HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-05-03 Bd Comm minutesu5-us-~ ~
' 3b 1
MINUTES APPROVED
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MARCH 9, 2011 - 5:15 PM
CITY HALL, EMMA HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Barbara Eckstein, Brock Grenis, Will Jennings, Caroline
Sheerin, Adam Plagge
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Sara Greenwood Hektoen
OTHERS PRESENT: Jeff Clark
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
None.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM.
ROLL CALL: Eckstein, Grenis, Jennings, Sheerin and Plagge 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_FEBRUARY 9, 2011 MEETING MINUTES:
Jennings offered two typographical corrections.
Eckstein moved to approve the minutes as amended.
Jennings seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION:
EXC10-00013: Discussion of an application submitted by Center City LLC for a special
exception to allow above-ground structured parking and offsite parking for a proposed
Board of Adjustment
March 9, 2011
Page 2 of 15
mixed-use building to be located in the Central Business (CB-10) zone at 328 East
Washington Street.
Miklo explained that the proposal is for afive-story building at 328 Washington Street. Miklo
shared an aerial photograph to illustrate the location of the building. He explained that there is
currently an office building on the property. An alley at the rear of the building provides access
to the property and intersects with Gilbert and Linn Streets. The Chauncey Swan parking facility
is located approximately 400 feet from the subject property.
The proposal is to build afive-story structure with approximately 2,000 square feet of ground-
floor commercial uses. The top four floors would contain 16three-bedroom apartments. The
zoning code requires 32 parking spaces for the apartments, two spaces for each three-bedroom
unit. The applicant has proposed placing 13 of those required parking spaces on the property at
grade orabove-ground at the rear of the property. Miklo shared an illustration of the proposed
building footprint. The parking spaces would be at the back of the building with access from the
alley.
The preferred location for parking in the CB-10 district is underground. The intention of that
standard is to promote and maximize commercial uses in the downtown area. The zoning code
only allows above-ground parking by special exception. The intent is to control the location,
design and amount of parking so that it does not detract from the downtown policies of
encouraging ground-floor commercial uses and of creating an attractive pedestrian
environment. Miklo said that this is the first aspect of the special exception that the Board will be
considering.
The second aspect under consideration is a proposal to provide 19 of the required 32 parking
spaces in the Chauncey Swan ramp, rather than on the property itself. In 2008, the City Council
amended the zoning code to require that new residential structures provide parking spaces to
serve residential uses. Prior to that time, the code did not require parking for either commercial
or residential uses in the CB-10 zone. The requirement grew out of a concern that there seemed
to be an increased demand for parking for residential uses in the downtown that were
competing with retail and commercial parking needs. Recognizing that it would be difficult for
some smaller properties to provide on-site parking, the code included a special exception to
allow parking to be provided off-site. One possibility for off-site parking is parking in City-owned
facilities if there is capacity to do so. The applicant is requesting that 19 of their spaces be
provided in the Chauncey Swan facility, which is approximately one block east of the subject
property.
The specific standards in the zoning code require that the proposed structured parking not
detract from or prevent ground-floor storefront uses. Parking can be provided on the ground-
floor so long as a substantial portion of the ground floor remains available for commercial uses.
The ground-level parking is also not allowed to be located in the first 50-feet of the building
depth. Staff feels that the first aspect of this standard is clearly met. Approximately 2,000 square
feet will still be devoted to commercial space, which staff feels is adequate. The requirement
that the parking be accessed from the rear is also clearly met.
The third specific standard is that any exterior walls of any parking structure that are visible from
a private or public street must appear to be a component of the facade of the building, and must
use materials that are similar to and complement the building. Miklo said that based on the
Board of Adjustment
March 9, 2011
Page 3 of 15
information staff has received, they do not believe any of the parking structure will be visible
from the street. The existing buildings on either side of the property will likely mask the parking
structure. Staff is concerned, however, that the north access to Ecumenical Towers, which
provides direct access to the elevator and is accessible for persons with disabilities, is at the
north side of the property, and is adjacent to the proposed parking structure. Staff recommends
that design review be required given the high visibility of that wall to Ecumenical Towers.
According to the specific standards, each entrance to the parking structure must be constructed
such that those entering and leaving the parking area are clearly visible to pedestrians. Staff
feels that this standards is generally met in that there are no pedestrian pathways or sidewalks
on the alley that would pose problems for pedestrians. The proposed structure will be set back
ten feet from the alley so it will allow vehicles entering and exiting the structure appropriate
visibility. Miklo noted that care will have to be taken to locate the dumpsters so that they do not
block visibility. He said that this should be reviewed with the final site plan.
Miklo next reviewed the specific standards pertaining to the off-site parking. There is a
requirement that the plan contain a map showing the location of the parking in relation to the
proposed structure. The map must demonstrate that there is a safe walking route to and from
the facilities. Staff feels this standard is met as there is a controlled intersection between the
proposed building and the Chauncey Swan parking ramp, which are approximately 400 feet
apart.
Another requirement states that when an applicant requests parking in a City-owned facility the
Director of Planning and Community Development in consultation with the Director of
Transportation Services and the City Manager must substantiate that the capacity of the facility
will not be exceeded. The special exception can only be approved if there is capacity in the
facility. Staff feels that this requirement has been met. The Director of Transportation Services
has determined that there are 19 spaces available. Overall there are 475 spaces in Chauncey
Swan. Permits have been issued for 384 spaces. An additional sixteen permits have been
issued for residential use by a previous special exception that is similar to this request. There
are 75 spaces that are uncommitted and remain available to the general public. Based on this
the parking facility can accommodate this request for 19 spaces. However, staff cautions that
as parking demand changes over time, this may not always be the case.
The Board is to consider the desirability of the location for the proposed parking spaces,
whether or not it is accessible and safe, as well as any potential detriment to adjacent or nearby
properties. Staff feels that this standard has been met, as the parking facility provides for safe
egress and ingress.
An agreement or written covenant is required to ensure that the parking spaces are available in
perpetuity, so that future residents of the building continue to have access to the parking. As a
condition of approval, staff recommends the applicant submit the required written agreement as
apart of the building permit application. This agreement should state that the parking will only
be offered to residents of 328 Washington Street, and shall be offered at a rate not to exceed
the market rate as determined by the Director of Transportation Services at the time of leasing.
Staff recommends that the agreement require the property owner to provide the Director with
the name, license plate number and address of all permit holders. Miklo said that these
conditions are necessary to ensure that permits are available to residents of the building and
are not offered on the market to the general public or sold at a higher rate than what the City
Board of Adjustment
March 9, 2011
Page 4 of 15
charges for them. Because the future demand for parking is likely to increase, the agreement
should include a provision giving the Director of Transportation Services the ability to move the
spaces to another parking facility if that is determined to be necessary.
The general standards that apply to most special exceptions were briefly outlined by Miklo. The
proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or
general welfare. The location of the parking is a reasonable distance from the proposed
building, there are safe pedestrian crossings, and there is safe egress and ingress to the
parking structure. The above-grade parking at the rear of the property is not necessarily
supported by this criterion, because the entrance to the residential portion of the building is not
visible from the public street and may not be safe and accessible. Staff is recommending that
the Board impose the following conditions in order to make sure the general standards are
addressed:
• the building design should be subject to design review in order to ensure that the
residential portion of the building has a prominent entrance from the public street;
• the building must have an entrance that is safe and accessible to residents
whose parking is located off-site;
• and there must be final review of the site plan by the Building Official and
Planning staff to ensure that the location and design of the dumpster enclosure
does not impede visibility for vehicles entering and exiting the parking structure.
The next general standard requires that the specific proposed exception will not impede the use
and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or
impair property values in the neighborhood. Staff believes that granting the special exception to
allow off-street parking in a municipal facility will allow the applicant to construct a substantially
larger and more intensely used building than otherwise would be possible given the number of
parking spaces that the applicant can provide on their own property. The larger building will
have a greater impact on the streetscape and the adjacent building. Therefore staff
recommends that approval of the application for off-street and above-ground parking be subject
to design review. The design review process will help ensure that the building is compatible with
the downtown streetscape and that there will be consideration of the appropriate design of
entrances for the residential uses and for the facade on the portion of the building that is highly
visible from Ecumenical Towers.
The establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the orderly development
and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses permitted in the zone. This standard
has been met for the off-site parking based on the following: the Director of Transportation
Services has determined that there is capacity for the requested 19 spaces; however, as future
parking needs in the central business district change, those 19 spaces may not always be easily
accommodated. Staff recommends that the special exception be approved subject to a
provision allowing the Director of Transportation Services to allocate those parking spaces to
other facilities downtown should the need arise. Staff also recommends a condition that the final
building plan be submitted to design review to ensure compatibility with surrounding property.
Staff believes that the requirements for the above-ground parking spaces are satisfied because:
the structured parking allows for the first 50 feet of the building to be used for storefront uses; it
will not be highly visible from public streets or sidewalks; and the project will be subject to
design review.
Board of Adjustment
March 9, 2011
Page 5 of 15
Another standard requires that adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, and necessary
facilities have been or will be provided, and staff feels that has clearly been met.
The general standards require that adequate measures have been taken to address
egress/ingress to avoid traffic congestion on public streets. The City's current parking facility
was designed to meet those standards. That criterion is also met for the aboveground parking at
the rear of this property, so long as dumpster placement is reviewed to ensure that visibility is
maintained.
The next standard requires that except for the regulations applicable to the special exception
being considered, the proposed exception meets all other applicable zoning codes. Miklo noted
that the matter would be reviewed by the Building Official in greater detail at the time of site plan
review. He noted that design review is also being requested by staff.
The proposed use must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as amended. The
Comprehensive Plan does raise concerns about residential parking in the downtown area
competing with commercial parking needs. Miklo explained that this concern was one of the
reasons the zoning code was amended, but that these concerns are addresses by the parking
plan the applicant has proposed. Miklo noted that staff is requesting design review in order to
ensure compatibility with the character of downtown to comply with Comprehensive Plan
policies pertaining to the appearance of downtown.
Miklo stated that staff is recommending approval of EXC10-00013, an application submitted by
Jeff Clark to allow 13off-street, above-ground parking spaces at 328 E. Washington Street, and
19 off-site parking spaces in a municipal parking facility, subject to the following conditions:
• The applicant must submit the required agreement for off-street parking prior to
securing a building permit, and the agreement shall include the following conditions:
o The permits shall only be available to residents of 328 Washington Street at a
cost not to exceed the market rate determined by the Director of Transportation
Services at the time of the leasing;
o The property manager must provide the Director of Transportation Services the
name, license plate number and address of all permit holders;
o The permits will only be granted to residents with the primary address of 328
Washington Street;
o The Director of Transportation Services may relocate the permits to another
downtown parking facility on an annual basis as necessary to accommodate
demand for municipal parking facilities;
• The final building plan will be subject to design review to ensure that the building is
compatible with the scale and character of downtown. Any portions of the structured
parking visible from adjacent residential buildings should appear to be a component of
the building. The building should feature a prominent entrance that is safe and
accessible to pedestrian residents. Conflicts with surrounding uses should be
minimized, and the design of the dumpster enclosure will not impede visibility to the
alley for vehicles visiting the parking ramp.
• The building plan must be consistent with the plan submitted as part of this application.
This plan indicates that there will be no more than three-bedrooms per unit.
Mikio noted that the Board had received some correspondence in their packet regarding this
property.
Board of Adjustment
March 9, 2011
Page 6 of 15
Sheerin invited the Board to ask questions of staff.
Grenis asked why the parking spaces being allotted are in the Chauncey Swan ramp rather than
the parking ramp just to the north of the subject property. Miklo said he believed the
Transportation Director felt that Chauncey Swan had more parking available.
Plagge asked if it was standard operating procedure for the parking director to collect names,
license plate numbers and addresses for people leasing parking spaces. Miklo said that the
reason that those particulars are included in the conditions is to ensure that the spaces are not
leased out to non-residents on the open market. Miklo said that these parking spaces will be
taken away from the pool of parking spaces available to the general public and so the City
would not want to see someone reselling them, possibly at a mark-up.
Sheerin asked how much the City can take into account EXC10-0001, where 16 spaces were
previously granted in the Chauncey Swan Ramp. Greenwood Hektoen said the Board could and
that those spaces would have been taken into account by the Director of Transportation
Services when he analyzed space availability.
Jennings said that his recollection is that the uses were slightly different concerning those two
parking space allocations. Jennings said that the last time this came up, there was a question
as to what happens when the residents of the apartment building do not have cars. If the owner
has paid for the permits, does the owner then have the ability to make those permits available to
other people? Jennings noted that under the previous exception that was granted, the owner
was allowed to sell those extra permits. Greenwood Hektoen said that staff believes that
including these specific provisions will better address those concerns. Jennings said that had
been a concern of his, and he is happy to see that it has been addressed. He noted that the
provisions in this exception allow the Director of Transportation to relocate these parking spaces
to a different facility if it becomes necessary to do so in the future. He asked why spaces were
not being shuffled at this time to allow the residents spaces in the ramp closer to the subject
property, rather than in Chauncey Swan. Greenwood Hektoen said that she thought that those
kinds of decisions should probably be left to the discretion of the Director of Transportation
Services. She said that part of his job is to review and analyze data on parking space
availability. Greenwood Hektoen said that market needs change, and each year parking permits
are reallocated to different parking facilities.
Miklo said that while the Clock Tower ramp being discussed appears to be physically closer
than Chauncey Swan, the pedestrian entrance may not actually be any closer or more
convenient to the entrance to the subject property because the pedestrian entrance to that ramp
is on the far side of the block. Jennings said that if there is on-site parking in the rear of the
building then there will be building access in the back. Miklo said that access is not intended for
pedestrians, and the City would not want to encourage pedestrian traffic in the alley, though it is
allowed. Jennings said that he has questions about the safety of pedestrian traffic along Linn
and Gilbert as well as in the alley.
Eckstein asked if the alley allows traffic going both ways, and she was told that it does. Eckstein
said that Ecumenical Towers appears to have a handicap accessible drop-off site in the alley.
Miklo said that this rear entrance for Ecumenical Towers does get heavily used because it has a
wheelchair ramp and is very near the building's elevator. Eckstein asked if it is only adrop-off
site or if there is parking as well. Miklo replied that there is no parking for Ecumenical Towers in
Board of Adjustment
March 9, 2011
Page 7 of 15
the alley. She asked if the alley is wide enough for two cars to pass going in opposite directions.
Miklo said that it is 20-feet wide, which is wide enough.
Eckstein asked if the east face of the proposed building can be seen. Miklo said that the east
face is almost entirely masked by the building that houses Gabes, directly to the east. Eckstein
noted that Gabe's is a two-story building and the proposed building is five-stories. Miklo said
that he believed the upper floors would be of similar design. Plagge said that the Davis Hotel is
also located to the east. Eckstein said that she understood that.
Jennings said that he had a general procedural question. Jennings said that there seem to be a
lot of conditions based on design and plan review and he said it seemed like putting the cart
before the horse to approve an exception for a design that had not yet been approved. Sheerin
said that is a very big question mark indeed. Plagge said that the Board is only approving the
parking, not the building design. Jennings said that all manner of things that have to do with the
parking also have to do with the building design issues that still have to be negotiated.
Greenwood Hektoen said that the Board has the discretion to defer a decision until after those
matters are settled. Miklo explained that there is a recommendation for design review, and there
is a staff committee that functions to make those decisions. Miklo added that the Board certainly
could defer it if they preferred to see the design themselves. Staff felt that a way to expedite the
application was to turn it over for design review. Grenis asked if design review was common for
buildings in the CB-10 and Miklo replied that it is actually not. He said that design review is
required in the Central Planning District, but for some reason is not required downtown unless it
is in one of the urban renewal parcels. Staff is suggesting that it be a part of this application
primarily because this building is considerably larger than would otherwise be permitted if the
Board approves the special exception for parking off-site. Staff's primary concerns with the
design review aspect are the front facade of the building, the portion that will be visible from the
street, ensuring that the pedestrian access to the building is an attractive, inviting and highly
visible entrance, and that the design of the building itself is compatible with the urban patterns
seen downtown.
Eckstein asked if it was the case that if the off-site parking is approved, the building is able to be
larger than would otherwise be permitted so the mass of the building is within the consideration
of the Board. Greenwood Hektoen said that was correct. Eckstein asked what the square
footage of the building that currently exists is relative to the proposed building. Miklo said that
the building that is there now is approximately two-stories, and the new building will be a five
story building. He said that the current building has a smaller footprint and has a parking lot
behind. Greenwood Hektoen said that the applicant can probably address that question.
Sheerin said that she thought the Comprehensive Plan is usually more helpful; in this case, it
seems somewhat ambiguous. She said that it seems to merely state that there is a tension
between housing and parking that needs to be resolved. Miklo said that he believes the City
Council has made an attempt to address the issue by requiring parking for residentia- uses in
the downtown. Sheerin said that the over-arching policy with the question of higher density
residential housing development in the downtown versus commercial parking demand does not
seem to have been resolved. Miklo said that Sheerin was correct that the Comprehensive Pian
has not been developed any further on that question. He said if that was a concern for the
Board they might want to make a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission and
City Council to look at the issue in more detail. He said that the code that the City is operating
under now was an attempt to address that concern.
Board of Adjustment
March 9, 2011
Page 8 of 15
Eckstein said that she agrees that there is a fair amount of ambiguity in several places in this
application. She said that there is a question as to whether the Board has a responsibility to
promote pedestrian use or satisfy the demand for parking. Another ambiguity is that the staff
report states that any parking agreement made will be in place in perpetuity; yet, at the same
time the Board is told there will be an annual review of the matter. Eckstein asked for
clarification on that issue. Greenwood Hektoen explained that so long as this special exception
remained in place, the applicant would have the right to 19 parking permits in perpetuity; they
would not have the right to 19 spaces at the Chauncey Swan parking ramp.
Miklo advised that the Board may want to have public discussion before getting into these kinds
of broader discussions and ask questions specifically about the staff report at this time.
Grenis asked if the design review would be applicable to the entire building or just the parking
area. Miklo said that staff would recommend that it pertain to the entire building. Staffs primary
design concerns are: the main facade because the building will be much -arger than would
otherwise be allowed if the special exception for off-site parking is not approved, the western
facade, and the high visibility of the building from Ecumenical Towers. Staff was less concerned
about the east side of the building because it will be partially masked by the adjacent buildings.
Sheerin invited the applicant to speak.
Jeff Clark, the applicant, said he could see there were some concerns with this project and he
hoped to address them one by one. Clark said that he had been through this process with
another project last year. He said there are always a lot of questions as to what to design on a
project. He said that it is not really possible to go forward with a good design until you know
what portions of code need to be met and what amount of parking will need to be put on-site.
Clark said that he understood the concern the Board has about not knowing what is going in
there exactly; however, it is difficult to present a complete design without knowing whether or
not the parking will be on-site. He said he has worked extensively with Planning staff on this
project, and will continue to do so.
Clark said that there is short-term parking in the rear of Ecumenical Towers available to
residents by sign-up for a few hours at a time.
Clark said that building code dictates that the building will have rear access, and where it will be.
Clark stated that he is happy to do whatever staff recommends in terms of leasing parking
spaces. However, he did note that if he was granted the ability to lease unused spaces to
tenants of other buildings then that would free up on-street parking elsewhere downtown.
Clark said that in 2008 when this ordinance was being changed, he was present at City Council
discussions. At that time, he actually had a building that was supposed to go on this site that
was intended to be a high rise with 50 four-bedroom apartments. After the ordinance change,
the plan was changed to 16four-bedroom apartments. Once the parking requirements were
changed, the four-bedroom units became impossible. The project has now been down-sized to
16three-bedroom apartments. Clark said that when they purchased the property in 2008, they
had intended a much more intensive use and at this point they are just trying to make it work.
He said the building will ultimately be very attractive.
Board of Adjustment
March 9, 2011
Page 9 of 15
Clark said he has worked with the design review process on several projects, and Planning staff
does an excellent job. The east side facade is planned to be virtually the same as the west
side.
Eckstein asked if the largest sets of windows on each story were balconies on the east, west
and south sides, and Clark said they were.
Plagge asked if it was reasonable to assume that Clark would be able to sell all of the 13 on-site
parking spots to residents and Clark said that it was. Clark said that parking demand varies from
year to year.
Sheerin opened the issue to public discussion. No one wished to speak.
Greenwood Hektoen clarified that because the parking was being allocated as permits rather
than stalls, parking at the Chauncey Swan ramp would be available on a first come first serve
basis. Grenis asked if the agreement was finalized for the Chauncey Swan ramp. Greenwood
Hektoen said that was correct for the first year, and would be reviewed annually by the Director
of Transportation Services after that.
Eckstein moved to approve EXC10-00013, an application submitted by Jeff Clark for a
special exception to allow 13 on-site above-ground structured parking spaces and 19 off-
site parking spaces in a municipal parking facility to satisfy the minimum parking
requirements for a mixed use building to be constructed in the Central Business (CB-10)
zone at 328 East Washington Street, subject to the following conditions:
• The applicant must submit the required agreement for off-site parking prior to
securing a building permit. The agreement shall include the following conditions:
o The permits shall only be available to residents of 328 East Washington at
a cost not to exceed the market rate determined by the Director of
Transportation Services at the time of leasing.
o The property manager must provide the Director of Transportation the
name, license plate number, and address of all permit holders. Permits will
only be granted to residents with the primary address of 328 East
Washington.
o The Director of Transportation Services may relocate the permits to
another downtown municipal parking facility on an annual basis as
necessary to accommodate demand for municipal parking facilities.
• The final building plan is subject to Design Review to ensure the building is
compatible with scale and character of downtown; any portions of the structured
parking visible from the adjacent residential building should appear to be a
component of the building; the building should feature a prominent entrance that
is safe and accessible to pedestrian residents, conflict with surrounding uses are
minimized, and the dumpster location and enclosure design will not impede
visibility into the alley for vehicles exiting the parking garage.
• The building plan is consistent with the plan submitted as part of this application,
indicating no more than three-bedrooms per unit.
Grenis seconded.
Eckstein said that one thing that sticks in her mind is the general criterion that asks if the special
Board of Adjustment
March 9, 2011
Page 10 of 15
exception impinges on the rights of surrounding property owners and residents. Eckstein noted
that this is a building with balconies on three sides. Given the location of the building and the
size of the apartments, it is reasonable to assume that the residents will likely be students.
Eckstein said that in her mind, a question is raised as to whether open balconies catering to a
student population facing a building that houses elderly residents is compatible. Sheerin asked if
Eckstein was relating this to the parking issue because there would be that many more people
in the building. Eckstein said that was correct. Greenwood Hektoen cautioned against
considering the occupants of a building, as zoning decisions need to be made based on the use
of a building. Miklo said that it is not appropriate to assume the residents will be students;
however, it is appropriate to consider the balconies and address those if they pose a concern.
Eckstein said that it is the balconies that are the concern. Greenwood Hektoen said that the
balconies would also have to be considered in relation to the parking issues before the Board.
Eckstein asked how many apartments would be enabled by allowing only the 13 on-site parking
spaces. Miklo said that if the off-street parking is disallowed, then there would be ten fewer
three-bedroom units allowable on the site. Greenwood Hektoen noted that the applicant could
opt to put in units with fewer bedrooms.
Sheerin noted that she would have to leave in five minutes. She said that her concern with this
application is that she is uncomfortable with the fact that the Comprehensive Plan is so wishy-
washy in terms of how the Board should be looking at this issue. She said that she really feels
that it is ambiguous and does not give the Board proper guidance. Miklo suggested that the
Board make the decision on this case based on what is available to them and then make a
recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council to revisit this type of
application so that there would be greater clarity for future cases. Sheerin said that one of the
requirements is that the proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, but the
Comprehensive Plan is not clear in this respect. Miklo said that staff has highlighted two
pertinent areas of the Comprehensive Plan which speak to mixed use development downtown.
Sheerin said that she still did not feel the Board was getting any guidance from the
Comprehensive Plan in terms of the downtown parking issues. Miklo said that he felt the Board
needs to act on the information available and then ask for further clarification from Planning and
Zoning and the City Council. Greenwood Hektoen said that this is part of the judgment call that
the Board is being asked to make. Sheerin said it is difficult because the problem is not the
application, but the Plan.
Jennings said that his concern is that the staff report specifically addresses problems that could
arise and is indirectly asking the Board to approve their remediation through design review
under the auspices of having the Board approve parking. He noted that the staff report points
out potential conflicts with adjacent buildings, such as noise from activity or air condition units
located on balconies. Jennings said that he trusts the applicant is acting in good faith, but is
uncomfortable approving parking spaces based on a design review that hasn't taken place,
particularly when the staff report points out problems that could arise in the design review
process.
Miklo explained that the Board has two alternatives. One is to delegate the design aspects to
the design review committee, outlining any specific concerns and directing the committee to
address those; another is to defer the application and ask the applicant to come back with a
building that addresses their concerns.
Jennings said that there is currently an affirmative motion on the table so he is not sure how to
Board of Adjustment
March 9, 2011
Page 11 of 15
proceed in any other way.
Jennings said that it seems to him there are two areas of guidance, one has to do with design
review and the other has to do with the Comprehensive Plan. He said that while they are
related, the Comprehensive Plan issue seems to him to be a future issue, a protracted process
of getting guidance for future rulings. He said he does not think it would be fair to burden the
applicant with that, but it does need to be addressed. He said his more acute concerns were
with design review. Greenwood Hektoen said that she thinks the Board needs to decide whether
it is willing to delegate that expertise to staff, or whether they wish to have control over that. In
regard to the Comprehensive Plan issue, Greenwood Hektoen noted, the plan itself may be
broad and it is up to the Board to determine whether this application does or does not meet it,
taking into account that the City Council did enact an ordinance requiring parking be provided
for residential uses downtown and allowing this kind of parking arrangement and special
exception.
Plagge noted that the applicant is not bumping up against any height restrictions at this point so
there is actually nothing keeping him from adding more on-site parking and adding another story
to the building. Miklo said that the issue is probably one of feasibility. It would not be possible to
fit in a ramp and additional levels of parking on this small of a lot.
Sheerin said that she accepts what Greenwood Hektoen and staff have said, but that she is
uncomfortable with the idea that the Board is a body that could be perceived as a rubber stamp.
Greenwood Hektoen said that the Board does not have to vote in favor of the application simply
because staff has recommended it. She said that she thinks the Board does have the
information it needs to vote one way or the other.
Eckstein said the Board had a similar struggle in a different case in which they were to approve
a preliminary design which they were told was not necessarily what the end-product would be
like. She said there are plenty of details in this case that she does not feel the need to micro-
manage, but she feels it would be irresponsible to vote for a special exception in relation to the
parking that would enable a building to be of this size with this many balconies facing a structure
housing elderly residents. Eckstein said that for her it is not the mass of the building or the
parking arrangement, it is that if she votes for those special exceptions she is enabling a
violation of one of the general standards the Board always uses to evaluate an application: the
specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in
the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the
neighborhood. Eckstein said that it is as simple as this: if she can make a motion that says she
wants no balconies, then she can vote for the parking; if she can't make a motion like that, then
she cannot vote for the parking.
Sheerin said that it sounds as though the Board has at least three separate problems: Sheerin
has a problem with whether this complies with the Comprehensive Plan; Eckstein has a problem
with the balconies; Jennings has a problem with the design. Jennings said he concurred with
Eckstein. Eckstein said that it was a specific articulation of the same problem. Jennings said
that it is a problem of being asked not to consider the occupants while simultaneously being
asked to consider problems that would result from a specific kind of occupants. Greenwood
Hektoen said the Board is certainly allowed to consider how the building will be used, just not
who will be using it. Jennings said he understood that. Eckstein said that the balconies may
create problems regardless of who the occupants are.
Board of Adjustment
March 9, 2011
Page 12 of 15
Greenwood Hektoen said that the record is probably sufficient to allow the Board to take a straw
poll without going into findings of fact if it wished to do so. Miklo noted that there is a motion on
the floor and that if the Board wished to add an amendment stipulating conditions for approval
that might be another way of moving the application forward. Plagge noted that he too would
have to leave in five minutes. Greenwood Hektoen said that if the motion is going to fail then the
record is clear without having to go through the criteria. There was some discussion as to
whether the Board wished to take a straw poll or vote on the motion. Miklo asked if it would be
useful to simply amend the motion to reflect the Board's concerns. Greenwood Hektoen said it
did not seem as though the Board was in a place where they were ready to amend. Sheerin
asked if the application could be deferred, as the Board was about to lose its quorum. Grenis
said that if it was to be deferred then the Board should be specific about what it wanted the
applicant to bring back. Greenwood Hektoen advised that if Eckstein wished to she could
amend her motion to make it a motion to defer. Greenwood Hektoen said that it seemed to be a
controversial application and it would probably be good to have the full Board vote on it, though
that was certainly the Board's decision. Eckstein said that she always resists deferring because
she recognizes that applicants have reasons for putting these things together and schedules to
keep; however, she said that it seemed as though voting on the issue as it stands also might not
do the applicant any good. In that spirit, Eckstein said, she would amend her motion.
Greenwood Hektoen said that she should do whatever she was comfortable with.
Plagge noted that while the application may be controversial within the Board, there has not
been any member of the public to speak against it. So this does not seem to be a concern for
the community. Ekstein said that may or may not be the case. Sheerin noted that it is the
Board's role to consider what is in the interest of the community.
Eckstein moved to defer the application until there was some clarity on issues of design
and guidance on how to read the Comprehensive Plan in this case.
Jennings seconded.
Greenwood Hektoen advised that the Board is not likely to see guidance in the form of an
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan prior to consideration of this application, as that would
be a drawn-out process. She asked what the Board would feel comfortable with in terms of
guidance. Sheerin said that perhaps the best thing would be to ask for clarification for future
applications. She said she did think the design review questions are one which the Board could
get more information on whereas it probably was not fair to hold the application up for the
Comprehensive Plan issues. Eckstein said that the design review is also related to the general
criteria concerning the general well-being of the surrounding properties. Greenwood Hektoen
asked if images relating the proposed buildings to existing buildings would be helpful. Jennings
said that would be helpful, as well as a specific plan for how design review would deal with the
concerns laid out in the staff report. Jennings said he is very uncomfortable doing a sideways
vote on parking for something of this size and mass and potential impact.
Grenis asked if it was an option to have the design review occur before the application is
approved, or at least a more detailed site plan. Miklo said that staff could look into having the
applicant do a more detailed plan of the building. The applicant could be asked to produce some
drawings showing the building's scale in relation to the rest of the block. Miklo noted that a
cursory review of the plan had also shown some concerns on the part of staff regarding the
balconies in relation to Ecumenical Towers, and would likely have been addressed specifically
Board of Adjustment
March 9, 2011
Page 13 of 15
during the design review process. Jennings said that he thinks the concerns laid out in the staff
report have potential for significant impact on the area and would like to see them addressed in
the design review. He said that he does not want to unduly burden the applicant or hold up their
application, but he does not think that voting for parking is a way to address those concerns.
Jennings said that it is not that he does not trust the City staff but the building is going to have a
significant impact and he would like to see what he is approving.
Miklo said that assuming the motion to defer is approved, staff will work with the applicant over
the next few weeks to clarify the main entrance, the visual impact of the building, the placement
of windows and balconies, the dumpster location, and a diagram showing this building in
relationship to other buildings on the block. Jennings said that what he is seeing are red flags
raised in the staff report and he wants to see those addressed prior to voting on the parking.
Plagge asked if Jennings had anything specific he would like to propose as part of an
amendment to approve the application. Jennings said that there was nothing beyond the areas
outlined in the staff report, though those were substantial areas. He said that his concerns were
not specific to this application, though he does feel that alley is heavily used by pedestrians and
a considerable increase in traffic at all hours would have a considerable effect. He said there
are potential public safety issues he has concerns about aside from the parking issues.
Miklo reiterated that the motion is to defer.
A vote was taken and the motion to defer carried 3-1 (Plagge voting no; Sheerin absent at
time of vote).
Miklo summarized what he believed the Board would like to see from the applicant at its next
meeting:
1) A diagram showing this building in relationship to the other buildings on the block to get
a sense of scale;
2) The concerns about the main pedestrian entrance to the residential portion of the
buildings being addressed;
3) The visual impact of the building which would include such things as window placement,
balcony placement, scale of windows being addressed; and
4) The dumpster location.
Miklo asked the Board to please let staff know of any other concerns they wish to have
addressed prior to the next meeting.
Eckstein said that there is the issue of potential noise, as some designs are likely to elicit more
noise than others.
Grenis asked if staff would envision still recommending a full design review if all of these issues
were addressed. Miklo said that he would suggest the design review committee works with the
applicant to flesh out the design addressing these concerns and then come back before the
Board. Once that design is approved, it may or may not be necessary to do a further design
review if the Board is satisfied.
Gernis asked if the question regarding review of the Comprehensive Plan and parking issues
should be voted on at this meeting. Miklo said it could be something put on the agenda for the
April meeting. Greenwood Hektoen said it might also be helpful to provide the Board with a copy
Board of Adjustment
March 9, 2011
Page 14 of 15
of the actual ordinance enacted by the City Council. She said there are usually a list if "whereas"
statements that would give the legislative intent behind enacting the parking requirements.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION:
Greenwood Hektoen noted that as there are two new Board members there should probably be
a training sometime soon. She said she would coordinate that with Sarah Walz.
Grenis asked if making a recommendation for guidance on the Comprehensive Plan was
something that should be done yet that evening.
ADJOURNMENT:
Jennings moved to adjourn.
Grenis seconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 4-0 vote (Sheerin absent at time of vote).
F- p
W ~
~O
cn w
~~
p W r
U
Q Z N
p Z
~ W
Q ~
ma
o~
N
r
O
r
~'
r
O~
O
r
M
r
ti
ca
M
~ X X X X X
M
N X X X X
N ~ CO lf) N M
~~ 0 0 0 0 0
H N
~ N
~ N
~ N
~ N
~
X ~
0 ~
0 ~
0 ~
0 ~
0
W
C C
~L
•N N
L
U
W C
~ •~ c0 ~
~ ~ ~ d c
W
~ ~ Y --~ ~ -
O
~ O = f0 L
Z m m ~ Q U
E
O
7
~d
~ o
~ Z L
~ ~ ~
U Q~ ~
X
~ N N
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ O
N ~ Q Z
a`Qu,~z
~~ ~~ w ~ l
XOOz
}
W
Y
3b 2
MINUTES
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MARCH 10, 2011
LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM
APPROVED
MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Ackerson, Esther Baker, William Downing, Andrew Litton, Pam Michaud,
Ginalie Swaim, Dana Thomann, Alicia Trimble, Frank Wagner
MEMBERS ABSENT: Thomas Baldridge, David McMahon
STAFF PRESENT: Christina Kuecker
OTHERS PRESENT: Gabe Aguirre, Don Garland, Chris Hayes
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action)
None.
CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Trimble called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA;
There was none.
CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS:
Brewery Square
Kuecker said this project involves a sign installation on the property. She said that it actually involves two
historic landmarks in Iowa City -the first is the Economy Advertising Company Building. Kuecker said
the applicant proposes to put a metal sign that says Iowa City Press-Citizen above the awning. She said
the sign would be lit from behind.
Kuecker said the second building is the Union Brewery. She said the applicant proposes to put two
wooden signs on the corner, one facing north and one facing east. Kuecker said the historic preservation
guidelines do not address signage, because there are not a lot of commercial buildings that are historic,
so in this case, the Commission must use the Secretary of the Interior Standards. She said that in this
case, the standards basically say that the alterations should be compatible with the historic architecture of
the building and use historic materials.
Kuecker said staff feels that the sign on the Economy Advertising Building is of a location, scale, and
material that are appropriate for the building. She said that, in staff's opinion, the two signs on the side
seem to not be quite compatible with the property. Kuecker said staff used some Photoshop
manipulations to change the background color of the sign from white to a cream color similar to the
LaJames sign below. She said staff feels that just by changing the color in this manner, the sign
becomes compatible with the architecture of the property.
Kuecker said she also used Photoshop to remove the light fixture above. She said staff feels that the
sign without the light fixture is more compatible with the building than with the light fixture. Kuecker said
staff recommends that the project be approved with the conditions that the background color of the
wooden signs be a cream color, similar to the background color on the LaJames sign, and that the light
fixture be removed or incorporated into the soffits of the building, rather than using a gooseneck light
fixture.
Hayes, Press Citizen employee, said he absolutely has no problem changing the background of the sign
to match more appropriately. He said the one issue he would have would be at night, without the
gooseneck lamps, having the sign be invisible. Hayes said that they were trying to kind of go off the
Historic Preservation Commission
March 10, 2011
Page 2
street lamp, and they wanted to use a light there to light the sign that would be very close to what is there
on the streetlamp.
Swaim said she thinks the cream color will be better. She said that the problem she sees is that the light
looks out of scale with the rest of the building. Swaim asked if there were a way to put the lights in the
soffit to be useful but not visibly distracting.
Kuecker said staff feels that a light fixture could be mounted, perhaps between the brackets, to shine
down onto the signage that would not be as visible from the street and still serve the purpose of lighting
the sign. Hayes said there might be issues with trying to mount lights up into that, just because of the
way the building was constructed.
Ackerson said one problem with the soffit mount is that it is probably going to illuminate a larger vertical
distance of the wall because it would be shining down at an angle. He said the gooseneck would
probably illuminate just the sign and would be a little less distracting at night. Hayes said that was the
intention, just to illuminate the sign and not the whole side of the building.
Hayes said that the illustration of the light is just a representation of the style, but the actual size could be
smaller. Michaud suggested painting the gooseneck to match the brick. Kuecker said that traditionally, if
there was a light like this, it would have been black. She said she thought it might be strange to have it
be the color of the brick.
Swaim stated that one's eye would go to the sign because of the light feel. She said that, in that sense,
during the day the light fixture will be quite noticeable. Swaim said she would still like to find another
solution.
Michaud asked about a bar of light going over the middle of the sign, so that it looks like a black line over
the rectangle. Garland, of Nesper Sign, said that he has been working on this with the Press-Citizen
people. He said to put something like an overhead light there, the LED pierces but does not downcast.
Garland said that if they did something like a bar over this sandblasted sign, it would only catch the high
spots and result in a lot of dead space.
Garland said his concern is that if one starts boring holes up in the fascia, trying to get power to it, he did
not know how secure it would be nor did he know if one could get power to the fixture. He said he would
discourage having conduit on the outside of the building.
Hayes said that what they are trying to do with the gooseneck is not have the light broadcast out away
from the building but direct it more specifically back toward the building. Downing asked if Press-Citizen
had talked to Housing Inspection Services about the ability to put lights on the outside of a building and if
there are any restrictions. Hayes said that the first plan he submitted to the City was fine code-wise.
Baker said it seems like there isn't an easy alternative to this plan without knowing whether it is possible
to get power up into the soffit. Ackerson asked about a kind of wide fixture the same width as the sign,
which is four to five feet, with fluorescent lights maybe set out from the wall a small number of inches.
Garland said his company has done that before. He said the reason that they try not to do it any more
than they have to is because the little three to four inches sticking out in order to project back to the sign
becomes a perfect pigeon roost.
Swaim said she still doesn't like the gooseneck design but wondered if two goosenecks would be better.
Swaim said that she brought this up because it increases the mass of the light fixture. Michaud said that
if one wants greater mass, there could be a smaller version of the streetlight. She said there is a right
angle in the Italianate brackets, and there is a right angle in the streetlamps. Michaud said she thought
this is a great relocation of the Press Citizen and would not want to split hairs over this.
Historic Preservation Commission
March 10, 2011
Page 3
Hayes said he thinks two goosenecks would look great. Swaim said she did not think, if she were looking
at the building, that it would occur to her that the gooseneck was echoing in some way the streetlight.
She said that what she sees with that building is everything that is under the eaves, and she is not
concerned about the streetlight and the building lighting trying to work together.
Michaud asked what kind of bulb goes into the gooseneck light. Garland said it can be a standard light
bulb or an LED light. He said that halogen would not be used outside because of the color it would cast
on the sign.
Kuecker said that staff feels that two or possibly three gooseneck lamps might look better, because it
would make them more substantial and give some balance to the area. Michaud asked if two
goosenecks can come out of the same bracket. Garland said he would need to find out if that light fixture
is available.
Swaim suggested that perhaps two lamps without any kind of connecting bar might look more authentic.
Kuecker stated that the motion could give the applicant different options, depending on what is available,
perhaps subject to final approval by staff and the chair.
MOTION: Swaim moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for an application for Brewery
Square as proposed, with the condition that the Press-Citizen Media signs have an cream
background and with two or three gooseneck light fixtures separately mounted and subject to
final approval by staff and the chair. Wagner seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote
of 9-0. (Baldridge an_d_ McMahon absent).
904 Bowerv Street.
Kuecker stated that this project involves a UniverCity Neighborhood Partnership project. She said the
application includes alterations to the garage door, replacement of the side/front door, and the shortening
of a window in the kitchen.
Kuecker showed the garage door as it currently exists. She said this cannot be a garage, because there
is no separation between the garage space and the living space. Kuecker showed the options presented
by the applicant. She said the first one involves two pedestrian doors, with one fixed and one operable.
She said this mimics agarage-door style. Kuecker said the other option is essentially the building of a
wall with aflush-mount steel door and then using some trim boards to make it look like a garage door.
She said the applicant is okay with either of these plans, so if the Commission has an opinion, it could
select one, or it could leave the option open for the applicant to choose.
Kuecker said the second part of the application is to change out a door that is in fairly bad condition. She
said the applicant proposes ahalf-light or three quarter light panel door. Kuecker said that this door is not
on a street elevation. She showed the view from Bowery Street and said the house sits on Bowery and
Governor. Kuecker said it is a unique house in that it does not have astreet-fronting door.
Kuecker stated that the other part of the application is to take the kitchen window and shorten it by
approximately six inches to allow a cabinet to go under it.
Kuecker said the guidelines allow the replacement of windows and doors but recommend that the new
windows and doors retain the size of the existing windows and doors. She said that the Commission,
however, in the past has approved alterations to improve functionality and has approved shortening the
windows for a kitchen remodeling. Kuecker said that staff feels the changes are compatible and will have
minimal impact on the historic integrity of the house. She said that staff recommends approval of the
application as presented, with the conditions that the applicant can use either option for the garage door,
the final door specifications to be approved by staff, and the new window retaining the appearance of the
historic windows and being either solid wood or metal clad solid wood.
Historic Preservation Commission
March 10, 2011
Page 4
Swaim said that for the window, if the applicant is making it shorter, it would come pretty close to lining up
with the bottom of the next window over. Kuecker confirmed this and said that it would be approximately
that same size. She said she believes the other window was shortened at some earlier point in time to
allow for counter space.
Michaud stated that it would be nice if the front door would match the back storm. Kuecker responded
that is kind of the style they are looking at -having the top half be light and the bottom half be a panel of
some sort. She added that there is another door on the inside of the porch that goes into the kitchen that
looks more original that is athree-quarter light, and that is why the applicant is looking at these options.
Regarding the garage door, Wagner said he would prefer the one the first option because of the windows.
He said that would give natural light to the basement that way, as opposed to the steel doors.
Michaud asked, regarding the garage door, how stationary is stationary and if it will have a pin or what it
will have. Kuecker said that it is intended that it will be permanently stationary; the applicant doesn't want
people to have the option to drive something inside.
MOTION: Downing moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for an application for 904
Bowery Street as presented, subject to the following conditions: the final door specification to be
approved by staff, the applicant using the first garage door design with the pedestrian doors and
the new window retaining the appearance of the historic windows and being either solid wood or
metal clad solid wood. Michaud seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0
(Baldridge McMahon and Wagner absent).
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 10, 2011.
MOTION: Ackerson moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's February
10, 2011 meeting, as written. Baker seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0
(Baldridae McMahon and Waaner absent).
OTHER:
Kuecker stated that the Commission would hold the election of officers at April's meeting. She said there
are four seats up for renewal or reappointment at the end of March.
Regarding the cabins at City Park, Kuecker said she received an opinion from the State Historic
Preservation Office that the cabins are eligible for the National Register. She said the City has received a
Technical Advisory Network (TAN) grant for assistance, so Jeff Mills out of Des Moines will be coming
next week to evaluate the cabins and give information regarding what needs to be done to make them
usable again. Kuecker said that the City's only expense will be paying for the consultant's travel.
Michaud asked about the status of the Chamber of Commerce building. Kuecker did not know.
Baker mentioned Richard Carlson's offer at the last meeting to write a grant to evaluate the Riverfront
Crossings area. Kuecker said the problem with that is that the Commission does not have any funding to
match a grant. Kuecker added that Helen Burford planned to talk to Carlson about doing the survey at a
possibly reduced cost that Friends and the City could both be part of the match. She said that is still in
the works. Baker said it would be a shame to not take advantage of Carlson's offer.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 6:38 p.m.
Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte
Z
O
_~
~0
O~
VO
zv
o~
awl
v
~ Q N
WO
N Z
W W
~~
a~
va
O
~_
M X ~ X X X ~ X X X X X
x x x ~ x x O O O x x
N
x x o x x o x x o x o
r
a
~( M ~ N M ~t d' N N ~ M N
W
~
W r
N
M r
N
M r
N
M r
N
M ~-
N
M ~
N
M r
N
(~7 r
N
M ~
N
M r
N
M r
N
M
H
Q
~
Z H
Y
z
N
~
Y
Q
i
o
~
~
m
=
~
w
~
Y
m
J
~
z
Z
O
O
~
o
a
z
~
J
~
a
~
z0
~
~
a
a
o
a
U
~
J
z
c~
~_
Q
N
a
~
z
a
~
H
"
a
ui
m
~
H
Y
~
,~
o~
z
Q
E
`o
-~ C7
~ o
~Z ~
U p~ ~
X
a _~ ~
~~~
~~~~~
~~az°o
a a ~~ ~~ z
~~ ~~ w ~ ~~
xooz
3b 3
MINUTES APPROVED
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
MARCH 10, 2011 - 6:30 PM
CITY HALL, EMMA HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Chappell, Cheryl Clamon, Scott Dragoo, Charlie Drum,
Jarrod Gatlin, Holly Jane Hart, Michael McKay, Rebecca
McMurray, Rachel Zimmermann Smith
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Steve Long, Tracy Hightshoe, David Purdy
OTHERS PRESENT: Deborah Lyon (Successful Living); Karen Fox (Compeer), Jim
Swaim (UAY), Joan Vanden Berg (Iowa City Schools), Phoebe
Trepp (Shelter House), Ron Berg (MECCA); Scott Hansen (Big
Brothers/Big Sisters); Bill Reagan (Arc of Southeast Iowa); Roger
Lusala, Roberta Eide, Katie Lammers, Kim Darm (Mayor's Youth
Empowerment Program); Laura Dowd (Local Foods Connection);
Sue Freeman (NCJC); Dion Williams (Systems Unlimited), Becci
Reedus, Beth Ritter Ruback (Crisis Center); Roger Goedken,
Joshua Woolums (Progressive Education); Sandy Pickup (Free
Medical Clinic); Mark Patton (Habitat for Humanity); Karen Kubby
(Emma Goldman Clinic); Stephen Trefz (CMHC)
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL:
None.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Michael McKay at 6:30 p.m.
APPROVAL OF THE FEBRUARY 17, 2011 MINUTES:
A typographical error was pointed out by one of the Commissioners.
Chappell moved to approve the minutes as amended.
Zimmermann Smith seconded.
The minutes were approved on an 8-0 vote (McMurray not present at time of vote).
PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
MARCH 10, 2011
PAGE 2 of 8
STAFF/COMMISSION COMMENT:
McKay said that Commissioners should keep in mind that the money available to Public
Services is ten times greater than the usual allotment; something that is not likely to happen
again in the foreseeable future.
McKay noted that funding projects under one category in this funding cycle could have
implications for eligibility for future funding cycles. Hightshoe gave specific scenarios to clarify
the applicability of that statement.
DISCUSSION REGARDING FY12 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG)
AND HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM (HOME) REQUESTS:
• Review Project Rankings
• Discuss Average Allocation Worksheet
McKay explained that tonight's meeting would be a chance for Commissioners to discuss their
initial rankings of projects and the rationale for those rankings. The following week's meeting
would be when the Commission finalized recommendations.
Hart asked staff if there had been clear indication from staff as to how much of the
Commission's allocation was to be for housing. Hightshoe said that there had been some
direction given on the allocation worksheet. $762,000 must be for HOME eligible housing
activities.
HOUSING:
McKay noted that there seemed to be consensus among Commissioners that Dolphin
International LLC should not be funded. The Commission indicated an agreement to set that
application aside and move forward.
McKay noted that Hart had been the only member to allocate money to the Shelter House rental
project. Hart said that she liked the project but suspected there was not adequate support to
fund it.
Hightshoe said that typically if there is a wide range in allocations for a certain project this
meeting would serve as an opportunity for Commissioners to explain their rationale and give
reasons for what they liked or disliked about a project. She said that specific funding
recommendations will not be made until the next meeting.
McKay noted a wide range in the allocations given to MYEP's rental housing project. Gatlin said
that he had heavily funded MYEP in recent funding cycles, and while he felt this was a good
project, he also felt that other projects in the application pool could be more beneficial for the
community. Dragoo said that he had been hoping to support other MYEP applications instead of
this one. Zimmermann Smith said that she had fully funded it because it specifically targeted a
vulnerable population. She said she did not recall allocating anything to MYEP in the special
funding round. Drum said he too was drawn to the population the MYEP project was targeting.
McKay said that his focus had been on the accessible housing aspects of the project.
McKay noted awide-range of funding recommendations on the Successful Living rental
rehabilitation project. Zimmermann Smith said that she had funded the project because of the
vulnerable population it serves.
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
MARCH 10, 2011
PAGE 3 of 8
McKay asked Systems Unlimited if they had any reserves that would fund this type of project. A
Systems representative explained that a new regulation had severely limited their ability to
maintain reserves. He explained that the market value for the properties is much greater than
the actual rents charged.
Drum suggested moving to the other end of the scale toward the projects everyone agreed on
for the most part.
PUBLIC FACILITIES:
Zimmermann Smith noted that it looked as though most people had funded the Grant Wood
project. McMurray apologized for not getting her allocation worksheet in in time to be included in
the chart. She said that she did not do a bunch of smaller allocations, as her intent was to give
larger chunks of money out. She said she had funded seven Public Facilities projects. Dragoo
said that he had not had that particular strategy, but had not withheld funding for a particular
reason. Chappell said that this was his highest ranked project and he had made all of his
funding recommendations based primarily on their rankings. Gatlin said that his strategy had
been to fully fund the top three rankings for Public Facilities and Public Services. McMurray
asked why the school district was not paying for the cable at Grant Wood Elementary.
Hightshoe said they are paying for a portion of it. Chappell explained that there are specific
funds targeted toward a school that has some challenges.
McKay noted that the MYEP had quite a range for its property acquisition/facility rehabilitation
project and probably warranted some discussion. Chappell said that his intention was to allocate
money to MYEP for one project. McKay said that his intention was to fund the completion of the
facility rehabilitation and get the computer lab up and running. He said that he did have some
trouble supporting the acquisition of the neighboring property. Chappell noted that the cost for
the two projects McKay had just discussed was actually the reverse of what had been stated.
Hart said one of the things that seemed most critical to her were the infrastructure problems.
Gatlin said that he had fully funded the facility rehabilitation at the Crisis Center as one of his
three funded Public Facilities projects. McKay said that he had thought this project was a high
need, but that he had had some difficulty getting behind improved parking as it had not seemed
as critical to him as some of the other needs. Chappell said that he understood the parking to be
a fairly serious issue and so he had partially funded it. Drum said that there are so many
agencies in that small area that it would be good to get some resolution to the parking problem.
McKay said he had not entirely understood the arrangements that were being made. Drum said
that there were a lot of contingencies involved concerning what adjacent property owners would
be willing to accommodate or agree to. He said that nonetheless he did hope to get some
resolution to the problem. Dragoo said that his mind could be changed in regard to this
application. Hart said she felt the same way.
McKay noted that Dragoo had allocated the highest amount for the Arc project. Dragoo said that
he had passed that application over in the last funding round and he felt like this was a project
he could support. McKay said that his allocation was based on the sprinkler system as an
important safety issue, and the lower-level improvements would allow the agency to use that
level for programming. Drum said he felt the same way, but that he also had wanted to support
the kitchen remodel. He said the agency would get a lot out of the improvements they have
planned. The playground, he believed was something the Commission could wait on.
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
MARCH 10, 2011
PAGE 4 of 8
McKay said he had recommended full funding for the Community Mental Health Center (CMHC)
because it is important for the agency to have full handicap accessibility. He said he did have
some questions as to whether or not it is worth it to put another $170,000 into a structure of that
age and condition. McKay asked if there was anything that could be done on this project with
partial funding. He asked if just improving the ramp itself would be of help. A representative of
the agency said that improving the ramp would be helpful in that it would solve the problem of
the crumbling steps; however, it would not solve the accessibility problems that an elevator
would solve. He said that the ramp is virtually impassable because it was not built to current
standards. Chappell asked if CMHC had a plan in place for how they would do the entire
elevator project if they received only partial funding, and the reply was that there was not a plan
at this time. Hart commented that she saw this as an either/or project, and Dragoo agreed.
Drum said that he believed that the number of people affected by this project had been an
influential factor in his allocation amount.
McKay invited comments on the MECCA project. Drum and Chappell noted that they had fully
funded the project.
McKay said that his thinking on the Old Brick project was that the front door was not as much of
a concern to him as the accessibility issues that arose from the problems with the side doors.
Drum said that he agreed with McKay about the accessibility issues, but noted that the front
doors posed safety risks to those who work in the building. Chappell said that this had been one
of his lowest ranked projects so he had not recommended funding. McKay said that he felt
much the same way about the front doors as he did about the Crisis Center parking lot: he is not
saying they are not important nor do not need to be done, just that there are more pressing and
critical needs. Drum said that he really, really advocates for Commission members to go on the
facilities tours to see the projects and to meet the people who work on behalf of the community.
He said the tours are very educational and very worthwhile.
Zimmermann Smith said she had partially funded PATV in order to fund their retaining wall.
McKay said that to his recollection the retaining wall had not been presented as a safety issue.
PUBLIC SERVICES:
Zimmermann Smith said she had fully funded the Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County
(NCJC) as she really liked the project and the community partnerships involved. Dragoo and
Chappell said that they had funded them elsewhere. Clamon said she had come close to full
funding for the same reasons offered by Zimmermann Smith; she said she thought that this was
a really good community project. Zimmermann Smith noted that there were two different
neighborhood centers requesting funding.
Zimmermann Smith said that she had fully funded the Crisis Center because of the critical
nature of their services. Dragoo said they had scored highly on his ranking sheet. McKay noted
that if $11,000 was funding 50% of a salary, then that was a modest request.
McMurray said that she had fully funded the request for tables and chairs made by Big
Brothers/Big Sisters. Drum said that this was the second step in funding the new building:
equipping it. However, he said that he would rather make a bigger funding impact in a different
area and so he had not fully funded the request. Gatlin said that he had not funded-the tables
and chairs because the Commission had funded the building itself. McKay said that he partially
funded it because while the tables and chairs are necessary, he felt the money could have a
bigger impact elsewhere.
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
MARCH 10, 2011
PAGE 5 of 8
Chappell said that the Shelter House ranked in t~is top five, though he is a little concerned about
the shelter's ability to cover operating costs at the new facility in the future. He said that he had
recommended 50% funding. Hart asked if there were general concerns about the shelter's
viability. Chappell said there were not; he said that his comments simply stemmed from the
perception he had based on their request for operating costs. He said that Shelter House had
commented about the astronomical increase in energy costs at the new shelter, and Chappell
said that those kinds of cost increases should have been easily anticipated given the
dramatically increased size of the facility. He said that he hopes that Shelter House has plans in
place for the increased costs of running and maintaining the much larger facility. He noted that
he had no concerns about the organization as a whole. McKay noted that a Shelter House
representative was present for questions if the Commission had any. Hart asked Shelter House
to respond to the concerns that had been brought up. Shelter House very briefly laid out their
plans for maintaining the new facility and creating new income streams. McKay said he had not
allocated anything for Shelter House operating costs. He said that he had had trouble funding it
all, and had been surprised at their surprise about the increased expenses. Drum said that
Shelter House had ranked fairly highly for him and he had partially funded them. Gatlin said that
he had not funded them because he was trying to limit his funding to three projects. McMurray
noted that several Commissioners had made comments suggesting they had limited funding to
one project per entity, and she wondered if anyone cared to comment on why that would be.
Chappell said that in general, if he recommended funding in one category, he tried not to
recommend funding in another category.
Gatlin said that he actually had Table to Table ranked fairly high. He said that he thought the
project was unique, so he had funded it fully. Clamon said she had not been able to afford to
fund the project fully, but did think it was a good program.
Dragoo said he had not funded UAY, but was willing to be persuaded. McKay said that he was
making assumptions that the equipment would increase the agency's efficiency. Clamon asked
if the equipment request was for four computers, and a UAY representative said that was
correct. McKay asked how much the six additional software licenses would cost UAY. The UAY
representative said that the licenses would cost approximately $1,200. He said that generally
UAY can get non-profit discounts from Microsoft, but they are not available for this particular
software.
Hart said that she thought that the small, one-time request from Successful Living was a
manageable funding request. Gatlin said that his concern with taking on a number of smaller
projects was the oversight burden that could pose. Hart said that smaller projects sometimes
require smaller oversight. McKay asked Successful Living if they had found a van suitable for
their purposes for $6,900, and Successful Living said that a standard eight-passenger van
would suffice. Zimmermann Smith said she liked this project because it was an economical way
to make big changes in the way they do things with a small amount of money.
Hart said she had partially funded DVIP because she believed that they were at a point where
their computers were near-obsolete.
McKay said that the Emma Goldman Clinic had been a difficult project for him to make a funding
decision on. Chappell said that it had been difficult for him as well. McKay asked if partial
funding would work for this project. Karen Kubby said that the agency was going to have to
figure out how to fund the project one way or the other, so partial funding would work. She said
that there is a lot of time involved in the reporting requirements for this funding, so if the
Commission could only fund a couple of thousand dollars, then that much might be spent in staff
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
MARCH 10, 2011
PAGE 6 of 8
time overseeing the reporting requirements. She said that anything less than $5,000 might not
be worthwhile for the clinic. Chappell noted that this was cone-time project. McKay said that he
was open to reconsideration of that project as he had been looking at it as an all-or-nothing
proposition. Chappell said that he was too. Clamon and Drum said that they were glad to know
that partial funding was a possibility.
Clamon said that she felt that the Iowa City Free Medical Clinic request was one that would
make more money than it spends. She said her impression was that costs could ultimately be
reduced by the preventative measures that could be funded by this request. McKay said his
thinking was that these kinds of needs were going to increase. He said that the Free Medical
Clinic is essentially the place of last resort for the uninsured and under-insured facing these
issues.
McKay asked what Hart's thinking was on the Compeer application. She said that she had not
been certain if this was aone-time request or not. Chappell said this project had ranked
somewhere in the middle for him and so he had given it partial funding.
McKay noted that the allocations for the MYEP equipment request had been all over the map.
Chappell said he had not recommended funding because he had fully funded the MYEP rental
housing project. Dragoo said he believed there were several pieces to this project so he had
only recommended partial funding, though he was willing to consider other funding levels.
McKay asked MYEP if they had a line on a $20,000 wheelchair van. Roger Lusala of MYEP
said that they were looking at an unequipped van that would then have to be outfitted for
accessibility.
McKay asked if anyone cared to comment on their MECCA allocation. Drum said his funding
levels wound up being a function of his ranking sheet. He said that rather than fully funding a
few things that he wanted to, he would up partially funding a whole bunch of projects.
Chappell said that Local Food Connections ranked near the top on his ranking sheet. He said it
is a one year project, so they would not be coming back before the Commission next year to ask
for the same funding. Chappell said that the project is an interesting one and would benefit
multiple service agencies. McKay said he thought this was a very soft project and he had
difficulty getting behind it. Hart said that this is a project that will help Local Foods firmly
establish itself in the community.
Drum said that he had supported the Systems Unlimited request because they really need that
van to provide their services.
McKay noted that no Commissioners had allocated funding for the Sudanese American
Community Center project.
Chappell said that he had not wanted to discount the Progressive Education request based
solely on the fact that it was an agency the Commission had not seen before. He said he liked
the idea of partially funding it to see what they can do with a little seed money as a
private/public partnership. Zimmermann Smith said she agreed with Chappell, but she would
have liked to have seen support from agencies they had worked with in the past. McKay said
that it appeared to him that their services overlapped with those offered by other local providers.
Hightshoe said that Kubby's comments about the reporting requirements were something to
keep in mind. Hightshoe said that if the Commission is going to fund something they need to
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
MARCH 10, 2011
PAGE 7 of 8
make sure the agency has the staff to support the federal requirements. She noted that
Congress has not yet passed its budget, so the allocation amounts are not yet set. Hightshoe
said that City Council would be voting on the allocation recommendations at their May 3 Council
meeting.
ADJOURNMENT:
Zimmermann Smith moved to adjourn.
Chappell seconded.
The motion was approved 9-0.
Z
O
_N
O
U
H
Z
W
J
a
O
w
W
D
~_
Z
V
Z
Q
Z
0
O
0
U
w
w ~-
U~
Z ~
Q N
D
Z
W
H
Q
0
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
M
ti
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
N
X _~ X X X X X X X
d N <- c'~ M N ch ~ ~_ N_
IlJ
~ O
N O
N
~ O
N O
N
~ O
N
~ O
N
~ O
N
- O
N
~ O
N
~
~
IJJ ~-
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ c
~ ~ ~
H
~ Q
U
W
H
Q
W
~
Q ~
2
U W
~ 0
~ W
=
~ ~
J
U
~
_
' J
J
U
~ Z
Q
w a
a O
~ O
c9 V
~ ?
~ _
~ ~
~ ~
~ Ww
~v
Z U V D O C7 _ ~ ~ fV~
'~
~ `
N ~
U ~~
.«.
W '~ ~
c~~~
N a~ ~ c~
dQz°°
Z
n n ~~ ii
w~
YXOZ
3b(4~
MINUTES APPROVED
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
MARCH 17, 2011 - 6:30 PM
IOWA CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY, MEETING ROOM A
MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Chappell, Cheryl Clamon, Charlie Drum, Jarrod Gatlin,
Holly Jane Hart, Michael McKay, Rebecca McMurray, Rachel
Zimmermann Smith
MEMBERS ABSENT: Scott Dragoo
STAFF PRESENT: Steve Long, Tracy Hightshoe, Doug Ongie
OTHERS PRESENT: Deborah Lyon (Successful Living); Phoebe Trepp (Shelter House),
Bill Reagan (Arc of Southeast Iowa); Roger Lusala, Roberta Eide,
Katie Lammers (Mayor's Youth Empowerment Program); Laura
Dowd (Local Foods Connection); Sue Freeman; Dion Williams
(Systems Unlimited), Becci Reedus, Beth Ritter Ruback (Crisis
Center); Roger Goedken, (Progressive Education); Sandy Pickup
(Free Medical Clinic); Karen Kubby (Emma Goldman Clinic);
Karen Fox (Compeer); Bob Anderlik (Table to Table); Brett
Gordon (Old Brick); Mahmoud Siddig (Sudanese American
Community Services, Inc.); Josh Goding (PATV); Brian Leving
(NCJC); Jim Swaim (UAY)
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL:
The Commission voted 8-0 to make the following recommendations to City Council for
the FY12 CDBG/HOME funding:
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
FY12 CDBG/HOME BUDGET RECOMMENDATION
Requested
Housing Amount
IV Habitat for Humanity -Owner-occ. Rehab $40,000
IV Habitat for Humanity -Homeownership $180,000
The Housing Fellowship - CHDO Operating $40,000
The Housing Fellowship -Pre-Development $10,500
Mayor's Youth -Rental Housing $99,800
United Action for Youth -Rental Housing $480,000
Successful Living -Rental Rehabilitation $92,500
Systems Unlimited -Rental Rehabilitation $70,000
Shelter House -Rental Housing $275,000
Dolphin International LLC -Rental Rehab. $640,000
Housing Total* $1,927,800
Public Facilities
ICCSD Grant Wood Elementary -Equipment $33,400
Neighborhood Centers of JC -Facility Rehab. $65,000
HCDC (3/17/11)
Recommendation
$40,000
$180,000
$33,900
$10,500
$99,800
$350,000
$52,000
$48,000
200
$33,400
$42,250
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
MARCH 17, 2011
PAGE 2 of 11
DVIP -Facility Rehabilitation
Mayor's Youth -Property Acq/Fac. Rehab.
Crisis Center of JC -Facility Rehab.
Arc of Southeast Iowa -Facility Rehabilitation
Community Mental Health Center -Access.
MECCA -Facility Rehabilitation
Old Brick Foundation -Facility Rehabilitation
Public Access Television -Facility Rehabilitation
Public Facilities Total
$6,500
$148,702
$170,000
$210,922
$171,000
$16,293
$49,600
$27,350
$898, 767
500
000
708
Public Services
Neighborhood Centers of JC -Operations
Crisis Center of Johnson County -Operations
Big Brothers Big Sisters of JC -Equipment
Shelter House -Operations
Table to Table -Operations
United Action for Youth -Equipment
Successful Living -Equipment
DVIP -Equipment
Emma Goldman Clinic -Equipment
Iowa City Free Medical Clinic -Operations
Compeer Program -Operations
Mayor's Youth Empowerment Program -Equipment
MECCA -Equipment
Local Foods Connection -Operations
Systems Unlimited -Equipment
Sudanese American Community Ctr - Oper.
Progressive Education -Operations
Public Services Total
TOTAL
* $87,800 HOME funds unallocated.
Italics -CDBG only eligible housing activities.
CALL TO ORDER:
$32,321
$11, 092
$11,640
$50,000
$20,000
$6,900
$6,000
$5,600
$50,000
$47,000
$10,750
$40,000
$6,690
$16,000
$44,650
$50,000
$21,750
$430,393
$3,256,960
$15,000
$11,092
$5,200
$15,000
$7,000
$0
$6,000
$25
$15
$99, 292
$1.147.200
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Michael McKay at 6:30 p.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
STAFF/COMMISSION COMMENT:
McKay thanked the staff for the amazing amount of work they had put into the allocation
process. He also thanked the Commission for the work they had done.
McKay said that the Commission would reach a consensus this evening about the allocation
amounts and would be forwarding those recommendations to City Council. McKay said that staff
had directed the Commission to consider the items that are considered high priorities by CITY
STEPS prior to considering other projects. McKay asked Hightshoe to clarify the significance of
CDBG-only projects and how that affects the Commission's funding allocations. Hightshoe said
that the order in which the applications are reviewed is a procedura- issue outlined in CITY
STEPS. Hightshoe said that high priorities are reviewed first; however, that does not mean that
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
MARCH 17, 2011
PAGE 3 of 11
high priority projects must necessarily be funded or fully funded. After consideration of high
priority projects, if funding remains, the commission would then review medium priorities, etc.
Hightshoe said that there is approximately $1,235,000 available to allocate, $762,000 of which
must be allocated to HOME-eligible activities. Hightshoe said that the maximum allocation
amount for Public Services is $100,000; though she noted that it did not all have to be spent on
Public Services. Hightshoe noted that Congress has not passed the final budget yet; however,
the preliminary numbers show that HOME funds should stay about the same as last year
whereas CDBG could have a 10%-15% cut. Hightshoe said that at the end of the meeting, the
Commission would have to decide how they wished to handle any potential cuts to their
allocation amounts and also decide who would be writing the justification memo.
Hightshoe noted that the format of the meeting would simply be that of a conversation amongst
the Commission members unless they had a specific question for an applicant that was present.
DISCUSSION REGARDING FY12 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG)
AND HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM (HOME) REQUESTS:
• Discuss FY12 CDBG/HOME Applications
• Develop FY12 CDBG/HOME Budget Recommendations to Council
McKay recommended that the Commission consider Public Services allocations first. Chappell
said he would rather consider Housing applications first as it is the category that has a specific
spending requirement. Hightshoe said that $762,000 must be spent on Housing activities,
though it was possible to reserve some of those funds for next year's allocations. Chappell said
that decisions that are made with HOME funds will impact how much money is left over for
Public Services. He said that if the Commission chooses to spend more than $762,000 on
Housing, then the full $100,000 might not be available for Public Services. Zimmermann Smith
asked what happens to the other funding categories if the full $762,000 is not spent on housing.
Hightshoe said that there is only $473,000 available for CDBG-eligible activities such as Public
Facilities, Public Service and CDBG Housing-eligible activities. Hightshoe said that if all HOME
funds are not allocated to Housing, they cannot be applied to Public Facilities or Public
Services. Hart asked if there was anyone who had not been planning on allocating the full
$762,000 for Housing activities. Drum said it makes sense to start with the HOME funding
because it is the only category that can affect the others. The Commission indicated agreement
on this approach.
McKay asked the Commission to discuss Habitat for Humanity's $40,000 funding request.
McMurray said that she had basically fully-funded high priority projects. Hightshoe noted that
while the Habitat project is a high priority based on CITY STEPS, it is a CDBG-only project
because it is owner-occupied rehab. Chappell said he would recommend full funding for the
Habitat for Humanity project, The Housing Fellowship CHDO operating costs, and Mayor's
Youth Rental Housing project. Zimmermann Smith said she could agree with that. Gatlin noted
that the entire Commission had funded The Housing Fellowship's Pre-Development project.
Hart asked what the Commission thought about funding the Successful Living Rental Rehab
project. Zimmermann Smith said that she had actually changed her Public Services allocations
to do that because the project is needed and the organization provides a huge service to its
target population. Hart asked for clarification and Gatlin explained that anything that appeared in
italics on the staff chart was a CDBG only activity, so the money had to be pulled from Public
Services or Public Facilities.
Chappell asked if. anyone wished to change their position on Shelter House Rental Housing or
Dolphin International. He said that he had supported Dolphin last year, but no progress had
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
MARCH 17, 2011
PAGE 4 of 11
been made in the intervening year. He said he loves the Shelter House project but that it had
just been funded in the last round. McMurray said that the only thing that made her want to fund
Dolphin was the fact that there are a lot of potential units that are currently sitting vacant. McKay
said that his issue with that project is that they are not pledging a portion or any of their own
money. Hart said she was fine with the allocations being discussed but asked what the
Commission planned to do with Successful Living and Systems Unlimited. She asked if the plan
was to fund them with money from another category. Zimmermann Smith and McMurray said
that they had both done so. Chappell asked if it was correct that the only HOME-eligible projects
that had not been discussed so far were UAY Rental Housing and Habitat for Humanity Home
Ownership. McMurray said she had fully funded those two projects in order to use up the
remaining funds. Zimmermann Smith noted that all of the money did not have to be "used up",
and that some could be left unallocated. She said that to be honest she had not seen any
Housing projects that had been particularly creative. She said that during the special allocation
cycle she had seen some exciting projects, but these particular applications were not as
innovative as she would have like to see. Saving some of the money for next year's allocation
cycle and seeing if more creative projects were brought forward is always an option,
Zimmermann Smith said. Clamon asked if it was correct that money beneath that $762,000
allocation threshold could be carried over for future funding cycles and Hightshoe said that it
was. McMurray asked how secure that money is, considering the current state of the federal
budget. Hightshoe said that it was secure; the City has two years to commit it. Gatlin asked if it
was correct that holding money back could put some potential projects behind the eight ball
since timing would then be an issue. Hightshoe said that was possible, though it depended on
the amount of money involved. Gatlin said that the present discussions were for something like
$500,000, so it was his recommendation that the allocation discussions continue. He
recommended looking at the average allocations and seeing where that put things. Further
discussions resulted in preliminary allocations that left approximately $87,800 in HOME funds
unallocated. Chappell said that he did not have a problem leaving this money unspent, but he
also did not have a problem allocating to UAY. He advised leaving the HOME discussions for
now and making the final decision after looking at CDBG projects. Hightshoe noted that the
UAY pro forma had relied on full funding to achieve cash flow; the project could struggle if it had
to acquire a lot of private debt. Zimmermann Smith said that this was one reason she had
funded it lower. She said she thought it might be a situation where it would be wise to start out
slow and see how things go. Hightshoe noted that a representative from UAY was present for
questions. Zimmermann Smith asked UAY what it would do with an allocation that was half of its
requested amount. Jim Swaim, UAY, said that they would buy fewer units. He said that if the
funding level was of a substantially a lesser amount than what was presently being discussed,
they probably would not go through with the project; however, if the funding was at the level
Commissioners were considering, than they could easily proceed with the project by doing one
or two fewer units.
The Commission agreed to move on and consider Public Facilities.
McKay noted that they seemed to be near-unanimous in their desire to fully-fund the Grant
Wood project. Zimmermann Smith suggested plugging in the average allocations for Systems
Unlimited and Successful Living in order to show that money as reserved for Housing projects.
McMurray suggested fully funding the top three Public Facilities projects, since they are all high
priorities under CITY STEPS. Gatlin suggested giving them 80% of their requests as a starting
point. Zimmermann Smith said that it made sense to put in the average allocation for DVIP and
NCJC. McMurray said she would like to see full funding for those projects. Chappell suggested
starting out by giving NCJC $42,250, which is the cost of funding their priority project. He noted
that that would not mean they could not return to the project and fully fund it, but it would give
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
MARCH 17, 2011
PAGE 5 of 11
the Commission a starting point. Hart said that she would like to give at least partial funding for
some of the projects that did not rank as high but still addressed safety issues and facility
access, such as Old Brick, PATV and MECCA. McKay said that the high priorities had to be
considered first. Hart said she was suggesting plugging in the average allocations for the high
priority projects and then seeing what was left. The Commission reached consensus on a
preliminary allocation amount of $6,500 for DVIP.
McKay noted that there was quite a variation in the amounts allocated to the Crisis Center
Rehab. Chappell noted that the priority for the Crisis Center was the parking lot. A preliminary
figure of $25,000 was agreed upon for the Crisis Center. Hightshoe clarified that Community
Mental Health (CMH) could not get an elevator without full funding, but could work to improve
their handicap accessible ramp with a lesser funding amount. Zimmermann Smith said that it
did not seem to her that the ramp was that critical of a project for them. John Shaw, architect for
CMHC, confirmed that the ramp does not necessarily meet code at present, and is the only
means of getting someone in a wheelchair into the facility. Shaw said that in his opinion it would
be unfortunate to put money into the ramp but he did not want to speak for the director as to the
agency's priorities. He said that his impression was that something would have to be done with
the ramp if the elevator was not funded, as the ramp is absolutely crumbling. McKay asked what
the cost to improve the ramp would be. Shaw said he had not calculated that as the elevator
project included the demolition of the ramp. McKay said that he believes CMHC might be going
about this project backwards as a handicap accessible office could be rented for a number of
years for the $170,000 that CMHC was wanting to invest in this facility. Shaw noted that CMHC
would then have to fund staffing for the alternate location. McKay said that he understood that
but that this was a lot of money to put into this particular project. Consensus was reached that
because the elevator is an all or nothing project, no funding would be allocated. Hart noted her
objection to allocating no funding at all.
McKay noted that there was near-consensus on fully funding the MECCA Facility Rehab project.
A consensus was reached to fully fund MECCA preliminarily.
Gatlin suggested moving to the next high priority items, even if they are in Public Services, and
then coming back to finish out Public Facilities and Housing. The Commission indicated
consensus with this course of consideration.
McKay noted a wide range in allocations to the NCJC Operations project. Gatlin said that he
had fully funded this project as it had ranked as his highest priority. He noted that his strategy
had been to fully fund a few projects rather than allocating smaller amounts to many projects.
He said that his focus was on high impact allocations as typically Public Services only has
$10,000 available, and this funding cycle there is $100,000 available. Clamon said she did not
fully fund this because she ran out of money, but she came as close to fully funding it as she
could. Zimmermann Smith said she liked the job-training aspect of this project. McKay
suggested penciling in $15,000 for the project and coming back to it later. Chappell said that he
did not have a problem with that but he wanted to note that all of the positive aspects mentioned
about the NCJC project are also present in the Progressive Education project. He said the
question that was asked of Progressive Education was whether the services it was offering are
duplicative of those already available in the community. Chappell said that the same question
should also be asked of the NCJC project. Zimmermann Smith said that the application
materials submitted by NCJC show that they already have their community partners and
clientele lined up whereas Progressive Education had not shared the same kind of
documentation of support. She said she was certainly open to funding Progressive Education if
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
MARCH 17, 2011
PAGE 6 of 11
that kind of support was demonstrated. Hart said that Progressive Education had been a little
short on details.
Zimmermann Smith asked the Crisis Center which they would choose if they had to pick
between funding for Operations or Facility Rehab. A Crisis Center representative said that this
was a difficult choice: for Facilities, the priority is the parking lot so the current $25,000 funding
level is adequate; Operations funding will assist with paying for an additional staff member hired
to handle recent funding and demand increases. Zimmermann Smith said she was comfortable
fully funding the operations expenses and leaving the Facilities allocation at $25,000. Drum said
that the Operations ranked highly for him because it was money used to raise more money.
Consensus was reached to fund the Crisis Center at $25,000 for Facilities and $11,092 for
Operations.
Chappell said that Big Brothers/Big Sisters ranked highest for him in terms of Public Services
projects. He said that what he liked about this was that it is easiest to make an impact with one-
time funding. Chappell said that none of the ongoing funding that the Commission had seen in
this funding cycle really had a concrete plan for how the need would be funded the following
year. He said that he wants to make an impact in Public Services with one-time projects in this
allocation cycle because there is a unique opportunity to fund. Gatlin said he has no problem
funding this equipment request, but he wants to make sure that the Commission fully-funds
wherever possible, as he believes that has a greater impact than partial funding. McKay said
that he funded at around $5,000 because he believed that the bulk of the equipment needs
could be picked up through other fundraising efforts. Chappell said that he agrees with Gatlin
about fully funding wherever possible; however, he also wanted to suggest that iffull-funding
was not possible, then funding should be done in a way that allows the agency to fund its
priority projects. A consensus was reached to fund at $5,200 to cover the folding tables, carts
and chairs. Hightshoe noted that applicants are encouraged to list their projects in priority order
on their application.
Chappell noted that four Commissioners had recommended funding for Shelter House
Operations, and that those allocations amounts were between $22,000 and $25,000. He asked
if there was anyone who recommended $0 that would be willing to recommend something for
Shelter House. Chappell said that he had shared his concerns about this application at the last
meeting, and had indicated that he would be much less happy with this application next year if
strides had not been made to meet the expected expenses of the new facility. He said that since
this is the first year, he is comfortable funding at $25,000 or less. Hart said that she would be
interested in looking at projects further down the list before making this decision. She said that
while this project had ranked highly for her, she also realized that rankings are somewhat
arbitrary and that she, like Chappell, is partial to the one-time-ask rather than providing annual
assistance. She asked if it was possible to look at some of the equipment requests first and then
return to the operations requests. Drum said he had no problem with that. Zimmermann Smith
said that she had not allocated to Shelter House but did not have a problem funding them if the
Commission wished to do so. Clamon asked how that jived with Gatlin's full-funding strategy
and he replied that it is actually completely counter to his line of thinking. Clamon said that she
too had allocated zero, but that she could support bridge funding if there was an understanding
that coming back next year and asking for the same kind of money would not be viewed
favorably. Zimmermann Smith asked if there was consensus to preliminarily fund at $25,000,
and there was.
McKay suggested looking at the UAY Equipment request. Chappell recommended not funding
the UAY Equipment request as the Commission is funding their Housing request at $350,000.
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
MARCH 17, 2011
PAGE 7 of 11
Swaim said that it would be fine to keep the Equipment request funded at zero as he had
recently learned that more federal equipment grants would be coming available in the next 18
months.
Chappell said that he was skeptical that Successful Living could fully fund a van for $6,000.
Hightshoe noted that the request is for $6,000, but the agency was contributing their own funds
to cover the shortfall. A consensus was reached to fully fund the request.
Hart said that she had funded the DVIP computers that were requested. Chappell noted that
there seemed to be a consensus not to fund the request at all. Hart asked how he had come to
the conclusion that there was a consensus to fund. Gatlin explained that six out of the nine
Commissioners had allocated zero funding to the request. Hart said she would like to suggest
that at least partial funding for the computers be granted to DVIP. McMurray asked how much
the computers were. Hart said she thought they were about $3,000. Several Commissioners
indicated a desire not to fund this project and Chappell said that he believed the consensus was
to not fund the project. Hart said she did not believe there was consensus not to fund, but that
they could come back to it later.
Hart said she had partially funded Compeer because her understanding was that this would give
them a jumpstart in being self-sufficient. Chappell noted that there were seven Commissioners
who allocated zero to this request. McKay suggested putting zero down for this project.
McMurray wondered why so many projects that were considered high priorities were being
allocated zero dollars. Chappell explained that the projects were high priorities in terms of being
reviewed first; they were not necessarily the most highly ranked projects. Chappell noted that
the rankings also factor into the funding amounts. Hart said that the rankings may factor in, but
she has never used those rankings as much more than a sorting mechanism and Chappell
cannot assume that everyone is putting the same weight on the rankings. Chappell said they
should probably be used or not used consistently.
Zimmermann Smith noted that the Emma Goldman Clinic and the Free Medical Clinic had been
allocated some level of funding by nearly everyone, so it might be useful to discuss those
applications next. Clamon said that she had not funded the Emma Goldman Clinic because she
had thought it was an all-or-nothing project. McKay said that it looked as though $25,000 was a
popular allocation amount for that request. Hart said she would fund both Emma Goldman and
Free Med, and would also fund Local Foods. She said that she realized Local Foods had not
received across the board funding but that it seemed like there were people who could be
persuaded to at least partially fund Local Foods. McMurray said she would like to see Local
Foods funded as it is a one year project. Drum asked if Local Foods was an educational project.
Chappell said that his understanding was that it was education and increased cooperation with
other non-profits. Drum said that when he compares that request against a van that will take
kids to activities, he has a hard time funding it. He said that he understood the value of the
project but when he compares it with concrete needs he just cannot support it in favor of some
of the other projects before the Commission. Chappell said that it may be more accurate to
compare the project with a replacement van rather than a primary means of transportation as
most of these agencies already have vans. Zimmermann Smith noted that Successful Living
does not have a van at present. Drum said that it was not vans in particular that he felt
outranked Local Foods; it was the concreteness of the van that he was trying to get across.
Zimmermann Smith said that she agreed with Drum; transportation and medical care outrank
the needs met by the Local Foods project in her opinion. McKay agreed. Hart said that she
would disagree because the program is not as nebulous as what Commissioners are making it
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
MARCH 17, 2011
PAGE 8 of 11
out to be. She said the program has made a significant impact for people that do not have a lot
to spend on good food choices. Hart said she would like to see at least partial funding.
Gatlin said that if the Commission was now looking at two or three major projects in Public
ServlCes they should keep in mind that there is only about $13,000 left to spend on Public
Services. McKay said that to his mind the Free Medical Clinic has to get some money.
McMurray noted that the Commission is funding their Health Fund, though Zimmermann Smith
explained that they were totally different programs. McMurray said that the Commission has
funded Free Med a great deal in the past. Gatlin noted that the Commission could review the
allocations that have already been set if they wanted to add to the remaining $13,000. Drum
said that the average allocation for Free Med was $17,000. Chappell said that Free Med was his
lowest ranked project and he had allocated $4,000 for diabetic monitoring equipment. McMurray
said she could agree with allocating $4,000 for equipment. Zimmermann Smith asked if it was
possible to do anything with just the equipment. Sandy Pickup of the Free Medical Clinic
explained that someone had to actually see the patient in order for the program to work. Pickup
explained that if $4,000 was allocated, it could not all be spent on equipment as there would be
staff involved in seeing the clients. Zimmermann Smith asked if Free Med's funding from other
sources was in any way contingent on what the Commission chose to allocate. Pickup said it
was not. McKay asked if the salary costs included in the request have anything to do with Free
Med's prescription drug program. Pickup said that the salary funding was to partially cover the
pharmacy assistant, the case manager and the physician. Zimmermann Smith said that she
would give Free Med $18,000 and remove the small Big Brothers/Big Sisters allocation.
McMurray said she would rather reduce the Shelter House allocation. Zimmermann Smith
suggested taking $10,000 from Shelter House and giving Free Med $20,000. Chappell said that
Table to Table had not yet been discussed, though five people had allocated $10,000 to it in
their allocation worksheets. McMurray said that Table to Table was a big priority, and thanked
Chappell for bringing it up. Chappell said that his recollection was that their project was a one
year project. Gatlin said that Table to Table was his second highest ranked project, but the
question ultimately becomes one of where the $10,000 comes from. Chappell said that despite
his admiration for the program, for him the money comes from Free Med because the project
ranked the lowest and it is the same type of request Free Med has to make every year. Gatlin
pointed out that just because a request is repeated from year to year does not mean it is not a
need. Hart said that even though it is a need, the concern is that some of these agencies are
unable to find alternate funding for these programs. Zimmermann Smith said that she had felt
about Table to Table the same way she had felt about Local Foods. She said that though it is a
good project, she did not fund it. Gatlin asked if it would be possible to go with the average
allocation for Table to Table. He said he had had Emma Goldman ranked as his third highest
project because it is a project that will help them increase revenues. Zimmermann Smith noted
that Emma Goldman would have to fundraise beyond anything the Commission allocated. There
was extensive discussion about taking a small amount of money that was currently allocated to
Emma Goldman and the Free Medical Clinic and allocating that to Table to Table. Ultimately,
consensus was reached to fund Table to Table at $7,000, Free Med at $15,000, and Emma
Goldman at $25,000.
The Commission agreed to return to discussions of Public Facilities. Hart said she was under
the impression that funding allocations under Public Services were still up for discussion for
things like DVIP. Zimmermann Smith asked if everyone was comfortable with the allocation
amounts currently set for Public Services and a majority of Commissioners indicated agreement
with the allocation amounts.
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
MARCH 17, 2011
PAGE 9 of 11
Hightshoe said there was $110,065 left to spend on CDBG eligible activities. Hart asked if it was
the intention not to spend the other $87,800 in Housing. The consensus was to not allocate
these funds at this time.
Chappell recommended that the Commission cover the expenses of the sprinkler system for
Arc, and a number of Commissioners indicated agreement. Zimmermann Smith recommended
increasing the Mayor's Youth project to $99,800. Gatlin said that he would like to do one side
door for Old Brick, but not the front door. Hightshoe said that she did not think the front door
would actually be eligible as it only led to the banquet hall. A consensus was reached to fund
Old Brick at $15,500. Zimmermann Smith suggested giving the remaining balance to Mayor's
Youth. Hart asked if there could be any discussion about the PATV project as the back steps
and the retaining wall present safety issues. Chappell noted that six Commissioners had
allocated zero to PATV. He also noted that Mayor's Youth had had a tot of funding for their
ground-level rehab, and are getting close to $100,000 for rental new construction this funding
round. Chappell said that if there was desire to spend the rest of the money right now, the Crisis
Center and Arc had ranked highly for him and he would rather see the money go there than just
lumped into Mayor's Youth. Chappell asked if there were still staff concerns about the PATV
application. Hightshoe said there are. She said that because it would be very difficult for PATV
to verify that 51 % of the beneficiaries of their project are low-to-moderate income, they would
have to rely on that part of their project that benefitted Extend the Dream and Extend the Dream
would have to meet and document the low-to-moderate income national objective. A consensus
agreed not to fund PATV. Zimmermann Smith said she was okay with giving Arc more money.
McKay said he could go along with most of the balance going to Mayor's Youth. A consensus
was reached to increase Mayor's Youth and the Arc.
Gatlin asked how much PATV had needed to complete their project. Hart said they had needed
just about the amount she had allocated. Gatlin asked if anyone saw a way to fund this project.
Zimmermann Smith said she was not comfortable funding it given the staff concerns. Hart said
the back steps were directly related to Extend the Dream's egress and they could act as
applicant. Hightshoe noted that there had been compliance issues in the recent past with
Extend the Dream. Chappell said that if Extend the Dream is able to remediate compliance
issues in the future they can apply for future funding. Gatlin suggested that zero might be the
most appropriate allocation amount and a number of Commissioners indicated agreement.
McKay invited a motion.
Zimmermann Smith moved to accept the discussed funding allocations as the
Commission's final recommendations to City Council.
Drum seconded.
The Commission voted 8-0 to approve the motion (Dragon absent).
Chappell suggested that if the Congressional allocation changes by 10% or less then staff
should adjust the numbers accordingly. If the changes are more than 10%, then the
Commission should meet again.
Zimmermann Smith moved to have staff make adjustments to allocations if the
Congressional allocation to Iowa City changes by 10% or less; if the changes are by
more than 10%, the Commission will reconvene to consider the allocations.
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
MARCH 17, 2011
PAGE 10 of 11
Chappell seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 8-0 (Dragoo absent.)
Hart and Clamon agreed to write the justification memo.
ADJOURNMENT:
Zimmermann Smith moved to adjourn.
Drum seconded.
The motion was approved 8-0 (Dragoo absent).
Z
O
N
O
U
H
Z
W
J
a
O
W
W
rD
F~
Z
0
V
0
Z
a
Z
N
0
D
0
v
W
W ~'
U~
Z
Q N
Z
W
H
a
x x ~ x x x x x x
M -'
X X X X X X X X X
M
N
x
X
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
N
X _~ X X X X X X X
d N •- M M N M ~ ~'- N
W
~ O
N O
N O
N O
N O
N O
N O
N O
N O
N
W
H rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn
o
~
a
w Q
U
m
a ~ w p
~-
x ~
~ ~
W
a Z
g
~ v
~ z
~ =
~
}
4
~ ~w
~ x
Q
Z =
U J
U ~
O ~
D Q
U' Q
2 s
V
~ ~
~ ~ Q
N 0'
'~
~ `
N ~
W'~N
c~ ~~
c
N ~ ~ ca
aQZZ
n n n n
w~'
~ '
YXOz'
3b 5
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVED
APRIL 7, 2011 - 7:00 PM -FORMAL
CITY HALL, EMMA HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Freerks, Josh Busard, Charlie Eastham, Elizabeth Koppes,
Michelle Payne, Tim Weitzel
MEMBERS ABSENT: Wally Plahutnik
STAFF PRESENT: Karen Howard, Tabatha Ries-Miller, Sara Greenwood Hektoen
OTHERS PRESENT: Kirsten Frey, Matthew Lepic
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
DEVLOPMENT ITEM:
SUB10-00014/SUB10-00015: Discussion of an application submitted by Craig
Haesemeyer for a preliminary and final plat of Mackinaw Village Part 3, a 13-lot, 7.89 acre
residential subdivision located north of Foster Road on Mission Point Road and
Algonquin Road.
Eastham noted that he had a conflict with this item and would not be participating in its
consideration.
Ries-Miller stated that the property had been rezoned in 2004 to allow for cluster development
to protect environmentally sensitive areas. At that time, the preliminary plats for Parts 1, 2, and
3 were approved. In October of 2004, the final plats for Parts 1 and 2 were approved. In August
2004, the preliminary plat for Part 3 expired.
Reis-Miller explained that access is provided to the site by Foster Road, with future access
points routing off of Mission Point Road and Algonquin. In 2008, new subdivision regulations
were approved. These regulations require 60-foot streets and five-foot sidewalks. When the
preliminary plat for this property was originally approved, code required only 50-foot streets and
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 7, 2011 -Formal
Page 2 of 6
four-foot sidewalks. Staff recommends that most of the development retain the 50-foot street
and four-foot sidewalk standards. The exception to this is the north side of Algonquin where it
acts as a collector street; staff recommends a 60-foot street in that area.
In 2004, when the OPD5 preliminary plat was approved, staff recommended that front-facing
garages be allowed due to a gas-line easement in the rear. The PUD requires that staff approve
building design for those three lots.
The neighborhood open spaces requirement was fulfilled during the platting of Parts 1 and 2.
Freerks opened the public hearing. No one wished to speak and the public hearing was closed.
Freerks invited a motion.
Busard moved to approve SUB10-00014/SUB10-00015, application submitted by Craig
Haesemeyer for a preliminary and final plat of Mackinaw Village Part 3 with the
stipulations outlined in the staff report.
Koppes seconded.
Freerks said it is not unusual to find an application that has expired needs a little retro-fitting to
be brought up to code requirements. Freerks said she thought this would be a nice addition to
the area.
Payne said that she likes the way Algonquin was transitioned in this application.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0 (Eastham abstaining).
REZONING ITEMS:
REZ11-00006: Discussion of an application submitted by Iowa City Community School
District and North Dodge Partners, LC for a rezoning from a Research Development Park
(RPD) zone to Neighborhood Public (P1) zone for approximately 10.39 acres of property
located at 1725 N. Dodge Street.
Ries-Miller explained that this property was rezoned in 1988 for the Press Citizen. The school
district is in the process of purchasing the property and plans to use it for its central
administration offices, school board meeting place and a centralized food service operation.
Ries-Miller explained that the zoning code states that property owned by the school district,
county, city or state will be zoned P1. The current zoning allows or office, research, production
and assembly services. The school district's proposed uses are consistent with that zoning
designation; however, the P1 zone will allow for appropriate school-related uses. Because the
development abuts residential property the zoning code requires that the maximum building
height is consistent with the adjacent zone, which in this case is 35 feet. The code also requires
the setbacks and screening requirements to be consistent with the adjacent residential zone.
The Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as RPD, and if the P1 designation was approved,
the Comprehensive Plan would have to be amended to reflect the change in use. The Northeast
and the North District plans both address this area as a corridor and entryway to the city and
recommends maintaining and enhancing the area.
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 7, 2011 -Formal
Page 3 of 6
The original rezoning in 1988 had a conditional zoning agreement (CZA) and site development
standards; the purpose of which was to provide ahigh-quality aesthetic, enhancing the area's
natural features. At this time, the school district is not proposing any major exterior changes for
the site. Nevertheless, staff recommends that the rezoning be subject to a CZA that ensures
sensitivity to the natural and environmental features on the site, and would require general
compliance with the provisions outlined in the 1988 agreement. Specifically, staff recommends
requirements that would: 1) keep the development of the site retained to the current boundaries,
2) maintain the steep slopes; 3) maintain the northern buffer, and 4) require staff approval of
any future changes to the site.
Staff recommends approval of the rezoning subject to the conditional zoning agreement.
Freerks asked if the wording of the CZA would be more specific before it reached City Council,
and Ries-Miller said that it would. She said that the school district and the City were negotiating
the wording at present.
Eastham asked if the school district would be required by law to comply with the conditions the
City is imposing upon their zoning agreement. Greenwood Hektoen said that they would be.
Eastham asked if there was not required stormwater management for the site due to the
proximity of the Hickory Hill retention area. Howard explained that because this was not a
subdivision, stormwater management requirements would be unchanged from what had been
required at the time of the original rezoning.
Freerks opened the public hearing.
Kirsten Frey, 920 South Dubuque, spoke on behalf of the school district. She said that she was
present as the school district's attorney and was available to answer questions. She noted that
the district's repurposing of the building does not involve any large-scale construction or dirt
moving. The only construction under consideration is the building of a room specifically for the
purpose of holding school board meetings. Even that is being considered as a part of the
existing footprint of the building. She also noted that the food service facility would not really
involve cooking but more the transport of food out to schools. Frey said that she has received a
draft of a CZA and agrees with the broad strokes of the agreement, though the exact wording
still needs to be worked out. Frey said that she fully anticipates having a mutually agreeable
CZA to take to City Council. Freerks asked if there was intention to create additional parking
and Frey replied that there was not at this time. She said that the district would be amenable to
having future parking additions reviewed by staff as part of site plan review and the CZA.
Eastham noted that a number of school district meetings are held at night and asked if there
were plans to add additional lighting in the parking lots. Frey said there was no plan for that at
this time.
There were no additional comments and the public hearing was closed.
Weitzel moved to approve REZ11-00006, an application to rezone 10.39 acres of land
located at 1027 North Dodge from RDP to P1, subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement
as approved by staff.
Payne seconded.
Koppes said that generally there is actual language for the Commission to review prior to voting
on an application. Greenwood Hektoen said that the general parameters of the CZA have been
set forth in this meeting. Koppes asked if the application would come back before the
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 7, 2011 -Formal
Page 4 of 6
Commission if there were changes beyond the scope of what was discussed at the meeting.
Greenwood Hektoen said that now would be the time for Commission input. Koppes said she
would prefer not to offer blanket approval and would rather see the language worked out. Payne
asked if Weitzel's motion had specifically addressed the four conditions discussed in the
meeting. Weitzel said that he had worded it to include staff approval, not specific requirements.
Koppes said that she just wished to ensure that the minutes reflected that the Commission had
four specific requirements it wanted to see in the CZA. Freerks suggested that Koppes spell
those out for the record. Payne said that the specific requirements being discussed were: 1) that
the development occur within the current boundaries, 2) steep slopes would be maintained, 3)
the current buffer would be maintained, and 4) staff would approve any changes to the building
or site. Weitzel said that he believed that the building footprint was still being negotiated. Busard
said that he was comfortable with the City Council being left to approve the details of the plan,
and noted that he believed the school district would be a good steward of the land. Weitzel
noted that there was not a lot of room for the footprint to change because of the size of the
plateau. Eastham said that he shares Koppes' concerns about voting on a CZA without having
the specific language before the Commission. Eastham said that because the staff report
indicates that the existing CZA will basically be maintained, he is more comfortable with it than
he would otherwise be. Koppes said that she is not that concerned about this particular
application; it is the general practice of voting without the details being worked out that concerns
her. Payne said that the Commission probably would not do this in another case. Weitzel noted
that the Commission should also make note of the plan to include the existing CZA as outlined
in the staff report. Freerks said that the application is generally consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. Eastham noted that there are a number of other properties that have
been zoned P1 that should result in Comprehensive Plan amendments. Ries-Miller said there
were a couple more such properties coming before the Commission soon.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0.
REZ11-00007: Discussion of an application submitted by Stanley and Douglas, LLC for a
rezoning to amend the Planned Development Overlay (OPD5) plan for Village Green Part
XX, Lot 50 (Wellington Condominiums) to allow the addition of 3-car garages for
approximately 2.35 acres of property located at Village Road and Wintergreen Drive.
Howard said that this development was originally approved in December 2001 with two-car
garages. The OPD was amended in January 2005 to allow three-car garages on a couple of
dwelling units. This approval included a note that the third garage must be setback at least two
feet from the other garage stalls in order to provide facade articulation. Because those units sold
very well, the developer is requesting permission to amend the OPD to allow for three-car
garages. The OPD5 plan does allow for that kind of flexibility under certain conditions. Howard
said that given that the area is already developed and the design is consistent with surrounding
development, staff does not feel that allowing three-car garages will adversely affect the
neighborhood or contradict the intent of the zoning code and Comprehensive Plan. Howard
recommended that the two-foot setback for the third garage stall be retained. She noted that the
lots are fairly wide and the development has a great deal of green space built into it.
Busard asked how wide the garages are, and Howard recommended he address that questions
to the applicant.
Freerks opened the public hearing.
Matt Lepic, 825 St. Andrews Drive, identified himself as the applicant. He noted that the third
garage stall is a one-car standard width, 12-feet. Koppes asked if the applicant had met with
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 7, 2011 -Formal
Page 5 of 6
any of the neighbors concerning this. Lepic said that he had not as he had not really been
through this process before. He said that he did speak with the homeowners' association and
they were in favor of the changes.
No one else wished to speak and the public hearing was closed.
Eastham moved to approve REZ11-00007, a rezoning to amend the Planned Development
Overlay plan of Village Green part 20 to allow three-car garages on four new units.
Payne seconded.
Weitzel said that the area can absorb extra cars, the articulation helps retain the attractiveness
of the structures. Eastham noted that bicycles can also be stored in a third garage. Freerks said
that the articulation was important and she thought the third garage would be compatible with
the neighboring structures.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: February 28 and March 3, 2011:
Payne moved to approve the minutes.
Eastham seconded.
The motion carried 6-0.
OTHER:
Freerks noted that Busard would be leaving the Commission, and Carolyn Dyer would be
replacing him as Commissioner.
ADJOURNMENT:
Payne motioned to adjourn.
Koppes seconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 6-0 vote.
Z
O
~0
~~
~O
O V
V~
zv~
Z Z N
Na
aS Z
~ W
Z~
za
Z
Q
J
a
X X X X X ~ X
N X X X X X X X
X X X X ~ X X
N
N X X X X X X X
~w r ~ M N lf) ln M
r
~ ~
~ r
~ r
~ ~-
~ r
~ r
~
~X o o o o o 0 0
w
I
w
J
=
W
w
~
~ Q
=
Q
m
J J
Q
Z q ~
I ~ =
V Z
Q rv 2 ~
O W U Y ~
~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ J
~
_
~
W
W
~ W
N
w Q i-- w a z = ~
~ v~ cn w o- ~ Q -
w
Q
z ~
m Q
w ~
w O
Y Q
a ~
a ~
N X X X X X X X
N
M X X X X X X X
c°~ X X X X X X X
w ~ ~ M N In lf') M
r
~ r
~ r
~ r
~ r
~ r
~ r
~
~X o o o o o 0 0
w
w ~
w ~-
Q J w
J J
Q
= Q Z ~
2 ~
fA 2
V Z
Q _
1 ~
O W t~ H.
~ N ~ Z J
~ ~
a _
~ ~ W
a W ~ N
F
Q v
i
~ v
i
Q w
OC
O ~
Q a
~ =
w
z m w w Y a a ~
c~
z
w
w
O
Z
E
O
7
N ~
N o
~z
U p~
X
.~- N
C ~
C ~ ~
of ~ ~ O
N ~ Q Z
a Q n u
II a w~
xOOz
>-
w
Y
05-03-11
3b 6
Airport Commission
March 10, 2011
Page 1
MINUTES FINAL
IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION
MARCH 10, 2011 - 6:00 P.M.
AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING
Members Present: Jose Assouline, Steve Crane, Minnetta Gardinier, Howard Horan (left
mtg. early), Rick Mascari
Staff Present: Sue Dulek, Michael Tharp
Others Present: Matt Wolford, Jeff Edberg, Toby Myers, David Hughes
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL• (to become effective only after separate Council
action
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Horan called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS:
Horan noted that the first order of business is to elect new officers. Mascari nominated
Gardinier for the Chairperson position; seconded by Crane. Motion carried 5-0. Horan
nominated Crane for the Secretary position; seconded by Mascari. Motion carried 5-0.
APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES:
Chairperson Gardinier then took over the meeting. Minutes from the February 17 and February
21, 2011, meetings were reviewed. Mascari moved to approve both the February 17 and
the February 21, 2011, minutes as submitted; seconded by Crane. Motion carried 5-0.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION:
None.
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION:
a. Farm Management -Tharp noted that the farm manager is working on a lease
agreement for the hay portion of the farm operations. He added that it will be a type of
barter agreement and further explained what this will entail, especially in the first year or
so. Tharp responded to Members' questions, further pointing out the areas on the map
that are in question. He added that they hope to have a lease for the Commission to
review by next month's meeting.
b. Aviation Commerce Park -Jeff Edberg -Edberg noted that they have made some
progress. There is a party interested in Lot 16. He added that it is a dog-cat oriented
business that would employ three employees to begin with. Edberg has also offered lots
to several other parties, but doesn't have any definite offers yet. He noted that in
general the commercial market appears to be doing better. Edberg then brought up the
Airport Commission
March 10, 2011
Page 2
question from last month concerning leasing. He noted that after checking into it, the
listing agreement does not contain a leasing price. He shared information from the
previous agreement, and noted that he would recommend an increase of 8 to 8'/z cents
as a guide. He could then work up a schedule for the Commission's approval. Members
noted their agreement to have Edberg do this. Edberg then responded to Members'
questions regarding lease terms and other such details.
c. FAA/IDOT Projects - AECOM - David Hughes
i. Runway 7/25 & 12/30 -Hughes noted that they are still completing FAA
grant closeout paperwork. They have the final paperwork from the City
and can now move forward from there. He gave Members a brief
rundown on the history of this.
ii. Obstruction Mitigation -Hughes noted that they are making the final
revisions to the ALP, and then it goes back in for airspace review. He
further updated the Members on what the FAA is saying thus far
concerning this.
iii. 7-25 Parallel Taxiway -Hughes noted that he met earlier today with
Public Works, Gardinier, and Mascari on this project. The FAA has given
a May 15 date for bid deadline, with construction beginning in July. He
added that this project will not impact either runway. The taxiway system
on the north end, however, will be impacted to some degree. There will
also be some disruption to Riverside Drive, according to Hughes, when
they install new storm sewers. Mascari brought up that at today's
meeting, it was noted that there would need to be a two-week shutdown
of the runway, while they attach the taxiway. It was suggested that they
put a time limit on this part of the project, to help ensure that the project is
completed in a timely manner.
d. 2011 Air Race Classic -Gardinier noted that the start documents are now posted on
the web site. There were 33 teams registered as of yesterday, according to Gardinier.
With the increased advertising and promotion, Gardinier stated that they hope to reach
50 teams. She then shared some of the details that are starting to come together for this
year's race. The discussion turned to having a hangar party at the Airport during this
event, and what the City rules are regarding alcohol on City-owned property, as well as
whether or not an exception could be granted for such an event. Tharp noted that
registration for the race ends April 15'h. There will be a variety of activities for youth, as
well as tours for visiting pilots at Rockwell Collins, according to Gardinier.
e. Corporate Hangar "L" -Tharp stated that they are still working on the design to be
presented. He added that they will meet with the interested parties to make sure they
are still on board for leasing hangar space. Mascari asked if they could see a floor plan
once they get to that point, and Tharp stated that this would be part of the bid process
information that the Commission would need to approve. Four lease agreements, or
about 50% of the hangar space, would be enough to secure the debt payment,
according to Tharp.
f. Airport "Operations": Strategic Plan Implementation; Budget; Management -
Mascari asked Tharp to explain the memo they received in their packets. Tharp noted
that after the weekly staff meeting, he was pulled aside by the City Manager and asked
his take on the meeting with the Council. He shared that the City Manager stated that
Airport Commission
March 10, 2011
Page 3
the City wants to see a viable Airport, and that they like the way the operations are being
handled now. Another point that was made was in regards to the payment plan that was
discussed at the recent joint meeting. Basically paying off the debt on the three hangars
would be done before going to a 50/50 split as previously discussed. Gardinier stated
that she believes they need to write up a formal memo to the Council which will lay out
the Airport's plan to pay down this debt. Mascari stated that he would still like to see
them use an accelerated payback program, rather than the 50/50 split. The discussion
continued, with Mascari stating his reasons on why they should accelerate this. Others
offered their view, disagreeing with Mascari's recommendation. A lengthy discussion
ensued, with Mascari making the first motion. Mascari moved that the proceeds of
the next three sales go toward paying off the debts on Buildings K and I; that the
rent received from K and I, along with payments made previously on K and I, go
toward the debt on Building F; and that all remaining sale proceeds be used at the
Commission's discretion; seconded by Horan. Motion failed 2-3; Crane,
Assouline, and Gardinier in the negative.
The discussion then turned to what the Commission would like to put into writing. Tharp
noted how they could handle this, with others giving their opinion. Gardinier moved to
put in writing, with assistance from Crane and Tharp, the position presented at the
recent joint meeting of the Commission and Council, with the addition of how the
proceeds will be used, and that this be the basis for a discussion with the City
Manager; Assouline seconded the motion. Motion passed 3-1; Mascari in the
negative and Horan absent.
Tharp noted that they have three months left in the budget year and things look good.
Gardinier asked where they are with Tharp's annual review. He responded that Horan is
working on this.
g. US Army Reserve Lease -
i. Public Hearing - Dulek spoke to Members regarding this lease, noting
the terms on page 4 of the lease. Members briefly discussed these
concerns, before closing the hearing.
ii. Consider Resolution #A11-07 Approving Lease with United States Army
Reserve -Gardinier asked for clarification on the lease amount. Tharp
stated it is $4,200 per year, or $350 per month. Previously the monthly
rental was at $286. Tharp recommended that the Commission accept
this lease amount. Mascari moved to recommend Resolution #A11-
07; seconded by Crane. Motion carried 4-0; Horan absent.
h. Firearms Policy -Members briefly discussed this policy. Crane moved to Approve
Resolution #A11-08 for the Firearms Policy at the Airport; seconded by Mascari.
Motion carried 4-0, Horan absent.
i. FBO /Iowa Flight Training /Whirlybird Reports -Matt Wolford and Toby Myers with
Jet Air noted that they've been out picking up trash lately, getting ready for the mowing
season. Also noted was that business has been continuing to pick up. Gardinier asked
if things are still moving forward on replacing countertops and that type of thing. Tharp
responded that he is still getting quotes on these items.
j. Subcommittees' Reports -Gardinier stated that she would like to setup some sort of
schedule to report on subcommittee happenings.
Airport Commission
March 10, 2011
Page 4
k. Commission Members' Reports - Gardinier desired to extend her appreciation to
Horan for serving as Chair the past year.
I. Staff Report -Tharp noted that the Iowa Aviation Conference was April 20 and 21 and
that the schedule conflicted with the next regular commission meeting. Members then
discussed the date and consensus was to move the meeting to April 14th
SET NEXT REGULAR MEETING:
The next regular meeting will be Thursday, April 14, 2011, at 6:00 P.M. at the Airport Terminal
building.
ADJOURN:
Meeting was adjourned at 8:04PM
CHAIRPERSON
DATE
Airport Commission
March 10, 2011
Page 5
Airport Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2011
TERM ~ N N w ~
N
O
~
~J
N
~
~
O
N
~
NAME EXP. ~ ~ ~ ~ 3
03/01/13 X X X X
Rick
Mascari
03/01/14 X X X X
Howard
Horan
Minnetta 03/01/15 X X X X
Gardinier
Jose 03/02/12 X X X X
Assouline
Steve 03/02/14 O/E X X X
Crane
Key:
X =Present
O =Absent
O/E = AbsenUExcused
NM = Not a Member at this time