complete all the necessary improvements. Bears asked if air-conditioning existed in the building. Townsend answered that parts of the building are air-conditioned. He mentioned that some offices are air-conditioned. He said that they are prepared to pay the additional energy costs due to this project. Hawkeye Area Community Action Program- Transitional Housing Al Axeen said that the application is for a total of four units, two units to be' placed into the local transitional housing program, and two units to be filled by United Action for Youth's (UAY) teen mothers or pregnant teens as UAY lost housing units that were operated in partnership with Youth Homes. He stated that two of HACAP's units (mobile homes) are currently being used to assist UAY teen mothers. Axeen said that the most confusing aspect of the proforma is the management fee. Axeen said that according to federal regulations there are definite rules that they must follow, and one is to distribute employee salaries between programs. He said that 46% of the salary goes into this fund and that's why the management fee seems so high. He added that it pays for operations and facilities, property taxes, and repairs. Axeen said that another ]! issue that was raised by staff from the Proforma was the debt service. He said that the $10,300 would be paid back through agency/operational funds. Greazel asked where they are going to buy the units. Axeen said that they would buy condominiums in non-impacted areas, however the cost is significantly more expensive than the Broadway area. Sandier asked if they spent their FY05 allocation. Axeen replied that yes they purchased two units and spent their allocation. Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship - Rental Charlie Eastham said that the School Choice Program proposal is to buy eight existing two-bedroom homes and use them to rent to LMI households located in elementary attendance areas that reported less than 20% free and reduced lunch eligible student enrollment in 2003. Eastham said that the project also includes rehabilitation costs that will help preserve older homes available to Iow-income households. Hayek asked Eastham to explain the total cost per bedroom in comparison to the previous year application. Eastham said that the acquisition cost for the last project was $80-85,000 per unit and the cost this year increased due to location and possibility of lead based paint provisions and necessary rehabilitation. Sandier asked if the project would move forward if GICHF would not receive full funding. Eastham answered that they would try to pursue the project, possibly purchase less units, or maybe not locate within the higher cost areas. Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship - Owner-Occupied Referring to the second project, Eastham said that they propose to purchase three lots to construct homes for the Community Land Trust program. He mentioned that the land would be owned by the Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship, which would provide a 99- year lease to the buyer. He said that the purpose is to ensure that the homes remain affordable over time. He said that the land lease program requires that upon resale of the home, the home could only be sold to an income-qualifying buyer. If the seller is not able to find an income-qualifying buyer, the Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship has the option to purchase the house and find an income-qualifying buyer. Marcus questioned if the owners get the same appreciation as a regular house owner, except the appreciation on the land. Eastham said that they do not get full appreciation if they sell the home before a 15-year period. Sandier said that the homeowner would pay a land lease fee of $20 a month, taxes on the house, and taxes on the land that is leased to them. She said that the total would be comparable to what they would have paid if they were the owners of the house. Marcus said that the difference might be that they would not qualify to get a house and this would be the only way for a Iow-income family to own their home. Free Lunch Program - Facility Rehabilitation Shultz said that six years ago they received funds to remodel the kitchen. Those improvements did not include a new fire suppressant system. The one in current use is out of date and unserviceable once it breaks down or needs a repair. Shultz mentioned that they must upgrade the system or the Fire Marshall could find them out-of-compliance. If that were to happen the replacement would be under an urgent timeline. Hayek asked if the fire suppressant system is out-of-compliance or unserviceable? Shultz said that it is currently unserviceable, and most likely would be found out-of-compliance if inspected. Free Medical Clinic/Free Lunch Program - Facility Rehabilitation Shultz said they are also requesting funds to replace asbestos tiles. He said that the tiles are deteriorating, and need to be replaced before they become health hazards. Greazel asked if they would replace the tiles that can be seen, or also the ones under the carpet. Shultz answered that they plan to remove both. Hayek asked if covering over the tiles instead of replacing the tiles is a workable option. Shultz answered that it is a workable option only in the Free lunch auditorium. The tiles under the carpet at the Free Medical Clinic and the stairwells are popping up and must be replaced. Sandier asked what the difference in cost would be. Shultz answered that it would save $5,000. Free Medical Clinic- Case Management Sandy Pickup said that they are requesting $10,000 to continue their case management program. Sandier said that in the budget break down they indicate salaries and benefits. The private portion is made up of various grants and donations that are anticipated. If not fully funded, at what level will the program continue? Pickup stated they would do what they can and try and piece various funds for this position to continue as best they could. Greazel said that the application lists $400,000 for medications, and asked whether the FMC had to purchase them. Pickup said that they do not buy them as the drug manufacturers donate them, however the clinic must submit individual requests for each medication to the specific manufacturer. The case manager submits these requests on behalf of FMC patients. Pickup said this figure represents medication for the entire clinic, not just those suffering from chronic health conditions. Anthony questioned if they spent their FY04 allocation. Pickup stated it was an error on their application. All FY04 were spent. Hightshoe stated that the funds were completely spent. In FY05, the FMC receives monthly installments and will spend out by the end of this fiscal year as well. LT&J Consulting - Iowa City Community Grantwriters Workshop Smith said that they would deliver four Iowa City Community Grantwriters Workshops to approximately 120 community based organizations to heighten the knowledge, skills and experience of service provider organizations to develop successful grant proposals and compete successfully for federal competitive grants and other competitive funding sources. She said that Iowa is second in the nation in volunteering, but they are very Iow in the nation in receiving funding from foundations and government grants. She said that she is passionate about bringing money into Iowa. Smith stated they have received extensive training on requirements for federal grants and are certified by national grant institutes to conduct training. They have served as grant reviewers for federal and state grants and assisted the Department of Economic Development in reviewing and writing administrative rules. Smith stated they really want to get to the local organizations. She mentioned that, unfortunately, area organizations are small and provide a lot of services with little funding. There are over 200 non-profit organizations in Johnson County with assets less than $25,000. She mentioned that with that amount of money they can not go out and grant write, so they hope to bring a service to train as many people as possible with the funding. Smith said that the idea they have is to provide a no-cost service to organizations that do not have funds. In response to the staff report, Smith said requiring a minimal fee is not a bad idea and would be a consideration if there would be partial funding, but they are trying to reach those organizations with little resources. She also stated that the question had been asked if organizations could pay them a percentage of grants received. Smith said that most funding organizations do not allow the funding to be used for outside consultants or administration. Richman asked if the firm is non-profit or for-profit. Smith answered that they are currently for-profit, but are going through a non-profit application process. Extend the Dream Foundation - Operational Tom Walz introduced Dave Maglan, Steve Hall and Allan Young. Walz said that they are at the beginning of the fourth year of operating a non-profit organization with no paid staff as they have been able to operate with volunteer staff. The proposed project is based on the cost for two National Corporation of Community Service (VISTA) volunteers as the program requires a 50% co-pay. Walz said funds are requested to assist with the payment of the required co-share. Hayek asked how long have they been working with VISTA. Walz said that they have worked with them since 1974. Extend the Dream Foundation - Micro-Enterprise Center Walz said that they have a micro enterprise operation, which turned into a community support center that does a lot of work with people in recovery (substance abuse issues), and physically and/or mentally disabled people. He mentioned that they found their current site with the help of CDBG funds and they are working towards the stage of self-sufficiency for the organization. Walz is very confident that they are going to make it. Walz said that they are requesting funds to purchase a mixed-use building that contains 1,650 square feet of commercial space. He added that the commercial space would be used to provide storefronts to businesses that are ready to incubate from the micro- enterprise activity targeted to persons with disabilities. Extend the Dream Foundation anticipates the need for the additional space to accommodate two businesses and to launch an e-commerce training program. Walz said that they have a bookstore, an antique and collectibles business, and furniture refinishing operations. He mentioned that when you consider the employees/clients they work with, they could get more income by doing e-commerce than from traditional retail. He said that e-commerce works great with the type of clientele they are working with: people recovering from substance abuse, persons with mobility difficulties, and/or persons with mental illness/disabilities. Greazel asked if there are accessibility issues with the proposed site? Walz said that there are accessibility issues on the second floor. Work to make the first floor accessible would be done on the commercial, first-floor level. He said that when it opens the first floor would be accessible. ]4 Hall said that with their current e-commerce business, they rely heavily on donations people bring in and then they sell these items using e-commerce. However, they would like to reduce their dependence on donations, as they are unreliable. Hall said that the quality and supply varies. He said that they need to figure out a way to buy and sell which can be done through e-commerce. He stated that they could buy and see all through e-commerce and make a profit. He said that the future of the program could be sizable. Greazel asked if they have the funds to remodel the building. Walz said that they raised the funds. He said that they have a lot of very talented people that are available. He said that they have the skills to do it. Many of their clients are from the building trades recovering from substance abuse. Sandier asked if this project would be eligible for the CDBG Economic Development (ED) funds administered by the Council. Hightshoe stated yes, it is an eligible activity. Walz stated they had applied to the ED fund. If fully funded through the economic development fund, Walz stated they would pull their current application with HCDC. Nasby stated there were funds available in the ED pool of funds, but a current application is pending that would determine how much in funds are available for this request. Extend the Dream Foundation - Rental Housing Walz stated the three upstairs apartments were not accessible to persons with mobility impairments. They would rent to persons with other impairments, but those that could climb the stairs to get to the apartments. The apartments would be extremely affordable and would be provided to clients working on-site in a possible live/work arrangement. The site is also near commercial facilities such as a grocery store, bank, etc. Thus transportation wouldn't be an issue for many needed things. City of Iowa City - Downpayment Assistance Program Steve Nasby said that in Iowa City a median priced house is about $150,000. Households in the 60-80% area median income range would have an affordability gap of approximately $10,000-20,000 gap. The project budget shows that 20 units will be assisted with an average of $15,000 in downpayment assistance per unit. The homes would be post 1977 to avoid lead based paint provisions. The homeowner contributes around $1,500 or 1% towards the purchase of the home. Nasby said that people would have the full benefit of homeownership. Nasby mentioned that they have sent letters to area lenders to ascertain interest in providing program administration. They have received four responses to date. In response to a question, Nasby said that this downpayment assistance program would contribute up to 10% of the purchase price. Adjournment Anthony moved to adjourn. Barnes seconded. The meeting adjourned at 9:45 PM. Housing & Community Development Commission Attendance Record 2005 Terlll Name Expires 01/20 02/17 03/17 04/21 05/19 06/16 07/21 08/18 09/15 10/20 11/17 12/15 Jerry Anthony 09/01/05 X X Erin Barnes 09/01/06 X X Lori Bears 09/01/07 X X Mark Edwards 09/01/05 X O/E William Greazel 09/01/06 O/E X Matthew Hayek 09/01/07 X X Rita Marcus 09/01/06 O/E X Brian Richman 09/01/07 × X Jayne Sandier 09/01/05 O/E X Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No Meeting ..... Not a Member IP25 MINUTES DRAFT PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 16, 2005 MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Gustaveson, Judith Klink, Margaret Loomer, Ryan O'Leary, Matthew Pacha, Phil Reisetter, Sarah Walz, John Westefeld STAFF PRESENT: Terry Trueblood, Mike Moran, Terry Robinson FORMAL ACTION TAKEN Moved by Pacha, seconded by Loomer, to approve the December 8~ 2004 minutes as written. Unanimous. Moved by Reisetter, seconded by Pacha~ that the Rugby Club's request to continue hosting the annual Ducks Sevens Rugby Tournament on park property be denied. INTRODUCTIONS Mike Moran introduced Mindy Cheap to the Conmfission. Mindy has assumed the position of Aquatics Supervisor for the Iowa City Recreation Division. Gustaveson welcomed Phil Reisetter to the commission; introductions were made. PUBLIC DISCUSSION Karen Kubby, spoke on behalf of the Creekside Neighborhood Association expressing their support for the Court Hill Trail proposal. Karen discussed some of the neighborhood concerns regarding drainage with regard to snow and ice removal. The neighborhood would not recommend any additional lighting be added along the trail as they feel that the lighting at the crosswalks would be enough. There is one neighbor that is not in favor of progressing with the trail, however, this member did not attend the last meeting. Kubby, on behalf of the Creekside Neighborhood group, requested that funding for this trail be moved up on the priority list and that they would like to be involved in the next phase. Trueblood assured Kubby that as the City gets closer to concrete plans for project, the neighborhood association will be informed, and invited to participate. O'Leary stated that as he lives in the Creekside Neighborhood, he is very pleased to see this project on the list of long term goals. He feels that a trail is a safer option for walkers and that creek maintenance would be improved as well. He too would like to see it moved up on the priority list. FRIENDS OF HICKORY HILL PARK Bob Sessions and Mike Fallon were present on behalf of the Friends of Hickory Hill to discuss their interest, roles and relationship with the city. Sessions presented some history regarding the Parks and Recreation Commission November 10, 2004 Page 2 of 5 group stating that it has grown to approximately 300 members. Their focus has now changed from being concerned about preserving boundaries to being concerned about what is going on inside the park. They are making an attempt to get more people involved in caring for and enjoying the park. Their goal is to not cost the city any money, but to benefit the park through fundraising. Sessions announced that they are working on an area to bring back the native prairie. Fallon discussed their awareness of the politics involved with the use of herbicides and they will be approaching this as legally and proficiently as possible. The group hopes to work in tandem with the city to bring funding to the projects where the city may not have funds available. Sessions distributed an "Adopt-A-Park Report" to the commission for their review. Reisetter asked for clarification from Trueblood regarding City's liability, for injuries sustained by the volunteers, etc., working on these projects. Trueblood stated that they are covered under the City's umbrella policy. Westefeld praised the group for the work that has been done by the Friends of Hickory Hill. Gustaveson expressed his appreciation of the cooperation between Friends of Hickory Hill and the Parks and Recreation Staff. RUGBY CLUB REQUEST TO HOST 2005 TOURNAMENT Jeremy Freerks, President of the Iowa City Rugby Team, made an appeal to the commission to allow the club to host their Ducks 7's annual tournament on the soccer fields of Iowa City. Freerks distributed a packet of letters, etc., supporting their request to the commission for their review. Freerks discussed the history of the sport of rugby with members of the commission. Freerks mentioned the revenue that is brought in to the City of Iowa City by the 300-500 team members and spectators. While admitting that alcohol has been a problem at these events, Freerks stated that he would like to work something out with the city in regard to this issue-- perhaps something similar to what Shakespeare Theatre has in place now allowing them to sell beer as a concession item. Trueblood presented to the commission the staffs concerns regarding past tournaments, and why they denied the clubs request. He stated that since 1989 it has been necessary to send letters of reprimand regarding parking and alcohol issues to the club following every tournament, reminding them of the 1200 beer cans that were disposed of along with broken glass that had to be cleaned up from the parking lots at the soccer complex. Trueblood reminded Freerks that in 2004 they were allowed to have the tournament with two stipulations; 1) $500 deposit be paid prior to the event and 2) that an uniformed police officer be present at the event. They did not abide by the second request, to have an officer present. Discussion regarding the lack of an officer took place between Freerks and the commission. O'Leary stated that he had been approached by a friend who had expressed his concerns of losing the tournament. O'Leary planned on encouraging the commission to find a solution allowing the tournament to go on. O'Leary felt that because there was no specific plan of action brought by the club to the commission he could not support nor oppose a decision at this time. Therefore he would abstain from the vote. Parks and Recreation Commission November 10, 2004 Page 3 of 5 Gastaveson made note that while these types of events are usually welcomed by the city, in the event of past experiences he would have to support the staffs recommendation to deny their request. Moved by Reisetter, seconded by Pacha that Ruby Club's request to continue hosting the annual Ducks Sevens Rugby Tournament on parks property be denied. Commission informed the club that if they would like to discuss this again for future tournaments to be sure to present the commission with a detailed plan of action. REPORT OF SNOW REMOVAL ISSUES & RESPONSIBILITIES Terry Robinson reviewed a list with the commission of snow removal locations for which the Parks, Forestry and CBD divisions are responsible. He noted that this list has grown to 37 areas that are neither in nor adjacent to parks. A recent example that surfaced is a walkway that was established between homes and is not connected to any parks but has become our responsibility for snow removal. Walz asked if there is a way to proactively deal with this issue. Trueblood noted that Planning staff is aware of this and knows that these issues need to be taken care of at the initial plalming stage of a development. It is felt that the homeowners associations or adjacent property owners need to be responsible for these areas. DISCUSSION OF ISSUES/PROJECTS AS DIRECTED BY CITY COUNCIL Trueblood reviewed a memo from the City Manager dated 1/20/05 regarding the council budget decisions for FY06. Items are as follows: #7) Proposed National Guard Armory project on county property off of Melrose Avenue: Commission asked their thoughts on pursuing this plan. Commission unanimously supports this idea. #8) Restroom/Shelter sketch to be prepared for City Park Festival Stage area. City Manager has given approval to go ahead with a concept plan and cost estimates. We should have this plan within two to three weeks. #9) Prepare a list of smaller Parks and Recreation Projects: Council wants to know if there is a potential for fundraising. Trueblood stated his concerns regarding the time that would be involved in this effort. Commission to suggest ideas for fundraising. #12) An expanded downtown cleanup policy to be referred to the alcohol advisory board as well as a work session discussion on how we might choose to proceed. Not sure yet if this will involve Parks and Recreation. #17) Distribution percentage policy for hotel tax revenue: 27 1/2% to Parks & Recreation is the same as it has been in past years. Parks and Recreation Commission November 10, 2004 Page 4 of 5 COMMISSION TIME Walz announced that there will be a "Prairie Preview" event on March 8. Friends of Hickory Hill would like to distribute a postcard (or something of that nature) to people that they can fill out and send to City Council in support of park projects. Pacha praised Mike Moran and staff for their continued efforts and success with ball field maintenance. CHAIR'S REPORT No report DIRECTOR'S REPORT Trueblood discussed Sandhill Estates on South Gilbert. Trueblood and Robinson are scheduled to meet with a representative from the Iowa National Heritage Foundation who has acquired land that they are interested in selling to the city. It is 20+ acres in size and located adjacent to the sand prairie area already owned by the City. Trueblood will be meeting with the Weeber-Harlocke Neighborhood Association to start planning for their mini-park. Trueblood is working with Friends of Hickory Hill who would like to place a commemorative stone in the wooded area of the park honoring the woman who submitted the name of the park. She passed away a couple of years ago. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m. Parks and Recreation Commission November 10, 2004 Page 5 of 5 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2005 TERM NAME EXPIRES 1/12 2/16 3/9 4/13 5/11 6/8 7/13 8/10 9/14 10/12 11/19 12/14 Craig Gustaveson 1/1/07 NM X Judith Klink 1/1/07 NM X Margaret Loomer 1/1/08 NM X Ryan O'Leary 1/1/06 NM X Matt Pacha 1/1/05 NM X Phil Reisetter 1/1/09 NM X Sarah Walz 1/1/07 NM X John Westefeld 1/1/06 NM X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting LQ = No meeting due to lack of quorum .... Not a Member DRAFT POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD ~ MINUTES - March 8, 2005 I I CALL TO ORDER: Chair Loren Horton called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Candy Barnhill, Beth Engel, Loren Horton, Gte9 Roth and Roger Williams MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Legal Counsel Catherine Pugh (7:08) and Staff Kellie Turtle OTHERS PRESENT: Captain Tom Widmer from the ICPD. Horton congratulated the Police Department on getting a new dog and asked about the pronunciation of the name and the breed of dog. Widmer said the dog's name was Naton and that he is a Belgian Malinois. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL (1) Accept PCRB Report on Complaint #04-02 (2) Accept PCRB Report on Complaint #04-03 CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by Barnhill, seconded by Engel, to adopt the consent calendar as amended. · Minutes of the meeting on 02/08/05 · ICPD General Order #01-01 (Racial Profiling) · ICPD General Order #01-05 (Officer Involved Shootings/Lethal Incident Investigations) · ICPD Department Memo #05-03 · ICPD Use of Force Report- January 2005 Motion carried, 5/0. OLD BUSINESS Policy/Procedure for extension requests - Barnhill wanted to continue discussion regarding the timeline of extension requests. One option would be to call a special meeting to address the extension request if a regular meeting is not scheduled. Pugh stated that there were two sides to the situation. One problem is not getting the extension request in time to make a decision at a regular meeting. The Board could give some 7, 5, or 3-day notice before a deadline so they can meet and act, but to keep in mind that the Board could be subject to the same requirements for their extension requests to Council. There would be no requirement to change anything if the Board chose to call special meetings to deal with the requests, the Board could just agree upon it. Barnhill made a motion to discuss a policy/procedure that would be specific and part of the Standard Operating Proceedures, no second was made. Horton agreed to consider a motion to adopt a policy that a special meeting be called when an extension request from the Chief is received and there is no regular meeting scheduled before the deadline. Engel moved the motion and Barnhill seconded. Motion carried, 5/0. NEW BUSINESS None. PUBLIC DISCUSSION Widmer will relay to the Chief the imposition it puts on the Board when an extension request is received with little or no notice before the deadline date. And will also relay the importance of meeting deadlines and being timely with requests. PCRB - Page 2 DR.4FT March 8, 2005 BOARD INFORMATION Barnhill asked Widmer to go back to the discussion of the February 8t~ meeting when she asked him about the Iowa Code and what an officer must do during the course of an arrest. If the Iowa Code stipulates during the course of arrest that the reason for the arrest must be given, does each municipality base all of it's criteria on the Iowa Code and then can it also make it's own departmental policies more stringent? Widmer agreed that each department must folloTM Iowa Code but can also make it's own departmental policies more restrictive, but never less. Barnhill also asked Widmer to interpret Iowa Code (804.14 Manner of making arrest) which states "The person making the arrest must inform the person to be arrested of the intention to arrest the person, the reason for arrest, and that the person making the arrest is a peace officer, if such be the case, and require the person being arrested to submit to the Person's custody, except when the person to be arrested is actually engaged in the commission of or attempt to commit an offense, or escapes, so that there is no time or opportunity to do so." Widmer deferred to Pugh and said that she could do a better job articulating what the Iowa Code says. If it was policy and procedure and what the Code says on how they operate in Iowa City he would be able to answer those questions, but if it's dealing with the letter of the law and what the Iowa Code says and what the City would ultimately be governed by he thought Pugh would be able to answer those questions just as well. Pugh then stated that it is ultimately up to the Board on whether they agree the law was followed and that Captain Widmer can only say what is expected of the officers and the department. Barnhill then asked Widmer if an individual is placed under arrest and they ask why they've been placed under arrest, is it the Iowa City Police Departments policy to try if the situation allows to tell the person? Widmer replied that under normal circumstances he couldn't imagine that an officer would not tell that person. What happens many times is that they tell the person and for some reason the person doesn't hear the officer, and they ask again and later on claim that they weren't told and maybe for whatever reason the officer gets tired of talking to the person and doesn't say anything. Widmer said that he could not imagine that an officer would arrest someone and not tell them what they were being arrested for, that it is a natural course of events for an officer. Also the person being arrested receives papers stating what they are being arrested for. Horton mentioned that two Board members terms end in September of this year, Roth and Williams. He would like to see them reapply and wondered when the vacancies would be announced. Tuttle stated that the announcement would probably be made in June or July depending on the Council summer schedule. STAFF INFORMATION Turtle informed the Board that there were a couple of students working together doing a paper on the Board. Horton said that one of them had contacted him and they were supposed to be setting up a meeting sometime so he could answer some questions. Widmer added one more thing in case the Board hadn't heard. Chief Winkelhake has announced his retirement effective July 1, 2005. EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion by Roth, seconded by Williams, to adjourn into Executive Session based on Section 21.5(1)(a) of the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records which are required or authorized by state or federal law to be kept confidential or to be kept confidential as a condition for that government body's possession or continued receipt of federal funds, and 22.7(11) personal information in confidential personnel records of public bodies including but not limited to cities, boards of supervisors and school districts, and 22-7(5) police officer investigative reports, except where disclosure is authorized elsewhere in the Code; and 22.7(18) Communications not required by law, rule or procedure that are made to a government body or to any of its employees by identified persons outside of PCRB - Page 3 DJ~JFT March 8, 2005 government, to the extent that the government body receiving those communications from such persons outside of government could reasonably believe that those persons would be discouraged from making them to that government body if they were available for general public examination. Motion carried, 5/0. Open session adjourned at 7:45 p.m. REGULAR SESSION Returned to open session at 8:46 p.m. Motion by Roth, seconded by Engel, to approve the Public Report as amended for PCRB Complaint #04-02 and forward to City Council. Motion carried, 4/1, Barnhill voting no. Motion by Roth, seconded by Williams, to approve the Public Report as amended for PCRB Complaint #04-03 and forward to City Council. Motion carried, 5/0. MEETING SCHEDULE · April 12, 2005, 7:00 p.m., Lobby Conference Room (MEETING CANCELLED) · May 10, 2005, 7:00 p.m., Lobby Conference Room · June 14, 2005, 7:00 p.m., Lobby Conference Room · July 12, 2005, 7:00 p.m., Lobby Conference Room Motion by Engel, seconded by Barnhill to cancel the April meeting. Motion carried, 5/0. Horton informed the Board that they should be starting to look at the annual report in either May or June. Turtle said that she would put a draft in the May packet. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Roth, seconded by Engel, to adjourn. Motion carried, 5/0. Meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2005 TERM 1/11 2/8 3/8 4/12 5/10 6/14 7/12 8/9- 9/13 10/11 11/8 12/13 NAME EXP. Candy 9/1/07 NM X X Barnhill Elizabeth 9/1/08 NM X X Engel Loren 9/1/08 NM X X Horton Greg Roth 9/1/05 NM X X Roger 9/1/05 NM X X Williams KEY: X = Present 0 = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting .... Not a Member FINA L/A PPR 0 VED POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City IA 52240-1826 (319) 356-5041 TO: City Council Complainant Stephen Atkins, City Manager R. O. Winkelhake, Chief of Police Officer(s) involved in complaint FROM: Police Citizens Review Board RE: Investigation of PCRB Complaint #04-02 DATE: March 8, 2005 IThis is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board's (the "Board") review of the investigation of Complaint PCRB #04-02 (the "Complaint"). Board's Responsibility Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, Section'8-8:7B (2), the Board's job is to review the Police Chief's Report ("Report") of his investigation of a complaint. The City Code requires the Board to apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review to the Report and to "give deference" to the report "because of the Police Chief's professional expertise." Section 8-8-7B (2). While the City Code directs the Board to make "findings of fact", it also requires that the Board recommend that the Police Chief reverse or modify his findings only if these findings are "unsupported by substantial evidence", are "unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious" or are "contrary to a Police Department policy or practice or any Federal, State or Local Law". Sections 8-8-7B (2) a, b, and c. Board's Procedure The Complaint was received at the Office of the City Clerk on July 8, 2004. As required by Section 8:8-5 of the City Code, the Complaint was referred to the Police Chief for Investigation. The ChieFs Report was due January 07, 2005 and was filed with the City Clerk January 07, 2005. On February 8, 2005, the Board voted to review the Complaint in accordance with Section 8-8-7 (B) (1) (a), on the record with no additional investigations. PCRB #04-02 Page 1 FINAL/APPROVED The Complaint was filed on July 8, 2004. PCRB received the Chief's Report as filed on January 7, 2005. The Chief's Report was due to PCRB on October 10, 2004, an extension was granted to December 6, 2004, and an additional extension was granted to January 7, 2005, The PCRB report was due February 21,2005, but PCRB held no January meeting (no quorum because one member was out of state, one member had to work, one member had to care for a sick spouse, plus there was an ice storm the evening of January 11, 2005.) Considerations of #04-02 were postponed to the regular February meeting date for PCRB. PCRB requested a 45-day extension from City Council. PCRB met to dis~.thi~._~ Complaint on February 8, 2005, and March 8, 2005. Findinqs of Fact · On the July 7, 2004, at approximately 7:00 p.m., Officer A stopped the Co~l~inar~-for speeding 39 mph in a 25 mph zone; Officer A observed two children in the~ehicle~ho were not restrained as required by law; the Complainant then became upset and began to use loud and abusive language. Officer B then placed the Complainant under arrest, removed her from her vehicle and transported her to jail. The Complainant alleges that Officer B forcefully removed the Complainant from her vehicle by grabbing/snatching the arm, leaving fingerprints. The Complainant also alleges that Officer A failed to inform the Complainant of the charge for arrest. The investigators reviewed the charges, the radio traffic and the written complaint from the Complainant. The investigators also interviewed the Complainant. During the interview the Complainant admitted to speeding, and as Officer A observed, the children in the back seat were not restrained as required by law. The Complainant stated that she was very upset with Officer A and was using loud and profane language. Officer B, who was involved working radar at the site, heard the language. The Complainant stated her belief that the mothers of the children, who were with the children at the time, ought to receive the ticket. Officers A and B explained that the law imposes responsibility for the use of child restraints on a vehicle operator. Officer B recalls telling the Complainant numerous times to get into the vehicle and place the feet inside the vehicle so the door could be closed. Officer B explained the reason to place the feet inside the vehicle and explained why the Complainant could be arrested for interference with Official Acts if the order was not followed. Officer B said the Complainant continued to refuse numerous requests. After writing the citation, Officer A returned to the Complainant's vehicle, and based on the continued refusal to comply, Officer B placed her under arrest for interference with Official Acts. Officer A then asked the Complainant to stand, and placed his hand under PCRB #04-02 Page 2 FINAL/APPROVED the elbow to assist and he handcuffed the Complainant before transporting to the County Jail. The Complainant was placed in the squad car driven by Officer A. Both Officers A and B recall informing the Complainant that she was under arrest, but neither officer recalls informing the complainant of the specific charge after the arrest. The Complainant was transported to the County Jail and turned over to the jail staff by Officer A. Officer C heard the traffic stop called in to the Emergency Communications Center, realized that he had stopped the car within the last week and had problems with the driver. Officer C contacted Officer A by radio to inform him of the problem he had encountered when dealing with the Complainant. When Officer A keyed the radio to respond, Officer C could hear the Complainant being loud and abusive in the background. Officer C drove over to the location of the incident. When Officer C arrived at the location of the incident the Complainant was out of the vehicle, standing near the driver's door, yelling and screaming at Officers A and B. Officer C recalled that both Officers A and B were very patient with the Complainant. CONCLUSION: Officer A lawfully stopped the Complainant for speeding (39 in a 25-MPH speed zone). The Complainant was directed into the Hy-Vee parking lot on First Avenue. All the parties interviewed agree that the Complainant was upset and directing loud, abusive language towards the Officers. The witnesses that the Complainant provided did not respond to the investigator's request for interviews. Officer B told the Complainant to get into the vehicle a number of times or be arrested. The Complainant failed to heed the warning and admitted to understanding what Officer B was asking but chose not to comply. ALLEGATION #1 Excessive use of Force - not sustained PCRB finds in the original Complaint two references to Officer B "snatching" and one reference to "grabbing" Complainant by the right forearm during removal from the vehicle to be handcuffed. Two witnesses refused to testify about the incident. Officers A and C do not report observable evidence to support a finding of excessive use of force - at the County Jail the Complainant noticed a possible slight bruising of the right forearm and after release claimed to have photographs of them, but no photographs were ever produced as evidence. ,,:~ '~ PCRB #04-02 ~' ~ ' co Page 3 FINAL~APPROVED ALLEGATION #2 Failure to inform - not sustained PCRB finds that there is insufficient evidence to support this allegation. In the original complaint, the Chiefs report, and the interview with the complainant there is agreement that the complainant was warned that if she continued her uncooperative behavior she would be arrested. There is agreement that the behavior continued. Both officers recall that she was told she was under arrest but couldn't recall stating the specific charge. The Board finds prior notification was sufficient. COMMENTS: PCRB finds that the ordinary procedures specified in ICPD general orders and standard operating guidelines for use of force and for explanation of reason for arrest were adequately followed during the incident, which occurred July 7, 2004. PCRB encourages the continued training of officers in each of these matters, and counseling of officers to inform a person under arrest of the criminal charges, except when the person to be arrested is actually engaged in the commission of or attempt to commit an offense, or escapes, so that there is no time or opportunity to do so. PCRB #04-02 Page 4 FINAL/APPROVED POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD ^ Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City IA 52240-1826 (319)356-5041 TO: City Council Complainant Stephen Atkins, City Manager R. J. Winkelhake, Chief of Police Officer(s) involved in complaint FROM: Police Citizens Review Board RE: Investigation of PCRB Complaint #04-03 DATE: March 8, 2005 This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board's (the "Board") review of the investigation of Complaint PCRB #04-03 (the "Complaint"). Board's Responsibility Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, Section 8-8-7B (2), the Board's job is to review the Police Chief's Report ("Report") of his investigation of a complaint. The City Code requires the Board to apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review to the Report and to "give deference" to the Report "because of the Police Chief's professional expertise" (Section 8-8-7B (2). While the City Code directs the Board to make "findings of fact", it also requires that the Board recommend that the Police Chief reverse or modify his findings only if these findings are "unsupported by substantial evidence", are "unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious" or are "contrary to a Police Department policy or practice or any Federal, State or Local Law". Sections 8-8-7B (2) a, b, and c. Board's Procedure The Complaint was received at the Office of the City Clerk, November 8, 2004. As required by Section 8-8-5 of the City Code, the Complaints were referred to the Chief of Police for investigation. The Chief's Report was due on February 7, 2005 and was filed with the City Clerk on February 1, 2005. PCRB #04-03 Page 1 FINAL/APPROVED The Board voted to review the Complaints in accordance with Section 8-8-~B~l)(ai!__On i"~i~'~ the record with no additional investigation.. ~:, ~. ~'~ The Board met to consider the Report on February 8.2005 and March 8, 2005~; ~ .... ' Findinqs of Fact ~; o ~o In the fall of 2004, the complainant was stopped for a traffic offense by Officer A of the Iowa City Police Department. Officer A stated the complainant was observed operating a motor vehicle in the 1900 block of Broadway Street and Officer A knew that he did not have a valid license to operate motor vehicles in Iowa. Upon approach to the vehicle, Officer A observed that the complainant had put something into his mouth. Officer A believed this was done in an attempt to conceal an item. When Officer A asked the · complainant what was in his mouth, the complainant fled from Officer A. After a foot pursuit of approximately 1-2 blocks, the complainant was apprehended and taken down by Officer A. The complainant stated in his complaint that he had stopped fleeing and surrendered to Officer A prior to being apprehended and taken doWn to the pavement. After being physically apprehended, the complainant continued to resist the lawful attempts of Officer A to control him. Iowa City Police Department Officer B came to assist Officer A in controlling the complainant. Officer B stated that the complainant was already taken down to the pavement by Officer A prior to his arrival and that the complainant was resisting Officer A. Officer B helped Officer A control the complainant through control techniques applied to the back and back of head areas of the complainant's body. Extensive written training documentation was supplied to the Board as to the control techniques utilized during this apprehension. The complainant, through his written complaint, stated he believed the use of force applied against him during this incident was excessive. He stated he repeatedly told the officers involved that he could not breathe. An Interview Report, supplied to the Board, supported the claim that the complainant expressed his concern of his inability to breathe to the officers. In the interview conducted by the Iowa City Police Department, a witness stated he heard the complainant telling the officers he could not breathe. The complainant believes his inability to breath during the incident was due to the force used by the officers. The complainant also stated he had sustained superficial injuries to his face during the arrest. Although the Officer's identification numbers used in this complaint and repod were not on the copies of the Use of Force Reports received by the Board, it is believed by the Board, through reasonable deduction, that the Use of Force Report of Officer B stated that both Officer A and the complainant sustained "superficial" injuries. This is supported PCRB #04-03 Page 2 FINAL~APPROVED on the first page of the report in the fact that under "Suspect Injuries" there is an "x" in the box next to, and to the left of, "Superficial". In the same report under "Officer Injuries", the box next to, and to the left of, "Superficial" also has an "x" in it. The Use of Force Report deduced to be completed by Officer A supports the observations of Officer B by also indicating that both Officer A and the complainant had sustained superficial injuries. This information was indicated on the first page of the Use of Force Report of Officer A by the x'ing of the same boxes for injuries to the suspect and to the officer. On the second page of Officer A's Use of Force Report, the officer states in the written "Circumstances surrounding the use of said force" area of the report that abrasions to one of the complainant elbows and to the right side of his forehead were observed. In an Incident Report, also believed written by Officer A, it is stated in the narrative of the report that Officer A received "... cuts on my knuckles..." Also on the second page of Officer A's Use of Force Report, included in the "Effects/Results of said use of force" the officer states that "Defendant was arrested with only superficial injuries to the def. and officer." This statement not only documents what injuries occurred during the arrest but also suggests that officer A did not believe these injuries to be inconsistent with the type of incident since the officer referred to the injuries as "only superficial". Conclusion By unanimous vote, the Board set the Level of Review for this complaint at 8-8-7(B)(1 )a, believing there to be enough information in the Chief's report, and other attached materials, to allow the Board to come to an informed conclusion. The Board finds that the use of force and all control techniques utilized by Iowa City Police Department Officers A and B, during this apprehension and arrest, to be appropriate and consistent with the training of the Iowa Law Enforcement Academy and the Standard Operating Guidelines of the Iowa City Police Department in regard to use of force and control techniques. The use of force was "reasonable" as perceived by a reasonable officer on the scene rather than 20/20 vision of hindsight as per Section 702.18 of the Code of Iowa and OPS-03.2 of the IoWa City Police Department operational guidelines. The Board concludes that there is nothing, in either the Chief's Report to the Board or the complaint from the complainant, that would lead to the conclusion that force above what was reasonable, given the situation, was utilized by either Officer A or B. The Board concludes the findings of the Chief of Police are supported by substantial evidence, are reasonable, not arbitrary or capricious, and are consistent with Police Department policy and practice, and any Federal, State or Local Law. PCRB #04-03 , Page 3 "" FINAL/APPROVED Alle.qation #. 1: Use of excessive force - not sustained The Board has no cause to suspect or believe that Officer B used excessive force in this apprehension. Allegation #1 against Officer B is not sustained. Comment It was noted by the Board that the two complaints originally made by the complainant were contained in one allegation in the Chief's report. The Board found this condensation of allegations to be consistent with the complainant's original complaint and concerns. PCRB #04-03 Page 4 I 03-17-05 MINUTES DRAFT ' IP27 [ PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 3, 2005 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Beth Koppes, Jerry Hansen, Bob Brooks, Ann Freerks, Don Anciaux MEMBERS EXCUSED: Dean Shannon MEMBERS ABSENT: Benjamin Chait STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Karen Howard, Mitch Behr OTHERS PRESENT: Tom Gehlman CALL TO ORDER: Brooks called the meeting to order at 7:05 pm. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED NEW ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF IOWA CITY: Opening remarks by Bob Brooks. 1983 was the last comprehensive review of the Zoning Code. Duncan and Associates, a zoning and development consulting firm, reviewed the zoning code and identified four objectives / goals for the rewrite to comply with. Currently the City is approximately 'midstream' in the process. During next 30 days there will be a series of public open house forums including one-on-one question and answer sessions with City Staff and the Commissioners, solicitation of public input and continued Staff presentations to interested groups. The Commission will then have a series of public hearings with formal input from the public. The Commission will review all the input, make possible revisions to the Code and vote on a formal recommendation to the City Council. Copies of the proposed revisions to the Code are available in hard-copy format, on CD disk and on the Planning and Community Development's City web page. Overview of proposed revisions to the City's Planning and Zoning Code presented by Karen Howard. Presented in PowerPoint format with narrative by Howard. More user friendly Code. Strategies to facilitate economic development within the Code. Simplify land use classification system. Reduce parking requirements. Strategies to improve commercial areas. Consolidate zoning districts [CB-2; RFBH] Implement new management access standards. Emphasize the Good Neighbor Policy. Strategies to provide lower cost housing in the community. Brooks thanked citizens for attending the meeting and encouraged them to attend the upcoming meetings over the next few weeks. Bob Miklo said Staff were available to give presentations regarding the proposed revisions to interested community groups. Persons should contact the Department of Planning and Community Development to schedule a presentation. The overview presented by Howard would be broadcast on the local City channel on television. The proposed Code was available in 3 formats - online, diskette or hard copy. A Reader's Guide would be available next week which explained how to read the Code and also compared the proposed Code to the current Code. PUBLIC DISCUSSION was re-opened to provide an opportunity for persons to speak who had arrived after public discussion had closed, unaware that the meeting had started at 7:00 pm. Tom Gehlman said he represented Jim and Bob Davis and their sister Jan Erickson. The Commission had recently reviewed and sent their recommendation to Council to approve the annexation including a Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes March 3, 2005 Page 2 Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA). He was there to request that the Commission review and make revisions to the CZA prior to the 3/22/05 City Council meeting. On behalf of his clients he'd already visited with City Staff to consider 'tweaking' some of the terms of the CZA to get a more meaningful recommendation. Staff had approved some revisions already but others needed to be reviewed and hopefully approved by the Commission. Motion: Koppes made a motion to reconsider REZ04-00030, a request to rezone property west of Highway 218 and north of Highway 1 at the 3/17/05 Commission meeting. Anciaux seconded the motion. Hansen said the neighbors who'd attended and/or spoken at the previous meeting should be notified. Miklo said Staff would send out a notice to them. Brooks said there had been a very strong neighborhood involvement at the previous meetings so it would be the courteous thing to do to notify them. The motion passed on vote of 5-0. OTHER ITEMS: Miklo said a third public workshop had been added on 3/31/05 to be held in Council Chambers. Hansen said he'd like to extend a formal Thank You to Don Anciaux for his past year of service as Chairperson for the Planning and Zoning Commission as well as for his attendance at all the Scattered Site Housing meetings. Anciaux said he'd attended 22 Scattered Site Housing meetings in the last year. Anciaux requested that it be noted, 'for the record', that City High was going tO go the State Basketball Tournament! C©NSIDERATION OF THE FEBRUARY 17, 2005 MEETING MINUTES: Motion: Anciaux made a motion to approve the minutes as typed and corrected. Hansen seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. ADJOURNMENT: Motion: Koppes made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:02 pm. Freerks seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. Elizabeth Koppes, Secretary Minutes submitted by Candy Barnhill $:lpcdlminuteslp&zl2OOS/O3-O3-O5.doc Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes March 3, 2005 Page 3 Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission Attendance Record 2005 FORMAL MEETING Term Name Expires 1/6 1/20 2/3 2/17 3/3 3/17 4/7 4/21 5/5 5/19 6/2 6/16 7/7 7/21 8/4 8/18 9/1 9/15 10/6 10/20 11/3 11/17 12/1 12/15 D. Anciaux 05/06 X X X X X B. Brooks 05/05 X X X X X B. Chait 05/06 X O X X O .... A. Freerks 05/08 X X X X X J. Hansen 05/05 X X X X X E. Koppes 05/07 O/E X X X X D. Shannon 05/08 X X X O/E O/E INFORMAL MEETING Term Name Expires 1/3 2/14 2/28 3/14 4/I 4/18 5/2 5/16 5/30 6/13 7/4 7/18 8/1 8/15 8/29 9/12 10/3 10/17 10/31 11/14 11/28 12/12 D. An¢iaux 05/06 CW X X B. Brooks 05/05 CW X X B. Chait 05/06 CW X O .... A. Freerks 05/08 CW X X J. Hansen 05/05 CW X X E. Koppes 05/07 CW X X D. Shannon 05/08 CW O/E O/E Key: X - Present O = Absent O/E - Absent/Excused N/M= No Meeting .... - Not a Member CW - Cancelled due to Weather IOWA CITY PUBLIC ART ADVISORY COMMITTEE PRELIMINARY MONDAY, MARCH 2, 2005, 3:30 P.M. LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL Members Present: Charles Felling, Rick Fosse, James Hemsley, Mark Seabold, Rick Fosse, Terry Trueblood Members Absent: Emily Martin, Emily Carter Walsh Staff Present: Karin Franklin, Marcia Klingaman Visitors: Ruth Baker (Miller Orchard neighborhood resident), Garry Klein Call to Order Seabold called the meeting to order at 3:35 p.m. Public discussion of any item not on the agenda There were none. Consideration of the Minutes of February 2, 2005 Meeting MOTION: Felling moved to accept the minutes as submitted. Helmsley seconded, and the motion was passed unanimously. Presentation of materials and colors for Benton Hill Park proiect by artist Prescher displayed a sample board of concrete chips with different colors for the committee to view. He said he would be starting on the columns the following week. He displayed both color stains and dyes, and said he plans to use a dye in a solid color. He said he would email variations in color schemes to Franklin. Franklin asked Prescher what colors he had chosen from the concrete samples. Prescher indicated his choices for the color of the concrete, as well as for the archway span. The concrete will be a natural stone or beige color, as neutral as possible, while the span will be a dark green, which is the original basic color scheme. He said that he will be working with the components of the bronze casting, and will perhaps tone down the yellow in that area, making it darker. Franklin reported that the neighborhood has chosen the phrase suggested by the artist, "Walk in Beauty", for the arch. She asked Prescher if the project is ready to go into production at this point. Prescher said yes. The sun and moon cast pieces will be ready to go to Omaha soon, and he spoke to someone recently about the pillars and worked out some production issues. Those will be starting very soon, possibly in the next week. He noted that he would be contacting Fosse to discuss details with the concrete. Prescher photographed the committee for documentation purposes for the project. He said the photos will be posted on his website. Seabold asked if Prescher would be making a positive of the columns. Prescher said yes, carved out of insulation board. It will be a flat sandwich mold. Trueblood asked for confirmation that the piece will be installed in May, since it needs to be coordinated with the park dedication. Franklin confirmed that May 1 is the target date for installation. Prescher left at this point. Seabold asked Fosse if he had comments on the project specifications. Fosse asked if he should comment directly to Jane Driscoll. Franklin said yes, but to let her know if there are any areas of major concern. Fosse said the footings of the columns should be extended four inches to be full four feet below the grade. Iowa City Public Art Advisory Committee Minutes March 2, 2005 Page 2 Presentation of "ART by the YARD" concept Klein distributed updated copies of the proposal. He explained that the idea was inspired by a discussion at an Arts Iowa City gallery walk, with Art by the Yard being public art in people's yards. This might be a way to expand the scope of the Arts Festival out of the down town area into the city parks and neighborhoods. He noted that the proposal is not to begin the project this year, but to begin investigating it with the guidance and input of the committee. He reviewed the written proposal, and suggested some organizations that could be involved, such as the Johnson County Cultural Alliance, Parks and Recreation, Neighborhood Services, Chamber of Commerce, the School District, and the University. He added that he is looking for feedback from the committee whether this project is interesting and something they would like to pursue. Trueblood asked if there was a reason for the size limit of 3'x3'. Klein explained that 3' is a yard, and smaller pieces would reduce the materials costs. Fosse asked if the pieces could be 3-dimensional. Klein said yes. Klein said that a decision would need to be made whether the show should be juried, and if so, how. Franklin noted that having the activity juried would take it to a different level, especially if children are involved. Klein said it would help to have some definition for the entries, and it would help with screening. Franklin confirmed that this would be similar to a citywide gallery walk, but not limited only to galleries. Klein agreed, and said galleries could be involved, and he would encourage them to be involved. Franklin asked what costs would be incurred with the project. Klein said publicity, and if the materials were possibly provided through Parks programs. Franklin asked if there are funds available from the Parks and Recreation Department to purchase materials, similar to the summer programs. Trueblood said yes, though not for projects like bronze sculptures. Franklin agreed that is not the type of materials this activity would target. Seabold said the project would be temporary, like a day or weekend activity. Franklin suggested not providing funding for the piece itself, since this would be an event rather than an acquisition. Klein agreed that one option would be to create art on the spot during the event, in a tent perhaps. Klein said it would make sense to coordinate this event with Arts Festival, since children create art throughout that weekend. Another activity could be to have an art walk where people have an opportunity to talk to the owners or creators of the art in their yards. Klingaman said that would be similar to a garden walk. Franklin noted that might increase community involvement. Klein also suggested a bus tour to various homes for a fundraising activity. Klein said a smaller group would need to discuss the scope and logistics of the project. He is not able to unilaterally spearhead the project. Franklin asked if Klein would be willing to assume a leadership role in the group. Klein said yes. Franklin suggested that a representative from the Public Art Committee be in the group; Emily Martin was mentioned as someone who might be interested in this type of activity. Others to contact included Josh Schaumberger, Joyce Carroll from Parks and Recreation, Jim Griffin with the Chamber, and Bob Goodfellow with Arts Festival. Report on Poetry in Public Klingaman reported that the committee met on February 14 to review and select poems. They received 51 adult submissions, and 37 children's submissions from elementary schools. She noted that not as many professional writers were involved this year, and added that it is good to offer a venue where non-professional writers can be showcased. She said the submissions were overall of very good quality. In response to a comment from Fosse, Franklin noted that the International Writer's Workshop has asked the City Council to make Iowa City a City of Asylum, for people who have been exiled from their home countries because of their writings. Other cities involved in that are Santa Fe, Pittsburgh, Las Vegas, and one other. Klingaman said that 21 adult and 16 children's submissions were selected. They will be created soon and displayed around Iowa City similar to last year, though new locations are considered every year. The poems will also be available on the web. Franklin said a press release should be written to announce the new poems and the writers. Scheduling of parks tour for Art in the Parks proiects Iowa City Public Art Advisory Committee Minutes March 2, 2005 Page 3 Franklin suggested scheduling the parks tour for the next meeting, which would be April 7. She said the committee members would likely need to get out and walk around the parks. Five parks were targeted by the Parks and Recreation Department, which are spread throughout the city, so the tour might require two trips. Trueblood noted that the committee could evaluate other parks as well. Franklin said the five already suggested are a good place to start. Franklin said the committee members should meet at City Hall, and will ride together to the different locations. Hemsley asked for confirmation that the purpose of this tour is so the committee members are able to view the parks and have a frame of reference. Franklin said yes, because the next step would be to consider what sort of piece should be commissioned for a particular park. Additional visits or photographs might be needed later during a brainstorming session. Discussion of activities for Arts Fest Seabold reported he discussed the Cowger sculpture dedication activities with Bob Goodfellow, who said everything sounded fine. Seabold also asked about the feasibility of building a temporary display or structure near the sculpture pad. Goodfellow recommended coordinating with the library around their schedule, though that area is typically unused. Franklin asked if the center area of the pedestrian mall needs to be left open because of the fire lane. Fosse said that the fire lane could be blocked temporarily. Seabold said the time for the dedication ceremony needs to be decided, whether Friday night or Saturday. Pancake breakfast is Sunday morning. Seabold asked if a PA system is available to do an announcement. Kiingaman said no, she arranged one for the dedication for Dorothy. Franklin said the ceremony needs to get into the festival program, and be advertised beforehand. The piece being present, along with a display, will be the biggest exposure. Seabold said the display should be up over the whole weekend. Franklin asked if Seabold had heard of Canstruction, which was done in Des Moines, and one is also scheduled for Cedar Rapids. Seabold said yes. Franklin explained that pieces are created out of canned goods, and usually architects and engineers participate. She noted that it might not be an Arts Fest event, since it needs to be inside. An entry fee can be charged, which could go into Public Art funds, while the food could be given to the Crisis Center. Trueblood asked how long the pieces are displayed. Seabold said for a few days. Seabold asked about a display for the Public Art program, whether images of different public art projects or images of Cowger's other works could be displayed. Franklin suggested it highlight the Public Art program, and could involve a down town walking tour of nearby pieces. Seabold suggested supplying brochures, as well as displaying images of art pieces around the city. He said he would look into construction of the structure and bring an estimated cost to the next meeting. Report on Court Street Transportation Center proiect; consideration of amended contract Klingaman said students in the elementary school originally did the tile art project on paper. She said the project went very well. The artist spent two days in the school with the students, and did an excellent job of explaining the project. She added that the tiles need to go to Des Moines to be fired. Fosse and Seabold both said they are going to Des Moines. Trueblood also offered to assist. Klingaman said she would talk to the artist about when the tiles can be delivered, and get back to Fosse and Seabold. Franklin explained that in the elevator lobbies of each level, the wall with the elevator door would be tiled. There will also be a 3'x4' mural with the concept that the artist has taken from what the students have done. It will also incorporate a color, the number of the level, and a word, to act as location cues. The mural will be placed in a field of tiles on the wall and will have random placement of reproduced tiles from the students. The original tiles will be scanned, so the students will have their tiles back. There will also be provision for a mylar screen on the glass wall to the ramp on each floor, with the scanned image incorporating the color, level, and word. Franklin noted an error was made in the original contract. There are two towers in the project, and the estimate of $2500 per floor was for one tower. So one tower will cost $15K, which includes design, as well as production of all the tiles. Installation is done by the contractor. The second tower will cost an additional $12.5K, since it does not have the design aspect. Because the project is under an 80/20 FTA grant, 20% of the additional money would come from Public Art Iowa City Public Art Advisory Committee Minutes March 2, 2005 Page 4 budget. She asked if the committee wants to spend the additional $3000 for the second tower. The committee members present agreed to amend the contract for the additional amount. Franklin said she would amend the contract. Committee Time/Other Business Trueblood asked for an update on the status of the peninsula project. Klingaman reported that the contract was signed, and work was being done on the sculpture. She needs to discuss the status of the project, and will also contact the artist for an update. Franklin asked if there was any current activity on the peninsula area. Fosse said no, contractors were waiting for the river to go down. Seabold said he would visit the artist and see how things are progressing. Adjournment There being no further business to come before the Committee, Fosse moved to adjourn and Felling seconded. The meeting adjourned at 4:35 p.m. s:/pcdlminute$1PublicAr+J2OO5/arlO3-O2-O5.doc Public Art Advisory Committee Attendance Record 2005 Term Name Expires 1/06 2/02 3/02 4/07 5/05 6/02 7/07 8/04 9/01 10/06 11/03 12/01 Emily Carter Walsh 01/01/08 CW X O Charles Felling 01/01/06 CW X X James Hemsley 01/01/06 CW O/E X Emily Martin 01/01/08 CW × O/E Mark Seabold 01/01/07 CW × × Rick Fosse CW O/E Terry Trueblood CW O/E × Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No Meeting CW -- Cancelled due to Weather .... = Nota Member