HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-10-11 Bd Comm minutes4b 1
IOWA CITY TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION APPROVED
MONDAY, AUGUST 23, 2010--5:30 P.M.
CITY CABLE TV OFFICE, 10 S. LINN ST.-TOWER PLACE PARKING FACILITY
MEMBERS PRESENT: Laura Bergus, Hans Hoerschelman, Gary Hagen, Saul Mekies
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT: Mike Brau, Bob Hardy
OTHERS PRESENT: Michael McBride, Josh Goding, Beth Fisher, Emily Light, Kevin
Hoyland
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL
None at this time.
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION
Hoerschelman distributed a draft letter to the school district superintendent for the Commission
to review. McBride distributed a summary of UITV's activities over the past seven months. 340
new programs were cablecast. Of those, 132 were produced by UITV and 208 were submitted
by other departments. Of the 208, 180 were submitted by students. Goding reported PATV was
closed Thursday through Sunday last week to have new carpet installed. PATV will have an
open house Sept. 6 in association with Uptown Bill's opening and the Ralston Creek Fair and
Flea Market. Light reported that SCTV is seeking several part time student staff members to
assist the senior volunteers. Hoyland reported that the school district technical committee
recently met with Superintendent Murley and the school channel was briefly discussed. Hardy
said the purpose of the Triennial Review is to provide an opportunity for the City to review the
franchise agreement and identify areas where changes might be negotiated. The purpose of
creating a report is help the Commission determine what changes to the franchise might be made.
Hardy said Helling and the City legal department said that it is permissible to collapse the
present Triennial Review, which is two years late with the Triennial Review to due in one year
into a single review. Bergus said the goal of the Triennial Review needs to be determined. Is it
to bring the cable operator into compliance with the franchise, educate the Commission with the
franchise agreement, and/or educate the public on the boundaries of municipal authority?
Irrespective of the specific language in the enabling ordinance, the goal of the Review, as has
been discussed, is up to the Commission and it needs to be determined what specifically the
Commission wishes to accomplish. Bergus said she would like to have a policy discussion about
the goals and purposes of the Triennial Review. Bergus said an overall review is a very different
goal than looking at the franchise for areas that might be modified and the strategy for those two
possible goals are divergent. Hoerschelman said there are two distinct areas-a compilation of
all the information and what the Commission is going to do with that information.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Bergus moved and Hagen seconded a motion to approve the amended July 26, 2010 minutes.
The motion passed unanimously.
ANNOUNCEMENTS OF COMMISSIONERS
Hardy said that no applications were received for the vacancy on the Commission. To comply
with state law promoting gender equity in appointments, the position may not be filled with a
male until 90 days have passed. A woman could fill the position at any time. Hoerschelman
distributed a draft letter to the school district superintendent for review by the Commission.
SHORT PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.
CONSUMER ISSUES
Hardy referred to the complaint report in the meeting packet and noted there were five technical
complaints and 1 service complaint. All complaints have been resolved.
MEDIACOM REPORT
No representative was present.
UNIVERSITY OF IOWA REPORT
McBride distributed a summary of UITV's activities over the past seven months. 340 new
programs were cablecast. Of those, 132 were produced by UITV and 208 were submitted by
other departments. Of the 208, 180 were submitted by students. The number of programs
produced by UITV has remained fairly constant and more programs are being submitted. UITV
had been cablecasting a service from the University of Washington focusing on research science.
That service will no longer be available after September 1 and the 4-hour period it had occupied
will be used for replays of other programs. All University Lecture Committee lectures and all UI
Symphony performances are planned to be recorded. Hoerschelman said he was impressed with
the number of student productions.
KIRKWOOD COMMUNITY COLLEGE
A written report was included in the meeting packet.
PATV REPORT
Goding reported PATV was closed Thursday through Sunday last week to have new carpet
installed. PATV will have an open house Sept. 6 in association with Uptown Bill's opening and
the Ralston Creek Fair and Flea Market. A free annual membership will be offered at the flea
market to anyone who visits PATV that day and takes the guidelines workshop. An Open
Channel program will go live from 12-2 during the event and will feature some performances at
Up Town Bill's and interviews of people at the flea market. PATV staff recently recorded the
Sand in the City event, a tattoo convention, and an event focused on suicide prevention. The
next Live and Local program will feature the Landlocked Film Festival. PATV staff plans to
record programs for Backyard Abundance and another episode of Food as Medicine. Little
Village TV will have their first program run soon. Students from City High are planning to tape
a news program every Monday. Every other Monday Education Exchange records an episode.
Both programs will be made available to the school channel. The next guidelines workshop will
be September 5 at 2:30 and the next board meeting will be September 16 at 7 p.m.
SENIOR CENTER REPORT
Light reported that SCTV has not had access to their studio due to the Senior Center repairing
the roof. Many producers worked on editing from home. Several part-time student staff
members to assist the senior volunteers are being sought. More senior and University volunteers
are also being recruited. The Iowa History project with Loren Horton and the Friends and
Neighbors series continue to produce programs. A show featuring the programs at the Senior
Center, the Sound Reach Choir, a program on birds, and a program on Alzheimer's are all being
cablecast. Future programs will feature the pianos in the ped mall project, the Voices of
Experience, and another episode of the War Stories series.
LIBRARY REPORT
Fisher reported that August is typically a slower month for the library channel. Six Storytime
programs are scheduled. In September, 8 Storytime programs are scheduled. 7 adult programs
are planned, including the international author series, 2 Eco Iowa City programs, and the speaker
for the Intellectual Freedom Festival.
ICCSD REPORT
Hoyland reported that the school district technical committee recently met with Superintendent
Murley and the school channel was briefly discussed. Murley told the committee that at his last
job the school district shared a channel with the city. The school administration decided to end
their use of the channel completely and allocated the funds elsewhere. The school board was not
informed of the decision. Hoyland said the structure of the administration is being reviewed and
it is unclear to whom Hoyland reports and to whom he would take up issues related to the school
channel. The Central Administration Building, which includes the boardroom and the video
equipment to cablecast board meeting, will be sold. Hoyland will have input regarding video
equipment installations in the new building. Hoyland recently contacted three librarians
regarding possibilities of creating programs that could serve as a model to show all the school
librarians and others what is possible. Mekies said it is important for the Commission to
communicate to Murley that the channel is important to the community and the community has
expectations from the school district. Hardy said the school board meetings are a popular
program. Hoerschelman said Commissioners should review the draft letter he wrote and email
comments to him.
CITY CHANNEL REPORT
Hardy reported that the City Channel 4 website now offers an RSS/XML to provide information
on what new streaming videos are available. The Community Voice program will feature a
program on the 21-only ordinance. The Community Television Service recently recorded a
presentation by the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill on music therapy. Future programs
include the United Way campaign kickoff, a 2°d congressional district candidate forum, and the
Iowa City Foreign Relations Council. The Media Unit recorded seven performances at the
Farmer's Market in July. Hardy distributed the Commission's annual report for review. Hardy
said he has not yet received a response from the City Attorney regarding how the state franchise
issued to a fyreStorm might affect Iowa City. Hardy participated in a web seminar regarding
Century Link. Century Link provides video service in three communities and has plans for five
more. Local access channels are included in their offerings.
TRIENNIAL REVIEW
Hardy distributed a draft of the introduction, service, and programming sections. Hardy said the
introduction outlines how the review will proceed from this point forward. Hardy said the
purpose of the Triennial Review is to provide an opportunity for the City to review the franchise
agreement and identify areas where changes might be negotiated. The purpose of creating a
report is help the Commission determine what changes to the franchise might be made. After
any suggested franchise changes are determined, discussions with the cable operator would be
scheduled. Then a public hearing must be held. If modifications are agreed upon each party has
30 days to formally notify the other party what modifications they seek. The Commission would
then develop the language for the franchise change and make a recommendation to the City
Council. Hardy said there are no specific requirements that a written report be generated.
Hoerschelman asked if there might be any consequences to modifying the franchise agreement
with regard to state franchising. Hardy said he did not know of anything in the state franchising
process that would have an effect. Hardy said Helling and the City legal department said that it
is permissible to collapse the present Triennial Review, which is two years late with the Triennial
Review due in one year into a single review. Hardy said the last Triennial Review was prepared
not for the purpose of reviewing the old franchise but in preparation for the negotiation of a new
franchise. Bergus said the goal of the Triennial Review needs to be determined. Is it to bring the
cable operator into compliance with the franchise, education of the Commission with respect to
the franchise agreement, and/or to educate the public on the boundaries of municipal authority?
Irrespective of the specific language in the enabling ordinance, the goal of the Review, as has
been discussed, is up to the Commission and it needs to be determined what specifically the
Commission wishes to accomplish. Hardy said he has benefited by the Review in identifying
areas where Mediacom is not in compliance. Those areas will be compiled into a list and
enforcement of those areas needs to be addressed by the Commission with consideration of the
consequences of enforcing those areas of noncompliance. Bergus said it my be better to focus in
educating the public with regard to issues that are of direct concern to them rather that focus on
franchise compliance issues that may motivate Mediacom to look to a state issued franchise.
Bergus said she does not want the public perception of the Review to be that there were a
number of areas in the franchise agreement where Mediacom is not in compliance, the
Commission exists to keep an eye on them, and the Commission had an opportunity to amend
the franchise agreement but chose not to do so. Hardy said any franchise change would need to
be agreed to by Mediacom. Brau said his work on the technical and financial sections was not
done with a goal toward specifically looking for franchise changes but more of an overall review
of past performances and the direction Mediacom and the city will be moving in the future. For
example, with respect to the financial section the move to a state franchise after the end of the
current franchise will have a significant impact on the revenues available to the City and the
public has an interest in cable rates. Neither of these areas have a relationship to franchise
modifications. These issues are important for the public and the Review can serve as a public
document to explain the past and present conditions, identify areas that might be improved and to
be addressed in the future. Hardy said to comply with the letter of the enabling ordinance a
process including possible franchise agreement modifications is needed. It also provides a
means for the Commission to look at what they wish to do in relationship with Mediacom.
Bergus said she was concerned in seeing the documents distributed at the beginning of the
meeting as she has not been approaching the Review as a mechanism to change the franchise
agreement. Hardy said if the Commission finds no reason to suggest franchise changes, the
Review process could still serve as a step in developing a strategic plan on how the Commission
can address issues with Mediacom. Hardy said that most of the issues he has identified are
compliance issues and would not require a change in the franchise. Hardy said he recommends
collapsing the current Review and the one due in a year into a single Review. Bergus said she
would like to have a policy discussion about the goals and purposes of the Triennial Review. An
overall review is a very different goal than looking at the franchise for areas that might be
modified and the strategy for those two possible goals are divergent. Hoerschelman said there
are two distinct areas-a compilation of all the information and what the Commission is going to
do with that information.
ADJOURNMENT
Hagen moved and Bergus seconded a motion to adjourn. The motion passed unanimously. The
meeting was adjourned at 7:15.
~~
Michael Brau
Cable TV Administrative Aide
TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
12 MONTH ATTENDANCE RECORD
July 2008 to CURRENT
on
Go ary Hagen
Meetin Date Hoerschelman Saul Meikes Bob Xemp X X
7/28/08 X X
olc X
8/25/08 X X X
x X
9/23/08 x x x
o/c X
27/08
10 X X X
.
11/24/08 Did not meet
X X
12/15/08 X X X
X /c
1 /26/09 X X X o
o/c X
2/243/09 X' x o/c
Laura Bergus
X X
4/27/09 X X X
vacant X
6/1/09 x x x
X
6/22/09 X X X
kies
M
e
o/c x
7/27/09 X X X X X
8/24/09 X X X X X
9/28/09 X X X o/c
9 x x xx
10/24/0
11 /23/09 x x o/c x
o/c X
o/c
1 /25/10 X X X X o/c
2/22/10 X X o/c X o/c
4/26/10 X X o/c X X
5/24/10 X X 0 X o/c
6/28/10 X x 0 o/c X
7/26/10 X x 0 X X
8/23/10 X X Vacant
x x
9/27/10 o/c x
(X)=Present
(O) =Absent
(O/C) =Absent/Called (Excused)
4b 2
MINUTES APPROVED
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AUGUST 11, 2010 - 5:15 PM -FORMAL
CITY HALL, EMMA HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert Anderson, Barbara Eckstein, Caroline Sheerin,
Le Ann Tyson
MEMBERS ABSENT: Will Jennings
STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Sara Greenwood Hektoen, Christina Kuecker
OTHERS PRESENT: Robin Chambers, Tracy Barkalow, Alicia Trimble,
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
None.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM.
ROLL CALL: Anderson, Tyson, Eckstein, Sheerin were present.
A brief opening statement was read by the Chair outlining the role and purpose of the Board and
the procedures that would be followed in the meeting.
CONSIDERATION OF THE JULY 14, 2010 MEETING MINUTES:
Sheerin noted a typographical error.
Tyson motioned to approve the minutes as amended.
Anderson seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-0 (Jennings excused).
SPECIAL EXCEPTION:
EXC10-00006: Discussion of an application submitted by Richard and Robin Chambers
for a reduction in the principal building setback requirements for property located in the
RS-5 zone at 907 Fifth Avenue.
Board of Adjustment
August 11, 2010
Page 2 of 8
Walz explained that the applicants have converted their attached garage into living space, and
wish to build a new attached garage at the rear of the property. Walz said that the applicants
have the right to build a 21 x 21 foot detached garage that could be located as close as three
feet from the property line. Walz said that because detached garages are separate from the
primary living space, they are classified as accessory structures and are subject to different
standards than the principal building. Walz said that accessory buildings are generally smaller
than the principal structure and therefore have different setback requirements than attached
garages, which are considered a part of the principal structure.
Walz noted that this property is somewhat different than the surrounding properties, which
consist of long lots. The subject lot is the smallest lot size allowable in the RS-5 zone. Under
current zoning if the lot was being built on today, it would be required to have vehicle access
provided from the alley. Walz said that what makes this particular situation so peculiar is that
the attached garage would actually provide a greater setback from the neighbor than the
detached garage could. Walz said that most of the houses in the neighborhood have vehicle
access off the alley. Walz said that given the arrangement and size of the lot it seems
reasonable to grant a setback reduction allowing the attached garage. Walz said that staff
recommends approval of this application subject to the height of the structure being limited to
the standards for detached accessory structures and the setback reduction applying only to the
21-foot depth of the garage.
Eckstein said that the written staff report seems to recommend only that the standards be
adhered to, whereas the oral report seemed to indicate that staff favored asingle-story
structure. Walz said what she had meant was that the structure would be held to the height
standards of a detached garage, as recommended in the staff report. Eckstein said there could
be some concern about the mass of the building on the site if the decision was to make the
garage more than one story. She asked if that was something the Board could or should
consider. Walz said that the Board could consider that, but that they should keep in mind that a
detached garage is allowed to be up to 20-feet tall. Eckstein asked if that would be true of an
attached garage if the application was approved as staff had presented it. Greenwood Hektoen
clarified that if the garage was attached, the garage was allowed to be as tall as the house,
which is less than the 20-feet being discussed.
Robin Chambers, 907 Fifth Avenue, said that she wished to clarify that the original attached
garage has not yet been converted to living space, though that is the plan. She said that no
conversion would begin until the Board made their decision on the new garage. She offered to
answer any questions the Board might have.
Eckstein said that she understood it to be the case that the proposed garage and its driveway
would not be directly across the alley from the neighbor's driveway. The applicant said that was
correct.
Anderson moved to approve EXC10-00006, a special exception to reduce the setback
requirement for principal buildings from 20~feet to 10 feet, subject to the following
conditions:
1) The height of the garage will be limited according to the standards for
detached accessory structures;
2) The setback reduction is for the 21-foot depth of the proposed garage only.
Tyson seconded.
Board of Adjustment
August 11, 2010
Page 3 of 8
Sheerin invited discussion from the Board.
Anderson said that upon initial review of the application he was concerned about the amount of
buildup on the lot, with particular concern for the amount of open space that would be left on the
site. He said that concern had been removed because of the fact that attaching the garage
actually leaves more open space. He said that the staff recommendation to limit the height of
the garage was a good idea.
Sheerin said she too had originally had concerns about the mass of structures on the site.
Sheerin invited the findings of fact.
Eckstein said that this special exception poses no threat to the public safety and does not
increase traffic congestion because of the way the garage is situated on the alley. She said that
there are no structural changes that would impede emergency vehicles.
Sheerin said that this situation is peculiar to the property because the lot is smaller than other
lots in the area, and is the minimum size allowed in the zone at 6,000 square feet. Sheerin said
that there is very little room behind the house to situate a garage off the alley. Sheerin said that
another peculiarity of the property is that it actually provides for a larger setback with an
attached garage than it could have for a detached. Sheerin said it meets the specific criteria as
there is a practical difficulty with the setback requirement due to the shallow depth of the parcel
and the small size of the lot. Sheerin said that granting the special exception will not be
contrary to the purpose of the setback requirement because it actually provides more space
between the garage and the adjacent property than would a detached garage in this case.
Sheerin said that the height limitation will reduce the appearance of massing large structures on
the small property. She stated that any potential negative effects resulting from the proposed
setback would be mitigated to the extent possible because the proposal actually results in more
space on site. Sheerin said that the proposed garage is set back ten feet from the rear property
line.
Sheerin said that all necessary utilities and facilities are in place and the proposed setback will
not diminish the capacity for the installation of sidewalks in the future, nor does it have any
effect on motorists or pedestrians on the streets. She said the proposal is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan which provides incentives for the use of alleys.
Anderson noted that the staff report indicates that sidewalks are not present but that sufficient
right of way exists for their future construction.
Eckstein said that she concurs with the staff recommendation that the height of the garage be
limited to the standards used for detached garages.
Sheerin closed the public hearing.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-0 (Jennings excused).
Sheerin declared the motion approved, stating that anyone wishing to appeal the decision may
do so within 30 days of the decision being filed with the City Clerk's Office.
Board of Adjustment
August 11, 2010
Page 4 of 8
APPEAL:
Discussion of an appeal filed by Tracy Barkalow to overturn a decision of the Historic
Preservation Commission denying a Certificate of Appropriateness for a property located
at 837 Maggard Street.
Tyson recused herself from consideration of this case as she is associated with the appellants.
Walz noted that the appellant has the option of deferring on the matter for another month, as a
vote to approve the appeal requires three affirmative votes. The appellant indicated a desire to
proceed.
Eckstein said that she had another commitment, so if the discussions ran past 6:35 p.m. she
would have to leave. Walz said that at that point the Board would have to defer if the matter
had not been resolved.
Walz explained that at the May 27th meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) the
Commission voted to deny a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow vinyl siding fora non-
contributing structure located at 837 Maggard Street. The subject property is located in the
Clark Street Conservation District. The appellant has requested an appeal to the Board of
Adjustment for the denial of the HPC decision citing the following grounds:
1) The decision was unfair because adjacent properties in the neighborhood are sided in
vinyl siding, and the Board approved the vinyl siding on the adjacent properties (also
owned by the appellant) at the very same meeting;
2) A member of the Commission made statements prior to and during the meeting
indicating bias against the appellant, and
3) The cement-board siding approved by the Commission is too expensive.
Walz noted that the Board has been provided with the transcript and minutes from the May 27tH
meeting. She said that staff believes that HPC was not arbitrary or capricious in its decision,
which is the standard for granting an appeal. Walz said that the transcript shows that the
Commission cited the property's non-contributing status. Walz said that staff finds it is
reasonable that the two properties owned by the appellant were treated differently by HPC
because the property that was allowed to have vinyl siding was non-historic, whereas the
property that was denied vinyl siding was cited as non-contributing. Walz said that the non-
contributing status indicates that the property is of historic value but the property has been
altered in such a way that it no longer contributes to the historic nature of the neighborhood.
Staff finds that the bias indicated by the appellant is not evident, and that even if it was, such
bias did not taint HPC's decision as both the vote to approve vinyl siding on one property and
deny vinyl siding on the subject property were unanimous votes. She said that Commissioners
had cited appropriate reasons for their votes. Walz noted that the Board does not have the
authority in this context to grant relief based on economic hardship, which is the third ground the
appellant lists as a reason for appeal.
Greenwood Hektoen noted that the standard the Board is to consider is whether the HPC was
arbitrary and capricious in making their decision. She said that this is not a re-hearing of the
merits of the case; Board members are not meant to decide what they themselves would have
done if they had been on HPC. Greenwood Hektoen said that the decision as to whether the
Commission had behaved arbitrarily or capriciously should be based on the record provided to
the Board and the testimony at this evening's meeting.
Board of Adjustment
August 11, 2010
Page 5 of 8
Eckstein asked if there is any economic apparatus in place to help building owners in historic
districts meet the standards required by the code. Walz said that in this particular context there
is not. Greenwood Hektoen said that in some cases an application for economic hardship can
be filed separately from the appeal process. Eckstein asked if that meant that a homeowner
would not have to comply with certain aspects of the historic preservation regulations if they
were found to be suffering economic hardship. Greenwood Hektoen said that there is an
avenue available for that in the general sense, but that has not been requested in this case and
is not part of what the Board is to consider in this case.
Sheerin asked if it was correct to say that 837 Maggard Street was considered non-contributing
because it was a historical home that had undergone changes that had detracted from its
historic character. Staff said that was correct.
Sheerin invited the appellant to speak.
Tracy Barkalow, 916 North Gilbert Street, said that in the past year several thousand dollars had
been spent on a new roof for the subject property. He said that they had worked with HPC to
put a small, new deck on the front of the building; Barkalow said that the deck should have cost
a couple thousand dollars but actually cost about $8,000 to build to historic code. Barkalow
said that they wished to put vinyl siding on the property for a better long-term appearance. He
noted that Housing inspection Services (HIS) requirements required only a weekend's worth of
work on the porch and a few hundred dollars in paint. Instead of meeting the bare minimum
requirements, Barkalow said, it was his desire to improve the property and the general
neighborhood by replacing the siding.
Barkalow explained that the street dead-ends into a cul-de-sac and railroad tracks. He said that
the apartment complex at the end of the street has vinyl siding on it; 831 Maggard has vinyl
siding on it; 841 will have vinyl siding on it; several other properties on the street have vinyl
siding. Barkalow said he understands the value of historic neighborhoods as he owns a real
estate company in town and lives in a historic district himself. He said that he just does not
understand the historic value of this particular duplex at the end of a cul-de-sac that has been a
rental property for over a decade.
Barkalow said Pam Michaud of the HPC came into his real estate office and badgered his staff
for about a half an hour the week before the HPC meeting was to take place. He said Michaud
told his staff that Barkalow could afford to side the building in cement-board and that Barkalow
should stop putting bad tenants in historic neighborhoods. He said she asked how he had
made all of his money, and in response to his claims that cement-board siding was not
economically feasible for this particular home, she inappropriately suggested at the meeting that
he should take money from other income properties and invest it in this one. He said that this
particular property generates about $900 per year, and it would take about 15 years to pay the
difference between vinyl and cement-board siding. Barkalow said that Michaud's behavior had
been totally inappropriate and that Mayor Matt Hayek and City Planner Christina Kuecker had
both personally apologized for Michaud's behavior and acknowledged its inappropriateness.
Barkalow said that he did not feel he had gotten a fair shake at that meeting, and that he had
found the whole thing disturbing.
Barkalow said he just wanted to get the property sided and cleaned up, and that if he is unable
to do that then he will simply paint it and leave it as an ugly house in the neighborhood.
Alicia Trimble, 2232 California Avenue, introduced herself as the current chair of HPC. She said
Board of Adjustment
August 11, 2010
Page 6 of 8
that to her knowledge, the HPC has never approved vinyl siding on a contributing structure, or a
structure that could be contributing if it was restored. Trimble said that the property next door to
the subject property was built in the 1980's, so HPC did not have any guidelines that would
prevent vinyl siding from going on that structure. Trimble also noted that the Commission
cannot take cost into consideration when making their decisions.
Eckstein motioned to grant the appeal to overturn the decision of the HPC to deny a
Certificate of Appropriateness for a property located at 837 Maggard Street.
Anderson seconded.
Anderson thanked Kuecker, Barkalow and Trimble for attending this meeting, saying he knew
that historic preservation can be a contentious issue. He said that while actions or statement s
of certain Commission members may or may not have been appropriate, ultimately, the
decisions rendered were appropriate based on the criteria governing the Commission's
decision. He said that for him it is a fairly straight-forward issue.
Sheerin said that she agreed with Anderson that there was nothing in the record to demonstrate
that the Commission had acted arbitrarily or capriciously. Sheerin did note that if the
Commission was not allowed to consider economic hardship as a factor in their decisions then
they certainly should not be considering a perceived ability of the applicant to pay for
requirements. She said that while those comments may not have been appropriate, they also
were not allowed to influence the decision. Sheerin said that while it is frustrating that two
adjacent properties are governed by different rules that is a function of the historic preservation
code. She said she did not see how the Board could overturn the decision of HPC based on
what was before them.
Eckstein said that she agreed with what her colleagues had said. She said that the distinction
between non-historic and non-contributing is clear in the code, and that the Commission has
voted consistently based on that distinction. Eckstein said that the double-balcony mystifies
her; she said she cannot understand how that structure went through the HPC and was
approved. Eckstein said that the whole issue of contributing and non-contributing is based in
the potential of the property to go back to its role as reflecting a historic presence in the
neighborhood. Eckstein said that she understands perfectly why the two homes had different
findings from the Commission regarding vinyl siding; although, how the double balcony was
ever approved through HPC is another question altogether.
Greenwood Hektoen said that the Board should not consider the balcony's role in the structure's
historical conformity as no evidence had been presented on that. Eckstein said she was merely
making a comment. She said she agreed with her colleagues; she would not know how to
question the decision given the clarity of the distinctions.
Sheerin closed the public hearing and invited further findings of fact.
Eckstein said that anon-historic property like 841/845 Maggard is outside the historic purview of
HPC; therefore, rules such as whether or not vinyl siding can be used simply do not apply to
those properties. For a property that is within the Commission's historic frame, those rules do
apply.
Sheerin said that HPC had made a clear distinction between the two properties based on the
code and made it clear that the subject property did not fall within the exception for non-
Board of Adjustment
August 11, 2010
Page 7 of 8
contributing property to have vinyl siding. Sheerin said that while the comments of Michaud
may have been inappropriate, the Commission did not form their decision based upon them and
in fact made it clear that those comments were irrelevant to the matter before them. She
pointed out that a simple majority was needed, and the Commission had voted unanimously in
the matter. She said that cost just is not an issue because it cannot be considered.
Anderson said that he could understand an allegation of bias if the Commission had made a
practice of approving vinyl siding for non-contributing structures in the past; however, HPC has
been very consistent in not allowing vinyl siding for properties that can be moved toward
contributing status.
Walz reminded the Board that a "yes" vote meant that they were overturning the HPC decision;
a "no" vote means that the HPC decision is affirmed.
A vote was taken and the motion failed 3-0 (Tyson recused; Jennings excused).
Sheerin declared the motion approved, stating that anyone wishing to appeal the decision may
do so within 30 days of the decision being filed within the City Clerk's Office.
Walz noted that the next meeting would take place September 8th and that there would be at
least two applications. Walz said she would not be present for the meeting as she would be in
Des Moines; however, she will inform the Board ahead of time of which staff member will be
there instead.
ADJOURNMENT:
Tyson motioned to adjourn.
Anderson seconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 4-0 vote (Jennings excused) at 6:02 PM.
7
.0
Q
L
MQ
W
N
L
u
^~
W
V
A~
W
Q
L
t
0
N
O
M
O
CO
O
O~
x K ~ ~
0
~
~
~
~
O v V
~ x x x x
N X X X
~ ^ O
V
d'
O
M
x x x o x
N
M ^ O X X X
h N ~ u1 M -
L _ ~ ~ ~
L .X
~ O O O O O
~ _ _
W O O O O O
c c c
'i
~ ~
' ~ Cq ~ O
~ a u c s ~
~
~ Q ~ ~ d H
Z
~
~ _ c c
~ ~ - ~ Q
~
o
C m ~ V ~
'~
N
C
O
~..
a
cd
C
a.+
~+
O
C
'~
t
u
L
0
L
fd
s
~.+
u4
C
~L
C
.~
L
u
L
v
t
.
~
L
N
N
'~ ..i
~ s..
N ~
7 ~
U =
y
~
_ ~
i +
'
~.+ ~ ~
G ~
v c~
~ ~ ~
a Q Q Z Z
II II II II II
X O O z c
w
MINUTES 4b 3
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION APPROVED
August 17, 2010
LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL
Members Present: Dianne Day, Wangui Gathua, Martha Lubaroff, Howard Cowen, Harry Olmstead,
Connie Goeb.
Members Absent: Corey Stoglin, Dell Briggs, Yolanda Spears.
Staff Present: Stefanie Bowers.
Others Present: Charles Eastham and Father Rudy Juarez.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action): None.
CALL TO ORDER
Vice-Chair Day called the meeting to order at 6:15 p.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: Charles Eastham and Father Rudy Juarez
introduced themselves and stated they were present for the Sanctuary City discussion.
CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE July 20, 2010 MEETING:
Lubaroff, moved to approve.
Goeb seconded.
The motion passed 5-0. (Gathua not present for the vote)
INTRODUCTION NEW COMMISSIONER
Commissioner Harry Olmstead recently moved here from Birmingham, Alabama. He is on the Board of Access
2 Independence and recently started a support group for amputees.
ANNUAL REPORT
Bowers summarized the report and noted a few corrections.
Lubaroff, moved to approve noting corrections
Cowen seconded.
The motion passed 5-0 (Gathua not present for the vote)
ONE COMMUNITY ONE BOOK
Bowers updated Commissioners on the date and time author Alan Dew will be discussing his book Gardens of
Water (November 7th at 4 pm at the Pomerantz Center Room C20). Day mentioned two other panel
discussions about the book that will be held at the Iowa City/Johnson County Senior Center and the Iowa City
Public Library later in the fall.
SANCTUARY CITY
Day handed out a proposed ordinance along with several other documents. Father Juarez told Commissioners
that a Sanctuary City is an endorsement of Human Rights for all. Father Juarez explained that a Sanctuary City
does not ask anyone to violate the law and would lead to more cooperation within the community. Eastham
mentioned the human element and that without an ordinance in place some in the community do not have
equal access to all services. The Sanctuary City Committee plans to hold a public meeting in September and
meet with City officials in October. This item will be placed on the September agenda so that Commissioners
can read through the materials before being asked to vote on a possible recommendation to Council.
BREAKFAST
The Breakfast will be held on October 28th at 7:30 a.m. at the Hotel Vetro. Commissioners need to arrive by
7:00 a.m.
Human Rights Commission
August 17, 2010
Page 2 of 3
SUBCOMMITTEE UPDATES
Goeb (Gathua, Day) reported the Speaker's Bureau has been tentatively renamed Community Dialogue. They
will be working with the University of Iowa Center for Human Rights on the Dialogues and will be doing a press
release in the near future to solicit speakers. In addition, Goeb, Gathua, Day and Lubaroff planned to be trained
facilitators for the Dialogues. Lubaroff (Spears, Olmstead) reported that subcommittee members still hope to be
able to create a program on bullying this year and will try to meet before the next meeting date.
ADA TRAINING
The date for the training is October 6th from 10 a.m. - 12 p.m. at the Iowa City Public Library. Lubaroff will
announce the program. Olmstead will serve as back up if Lubaroff is unable to make it.
STRENGTHENING LATINO/A COMMUNITIES PROGRAM
Bowers will get more information from the University to find out the actual hours of the program and report back
to Commissioners.
REPORTS OF COMMISSIONERS
Lubaroff and Day mentioned a recent appearance they made on At Home in Iowa City. Bowers will send a link
of the program to Commissioners. Olmstead reported that August 26th is the 90th Anniversary of Women's
Suffrage (19th Amendment). Bowers reported on two recent presentations to the Youth Empowerment Service
participants (YES) on civil rights.
ADJOURNMENT
Lubaroff moved to adjourn.
Olmstead seconded.
The motion passed 6-0 at 19:23.
Human Rights Commission
August 17, 2010
Page 3 of 3
Human Rights Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2010
Meetin Date
NAME TERM
EXP.
1/19
2/16
3116
4/20
5118
6115
7/20
8/17
9/21
10/19
11/16
12/21
Dell Briggs 1/1/11 X X O/E X X X X O/E
Yolanda
Spears 1/1/11 X O/E X X O/E O/E X O/E
Corey
Stoglin 1/1/11 O/E O/E X O/E X O/E O/E O/E
Dianne Day 1/1/12 X X X O/E X X O/E X
Wangui
Gathua 1/1112 X OIE OIE X X X X X
Martha
Lubaroff 1/1/12 X X X X X O/E X X
Howard
Cowen 1/1/13 X X X X O/E X O/E X
Constance
Goeb 1/1/13 X O/E X X X X X X
Fernando
Mena-
Carrasco 1/1/13 X X O/E X X X O/E R R R R R
Harry
Olmstead
(8-1-2010) 1/1/13 - - - - - - - X
KEY:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = AbsentlExcused
NM = No meeting/No Quorum
R =Resigned
- = Not a Member
4b 4
MINUTES APPROVED
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
AUGUST 19, 2010 - 6:30 PM
EMMA HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Chappell, Andy Douglas, Charlie Drum, Holly Jane Hart,
Michael McKay
MEMBERS ABSENT: Jarrod Gatlin, Rebecca McMurray, Brian Richman,
Rachel Zimmermann Smith
STAFF PRESENT: Tracy Hightshoe, Steve Long
OTHERS PRESENT: None
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL:
HCDC recommended that City Council adopt the revised CDBG and HOME Program
Investment Policies as it pertains to homebuyer and public facility projects. Revised policy
attached. (Vote:5-0)
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by Vice-Chairperson Charlie Drum at 6:30 p.m.
APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 30, 2010 MEETING MINUTES:
Long noted an error in a figure given in the minutes.
Chappell motioned to approve the minutes as amended.
Hart seconded.
The motion carried 5-0 (Gatlin, McMurray, Richman, Zimmermann Smith absent).
PUBLIC COMMENT OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
AUGUST 19, 2010
PAGE2of10
STAFF/COMMISSION COMMENT:
Long noted that the City had received another $1.4 million for the Single Family New Homes
Program. This program involves replacing the housing stock that has or will be purchased
through federal buy-out programs from the 2008 floods. Long said that the Single Family New
Homes program built and sold 40 homes that were all completed and sold by this spring and
there are 37 additional homes being constructed now under Round 2 of the program. The City
was recently notified that there will be a Round 3 that will support approximately 30 additional
homes. He said that it also sounds as if there may be a fourth and fifth funding round for this
program in the future. Long said the program has been very successful and that builders have
also been thrilled with it.
Hart asked how many flood damaged homes had already been purchased. Long said that 56
homes have been acquired; he expects that approximately 100 will be acquired eventually. He
said that 38 have been demolished and another nine should be down by next week.
Long noted that the City had also applied for grant funds to build a levee to protect the Baculis
and Thatcher mobile home parks and 50 nearby businesses. Chappell said that he thought the
number of businesses involved had previously been stated as 20. Long said that there are
approximately 20 business structures, but there are multiple businesses in a number of the
structures. Long said the project would be about a $4 million project. Long said that the project
had been voted down by HCDC at the June 30th meeting but that City Council approving it.
Hightshoe noted that the legal department had noted there were some votes recorded as
"abstain" in the last few HCDC meetings. Hightshoe said that "abstain" means that a
Commissioner is not voting on a matter because of a possible conflict of interest; whereas if a
Commissioner feels they do not have enough information to vote on a matter or just not at a
point to vote yes, then they should simply vote "no."
REVIEW AND DISCUSS THE ALLOCATION PROCESS FOR ANTICIPATED AND
RECENTLY RECEIVED CDBG PROGRAM INCOME:
Long stated that there would be approximately $2.9 million in program income coming back into
the CDBG line of credit from the Aniston Village project. Long said the funds would be received
sometime this winter. The City Council recently allocated $1.9 million to the proposed west side
level project with the remainder of the funds anticipated to come from an I-Jobs grant if the City
is awarded funding. This would leave about $1 million to allocate through the HCDC process.
Long said that if the I-JOBS Board does not approve the City's application on September 15tH
then the full $2.9 would need to be allocated. Long said this evening's discussion was how to
address the additional funding from a theoretical and policy standpoint.
Long said the daycare facility at 1516 Sheridan had been sold at the end of the City's fiscal year
(June 2010). This repayment is considered CDBG program income and has to reallocated to
CDBG eligible uses. Long said the City had assisted anon-profit in purchasing and renovating
the building eight years ago; four years ago the building went into foreclosure and the City took
the property over. Long said there is about $100,000 from the sale of the building to allocate.
Long explained that Extend the Dream Foundation started their FY11 project before the
environmental review was finished, despite numerous warnings and reminders not to do so. As
a result, they are no longer eligible for the $40,000 that they were allocated. Starting any
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
AUGUST 19, 2010
PAGE 3 of 10
construction work before the City receives environmental clearance jeopardizes the whole
project. The City will need to reallocate these funds as well. Hightshoe explained that as early
as the application process funding recipients are clearly informed that they cannot begin
projects before the environmental release from HUD and they enter into an agreement with the
City. Federal guidelines prohibit the City from funding any part of the proposed project due to
this procedural issue.
Hightshoe said that because such a large amount of money is coming into the City's line of
credit all at once, they need to begin spending and allocating funds before the next regular
round. If the Commission waited and just included the money in the next funding round, the
money could not be spent until the other FY12 allocations were released in July 2011. Because
this money is "program income," the City can spend it immediately; it is prior-year money. Long
noted that HUD has a policy stating that the City cannot have more than 1.5 times their
allocation amount in their line of credit each year. Long said that it is likely the City will exceed
that this year and will receive a warning from HUD. He said the more money that can be spent
by the end of May, the better. Long said that even if the levee grant is approved, construction
on it will not start until around March, so that allocated money ($1.9 million) will not be spent by
the time HUD takes its first measurement.
Long proposed having a special allocation round sometime this fall. He said that the idea would
be to have a less formal process, with high minimums so that the number of projects to be
reviewed was not overwhelming. Hightshoe said there is currently a policy in place for "windfall'
income, which would apply to the funds being discussed. Hightshoe said the current policy says
that HCDC will determine if: 1) existing projects that did not receive full funding should be
considered, 2) projects that applied but did not receive any CDBG/HOME funding in the last
funding cycle will be considered, 3) new proposals will be submitted, or 4) funds will go to the
Contingency Fund. Hightshoe said the Contingency Fund is not really an option in this case.
The amount of funding available for Public Services could not exceed 15% of anticipated
program income, so internal amounts would be set for those projects. Hightshoe explained that
one of the things that would have to be decided would be whether 15% of the $2.9 million would
be withheld until FY12 for Public Services, or would be spent on eligible Pubic Facilities and
Housing applications prior to July 1, 2011. Hightshoe said this item would be back on the
Commission's agenda in September, and what staff was seeking at this point was guidance
from the Commission on how they would like to see this proceed. Long said that this is an
unprecedented amount of additional funding. Hightshoe noted that if the I-JOBS levee grant
was not funded, then there would be another $1.9 million to allocate.
Long urged the Commission to be creative as this was an opportunity to really make an impact.
Long noted that 20 years ago the City took a $1 million pool of money and used it to create the
Senior Center, which has a tremendous impact on the community. Long said that in the past
large funding amounts like this have been used to make improvements to Ralston Creek and
build dams in Hickory Hill Park. Hightshoe noted that City Departments will also be aware of
this money and will be applying for funding as well. She said that when the money is opened up
and advertised, it will be opened up to everybody. Long said it will be up to the Commission to
decide what the best use for the funding is and whether there is a need for the proposed project.
Hightshoe said that even some applying City departments may not understand that there must
be a component of their project that benefits those with low-to-moderate incomes. Chappell
asked if it was possible to move 85% of the $1 million now, and hold the other 15% back for the
regular allocation cycle, and staff said that it was. Long said that if there was a particular project
in their minds, a couple hundred thousand could also be held back for next year.
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
AUGUST 19, 2010
PAGE 4 of 10
Long said that there has been some talk about using funds to redevelop the Towncrest area by
setting up a small business fund to encourage businesses to locate or expand into that
neighborhood. Another idea that has been discussed is land-banking in which scattered-site
lots are acquired and then developed at a later date. Chappell asked if Towncrest was in a low-
to-moderate income census tract and Long said that it is not. Hightshoe said that if the
business owner herself is low-to-moderate income then the funds could be used. Long said that
facade improvement was a possibility for the Towncrest area, but it could be difficult to justify.
Long said that Riverfront Crossings is also an area that funds could be targeted toward. He
said that the City has purchased the former site of St. Patrick's Church and would like to put
affordable housing in the upper levels of the building when they redevelop the site. Long said
money could be set aside for downpayment assistance or as incentives for rental housing.
Long said he had brought the FY11 project list in consideration of the policy that states the
Commission may first consider those projects that were not fully funded. Long said ISIS, The
Housing Fellowship, Dolphin Point, Habitat for Humanity, MYEP and Big Brothers/Big Sisters all
received less than full funding for FY11. Chappell asked if the Commission was required to
reconsider these projects and staff said that they did not. Long said that the Commission could
also go back to consider the two projects that had received no funding. Hightshoe said staff
was just looking for a general direction and would put something together for the September
meeting.
Drum said that he is partial to looking at fully funding some of the projects that have already
applied.
Chappell said that given how unique it is to have that amount of money at one particular time he
is partial to the idea of thinking creatively on how to spend the money. He said that the
Commission could encourage those who were not fully funded to reapply, but reserve some
funds for new ideas.
Drum said that it would be great to be able to support one large project, such as when the
Senior Center was created.
Chappell said that he is interested in knowing how the funding will be advertised in order to get
the word out that the Commission is seeking creative ideas.
Long said that a number of non-profits are already aware that the money is coming and staff
also works with members of the business community and other city departments. Hightshoe
said the word will get out pretty fast.
McKay said that his inclination is that the Public Services funds should be reserved to the
greatest extent possible because that pot is always so small and the organizations so worthy.
McKay said he would like to maximize the funds available to those groups. Chappell said he
would like to see the $15,000 do something in the short term, and would like to reserve 15% of
the one million and allocate that as part of the regular funding process next year. Long said that
with small windfalls for Public Services in the past, staff has had just a one page application for
those who had not received full funding in the prior funding cycle and distribution of the
additional funds was done in one meeting. Hart said this was an appealing idea. She said that
Public Services are always frustrating allocations because of the scarcity of resources.
Chappell asked what the timeline would be if a separate allocation process was done for all but
the Public Services set asides. Working backwards from an approximate funds-availability date
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
AUGUST 19, 2010
PAGE5of10
of January 15tH, staff determined that October 31St would be a likely due date for applications.
Chappell said he was not sure that more than a month of notification is necessary if everyone
already knows this money is coming. Hightshoe said that the application due date will likely be
sometime in October. Chappell asked if the Commission needed to do anything special if it
decided to hold back some of the funding and use it for next year's allocation. Chappell said he
wanted to be able to reserve some funds and not be committed to spending all of the money if
the applications were not particularly exciting or creative. Drum said he did like the idea of
being able to fund a larger project if it came along. Chappell said his comments had only
pertained to the Public Services funding. Douglas said it sounded to him like there was enough
money that all of these things could be done: fund public facilities, fund some of the
housing/construction projects, and put money aside for other ideas as well.
Chappell said that his thinking is to set aside the $15,000 for Public Services (% eligible from
the resale of the Sheridan property) and allocate those funds to last year's applicants; have a
second allocation process for the rest of the money (whether it is $1 or $2.9 million depending
on the outcome of the I-Jobs application), letting applicants know ahead of time that the full
amount of funds may not be allocated; and then hold $150,000 (from the % eligible of the
Aniston repayment to be received in FY11) aside for Public Services in the FY12 allocation
process. McKay said that made sense to him. Hart asked if this was something that needed to
be agreed on tonight. Long said that if a consensus could be reached staff would go ahead with
the notification process. Chappell suggested letting Public Services applicants reaffirm their
need for funding by a simple a-mail rather than reapplying. Chappell asked if there would be
one or two new members on the Commission and Long said it would only be one. Hightshoe
said that she did not think the $15,000 would require an Annual Action Plan amendment if
funding the same public service applicants. Long said that was correct; the money could be
allocated the day after the vote. Long said the $1 million allocation would take place at the
November meeting and would require a 30-day comment period. Hightshoe said the idea would
be to spend as much money as they can by May. Commission members agreed that Chappell's
summary represented a consensus on how to proceed.
SELECT HCDC MEMBER TO REPRESENT THE COMMISSION DURING THE CITY
MANAGER HIRING PROCESS:
Long said that the consultant had narrowed the search to 15 candidates and the City Council
will be narrowing it to five or six. Long said that the Council would like to have a representative
from each Commission participate in the interview process. Hi~htshoe said that there will be a
"meet and greet" of candidates on September 27tH 28tH and 29t . Typically, Hightshoe said, the
HCDC Chair would attend; however as of September 1St the Commission will have no Chair.
The chair will be appointed at the September 16 meeting. Hightshoe clarified that the
representative would have to be available for all of the meetings that week. McKay said he
would be interested in participating.
Chappell motioned to nominate McKay to represent the Commission in the City Manager
hiring process.
Drum seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0 (Gatlin, McMurray, Richman, Zimmermann
Smith absent).
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
AUGUST 19, 2010
PAGE 6 of 10
DISCUSS REVISED CDBG 8~ HOME PROGRAM INVESTMENT POLICIES FOR PUBLIC
FACILITY PROJECTS -RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL:
Hightshoe explained the currently policy. For public facility projects, the compliance period is
determined by the amount of CDBG funds received. The award amount is divided by 3,000 and
the resultant number is the compliance period. For example, if a subrecipient received $30,000,
they would have a compliance period of 10 years. Using this formula, Long said, there have
been agreements that have resulted in compliance periods that ranged up to 99 years, the
current maximum compliance period. This policy creates problems for some subrecipients. As
the City places alien/mortgage on the property to ensure compliance with the CDBG agreement
during the compliance period, some subrecipients with large awards must show a liability on
their books for 30-99 years depending on the CDBG award. Staff has also encountered
problems when the useful life of the project is less than the compliance period such as for
carpeting, bathroom remodels, etc.
Hightshoe noted that this formula was developed by the City and is not a HUD policy.
Hightshoe said that staff is proposing a maximum 20-year compliance period regardless of
award amount. Hightshoe said that staff is also suggesting that the new formula to determine
compliance periods would be to divide the allocation amount by 10,000, opposed to 3,000. For
an allocation amount of $20,000, this would change the required compliance period from
approximately 6'/z years under the old formula to 2 years under the new. Long noted that
HOME funds have a required "affordability period" period of 20-years for new construction and
having the same maximum for CDBG would bring some consistency.
Hightshoe stated there is also a proposed change to the homebuyer investment policy so that it
is consistent with the City's policy as submitted to HUD for HOME homeownership projects.
Hightshoe said that HUD had required the City to formalize its resale and recapture provisions
this year in the City's Annual Action Plan approved by Council. Resale and recapture provisions
are used for homebuyer projects under the HOME program. Hightshoe said that for a home
ownership application the applicant must identify at the time of application whether they will go
by a resale provision or a recapture provision. Under the resale provision, the assisted
homeowner would have to sell their home to another income-eligible homeowner during the
affordability period. The recapture provision says that the homeowner must repay the City all or
a portion of the funds the applicant received from the homeowner's net proceeds upon the
subsequent sale of the home. The policy states how the City will implement its resale or
recapture option for HOME homebuyer projects. If an applicant proposes something different
than the stated policy, this must be identified in the City's Annual Action Plan approved by City
Council and then reviewed by HUD. Hightshoe said staff is proposing that City policy be
consistent whether it is funded with HOME or CDBG funds. Basically the policy will be defined
by the Annual Action Plan, approved by Council each year. In this way, our homebuyer
investment policy and our Annual Action Plan sent to HUD will be consistent. Long said that at
the time of application each year staff will give applicants the most recent policy.
Chappell motioned to adopt the revised policy.
McKay seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0 (Gatlin, McMurray, Richman, Zimmermann
Smith absent).
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
AUGUST 19, 2010
PAGE 7 of 10
Hightshoe noted that it was not unlikely that some of the agencies with 99-year compliance
periods may come back before the Commission for amended terms if the City Council approves
this policy change.
ADJOURNMENT:
McKay motioned to adjourn.
Chappell seconded.
The motion carried 5-0 (Gatlin, McMurray, Richman, Zimmermann Smith absent).
The meeting was adjourned.
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
AUGUST 19, 2010
PAGE 8 of 10
EXHIBIT A -Draft
CDBG AND HOME PROGRAM INVESTMENT POLICIES
Economic Development
Economic development projects making application to the CDBG Economic Development Fund will be
reviewed by the Council Economic Development Committee. The Council Economic Development
Committee will make a recommendation to the City Council for each project proposed for funding. Said
recommendation shall include the amount of CDBG assistance to be allocated and the terms of
investment.
Typically, for-profit business projects will receive low-interest loans; whereas, non-profits may be
recommended for forgivable loans or grants. Decisions regarding investment terms for economic
development projects will be made based on the nature of the project including, but not limited to, the
risk, potential for growth, the number of and quality of jobs created for low-moderate income persons,
the ability to repay a loan and the amount of other funding leveraged.
Housing
Rental Housing. Except as noted below, the interest rate for rental housing activities will be zero percent
(0%) for non-profit owned projects and prime rate (determined at the time the CDBG\HOME agreement
is executed by the City) minus two points for for-profit owned projects with an amortization period up to
thirty (30) years or the period of affordability, whichever is less.
Homeownership. Each year Iowa City adopts resale/recapture :provisions that apply to all HOME
assisted homebuyer projects... The recapture/resale provisions shall be the same for both CDBG and
HOME assisted° homebuyer projects. These provisions are set forth in the Annual Action Plan for the
year the funds were allocated to the SubrecipientiRecipient.
Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA). All HOME funds provided for TBRA will be in the form of a
grant.
Exceptions. The City may grant a different interest rate and/or a different repayment option based on
the nature of the project including, but not limited to, the revenue generated, the ability to repay a loan,
the type of housing provided, the beneficiaries, the amount of other funding leveraged and the location
of the site.
Public Facilities
The City of Iowa City, as the recipient of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds,
utilizes these funds for "public facilities" projects as defined in 24 CFR 570.201 (c) that are
completed by the City and\or subrecipents. The following policy applies to CDBG assistance
provided to non-governmental subrecipients ("governmental" includes only jurisdictions with taxing
authority as provided for in Iowa Code).
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
AUGUST 19, 2010
PAGE 9 of 10
Projects that receive an allocation by the City of Iowa City will receive an earned grant, as defined
herein, which will be secured by a mortgage or other comparable security instrument. The compliance
term of the earned grant will be determined by the formula also provided herein. At the end of the
applicable compliance term the lien or other security instrument will be released by the City. If the real
property is leased, the lease shall be for a period that matches or exceeds the compliance term of the
earned grant.
• Earned Grant: A lien against the real property being assisted, or other comparable security,
which is repaid only upon transfer of title, rental of the property, or termination of services or
occupancy as outlined in the applicable CDBG Agreement. If the subrecipient fully satisfies the
terms outlined in the applicable CDBG Agreement the mortgage against the property, or other
security instrument, will be released by the City following the completion of the compliance
period that begins on the date of execution of the mortgage or security instrument.
• Earned Grant Formula: The total amount of CDBG assistance allocated to a subrecipient in
any one City fiscal year fora "public facility" project divided by $10,000 equals the number of
CDBG .compliance years for the Earned Grant. (For example: $20,000 in CDBG assistance
divided by $10,000 would equal a compliance term of 2 years or 24 months). If the Earned Grant
Formula .results in a compliance term of less than one year (12 months) the minimum compliance
term shall be one .year (12 months). 'The maximum compliance term for any CDBG assistance
shall be no more than twenty (20) years.
Public Service
Public Service projects as defined in 24 CFR 570.201 (e) shall receive CDBG assistance in the form of
a grant with a term of not less than one year.
Z
O
N
~_
O
H
z
W
a
O
W
W
D
F-
Z
U
0
z
Q
Z
N
O
O
v
W
W O
U~
ZO
Q N
Z
W
H
Q
x x x ~ x x O O O
~">
c X X O X X X X X O
o
x x o x x o x x o
N X X X X X X X X X
M
X X X X X X ~ X X
M
cc
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
N
N X X X X X X X X X
T
N •-- M N M ~-
~-- ~
r O
r N
r
W K r
N r
O r
r-
O r
N r
~-
O
O
O
O
N
F-W
O rn
O rn
O ~
O rn
O rn
O rn
O rn
O
O
Q
W
W V
W
=
~
O Z
Q
J
m
Z F-
N 2 ~ J U Q m Q
a ~ v Z = ~ ~ Q ~ W
w
~ V ~ V
Q = O ~ Q Q - Q
Q
Z V ~ ~ ~ 2 ~ ~ ~ N
a~
~ ~
~~
w~
~ ~
C
N (0
~ O
QZ
w~
m
C
C ~
~~
a`z°
n ii
Y~ X Z
4b 5
MINUTES APPROVED
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 2, 2010 - 7:00 PM -FORMAL
CITY HALL, EMMA HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Josh Busard, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks,
Michelle Payne, Wally Plahutnik, Tim Weitzel
MEMBERS ABSENT: Elizabeth Koppes
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Lorin Ditzler, Julie Tallman,
Sara Greenwood Hektoen
OTHERS PRESENT: None
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
The Commission voted 5-0 (Busard and Koppes absent) to recommend approval of
SUB10-00009/SU610-00010, an application submitted by Harold John Dane, Jr., and
Allegra Dane for a preliminary and final plat of Meadowlark Hill 2"d Subdivision, a 2-lot,
363.2 acre subdivision located at 4082 Dane Road SE.
The Commission voted 6-0 (Koppes absent) to recommend approval of REZ10-
00007/SUB10-00004 an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from
General Industrial (11) Zone and Interim Development -Industrial (ID-I) Zone to Planned
Development Overlay -General Industrial (OPD-11) Zone and a preliminary plat for the
Iowa City Industrial Campus, a 9-lot, 173-acre industrial subdivision located along 420tH
Street, west of Taft Avenue.
The Commission voted 5-1 (Payne opposed; Koppes absent) to recommend approval of
amendments to Title 14, including Article J, Chapter 5, Substantial Improvements,
containing the more restrictive language; Article J, Floodplain Management Standards
to regulate the 100 and 500 year floodplains and associated changes located in 14-9F,
Definitions, 14-46-2, Variances, and 14-8B-5, Administrative Approval Procedures.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 2, 2010 -Formal
Page 2 of 10
DEVELOPMENT ITEM:
SU610-00009/SUB10-00010: Discussion of an application submitted by Harold John
Dane, Jr., and Allegra Dane for a preliminary and final plat of Meadowlark Hill 2"d
Subdivision, a 2-lot, 36.2 acre subdivision located at 4082 Dane Road SE.
Miklo introduced Lorin Ditzler, a graduate student in the University of Iowa's Urban and
Regional Planning Department, who will be working in the Planning Department as an intern
over the next year.
Ditzler noted that the subject property is southwest of Iowa City, and falls under the Johnson
County/Iowa City Fringe Area Agreement. The applicant wants to divide the property into two
lots, with Lot 1 in the north and the second lot serving as Outlot A. Ditzler said this is the
second subdivision of Meadowlark, which had previously been divided into two tracts. Ditzler
said that the first subdivision had no requirement for a review by the City.
Ditzler explained that the Comprehensive Plan supports commercial and office uses in this area
upon annexation by the City. The recent improvements to Mormon Trek had been done in part
to provide access to planned industrial development in that area. Ditzler said that the Fringe
Area Agreement states that subdivision in that area is not advisable unless it is either annexed
by the City or restrictions on its development are put in place until such time as it is annexed.
Ditzler said that the Fringe Area Agreement advises that the property be restricted to agricultural
uses if it is subdivided prior to annexation, and that its access to Mormon Trek Boulevard be
prohibited until Outlot A is annexed.
Ditzler stated that the subdivision design calls for a northern lot of 26.6 acres, and a southern
outlot of 9.7 acres with a frontage, but no access, to Mormon Trek Boulevard.
Ditzler explained that the deficiencies and discrepancies outlined in the staff report have actually
been resolved and a revised plat has been received.
She noted that the County is currently looking at a rezoning of this property from a combination
of R-1 and A-1 to R-20. She said that staff does not object to that. Freerks asked what R-20
zoning meant. Ditzler said that it means that 20 acres per lot are required by zoning. Miklo said
that would prevent the property from being developed further under County jurisdiction.
Ditzler said that staff recommends approval of the application subject to the approval of legal
papers by the City Attorney.
Freerks invited questions for staff.
Eastham asked Ditzler to show him where the access easement currently is for Outlot A. Payne
said that on the plat it looks as though the easement is on the property to the west. Miklo said
that the easement is indeed on the property to the west; the owners of that property had granted
an easement to get to Dane Road. Miklo said that if the property is subdivided he believes that
it is actually the owners to the west who intend to buy the subject property.
Freerks opened the public hearing. No one wished to speak to this issue and the public hearing
was closed.
Freerks invited a motion.
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 2, 2010 -Formal
Page 3 of 10
Payne motioned to approve SUB10-00009/SU610-00010, an application submitted by
Harold John Dane, Jr., and Allegra Dane for a preliminary and final plat of Meadowlark
Hill 2"d Subdivision, a 2-lot, 363.2 acre subdivision located at 4082 Dane Road SE.
Eastham seconded.
Freerks invited discussion
Payne asked if the reason behind the subdivision was so that the property owner could sell
Outlot A. Miklo said that was correct. Freerks said that usually when the Commission sees a
subdivision it means that building occurs, but that is not the intent here. Miklo said that with the
purchase of Outlot A, the buyers will have three lots in the same vicinity and that they have
agreed to refrain from developing Outlot A until it is annexed by the City. Miklo noted that the
draft legal papers prohibit further development of the property prior to annexation for anything
other than agricultural uses.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0 (Busard and Koppes absent).
Busard joined the meeting (he had excused himself from participating in discussion of
Meadowlark Hill 2"d addition due to his review of this property as a County Planner).
REZ10-00007ISUB10-00004: Discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa
City for a rezoning from General Industrial (11) Zone and Interim Development -Industrial
(ID-I) Zone to Planned Development Overlay -General Industrial (OPD-11) Zone and a
preliminary plat for the Iowa City Industrial Campus, a 9-lot, 173 acre industrial
subdivision located along 420th Street, west of Taft Avenue.
Miklo explained that the staff report had been covered in some detail at the Commission's
August 5`h meeting so he would just summarize the issue. The City annexed the property last
year and purchased it with the intent of encouraging industrial uses in the area and increasing
the tax base. Miklo said that the property has good access to 420`h Street which leads to
Highway 6 and Scott Boulevard, and ultimately to Interstate-80. Miklo said that the City is
currently in the process of rebuilding 420`h Street to arterial street standards, thereby making it
suitable for industrial uses. Miklo said the long term Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) calls for
Taft Avenue to be built to arterial street standards as well.
The property is being subdivided into some fairly large tracts with local roads and a railroad spur
to provide access to those tracts. Miklo said that there are wetlands on the property, some of
which are being restored and enhanced, others of which are being mitigated. Miklo said that
staff had been waiting on an acceptable mitigation plan, which they have now received. Miklo
said that the plat is now in order for approval and staff recommends approval of the plat and the
Sensitive Areas rezoning that is necessary for the mitigation.
Miklo offered to answer any questions the Commission might have.
Freerks asked if it was correct that the mitigation plan still needs to be approved by the Army
Corp of Engineers. Miklo said that was correct. He said that no additional stipulations would be
required for the plat as the City cannot proceed without the Corp's approval.
Eastham said that the staff memo indicates that the City will be responsible for the long-term
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 2, 2010 -Formal
Page 4 of 10
maintenance of the wetlands mitigation area. He asked if there was any estimate as to what the
costs of such maintenance would be. Miklo said he did not believe there was an estimate at
present. He said it is their intent to work with the Parks and Recreation Department for
maintenance of the wetland mitigation. He said the Parks and Recreation Department currently
maintains the wetland park at Whispering Meadow, just south and west of the subject property.
Miklo said it was possible that consulting services would be brought in at times to ensure that it
is a successful wetland.
There were no further questions and Freerks opened the public hearing.
There was no comment from the public and the public hearing was closed.
Freerks invited a motion.
Eastham moved to recommend approval of REZ10-00007/SUB10-00004, an application
submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from General Industrial (11) Zone and
Interim Development -Industrial (ID-I) Zone to Planned Development Overlay -General
Industrial (OPD-11) Zone and a preliminary plat for the Iowa City Industrial Campus, a S-
lot, 173 acre industrial subdivision located along 420th Street, west of Taft Avenue.
Weitzel seconded.
Weitzel said that he believed this was a sensitive approach to increasing the City's tax base and
industrial zones. Eastham said that consolidation of the wetlands in that area will hopefully
decrease their overall long-term maintenance costs and provide better quality wetlands.
Freerks said this is a good project and she looks forward to seeing it take off and hopefully bring
some good jobs into the community.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0 (Koppes absent).
CODE AMENDMENT ITEMS:
Discussion of amendments to Title 14: Zoning Code, Article J. Floodplain Management
Standards to regulate the 100 and 500 year floodplain and associated changes located in
14-9F Definitions, 14-4B-2 Variances and 14-86-5 Administrative Approval Procedures
(Floodplain Development Permit).
Tallman said that after the last meeting there were three discussion items remaining, and the
Commission had asked to see more specific language about how these issues might be
addressed in ordinances. Tallman said that in a memo dated August 26th language can be
found that outlines specific language for variances imported into the floodplain management
standards. She noted that #5 was the new language. Tallman said that there are still some
administrative details to work out in order to make the process run as smoothly as possible.
She said that Weitzel had correctly noted at the last meeting that there is already a requirement
in place for properties in historic or conservation districts to go before the Historic Preservation
Commission (HPC), and these requirements do not add much to that process. Tallman said
that there will need to be some cooperation and collaboration between staff. She asked if there
were comments or questions about the language for the variance.
Freerks asked if there would be a written, formalized process for whatever administrative path is
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 2, 2010 -Formal
Page 5 of 10
decided on so that it is a standardized treatment for each party involved in this type of situation.
Tallman said that was possible; she said that there are a number of internal policies within the
Building Department, and it may be advisable to have something written down to share between
the different departments involved. Freerks asked if it would be possible for staff to share with
with the Commission once it is drafted.
Eastham asked if the act of elevating a structure would of necessity alter its historic nature.
Greenwood Hektoen said it would not necessarily alter its historic nature, and that is why a
variance to be reviewed on a case by case basis was included rather than a blanket exemption
for historic properties. Miklo said the goal would be to retain the appearance as much as
possible. He said that raising a property one foot would likely not affect the appearance,
whereas raising it ten feet, likely would. Tallman noted that there are also issues of structural
integrity at play as well.
Tallman said that the second outstanding issue concerned the language dealing with
"substantial improvements." Tallman said that she had noticed a few discrepancies and
inconsistencies in the proposed language as she was reviewing it earlier in the day. She said
the language issues she found were not substantive and would simply clean the language up.
Tallman said that the choice before the Commission really is one of what they want to do
concerning elevating additions or entire homes when substantial improvements are made. She
noted that commercial structures are somewhat different and would have the option of flood
proofing to one foot above flood hazard elevation, an option which is not available to residential
structures. Tallman said that it does bear repeating that of the 280 floodplain permits between
2000 and 2008 only four permits would have required an existing structure to be elevated along
with a lateral addition.
Greenwood Hektoen clarified that the options outlined in the memo were between two versions
of C and D. Payne asked for clarification as to whether the wording would be "within" or if
"above" would be used, and Payne said she believed both would be used. Tallman agreed.
There were no further questions for staff and the public hearing was opened.
No one wished to speak and the public hearing was closed.
Payne asked if the Commission should vote on each of the provisions of the code amendments
separately or if they should all be voted on together. Freerks said she thought it should be one
vote though she thought there could be some discussion if there are questions on how to word
the motions. Greenwood Hektoen said that it was up to the Commission if they wished to vote
on the provisions separately.
Freerks said that this issue has been discussed in a lot of meetings and staff has put a lot of
work into it, so she would like to see the matter put to a vote, and not deferred again. Payne
clarified that she had not intended for anything to be deferred by suggesting that the matters
might be voted on separately. Miklo said that there seemed to be some consensus on the
variance so a motion could be made to approve the language, including the language
concerning historic preservation. He said the second issue is whether to go with the stricter
interpretation regarding lateral additions or continue with the current practice. Freerks said she
felt it would be simpler to have one vote but to discuss the issues separately. Greenwood
Hektoen advised the Commission to make a motion so that they could have
discussion; amendments can always be added to the motion if need be.
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 2, 2010 -Formal
Page 6 of 10
Plahutnik motioned to approve amendments to Title 14: Zoning Code, Article J.
Floodplain Management Standards to regulate the 100 and 500 year floodplain and
associated changes located in 149E Definitions, 144B-2 Variances and 14-8B-5
Administrative Approval Procedures (Floodplain Development Permit).
Greenwood asked what language the motion intended to adopt regarding lateral additions.
She noted that 14-5J-7 was not listed in the motion. Miklo said that that section would be
incorporated into Article J.
Plahutnik amended his motion to include the more restrictive definition, Items C and D,
concerning residential structures.
Greenwood Hektoen said that a reference should be made in the motion to each of the sections
being changed. Miklo said that he believed that all of the items being changed under Article J
would be included with the reference to Article J. Greenwood Hektoen said she felt there
should be a 5 in there somewhere. Miklo said that if all of Article J is being amended then
referencing Article J should be sufficient. Miklo said that all of Article J and all of its Section
numbers are being changed. There was some discussion as to whether Chapter 5 was in
Article J or Article J was in Chapter 5.
Plahutnik restated his motion.
Plahutnik motioned to recommend approval to amendments to Title 14, including Article
J, Chapter 5, Substantial Improvements, containing the more restrictive language;
Article J, Floodplain Management Standards to regulate the 100 and 500 year floodplains
and associated changes located in 149F, Definitions, 14-4B-2, Variances, and 14-86-5,
Administrative Approval Procedures.
Eastham seconded.
Plahutnik said he likes the variance for the historic structures, as the value of such structures is
pretty widely recognized in the community. He said there has been some discussion about how
the more restrictive lateral addition language might impose hardships on those who suffer
damage to their homes -whatever the cause: flood, tornado, fire. He said that he views the
more restrictive language as a sort of reverse "spot-zoning." He said that it seems to him that
everyone on the Commission believes that the intent behind the more restrictive language is a
good thing, and that by voting against it Commissioners would be voting to shield the very few
people who might be placed in a position where the stricter standards would cause additional
expense. Plahutnik said that for him, every time he sees the river rise it makes it easier for him
to see that whatever regulations can be put on building in the floodplain will ultimately result in
savings for the community.
Busard said he agrees with Plahutnik's sentiments. He said that as he sees it that the intent of
the ordinance is to eventually ensure that in Iowa City there are no more structures in the flood
hazard zone, and that in the meantime those structures that do remain the floodplain will at least
be flood-proofed and/or elevated. Busard said he believes the standards should be more
rigorous. He said failure to implement more rigorous standards will actually encourage people
to continue building and residing in the floodplain as they have in the past. Busard said that he
is glad to see the variance included that gives historic structures the opportunity for further
review.
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 2, 2010 -Formal
Page 7 of 10
Weitzel noted that the variance for historic structures is actually a process of consideration, not
a de facto exemption.
Payne said that she agrees with creating a variance for the historic structures; however,
regarding the restrictive language she said she sees a distinction between protecting people
and over-regulating. She said that she views the more restrictive language for lateral additions
as over-regulating, and thinks that it is asking way too much of people. She said that this is why
she had wanted to vote on the changes separately; some parts of the regulations she agrees
with, but others she thinks are simply too much.
Freerks noted that the possibility of voting separately could still be discussed and motions
amended if the Commission chooses to go that route. She said that she feels much the same
way as Payne regarding the more restrictive language. Freerks said that she feels the
ordinance should be looked at as how it can best serve the community, and she does not see
the possibility of potentially leaving homeowners homeless because losses incurred by fire or
tornado require them to update to expensive floodplain standards as "spot -zoning" so much as
over-reaching. She said she knows that she is in the minority with these sentiments, and
acknowledged that sometimes you have to compromise to get the most good for the community.
She said she just sees potential for hardship in some cases, and that continues to concern her.
Freerks said she likes the variances for historic structures and the idea of having case by case
reviews is a wise one.
Payne said that flood forecasting is at best an approximation, and in the 2008 floods water
sometimes rose four or eight feet higher than had been projected. She said that for people to
spend so much money to elevate their homes and still to be flooded out would be terrible. She
said she simply feels this is over-regulating.
Busard noted that the intention was not to make it easy to build in the floodplain.
Plahutnik said he agrees with Busard that the regulations serve as a disincentive to double the
size a structure that it is in a floodplain. He said that at some point people will stop building and
expanding in a flood hazard way if it becomes cost prohibitive. Freerks noted that 25% of 600
square feet is not a large structure, which would be the case for some of the homes that could
be affected by these regulations. Plahutnik said that his concerns are for future owners, the
ones who did not make the decision to expand the property but are left holding the bag when a
flood occurs down the line. He said that it is not a question of if there will be another flood, but
when, and zoning is aforward-looking activity. Payne said that nothing stops somebody from
going above and beyond the requirements; she said that if the requirement was to elevate to
one foot above the 100-year flood level, a homeowner could still build to one foot beyond the
500-year flood level. Busard said that it is the same people who would build to the minimum
possible requirements that would then be the first to look for a FEMA buy-out in a flood event.
Freerks said that was not necessarily the case. Weitzel said that this brings up an ancillary
issue which is that if a whole home is elevated, rather than just an addition, there will be an
insurance benefit to the homeowner.
Weitzel said that the idea is to regulate to that place where it is fairly safe for homeowners but
remains reasonable, as it is impossible to know the extent of the next big flood event. Weitzel
said these changes allow continued use of properties in the floodplain with some caveats and
restrictions. Weitzel said that if there is a fire or tornado at a smaller structure, such as Freerks
was concerned with, the damage will very quickly become a total loss and the homeowner may
wish to move at that point. Weitzel said these regulations might cause a homeowner to
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 2, 2010 -Formal
Page 8 of 10
consider relocating over rebuilding in a floodplain, and that is not necessarily a bad thing to
consider.
Eastham said that he has tried to keep in his mind two overriding purposes in considering these
floodplain regulations: 1) to provide a reasonable protection against personal injury and loss of
life, and 2) to provide some way of reducing the amount of public expenditures that floods lead
to. Eastham said that at an informal meeting there was some discussion about the amount of
public money used to restore or buy out private homes in Iowa City as a result of the 2008
floods and that figure was above $15 million. Eastham noted that the total amount for the
community was much, much greater than that. He said he also kept in mind the great
uncertainty of predicting future flooding level; Eastham said that flood predictions have come
back to haunt Iowa City in the past and he is certain they will again in the future. He said
another aspect of this is that there is not a good mechanism to encourage people to assume the
risk on their own and insure against future losses as opposed to the public having to step in
when losses do occur. Eastham said that to him it makes sense to adopt a flood hazard
elevation that is as high as can be supported and he thinks staff has done a very good job of
doing that. He said that he also feels that reducing the number of residential structures in the
floodplain is critical. While there is no mechanism for going back and undoing past zoning, the
Commission can require elevation when individual property owners are expanding their
structures or repairing them from losses. Eastham said that he finds the expectations placed on
the property owners with these regulations to be reasonable and feasible. He said he supports
the restrictive language and the variance for historic properties. Eastham said that the problem
is not actually regulations, but the river, rainfall and nature. He said that in the case of
commercial property owners there may be flood-proofing options that are more financially
feasible for commercial property owners.
Freerks said that unfortunately time will tell how well these regulations will work because
flooding is going to happen in the future. She said she will vote in favor of it, but she is torn by
some of the language in the ordinance and what is being asked of certain residents. She said
that her concern is for people in the floodplain who may have small homes and low incomes, but
she said these are concerns she is simply going to have to deal with. She said that staff has
done an excellent job and has answered all of the Commission's questions, going above and
beyond the call of duty. Freerks said she did see this as something that could be worked with in
the future if it is found that some tweaks are needed.
Eastham asked if any Commission member that wished to support less restrictive language
would like to offer a motion so that their position was clear to the City Council. Freerks said that
she feels the discussion has clearly indicated Commission member's positions, but she would
not deny anyone the ability to make a motion if they so wished. Greenwood Hektoen said that
the record is pretty clear at this point.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-1 (Payne opposed; Koppes absent).
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUITES: AUGUST 16th AND AUGUST 19th 2010:
Busard motioned to approve the minutes.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0 (Koppes absent).
Payne noted that the Attendance Record for informal meetings still needed to have her and
Plahutnik's terms updated.
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 2, 2010 -Formal
Page 9 of 10
OTHER:
Miklo thanked the Commission for their hard work on the floodplain regulations, saying that the
ordinance was improved based on their input. He said staff appreciated their very thorough
discussion of a very difficult project.
Miklo noted that Plahutnik was scheduled to attend the next City Council meeting; however, he
said he saw no reason for Plahutnik to attend as the only agenda item was the second reading
of the Historic Preservation guidebook.
ADJOURNMENT:
Payne motioned to adjourn.
Eastham seconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 6-0 vote (Koppes absent).
Z
O
~°~
00
vw
z~
Zwo
pVo
NZN
DD
Q~
za
z
Z
a
X X X ~ X X X
X X X X X X X
`n X X X X X X X
o x x x x x o
o x x x o x x
~ X X X X X X X
X X X ~ X X X
x x x x x x o
M O X X X X X X
~
N x x x x x x x
r
N
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
r
~~ ~
~ ~
~ M
~ N
~ ln
~ lf~
~ M
~
~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
u~ ~
~n
~X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
W
W ~
w }~
m
J
a
J
2 a Z Q ~
N 2
V Z
a N = ~
O W C~ 1 ~
~ ~ N
Y
~ ~ Z
H J
~
2
~
W
W
~ w
W
a
F-
w
a
z
= N
H
~ v~ v~ w a >- a -
w
a
z ~
m a
w OC
LL O
Y a
a ~
a ~
0
z
w
w
a
O
X X X X ~ X X
X X X X X X X
N X X X ~ X X
ti
~ O X X X X x X
~ o x x x x x o
~ x x x x x x o
X X ~ ~ X X
M X X X X p X
N
~w .- ~ M N ln ln M
r r
~ ~-
~ r
~ r
~ ~-
~ r
wa.
~X ~
o ~n
o ~n
o ~
o ~n
o ~n
0 ~n
0
W
W ~
W ~
J
2 = Z ~ ~ j
N
O
V z
a
W =
U
Y g
~
O ~ Y N ~ IZ- J
~ _ ~ W W ~ N
W a H W a Z 2 F-
~ v~ cn w a >- a -
w
a
z ~
m a
w ~
tL o
Y a
a ~
a ~
c~
z
w
w
Q
O
Z
E
O
~~
O
~ Z ~
U p~ ~
X
~~a~i
c ~ ~
~~~~ca
~ Q Z o
~ Q n u Z
n n w ~ n
xOOz
>-
w
Y
4b 6
YOUTH ADVISORY COMMISSION APPROVED
SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 2010- 1:00 PM
HARVART HALL, CITY HALL
Members Present: Luan Heywood, Zach Wahls, Alexandra Tamerius, Jerry Gao, Matt Lincoln
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Marian Karr, Ross Wilburn
Others Present: None
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 1:06 PM. Heywood chaired the meeting.
MINUTES:
Wahls motioned to approve the August 13 minutes. Tamerius seconded the motion. It was clarified that
Wahls left the meeting for discussion of the grant so adjournment vote should reflect 4/0. The motion
carried unanimously as amended, 5/0.
UPDATE ON VACANCIES:
The Commission has the Tate and an At-Large position open. Karr clarified that the new At-Large
position must be advertised for 90 days if there is an unequal gender balance, however if the gender
balance is not an issue, the position can be filled in 30 days.
BUDGET UPDATE:
The Commission has not used any funds.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS:
The Commission discussed the Grant Programming Subcommittee. Wahls had mentioned a change he
would like to see in the Youth Empowerment Grant application, that if an applicant is 18 or older that a
sponsor would not be needed. Karr stated that a sponsor would be needed for an individual 18 years or
older..Next, the Commission discussed whether to change the age limits for the applicants of the Youth
Empowerment Grant. The current age limit was from 15-21. The Commission noted that they would like
to see the limits be extended to reach the younger students in Iowa City, and the Commission discussed
"youth" should be defined as an individual 18 years or younger.
Wahls proposed a motion to change the application age limits for the Youth Empowerment Grant from
the current ages 15 to 21, to 12 to 18, noting that those individuals who are 18 will still need a sponsor.
Tamerius seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously, 5/0.
The Commission next discussed the Website and Advertising Subcommittee. Karr stated that the website
will be updated to accommodate the changes made to the age limits of the Youth Empowerment Grant
and deadline would be altered as well.
YOUTH ADVISORY COMMISSION
September 5, 2010
Page 2 of 4
The Commission discussed the Recognition Scholarship subcommittee report. Wahls mentioned that he
would like the Recognition Scholarship to change "please mail" to "Attention: city clerk's office". Also
the Commission changed the one $500 scholarship to two $250 scholarships. A transcript (# 3 under
Application Process) was deleted. The Commission collaborated to create a new prompt for the essay
about leadership. Wahls suggested a new question:
• What is your definition of leadership? What has it meant in your life and how has it
affected your decisions?
Wahls stated that he would like to see the name of the Recognition Scholarship be changed to Youth
Recognition Grant, recognizing the fact that the Commission would give students money to be spent to
their liking, not intended for a specific purpose. Also the Youth Recognition Grant will be available to all
Iowa City Community School District junior high students including Regina.
Amendments:
• Attention: City Clerk's office
• Two $250 scholarships
• Transcript is not needed
• Recognition Scholarship is replaced by Youth Recognition Grant
• Regina junior high students included with Iowa City Community School District junior
high students for eligibility in the Recognition Grant
Wahls motioned to approve the proposed amendments. Lincoln seconded the motion. Motion passed 4/1,
Heywood opposing.
SUDAY BUS SERVICE:
Wilburn informed that Commission that the City Council discussed Sunday Bus Services and agreed to
do a comprehensive study of the system. The study will be a looking at Iowa City's bus services
including more frequent busing routes which they are hoping to accomplish by next fall. Wilburn also
stated that the money people pay to ride the bus, does not cover the bus expenses. Some Council
Members hope to investigate alternative systems for Sunday service delivery including a voucher system
with local taxi companies for transportation services.
CITY MANAGER INTERVIEW PROCESS:
Karr mentioned that the City Council is interested in having a representative from each board or
commission meet with the finalists for the City Manager position. The representatives would meet on
Tuesday, September 28. Heywood will represent the Commission in the interview process, with Wahls as
the alternate.
YOUTH ADVISORY COMMISSION
September 5, 2010
Page 3 of 4
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE:
Wilburn stated that the City Council discussed Sunday Bus Service and stated a study would be done;
and the city is interested in inviting the chairs of each board to interview and meet with the City Manager
finalists.
MEETING SCHEDULE:
The Commission decided to set a date for the next meeting, Monday, October 3 at 4:00 PM.
REVIEW OF GRANT APPLICATION FROM SUMMER OF SOLUTIONS
Wahls abstained himself and left the meeting due to a conflict of interest.
The Commission discussed the two Summer of Solutions applications. Tamerius sent an email to
Margaret Kearney to summarize and clarify the budget of the project. Kearney responded with a list of
costs and an update of the project. The Commission felt that budget and update were more concise and
felt that the project fulfills the purpose of the Youth Empowerment Grant which is to empower youth in
the community. The project facilitated positive youth involvement and betters the community as a whole;
Summer of Solutions created a feasible budget and followed through with the project.
Gao motioned to approve the first grant application for $250 and the second grant application for $500.
Tamerius seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously, 4/0, Wahls absent.
Gao motioned to adjourn, seconded by Tamerius, to adjourn 2:29 PM. The motion passed unanimously,
4/0, Wahls absent.
Minutes submitted by Lincoln.
Z
~_
~/~ Q
V/ N
~ U
OWa,o
~ V N
fA Q W
Q Z
QW
~a
O
`~ x x x x x 6
r X X /~ /~ X i
r ~ X X X X
~
~ co ~
Z ~
Z ~
Z ~
Z
M
. to ~
Z ~
Z ~
Z ~
Z i i i
N
-~-
X
~
X
~C
O0
M X X X
i
i
i
i
N
~
N X X X
i
i
i
i
C
~
r ~
Z ~
Z ~
Z ~
~ ~
i ~
i ~
i
~ a
W ~'C
F- W
N
~
N
~
N
.-
N
~
N
.-
N
.-
N
.-
.-.
^
~ ~ ~
a
Z
~ ~
~g
2
a
a~
+~
O
m
c
a
m
G
L
0
d
O
7 ? G1
C1 ~ ~
~ G
~ d
++ +.' C
~ ~ N ~ ~
fA ~
aaaz°z°
II II II II II
>C ~ ~ Z ~
Y