HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-08-11 Info Packetk A10
= 4M
CITY OF IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET
MISCELLANEOUS
IP1 Council Meetings and Work session Agenaa
IP2 Email from the Parks & Recreation Director: Flash Mob
IP3 Memorandum from Fire Chief: FY2012 Goals and Objectives
August 11, 2011
IP4 Iowa City Fire Department Fire Safety Compliance Report April 1 -June 30, 2011
IP5 Building Permit Information — July 2011
IP6 Police Department Bar Check Report — July 2011
IP7 Email to Mayor from Troy Eads: A kind word about your staff
IP8 Response from PCD Director to Sonia Ryang: Flood Buyouts and flood mitigation along
Taft Speedway and in the Park View Terrace neighborhood
IP9 Memo from Asst. City Attorney: Cooperatives, property taxation, and the Krupp decision
IP10 Memo from Recycling Coordinator, Neighborhood Services Coordinator, and Neighborhood
Services Intern: Rummage in the Ramp - 2011
IP11 Response from Solid Waste Division Clerk to letter from Pat Heinitz: Suspension of solid
waste and recycling fees
IP12 Memo from City Clerk: KXIC Radio Show Update
IP13 News Release: Energy Efficiency Measures Paying Off For City
IP14 Iowa City's Community Development Celebration & Open House —August 23
DRAFT MINUTES
IP15 Board of Adjustment: July 13, 2011
IP16 Planning & Zoning Commission: July 18, 2011
IP17 Planning & Zoning Commission: July 21, 2011
IP18 Youth Advisory Commission: July 16, 2011
IP1
City Council Meeting Schedule and
CITY OF IOWA CITY Work Session Agendas August 11, 2011
www.icgov.org
TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE
SUBJECT TO CHANGE
♦
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 24
New Council Chambers
4:00p Joint Meeting
1 Quail Creek Circle
North Liberty
♦
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 5
Holiday — City Offices Closed
♦
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6
Emma J. Harvat Hall
5:30p Special Work Session
7:00p Regular Formal Council Meeting
♦
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 19
Emma J. Harvat Hall
5:30p Regular Work Session
♦
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00p Regular Formal Council Meeting
♦
MONDAY, OCTOBER 3
Emma J. Harvat Hall
5:30p Regular Work Session
♦
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 4
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00p Regular Formal Council Meeting
♦
MONDAY, OCTOBER 17
Emma J. Harvat Hall
5:30p Regular Work Session
♦
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 18
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00p Regular Formal Council Meeting
♦
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 1
Emma J. Harvat Hall
5:30p Special Work Session
7:00p Regular Formal Council Meeting
♦
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 21
Emma J. Harvat Hall
5:30p Special Work Session
♦
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 22
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00p Special Formal Council Meeting
♦
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 29
Beckwith Boathouse
1:00p -5:00p Special Work Session — Strategic Planning Session
Terrill Mill Park
5:00p -7:00p Orientation (current and incoming Council)
= 1
City Council Meeting Schedule and
CITY OF IOWA CITY Work Session Agendas August 11, 2011
www.icgov.org
♦ MONDAY, DECEMBER 5 Emma J. Harvat Hall
2:00p -5:30p Special Work Session — Strategic Planning Session
5:30P Regular Work Session
♦ TUESDAY, DECEMBER 6 Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00p Regular Formal Council Meeting
Marian Karr IP2
From:
Tom Markus
Sent:
Tuesday, August 02, 2011 10:30 AM
To:
Mike Moran
Cc:
Marian Karr
Subject:
RE: Flash Mob
Ok by me
From: Mike Moran
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 7:39 AM
To: Tom Markus
Subject: FW: Flash Mob
I would like to send this to council, I had mentioned this to them in Early July when accepting the July is Parks and
recreation month proclamation! Mm It happened last Friday in the Ped Mall (in case you missed it)
From: Tracy Carey [mailto:tracynicole22 @gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 01, 20117:42 PM
To: Joyce Carroll; Chad Dyson; Matt Eidahl; Matthew Eckhardt; Jessica Lang; Cindy Coffin; Tammy Neumann; Mike
Moran
Subject: Flash Mob
Hello All,
The Flash Mob is now on YouTube and the contest entry form has been submitted! The url for the video is
http• / /www.youtube.com /watch ?v= AQGGzOrBi3k. The NRPA should be telling us soon that we are the best and we won
so when that happens I'll let you know. O
Enjoy!
Tracy N. Carey
Leisure Youth and Human Services
University of Northern Iowa
tracynicole22 @gmail.com
(815) 275 - 8619
IOWA CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT
410 E. Washington Street — Iowa City, IA 52240 -1 82 1
Phone: 319.356.5260 www.icgov_org FAX: 319.356.5263
DATE: July 26, 2011
TO: Tom Markus, City Manager
FROM: Andrew J. Rocca, Fire Chief
RE: FY2012 Goals and Objectives
The FY2012 Goals and Objectives of the Iowa City Fire Department are in final form for your
review. The goals and objectives are aligned with the accreditation process and the department's
strategic plan. A requirement of the Commission on Fire Accreditation is to submit the
department's goals and objectives to the City Council for their review.
Please forward the goals and objectives to the City Council at your convenience.
Thanks in advance for your assistance.
AJR/bdm
Attachment
cc: Chief Officers
IOWA CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT
FY2012 GOALS & OBJECTIVES
EMERGENCY OPERATIONS BENCHMARKS
1. Goal: Maintain fire apparatus and equipment according to NFPA Standard 1901, 2003 Edition, and
the Insurance Services Office requirements and implement new technologies as they become
available. (Specific Recommendations 6B.4 and 6C.4) (SP Goal 4 - Objective 4A)
Objective:
Report on NFPA compliance of reserve apparatus standard by August 1, 2011.
Estimated Expenditure: $25,000
2. Goal: Improve response to high- hazard occupancies. (Strategic Recommendation 8)
(SP Goal 6 - Objective 6A)
Objectives:
A. Update OG -048 — Dispatch Protocols — to include high- hazard occupancies by September 1,
2011.
B. Integrate the high- hazard response unit recommendations with the new computer aided dispatch
system by September 1, 2011.
Estimated Expenditure: $3,750.00
3. Goal: Improve ability to respond Goal and
Objective t 6Cstructural collapse situation. (Specific
Recommendation 5E.5) (SP
Objective:
Develop and implement operational guidelines and procedures by August 15, 2011.
Estimated Expenditure: $8,750.00
-1- 2012
EMERGENCY OPERATIONS BENCHMARKS Cont'd.
4. Goal: Evaluate the technical rescue program. (SP Goal 6 - Objective 60
Obiectives:
A. Determine location and number of technical rescue incidents for the past three years by October
1, 2011.
B. Utilize GIS data and mapping in order to conduct program evaluation by October 1, 2011.
C. Develop MABAS technical rescue run cards for technical rescue program by January 1, 2012.
D. Determine baseline travel times for the effective response force with R -4 in fire district 4 by
January 1, 2012.
Estimated Expenditure: $2,000.00
-2-
2012
FIRE PREVENTION /LIFE SAFETY PROGRAM BENCHMARKS
5. Goal: Develop methods and procedures to improve the utilization of fire prevention data (includes
education and fire investigation) in Firehouse software. (Strategic Recommendation 4)
(Specific Recommendation 5B. 7) (SP Goal 6 - Objective 6E)
Objective:
Develop parameters for analyzing effectiveness of fire prevention efforts in elementary and high schools
by August 1, 2011.
Estimated Expenditure: $2,500.00
6. Goal: Develop a quick access pre plan system. (SP Goal 6 - Objective 6D)
Obiective:
Plan for MDC implementation and migration of data as resources become available by September 1,
2011.
Estimated Expenditure: $2,500.00
7. Goal: Determine time spent in fire prevention activities. (SP Goal 6- Objective 6D)
Objectives:
A. Confirm appropriate data collection software for tracking fire prevention activities by October 1,
2011,
B. Develop procedures for individual and unit tracking for fire prevention activities by November 1,
2011.
C. Develop quarterly reports on fire prevention activities by January 1, 2012.
Estimated Expenditure: $2,500.00
-3-
2012
FIRE PREVENTION /LIFE- SAFETY BENCHMARKS Cont'd.
8. Goal: Develop a process that links fire origin and cause data to fire prevention activities.
Objectives:
A. Identify trends in fire origin and cause data based on 2011 fire incident data.
B. Develop fire prevention activities that correlate to trends identified in 2011 fire incident data and
present recommended actions at the 2012 spring planning meeting.
Estimated Expenditure: $2.500.00
-4-
2012
EMERGENCY /DISASTER MANAGEMENT BENCHMARKS
g. Goal: Improve inter jurisdictional cooperation in emergency /disaster management. (Specific
Recommendation 5H.2) (SP Goal 6 - Objective 6G)
Objectives:
A. Participate in a multi- agency disaster drill using the Johnson County -Wide Multi - Hazard
Emergency Operation Plan by July 1, 2012.
B. Actively participate in Johnson County Emergency Management's funding procurement for
homeland security, emergency operations center, etc., through attendance at all monthly and
special meetings.
C. Promote, investigate, and implement the NIMS Incident Command System for City incident
activity and other planned events by July 1, 2012.
D. Draft a city -wide emergency operations plan that interfaces with the Johnson County -Wide
Multi- Hazard Emergency Operations Plan by November 1, 2011.
E. Develop a policy to address the issues identified in the vulnerability risk assessment and apply it
to 5H.2 in the Self- Assessment Manual by October 1, 2011.
F. Revise the vulnerability risk assessment to address critical infrastructure deficiencies and include
the document as an appendix to the policy by October 1, 2011.
Estimated Expenditure: $2,000.00
-5-
2012
ADMINISTRATION AND SUPPORT BENCHMARKS
10. Goal: Improve internal and external department communications. (Specific Recommendation 7B.10)
(SP Goal 2 - Objectives 2A, B, and E)
Objectives:
A. Develop a policy to describe the use of iStation by January 1, 2012.
B. Conduct training on MDCs and iStation for all personnel by November 1, 2011.
C. Deploy MDCs department -wide by September 1, 2011.
D. Include baseline standard of cover in the department's annual report by April 1, 2012.
Estimated Expenditure: $39.000.00
11. Goal: Open Station 4. (Strategic Recommendations 2, 6, and 7) (Specific Recommendations 7B.2,
7B. S, 7B. 6) (SP Goal 4 - Objective 4D)
Objectives:
A. Redistrict the city to include a fourth fire district by August 1, 2011.
B. Complete construction of the building by August 1, 2011.
C. Staff Fire Station 4 by October 1, 2011.
Estimated Expenditure: $4.2 million
12. Goal: Successful with CFAI reaccreditation in 2013. (Specific Recommendation 7C.4) (SP Goal 2 —
Objective F)
Objectives:
A. Update the self - assessment manual, as identified in the summer planning meeting by January 1,
2012.
B. Provide funding for CFAI agency, accreditation manager (AM), and peer assessor (PA)
involvement by July 1, 2011.
C. Submit application for re- accreditation with the 4th ACR by July 1, 2012.
Estimated Expenditure: $3.250.00
-6-
2012
ADMINISTRATION AND SUPPORT BENCHMARKS Cont'd.
13. Goal: Develop methods and procedures to better utilize the data to align department activities and
increase knowledge and efficiency. (Strategic Recommendation 4) (SP Goal 6 - Objectives 6A,
B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, and K)
Objectives:
A. Utilize GIS to display 2011 response data in the spring planning meeting by May 1, 2012.
B. Use high risk occupancy data to quantify a higher level of response (three engines instead of
two, ladder, BC).
Estimated Expenditure: $1,500.00
14. Goal: Develop a document retrieval system to track incidents and project trends to identify problem
areas for the implementation of accident training programs. (Specific Recommendation 7F.3)
(SP Goal 5 — Objective 5C)
Obiective•
The Health and Safety Committee review practice should be documented in GP -045 and include safety
recommendations by October 1, 2011.
Estimated Expenditure: $1,000.00
15. Goal: Evaluate the Wellness Fitness Initiative program. (SP Goal 5 — Objective 5C)
Obiective•
Identify and collect the required data elements from the annual fitness assessment by May 1, 2012.
Estimated Expenditure: $1,000.00
2012
TRAINING PROGRAM BENCHMARKS
16. Goal: Maintain a program based on skill maintenance and proficiencies focusing on all areas of
firefighter skill development using NFPA standards and Iowa City Fire Department policies and
guidelines. (Specific Recommendation 8B.2) (SP Goal 1— Objectives IA, B, D, and E)
Obiectives•
A. Utilize critical tasks in the SOC to develop performance based proficiencies by January 1, 2012.
B. Develop a long -term training schedule by October 1, 2011.
C. Work toward completion of Goal #1 of the 2011 -2016 Strategic Plan.
Estimated Expenditure: $1,500.00
17. Goal: Include the appropriate training resources in the inventory management system. The inventory
tracking system should include all individual items, current editions, or public dates of text, and
document repair, replacement, and disposal of items in order to maintain current and relevant
information about materials and equipment. (Specific Recommendation 8C.5) (SP Goal I —
Objective IA)
Obiectives•
A. Assign this project to the training officer for completion by October 1, 2011.
B. Attach to training policy GP -031 for inventory management control by January 1, 2012,
Estimated Expenditure: $1,000.00
18. Goal: Develop a more comprehensive list of education, knowledge, skills, and special talents of
individual members of the department. (Specific Recommendation 7D.3) (Specific
Recommendation 7D. 3) (SP Goal 5 —Objective 5A)
Obiectives•
A. Propose enhancements to current data set by July 1, 2011.
B. Develop a policy for annual review of the list by August 1, 2011.
Estimated Expenditure: $1,000.00
-8-
2012
TRAINING PROGRAM BENCHMARKS Cont'd.
19.- Goal: Evaluate company training (Training Passport) program. (SP Goal I — Objective IA)
Obiectives•
A. Identify hours of required company training by August 1, 2011.
B. Compare annual company training passport hours required with company training hours
completed by November 1, 2011,
Estimated Expenditure: $500.00
Rev. 07/11 /11
-9-
2012
1 01-1
Q: .UI 1 '4 -iff 1107,
3 -i1-�
M.
N
O
L
O
O
(D
W
O
TI
-'
(D
Cl)
h
CD
0
O
3
N
n
(D
N x
O -0 CD
O
O
l J
-n
(D
0
(D
v
3
CD
�P '
t7d
dd�n�nnn�nn�td
td td
td
td
td
tdtttd
p
C
C7
m
C
O
p
O
rD
a'
`U
cv
""
*
rD
m
rn
O
m
a'
p
y
M
L
p
p—
rD
v
rD
n
`_
•
p
O
O
cn
aD
p
aD
w
CA
(D
�-
n
J`
i
N
cn-
r1
n
H
O�
O
O
N
°
Z
r
a
v
d
O
�°
(D
n
w
OM's
M-.
�°
u
CD
�'
°
�_'
�
a�
(
aNa
WO
u
�
u
D
a
CD
O
r
N
n
5
n•
=
n
Id
O
td
u
r�s
J
p'
a
rD
C7
r
00
O
n
OJ
Q-
rD
O
TJ
CN
N
W
�
UQ
O
N
td
J
`J
W
V'
J
u
N
!
N
It
rD
Ul
0
�
J
a
x
x
x
x
CD
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
7
Z
Z
Z
o
7
Z
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CD
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
o
o
,TG)
o'
� •
0
0
0 •
o'
o'
o'
o'
o'
o
c
o'
o
o'
o'
o'
o'
o
o'
o'
o'
o'
o'
o'
o'
o
� o
o'
�
o
�
�.
G'.
G'.
Gf.
G'.
G'.
R.
�.
F'.
Gr.
G'.
�.
�•
Gr•�.7,
r*
n
�*•
�.
0
G'.
0
�.
0
R.
0
�.
0
R.
0
�.
0
R.
0
R.
0
v,
0
�*.
0
G'.
0
0
F'.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
¢
O
O
n
O
O
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
�
o
0-
o
Cr
0
U-
o
U-
o
a-
o
U-
o
U-
o
6'
o
Cr
0
cr
o
U-
o
U-
0
o
o✓
o
0
rD
o✓
rD
U-
rrD�
U-
n
Cr
0
U-
�
n
Cr
�
nr�
�
n
CrD�
cr
rrrD��
CrrD��
frr��D
(r'�D
Crr
frr��D
rrD�
Crr�D�
�
frDD
1Cr�
r,
rrr�D
`C
C
G
C
rCr-�D�
G
C
G
rNr
C
C
rNr-��
C
C
G
rNr��
C
rC-D�
C
rC�D
C
C
C
C
C
rD
�' •
,�-r
rD
Nx
C
rD
G
rD
C
rD
G
rD
CL
C
rD
G
rD
fD
CL
rD
rD
r�•t
;
rD
aaaan.a.aaaaaaaaa
('D
rD
rD
rD
rD
fD
rD
rD
rD
rD
('D
CD
rD
rD
r-r
a
rD
Cl.
('D
r-r
p
rD
a
f-..
Cl-
a.r
-l-
In
c
rD
�
m
N
t✓
i
Q
N
O
C
a
1 01-1
Q: .UI 1 '4 -iff 1107,
3 -i1-�
M.
N
O
L
O
O
(D
W
O
TI
-'
(D
Cl)
h
CD
0
O
3
N
n
(D
N x
O -0 CD
O
O
l J
-n
(D
0
(D
v
3
CD
�P '
0000
��
rrrro
ate
���ooc��c�o����m�r�r�m
0K-t
o
o�
C1
"r.
cn
rc
op
•
rh
P
P�--II
CD
0_
v'
a
u
�-
N
rt
�,
N
o
a
•- •
c
'y
CD
0
p�
cr
n
,--
,
N
>
'
cr
ro
u
`�'
O
,�
.7
r
rD
u
p
O
O
ht
Uq
(D_
v
O
(D
0
A)
°
p�
a
rD
v
n
O�
73
m
n
-
a
d
n
rD
,n
rt
°
p_,
°°
G�
`J
N
p
rn
^
N
N
� \
N
O
'�
n
�
�:
cn
O
En
'—'
w
Vf
'�'
•
C
CD
CD
-
n
O
o
7
G�
m
3
C-D
by
°
V
u
N
oo
CD
cn
O
N
r'
°'
,.,
P�
°
r�-r
v
r�
Co
U,
u
co
�,
•
_
n
73
C
o
t
P
iv
Y
C)
D
ry
N
N
rn`
rur
p�
G\
'_''
Cp,
_
J
u
�"
°
p
�.
O
U
"'
A'
�
O
O
N
O
rte-
O°
p
W
O
G
n
u
Q
A�
�
W
W
N
phi
G
O
N
rD
n
`v
O
CD
0NO
O
7j
CD
7
�
W
N
N
N
'�''
O
u
m
w
n
N
c
u
�
N
n
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
x
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
d
Z
Z
Z
Z
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N
o
0
0
0
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c•
�•
c
c
c
c.
a,,
c
c
c
a
c.
a•
c
c
c.
�
�
c•
�,
c
c
o'
o'
o'
o'
o'
o'
0'
o'
o'
o'
0'
o'
o'
o'
o'
o'
0
0
0'
0
0'
o'
O
O'
o'
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
p�
°
0
0
0
°
0
0
0
�
0
0
�
0
�
0
�
0
�
0
�
0
�
=
�
�
�
a
�
�
o
�
�
o
=
�
�
as
0
0
0
0
0°
0
En
0
En
0
cn
0
En
0
M
0
M
0
m
0
En
0
En
0
En
0
cn
0
En
0°
�
M�
O
o
c
0
0
m"I
0
0
cn
0°
m
m
0
V)
0
En
0
En
0
(A
0
rD
cn
a
o°
o
0
En
En
cn
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
0
N
n
CD
n
CD
CD
n
�
CD
CD
CD
N
�
CD
fD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
fD
CD
N
fD
CD
CD
E'D
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
.�
CD
o
cn
n:
n
Q
m
a�
N o
�o
a
'v�i:3�
EEj
c :011 IV 0C Inr I ICz
�G
u°
o
N
p
�
-
O
N
rt
w
a�
O
�'
�'
to
q�
I'd
::
a
a
�-
x
o
0
0
0_
y
�`
O
N
P
rt
N
G
rn_
rD
O
Uq
p
71
n
R°
rD
CD
rr
cn
CD
O
u
CD
°
O
by
-
o
n
O
r
G
a
p
�
cn
J
N
p
�
,
u
p
W
p
N
3
G
�
r-r
J
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
r d
Z
x
x
x
x
Z
x
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
C7
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
p o
o
o
0
o
0
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
0
0
0
0
o
O
o
0
It
rD o
c
�.
�•
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c°
c
c
c
c
c
o'
o
o'
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0°
o
p
0
0
0
0
0
cry
o
�n
:n
�n
�l
�n
:n
�n
as
n
:
a
(D
Rio
Vl
m
o
w
0
m
o
m
0
m
o
fn
o
cn
O
V]
O
6-0
fn
N
fn
o
w
0
Vl
O
m
O
('p
�i
fn
o
Vl
o
m
O
m
0
m
o
I
V
V
V
(
V
(7-
Vl
C)
VI
�
VI
V H
VJ
p
V
fn
rO-
V
V1
C
(n
C
fn
U-
N
0-
Vl
I
v
(n
V
fn
(7-
N
V
Cn
Cr
V1
Vl
CD
fn
CD
N
CD
fn
CD
VJ
CD
CD
CJ
CD
CD
I-''
CJ
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
�T
CJ
CD
CD
fD
CD
.nom.
CD
C)-
CJ
CD
CJ
CD
r)
CD
a
r-
s
CD
CD
a
CD
s
fD
a
CD
s
CD
CD
CD
a
CD
s
CD
a
CD
a
CD
a
.
O
..
1c;
C
o'
�
C
m
�
2
Co
0
ti4
�c
t-'
Ilk D v 01
:01 lv 0P, _allr I Iaz
rn
cra
.a
O
d�
n
n
0
a.
r,
n
0•Q
5
ti
0
a
p
s.
h
N
S
s
0
0
H
w�
a
a
N
o
o
tj
ii
td
C�
0
C
cn
o
uv,
0
0_
rD
0
rD
000
qs
o
r,
oo
a
o.�
u
-
uu
o
rD
CD
O
N
O
u
uP
c�
(�A
rt3�
J
cn
CD
lb
o
co
CD
ZZZZZZZdZZZZZZZ
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o•
o'
o'
o'
o•
o
o
�
o•
0
0
0•
o'
o'
o'
CZ .
a.
a.
a.
a.
a.
a.
a.
a.
a.
a.
�.
a.
a.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
(7-
o'
U-
U-
(7-
C;-
U
Cr
C7'
CY-
0-
C7'
U-
CY-
CL
0.
a
a.
a.
a.
a.
a
a.
a
a.
a.
in
a
o
'v
�
° 3
y
d
a 2
Q)
fD .ti
f�D
Q
BUILDING PERMIT INFORMATION
July 2011
KEY FOR ABBREVIATIONS
.Type of Improvement:
ADD - Addition
ALT - Alteration
REP - Repair
FND - Foundation Only
NEW -New
OTH - Other type of construction
Type of Use :
RSF - Residential Single Family
RDF - Residential Duplex
RMF - Three or more residential
RAC - Residential Accessory Building
MIX - Mixed
NON - Non - residential
OTH - Other
Page: 2
City of Iowa City
0
0
$420,000
ALT
Date: 8/1/2011 Extraction of Building ermit Data for
0
0
To: 7/1/201
g
NON
0
0
$45,000
From: 7/31/2011
Census Bureau Report
Permit Number Name
Ad Address
Tvoe
lomr
Twe
Use
Stories Units
Valuation
BLDII -00338 US CELLULAR
500 E MARKET ST
ADD
NON
0 0
$15,000
3 ADDITIONAL ANTENNAE ON HOSPITAL ROOFTOP
BLDI1 -00363 US CELLULAR
630 OLYMPIC CT
ADD
NON
0 0
$15,000
ADD ANTENNAE TO EXISTING TOWER
BLDI1 -00364 US CELLULAR
2980 INDUSTRIAL PARK R
ADD
NON
0 0
$15,000
ADD ANTENNAE TO EXISTING TOWER
BLD11 -00383 US CELLULAR
2464 S RIVERSIDE DR
ADD
NON
0 0
$15,000
ADD ANTENNAE TO EXISTING TOWER
BLDII -00419 US CELLULAR
2576 WESTWINDS DR
ADD
NON
0 0
$15,000
ADDITIONAL ANTENNAE FOR CLOCK TOWER
Total ADD /NON permits: 5
Total Valuation :
$75,000
BLDII -00448 CHRIS & AMY KAHLE
1503 SHERIDAN AVE
ADD
RSF
2 0
$109,540
2 STORY ADDITION FOR SFD
BLDI 1 -00412 LIZ MOON & TIM SHIPE
423 RONALDS ST
ADD
RSF
2 0
$86,400
ADDITION FOR SFD
BLDII -00397 DAVE AMBRISCO
205 RAVEN ST
ADD
RSF
0 0
$40,000
ADDITION FOR SFD
BLDI I -00388 ART & CINDY AMBROSE
22 DURHAM CT
ADD
RSF
0 0
$28,200
3 SEASON PORCH AND DECK ADDITION FOR
SFD
BLDI1 -00369 SUSAN SHROM
108 AMHURST ST
ADD
RSF
0 0
$25,000
3 SEASON PORCH ADDITION ON EXISTING DECK
BLDII -00416 CITY OF IOWA CITY
410 DOUGLASS ST
ADD
RSF
0 0
$25,000
REBUILD ATTACHED 2 CAR GARAGE AND REMODEL HOUSE INTERIOR FOR SFD
BLDII -00447 WILLIAM M SMITH
515 WOODRIDGE AVE
ADD
RSF
0 0
$12,000
BASEMENT ENTRY FOR SFD
BLDI1 -00423 PHILIP HARNEY
1923 CALIFORNIA AVE
ADD
RSF
0 0
$9,100
SCREEN PORCH ADDITION FOR SFD
BLDI 1 -00420 DANILO JAHN & JOEY MATT
1902 WINSTON DR
ADD
RSF
0 0
$4,000
DECK ADDITION FOR SFD
BLDII -00414 NAGUL SASSINE
1304 GOLDENROD DR
ADD
RSF
0 0
$2,500
DECK ADDITION AND REPAIR FOR SFD
BLDII -00351 MUSTE, GABRIELA D
1902 WOODBERRY CT
ADD
RSF
0 0
$1,500
STORAGE ADDITION TO ATTACHED GARAGE
FOR SFD
BLDII -00389 CITY OF IOWA CITY
1208 E BURLINGTON ST
ADD
RSF
0 0
$1,000
5 X 5 ENTRY DECK
Total ADD/RSF permits: 12 Total Valuation: $344,2401
BLDII -00435 OC GROUP LC 201 S CLINTON ST 205B
PUBLIC SAFET COMMUNICATIONS UPGRADES - REMOVE ELEVATOR
BLDI I -00431 OC GROUP LC 201 S CLINTON ST 168
OFFICE OF SUSTAINABILITY REMODEL
BLDII -00429 PANCHERO'S 32 S CLINTON ST
NEW FACADE FOR RESTAURANT
ALT
NON
0
0
$420,000
ALT
NON
0
0
$74,107
ALT
NON
0
0
$45,000
Page :
3
City of Iowa City
Date :
8/1/2011
Extraction of Building Permit Data for
To:
From :
7/l/2011
7/31/2011
Census Bureau Report
BLD11 -00324 BRUCE & PATRICIA MCNICI 1618 ABER AVE ALT RDF 0 0 $800
EGRESS WINDOW AND BASEMENT FINISH FOR DUPLEX UNIT
Total ALT/RDF permits: 1 Total Valuation : $800
BLD11 -00386 JOHN'S GROCERY 114 N GILBERT ST
Type
Type
0
0
$17,830
Permit Number Name Address
Impr
Use
Stories Units
Valuation
BLD11 -00361 YOTOPIA 132 S CLINTON ST
ALT
NON
1
0
$23,500
YOGURT RESTAURANT IN FORMER RETAIL SPACE
BLD11 -00400 DELTA ZETA 223 S DODGE ST
ALT
RMF
0
0
BLD11 -00403 PRESTIGE PROPERTIES LLC 401 S GILBERT ST
ALT
NON
3
0
$18,000
CHANGE OF USE AND ALTERATION OF TENANT COMMERCIAL SPACE
BLD11 -00402 JOHN A & NANCY A FASEL7 421 S DODGE ST
ALT
RMF
2
0
BLD11 -00362 LIA LAN PHAN ESPARZA 521 HIGHWAY 1
ALT
NON
1
0
$2,000
CHANGE OF USE FROM OFFICE TO YOGURT SHOP
Energy Audit needed before final
5 NORWOOD CIR
ALT
RSF
0
BLD11 -00393 ALAN ECKHARDT 1705 S 1ST AVE SUITE Q
ALT
NON
1
0
$1,000
OCCUPANT LOAD CALCULATION FOR RESTAURANT /BAR
BASEMENT BEDROOM FOR TOWNHOUSE UNIT
BLD11 -00404 ADVANTAGE CUSTOM BUII
2002 MACKINAW DR
ALT
Total ALT/NON permits: 7
Total ALT/RMF permits: 4
Total Valuation:
Total
$583,607
BLD11 -00324 BRUCE & PATRICIA MCNICI 1618 ABER AVE ALT RDF 0 0 $800
EGRESS WINDOW AND BASEMENT FINISH FOR DUPLEX UNIT
Total ALT/RDF permits: 1 Total Valuation : $800
BLD11 -00386 JOHN'S GROCERY 114 N GILBERT ST
ALT
RMF
0
0
$17,830
REMODEL BASEMENT APARTMENT FOR RMF
BASEMENT FINISH FOR SFD
AFTER THE FACT
BLD11 -00375 JOHN & CHRIS RUTHERFOR
1717 E COLLEGE ST
ALT
RSF
BLD11 -00400 DELTA ZETA 223 S DODGE ST
ALT
RMF
0
0
$17,000
REDO BATHROOM
BLDI 1 -00108 CAROLYN J BEYER
1227 SWISHER ST
BLD11 -00402 JOHN A & NANCY A FASEL7 421 S DODGE ST
ALT
RMF
2
0
$6,000
CONDOMINIUM EXISTING APARTMENT BUILDING
Energy Audit needed before final
5 NORWOOD CIR
ALT
RSF
0
0
BLD11 -00346 JAY JUNG 2410 BITTERSWEET CT
ALT
RMF
0
0
$900
BASEMENT BEDROOM FOR TOWNHOUSE UNIT
BLD11 -00404 ADVANTAGE CUSTOM BUII
2002 MACKINAW DR
ALT
RSF
Total ALT/RMF permits: 4
0
Total
Valuation :
$41,730
BLDI I -00380 BARRY G RANDALL & DAV
1151 MEADOWLARK DR
ALT
RSF
0
0
$66,675
BASEMENT FINISH FOR SFD
BLD11 -00375 JOHN & CHRIS RUTHERFOR
1717 E COLLEGE ST
ALT
RSF
0
0
$23,000
BASEMENT FINISH FOR SFD
BLDI 1 -00108 CAROLYN J BEYER
1227 SWISHER ST
ALT
RSF
0
0
$15,000
BASEMENT FINISH FOR SFD
BLD11 -00373 KRIS & BETH ACKERSON
5 NORWOOD CIR
ALT
RSF
0
0
$13,000
BASEMENT FINISH FOR SFD
BLD11 -00404 ADVANTAGE CUSTOM BUII
2002 MACKINAW DR
ALT
RSF
0
0
$8,000
BASEMENT FINISH FOR SFD
BLD11 -00366 MARGARET L HEFFRON
2663 HILLSIDE DR
ALT
RSF
0
0
$7,500
NEW BATHROOM FOR SFD
BLDI I -00314 WILLIAM TOOMEY
225 FAIRCHILD ST
ALT
RSF
0
0
$5,000
Convert kitchen to bathroom on second floor
BLD11 -00413 REBECCA A NEADES
3341 ROHRET RD
ALT
RSF
0
0
$2,853
BASEMENT EGRESS WINDOW FOR RSF
BLD11 -00039 GREG ALLEN
730 IOWA AVE
ALT
RSF
0
0
$2,000
ADD SHOWER TO BATHROOM FOR SFD
Page :
4
City of Iowa City
Date:
8/1/2011
Extraction of Building Permit Data for
To :
7/1/2011
Stories Units
RSF
From :
7/31/2011
Census Bureau Report
Permit Number Name
Address
Twe
Imor
Tvoe
Use
NEW
BLDI 1 -00424 JIM PORTER
1303 CARROLL ST
ALT
Stories Units
RSF
Valuation
BASEMENT BEDROOM EGRESS
$2,500
SFD WITH ATTACHED 3 CAR GARAGE
0 0
$2,000
BLDI 1 -00439 PEGGY K POWELL
1129 CHURCH ST
ALT
RSF 0 0
785 MCCOLLISTER CT
BASEMENT BATHROOM FOR SFD
BLDI 1 -00441 B & H BUILDERS
1814 CHELSEA CT
$2,000
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
Total ALT/RSF permits: 11
BLDI1 -00442 B & H BUILDERS
Total Valuation :
$147,028
BLDI 1 -00426 VAN METER INDUSTRIAL IT 470 RUPPERT RD FND NON 1 0 $0
FOUNDATION FOR 23,000 SQ.FT. OFFICE/WAREHOUSE
Total FND/NON permits: 1 Total Valuation : $0
BLDI 1 -00269 EYE PHYSICIANS & SURGE( 2629 NORTHGATE DR
MEDICAL OFFICES BUILDING
BLDI 1 -00177 246 GROUP LLC 2557 N DODGE ST
COMMERCIAL BUILDING SHELL
2557, 2563, 2569 N DODGE ST.-- TURNING LANE PRIOR TO CO
BLD11 -00395 CITY OF IOWA CITY 640 S SCOTT BLVD
SHELTER FOR DOG PARK
NEW
NON 1
0
$1,199,858
NEW
NON 1
0
$750,000
NEW
NON 1
0
$2,500
Total NEW/NON permits: 3 Total Valuation : $1,952,358
BLDI1 -00446 MICHAEL & CHRISTINE WE 175 S WESTMINSTER ST
FENCE ALONG LEFT PROPERTY LINE
NEW OTH 0 0 $1,500
I Total NEW /OTH permits; I Total Valuation : $11500
BLDI 1 -00440 RANDY HARDIN 303 COLLEGE CT
DETACHED GARAGE ADDITION FOR SFD
NEW RAC 1 0 $22,500
Total NEW/RAC permits: 1 Total Valuation : $22,500
BLDI1 -00377 CLEAR CREEK CUSTOM BU
1121 TIPPERARY RD
SFD WITH ATTACHED 3 CAR GARAGE
NEW
MLO 758.0 8 FT SIDEWALK
1 $260,000
BLDI 1 -00355 SOUTHGATE HOMES
1016 RYAN CT
SFD WITH ATTACHED 3 CAR GARAGE
NEW
BLDI1 -00382 ARLINGTON DEVELOPMEN
539 HUNTINGTON DR
SFD WITH ATTACHED 3 CAR GARAGE
RSF 1
BLDI 1 -00356 MICHAEL & DEB LOSS
1116 PRAIRIE GRASS LN
SFD WITH ATTACHED 2 CAR GARAGE
1 $139,923
BLDI1 -00391 ADVANTAGE CUSTOM BUII
785 MCCOLLISTER CT
SFD WITH ATTACHED 2 CAR GARAGE
BLDI 1 -00441 B & H BUILDERS
1814 CHELSEA CT
ZERO LOT SFD WITH ATTACHED 2 CAR GARAGE
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
BLDI1 -00442 B & H BUILDERS
1810 CHELSEA CT
NEW
RSF 1
1 $285,000
NEW
RSF 1
1 $260,000
NEW
RSF 1
1 $240,042
NEW
RSF 0
1 $212,322
NEW
RSF 1
1 $166,279
NEW
RSF 1
1 $139,923
NEW
RSF 1
1 $139,923
Page : 5 City of Iowa City
Date : 8/1/2011 Extraction of Building Permit Data for
To : 7/1/2011
From : 7/31/2011 Census Bureau Report
Tvoe Tyne
Permit Number Name Address Imor Use
ZERO LOT SFD, WITH ATTACHED 2 CAR GARAGE
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
Stories 911iLs Valuation
Total NEW/RSF permits: 7 Total Valuation : $1,443,489'
BLDI1 -00385 HYEK, BROWN, MORELANE 120 E WASHINGTON ST
REROOF COMMERCIAL BUILDING
BLDI 1 -00445 MIKE HODGE 218 E MARKET ST
REROOF COMMERCIAL BUILDING
BLDI 1 -00444 KEY PROPERTIES LTD 216 MARKET ST
REROOF COMMERCIAL BUILDING
REP
MIX
2
0
$40,232
REP
MIX
0
0
$14,600
REP
MIX
3
0
$12,250
Total REP/MIX permits: 3 Total Valuation : $67,082'
BLDI 1 -00398 OLD BRICK EPISCOPAL LU7 26 MARKET ST
REP NON 0 0
$30,000
WINDOW REPLACEMENT FOR HISTORIC STRUCTURE
Remove existing roof and install new metal
1029 E COURT ST
BLDI1 -00415 MIDWEST ONE BANK TRUS 331E MARKET ST
REP NON 2 0
$6,000
REROOF COMMERCIAL BUILDING
REP
RMF 4
BLDI1 -00417 PUBLIC ACCESS TELEVISIO 730 S DUBUQUE ST
REP NON 0 0
$2,700
10 FEET LONG RETAINING WALL FOR COMMERCIAL BUILDING
RMF 2
Reroof multi family dwelling
Total REPINON permits: 3
Total Valuation:
$38,700
BLDI 1 -00409 ZETA TAU ALPHA FRAT HS]
815 E BURLINGTON ST
REP
RMF 0
Remove existing roof and install new metal
1029 E COURT ST
EXTERIOR RAILING REPAIR IN HISTORIC DISTRICT
BLDI1 -00372 NATHAN & BETHANY KOCI
BLDI1 -00407 SUMMIT APARTMENT COO]
228 S SUMMIT ST
REP
RMF 4
REPLACE LINTELS AND STUCCO FOR GROUNDFLOOR AREA OF APARTMENT COOPERATIVE
BLDI1 -00405 E JORDAN
303 FINKBINE LN
REP
RMF 2
Reroof multi family dwelling
0
$400
BLDI1 -00434 HODGE CONSTRUCTION
203 MYRTLE AVE
REP
RMF 0
REROOF MULTI- FAMILY
BLDI 1 -00371 MELIA RAITT
4914 E COURT ST
REP
RMF 3
REPAIR WATER DAMAGE FOR RMF UNIT
0 $163,950
0 $23,912
0 $8,500
0 $7,200
0 $2,302
Total REP /RMF permits: 5 Total Valuation: $205,864'
BLDI 1 -00396 NANCY THUMA
3007 FRIENDSHIP ST
3 EGRESS WINDOWS FOR SFD
0
BLDI1 -00394 JAMES & PAM EHRHARDT
1029 E COURT ST
EXTERIOR RAILING REPAIR IN HISTORIC DISTRICT
BLDI1 -00372 NATHAN & BETHANY KOCI
70 LARKSPUR CT
DECK LANDING AND STAIRS FOR SFD
REP
BLDI1 -00387 INTER VIVOS TRUST
324 N DUBUQUE ST
REBUILD REAR EXTERIOR STAIRS FOR SFD
$1,178
REP
RSF
1
0
$1,500
REP
RSF
0
0
$1,400
REP
RSF
0
0
$1,178
REP
RSF
0
0
$400
Total REP/RSF permits: 4 Total Valuation : $4,478'
Page :
6
Date :
8/1/2011
To:
7/1/2011
From :
7/31/2011
Permit Number Name
City of Iowa City
Extraction of Building Permit Data for
Census Bureau Report
Address
Type Type
Impr Use Stories Units Valuation
GRAND TOTALS: PERMITS: 68 VALUATION: $4,928,376
N
V
N
w
v ;g
m UR
O c
O
T •3
U T
T
O
N
td
IQ
W
(o
O
Oi
QJ
J
N
Cl)
m
-
V
N
Cl)
z
O
Z
O
n N
I�
V'
LO LO
(o O
-
00
Lo
-
O-
O
I-
r
V'
Cl W
O
N
m
LO
LO
Q)
r
O O
O) O
LO O
O
O
N
M
r
M
J
.;
W
� M
n
V
N O
Cl
LO
N
r
r
N
(O
LO
O)
d'
N
n
o
0
O
(
C
N
O
O
O
O
O)
co
O
LO
O
Cl)
0)
Cl)
r-
r
D
^
(7)
C)
d
E
ar
U
d
O
d
a
E
d
0
z
d
0
0
U
O
w
E
d
CL
m
N
7
O)
7
Q
m(�
Lo�o�
o�oro
m
M
CD
ao
O
c
W
LOO
O
LO
M
LO
M
T
m
m
N
O
It
t
N
n0
'd0
m
r
It
N
m
�
v
0
M
N
O
O
O
O
N
m
N
M
N
O
LO
r
r
m
LO
d
oi
Lt)
O
O
c0
-
O
N
O
LO
O
N
LO
c
m
O
(0
N
N
C
LO
m
M
Cl)
0
LO
m
M
V
O O Cl)
LmoO
N
O
O
O
N
(o
om
O r
M
O
(O
(o
Cli
t')
O
co
M
l6
CO
n
N
v
L
LO
v
to
(00
04
v
N
er sf
O
Cl
M O
m
m
m
V
N
r
N
O
r
_
D.
V
m
W
00
(h
O
V
m
o0
W
M
LO
Q
n
LO
N
r
M
N
LO
O
r O
LO
M
N
O
V'
co
N
oNj
M
(Mo
m
O
Cl)
r
L
(o
LO
O)
V
O
O
`
m
LO
r
LO
LO
O
7
N
O
N
O)
n
N
Cl
M
N
rj
N
LO
W
M
N
M
C'41
O
I
O
O
Cl)
A
2
p
n
O
M
V
W
(o
LO
O
ct
N
cci
d
LL
M
N_
M
M
m O
N
Z'
O
N
LO
LO
7
0)
c
LO
c
°
(D
v
r-
w
(0
00
C
E
E
E
w
E
"9
f
E
E
d
d
d d
d
7
m�
c
�v
d
d
d
d y
ca
d
d
y 0)
°�a
d
a(na
j
Cm
Of
O
o_
O
M
O
a
O
e
�_
d L-
LL
.-
a
0
a
O
a
O
LL
O
O
0
a
0
_-
0
O
O
�LL
LL O
O
O
O
W
F-
O
O
m
m
0
3
a�
15
N
y
y
a5 '-
a�
LL
`d
w
m
p`)
E
`d
m
o
d
y
E
a
a� v
J
L
.n
n
n dp
0
Op
y�
a
a
cm
y�
ya°�
-o
oa
yn
E�
25
2nQ
W
°?�E
ELLE�E�
d�
E(nE
E°ESE'�EyE
EyESEdEoE
5E
E
>a
d
'�
E
o E
a°
E
o
�
"`� M
L
�°.
� L,(y
D
D
'�
O Z
Z
(J
n
Z`
t=
Z
w
�
Z
U
� a
Z
m
Z 2`
=
Z
J
Q
J
Q
T@
Z (A
Z
y Z
Z
Z
d E
E
N=
L
Z
y
Z
Z�
Z y
Z
m
Z
>
,
06
d
-
d
- _-
d
O
N
L O
Z
t
C
d
-0
y
>
y
(n
U
V
O
O
O
Z )(
Z
O
L
-O
N
O
�
7
U
O
y
N
d
N
V
>
❑
O
2
U
(n
s
O
a
(n
U)
Q
Iowa City Police Department
Bar Check Report - July, 2011
Possession of Alcohol Under the Legal Age (PAULA) Under 21 Charges
Numbers are reflective of only Iowa City Police activity
IP6
FILED
2011 AUG -7 PN 1: 4 �,
e � r
Business Name Occupancy
(occupancy loads last updated Oct 2008)
Monthly Totals
gar
Checks Under2l PAULA
Prev 12 Month Totals
gar
[checks Under2l PAULA
Under ;'; "r�, rIt441L6,".
Ratio Ratio
(Prev 12 Mo) (Prev 12 Mo)
Airliner— 223
3
0
0
78
0
25
0
0.3205128
American Legion 140
1
0
0
8
0
1
0
0.125
Aoeshe Restaurant 156
0
0
0
0
0
Atlas World Grill 165
1
0
0
0
0
Blackstone— 297
0
0
0
0
0
Blue Moose 436
12
1
0
52
1
0
0.0192308
0
Bluebird Diner 82
0
0
0
0
0
Bob's Your Uncle *" 260
0
0
0
0
0
Bo- James 200
2
0
0
34
0
0
0
0
Bread Garden Market & Bakery
0
0
0
0
0
Brothers Bar & Grill, [It's] 556
11
2
0
140
9
17
0.0642857
0.1214286
Brown Bottle, [The]— 289
0
0
0
0
0
Buffalo Wild Wings Grill & Bar— 189
6
0
0
0
0
Caliente Night Club 498
3
0
0
34
3
0
0.0882353
0
Carl & Ernie's Pub & Grill 92
2
0
0
14
0
0
0
0
Carlos O'Kelly's— 299
0
0
0
0
0
Chef's Table 162
0
0
0
0
0
Chipotle Mexican Grill— 119
0
0
0
0
0
Club Car, [The] 56
4
0
0
0
0
Coaches Corner 160
5
0
0
0
0
Colonial Lanes— 502
1
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
Dave's Foxhead Tavern 87
7
0
0
0
0
DC's 120
1
0
0
68
6
3
0.0882353
0.0441176
Deadwood, [The] 218
1
0
0
20
0
0
0
0
Devotay— 45
0
0
0
0
0
Donnelly's Pub 49
1
0
0
16
1
0
0.0625
0
Dublin Underground, [The] 57
14
0
0
0
0
Friday, August 05, 2011 Page 1 of 4
Eagle's, [Fraternal Order of]
El Banditos
El Dorado Mexican Restaurant
El Ranchero Mexican Restaurant
Elks #590, [BPO]
Englert Theatre —
First Avenue Club —
Formosa Asian Cuisine —
Gabes
George's Buffet
Gilbert St Piano Lounge
G iva n n i's—
Godfather's Pizza—
Graze—
Grizzly's South Side Pub
Hawkeye Hideaway
Hilltop Lounge, [The]
IC Ugly's
India Caf,
Jimmy Jack's Rib Shack
Jobsite
Joe's Place
Joseph's Steak House —
La Reyna
Linn Street Caf,
Los Portales
Martini's
Masala
Mekong Restaurant —
Micky's—
Mill Restaurant, [The]
Moose, [Loyal Order of]
Morgan's, [Sheraton]
315
0
0
25
0
¢
9
104
0
0
1610111 WIG
0
0
205
► J
st 7 1�
VA ✓�
E°' °I�tanA
4
838
0
0
280
0
0
149
0
0
261
1
0
75
1
0
114
1
0
158
0.1739130
0
170
0
0
49
0
0
265
0
0
94
0
0
90
0
0
72
1
0
100
0
0
71
0
0
120
1
0
281
0
0
226
0
0
49
0
0
80
0
0
161
0
0
200
6
0
46
0
0
89
0
0
98
3
0
325
3
1
476
0
0
231
0
0
19
$
0
C
J
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
23
7
3
1
0
2
8
3
4
7
0
0
15
34
0
0
0
0
49
0
0
17
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0.1739130
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0.0816327
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0.1764706
1
0
0.125
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Friday, August 05, 2011 Page 2 of 4
Motley Cow Cafe 82
0
0
0
0
0
Off Premise
0
0
6
1
0
0
70
0
0
Okoboji Grill— 222
0
0
0
0
0
Old Capitol Brew Works 294
1
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
One - Twenty -Six 105
0
0
0
0
0
Orchard Green Restaurant— 200
1
0
0
0
0
Oyama Sushi Japanese Restaurant 87
0
0
0
0
0
Pagliai's Pizza— 113
1
0
0
0
0
Panchero's (Clinton St)— 62
0
0
0
0
0
Panchero's Grill (Riverside Dr)— 95
0
0
0
0
0
Pints 180
5
0
0
60
3
2
0.05
0.0333333
Pit Smokehouse— 40
0
0
0
0
0
Pizza Hut— 116
0
0
0
0
0
Pizza Ranch— 226
0
0
0
0
0
Quality Inn /Highlander 971
0
0
0
0
0
Quinton's Bar & Deli 149
9
0
0
0
0
Red Avocado, [The] 47
0
0
0
0
0
Rick's Grille & Spirits 120
1
0
0
0
0
Riverside Theatre— 118
0
0
0
0
0
Saloon— 120
1
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
Sam's Pizza— 174
1
0
0
21
0
20
0
0.952381
Sanctuary Restaurant, [The] 132
2
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
Shakespeare's 90
1
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
Short's Burger & Shine— 56
8
0
0
0
0
Slippery Pete's aka Fieldhouse 178
3
0
0
63
3
0
0.0476190
0
Sports Column 400
4
0
0
87
6
16
0.0689655
0.1839080
Studio 13 206
3
0
0
23
0
0
0
0
Summit. [The]— 736
29
0
15
147
16
35
0.1088435
0.2380952
Sushi Popo 84
0
0
0
0
0
cry
T. Spoons 102
0
0
0
0
0
TakanarlQlstaurant— =� ° -. 148
0
0
0
0
0
TCB w %"" 250
10
0
0
54
1
0
0.0185185
0
Thai FlaBwQ&6 60
0
0
0
0
0
0
Friday, August 05, Ldll
Page
3 of 4
Thai Spice
Times Club @ Prairie Lights
Union Bar
VFW Post #3949
Vine Tavern, [The]
Wig & Pen Pizza Pub
Yacht Club, [Iowa City]
Zia lohno's Spaghetti House
Z'Mariks Noodle House
Off Premise
91
0
0
60
Lr)
0
854
10
3
197
tl..
•�
170
1
0
154
0.1705426
0.1782946
206
3
0
94
0
0
47
32
4
Totals
129
7
0
0
Grand Totals
* includes outdoor seating area
exception to 21 ordinance
Friday, August 05, 2011 Page 4 of 4
0
0
0
Lr)
0
0
o t R
A p µ
tl..
•�
2
r--
.) i
23
0.1705426
0.1782946
W
7
0
0
0
0
0
32
4
0
0.125
0
Friday, August 05, 2011 Page 4 of 4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
129
22
23
0.1705426
0.1782946
7
0
0
0
0
0
32
4
0
0.125
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
53
3
1
0.0566038
0.0188679
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
26
1413
87
216
0.0615711
0.1528662
6
0
1
0
70
0
0
32
286
Friday, August 05, 2011 Page 4 of 4
Marian Karr IP7
From:
Matt Hayek
Sent:
Sunday, August 07, 2011 4:43 PM
To:
Troy Eads
Cc:
Jessica Tustin; Marian Karr; Tom Markus
Subject:
RE: A kind word about your staff
Mr. Eads,
Thank you for contacting me and for taking the time to recognize a good deed. I am copying our city clerk and city
manager on this response so that your compliment reaches a broader audience.
We hope to welcome you to Iowa City again sometime.
Regards,
Matt Hayek
Iowa City Mayor
From: Troy Eads [troyeads @mac.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 07, 20118:49 AM
To: Matt Hayek
Cc: Jessica Tustin
Subject: A kind word about your staff
Your Honor,
On July 30, while on RAGBRAI, I was riding on highway 6 just before Riverside drive. My cell phone fell off my bicycle, I
ran over it, a person behind me ran over it and the phone shot across the street into a storm sewer. I look on your city
website and contacted the engineering office to see if there was any chance that I could get my phone back. I must
admit that I was not expecting much but I felt that I should at least try to get my phone back.
I first spoke with Jessica Tustin in the engineering department on August 2, who guided me to Roger Overton's cell
phone. I spoke with Roger later that day on his personal cell phone. Roger told me that he would go and look for the
phone tomorrow. Again, I hung up with Roger and thought that he would merely drive around the street and tell me
that he could not find the phone. My wife and father -in -law were equally as optimistic about the situation.
On August 3rd, Jessica e- mailed me and said that Roger had found the phone and brought it in. I drive to Iowa City to
pick up the phone. I offered to buy lunch for the engineering office but they turned that down.
would like to thank Jessica and Roger, and make you aware of their willingness to help. Their dedication,
professionalism, and willingness to help bring honor to your city, and have helped restore my faith in public service.
Thank you for your time,
Troy Eads
Houston, Texas.
Jessica, Could you forward this message to Roger? I could not find his e-mail on the website.
Original letter received as item # 13 on 8/2 agenda
l 1
MITI In
.• wir an �
CITY OF IOWA CITY
August 8, 2011
Sonia Ryang
701 Normandy Drive
Iowa City, IA 52246
RE: Senator Grassley Letter Dated July 15, 2011
Dear Sonia:
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240- 1 826
(3 19) 356 -5000
(3 19) 356 -5009 FAX
www.icgov.org
Senator Grassley forwarded your letter dated July 15, 2011 to the City of Iowa City and
requested that we provide a response.
The City of Iowa City is following all HUD guidelines for acquiring flood- damaged properties with
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. CDBG Projects have to meet one of
three national objectives:
1. Benefit low- to moderate - income persons
2. Aid in the prevention or elimination or slums or blight
3. Meet a need having a particular urgency ( "urgent need ")
The CDBG buyout funds that have been used in Iowa City were received through a
Supplemental Disaster Recovery CDBG grant that was awarded to the State of Iowa and
distributed to disaster - impacted communities by the State. The grant that was awarded to the
State was based on a combination of the urgent need criteria and the benefit to low- to
moderate - income criteria.
Iowa City has been following the same process for everyone involved in the flood buyouts. The
homeowner is offered 112% of pre -flood assessed value. All properties being purchased in
Iowa City are being deeded as green space.
On August 2, 2011 the City Council of Iowa City voted to accept an award to study the impacts
of flood mitigation measures along Taft Speedway on the residents of Taft Speedway and in the
Park View Terrace neighborhood. The consultant will not only be reviewing the impact of a
levee but also looking at other alternatives.
If you have additional questions regarding the CDBG buyout, feel free to contact Doug Ongie by
email at doug- ongie()_iowa- city.orq or by phone at 356.5479. For questions regarding flood
infrastructure projects, you may contact David Purdy at 356.5489 or david- purdy(a)-iowa- city.orq.
Sincerely,
Jeff Davidson
Director of Planning and Community Development
CC: City Council
City Manager
r
�r -4 CITY OF IOWA CITY
EMO _�,
A
M
f�
Date: August 11, 2011
To: Iowa City Council
From: Eric Goers, Asst. City Attorney
Re: Cooperatives, property taxation, and the Krupp decision
This memo will update you on the status of property tax treatment of commercial apartment
complexes converted to residential cooperatives. As you will recall from our memo of April 21,
2010 (attached for your convenience), in recent years commercial apartment building owners
have attempted to qualify for favorable residential classification of their property so that they
would enjoy the residential "rollback" of their taxable values to approximately 50% of their
market values. Many have done so by reformulating as condominiums, which requires bringing
the structures into compliance with then - current building codes. More recently, owners have
attempted to convert to cooperatives, which does not require code compliance. Several cities
and counties refused to recognize such "conversions" as being inconsistent with legislative
intent, and nothing more than shams. The Iowa City Assessor and Iowa City Board of Review
adopted this position.
As of the date of our last memo, the Iowa Court of Appeals had ruled in favor of commercial
apartment owners, but the Iowa Supreme Court agreed to take the issue up for further review.
Our office took that as a promising sign. Eleanor and I asked the Supreme Court for permission
to file an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief to join in the position of Jasper County, and to
illuminate an additional argument not raised by Jasper County — that the statutory requirement
that each member be entitled to "an apartment unit" prevented cooperative "members" from
controlling more one unit. Typically what is seen in these cases is an apartment complex owner
and their spouse as the only "members" of the cooperative, with each controlling half the units.
Neither "member' actually lives there. The Supreme Court granted our request, and we filed
our brief. We were joined by the Iowa League of Cities, who filed a similar brief, which included
a spreadsheet of the possible financial losses to taxing bodies statewide.
On July 29th, 2011, the Iowa Supreme Court released their opinion in the case, Krupp Place 1
Co -op Inc and Krupp Place 2 Co -op Inc Appellees vs. Board of Review of Jasper County,
Iowa. They affirmed the Court of Appeals, finding that the test was not of actual use, but
instead of how the cooperative was organized. Put another way, the Court held that if the
cooperatives dotted their 'T's and crossed their "T "s, the fact that the building is still treated, for
August 11, 2011
Page 2
all intents and purposes, as a commercial apartment building does not matter. The Court failed
to address the `one unit per member' issue raised by our brief. Theirs is a final decision, so
short of a legislative change, this will be the reality moving forward.
At staffs request, Iowa City Assessor Denny Baldridge has prepared a spreadsheet regarding
the possible ramifications of this decision. I have attached it for your review. It is impossible to
know how many commercial apartment complexes will convert to cooperatives, but the ability to
cut property taxes in half would be a difficult move to resist, especially given the ease with which
owners can convert to cooperatives following this decision. As you can see, the potential tax
loss to Iowa City is $3,308,265 each year. The total potential tax loss for all taxing bodies in
Iowa City is $7,556,764.
Should you have questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Cc: Tom Markus, City Manager
Dale Helling, Assistant City Manager
Eleanor Dilkes, City Attorney
Kevin O'Malley, Finance Director
Marian Karr, City Clerk
Denny Baldridge, City Assessor
� r i
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
Date: April 21, 2010
To: Iowa City Council
From: Eleanor Dilkes, City Attorney
Eric Goers, Asst. City Attorney^ - - -. - --
Re: Cooperatives and property taxation
This memo will familiarize you with a property tax issue that may have significant impact on City
revenues, as well as those of other local taxing bodies. As you are probably aware, property
taxes for an individual property are affected not only by the assessed value of that property, but
by its classification, which may include a "rollback" of the valuation. Under the present rollback,
residential property owners pay taxes based on 46.9094% of assessed value and commercial
property owners pay taxes based on 100% of assessed value. Consequently, a change in
classification from commercial to residential would result in property taxes being cut by more
than half.
Apartment buildings are classified as commercial property. Condominiums are classified as
residential property. Over the last decade in order to gain the favorable tax classification a
number of existing apartment buildings have been converted to condominiums ( "horizontal
property regimes" under Chapter 499B of the state code). In past years the City Council has
been. involved in efforts to address these conversions and the legislature has reduced the
number of conversions by requiring compliance with building code requirements in effect on the
date of conversion.
Recently, a number of apartment owners have attempted to convert their apartment buildings
into housing cooperatives. Housing cooperatives, which generally combine an interest in the
entity owning the multi -unit building with the right to occupy a unit, also enjoy residential
classification. Housing cooperatives "are a vehicle for the common ownership of property, a
means of enabling the occupants -as members of the cooperative -to own, manage, and operate
the apartment without anyone profiting therefrom." City of Newton v. Board of Review for
Jasper County, 532 N.W.2d 771, 774(lowa 1995)(citing 15A Am.Jur.2d Condominiums and
Cooperative Apartments Section 62) They must not be operated for pecuniary profit.
April 21, 2010
Page 2
I asked Denny Baldridge, the Iowa City Assessor, to total the current valuation of commercial
apartments within Iowa City limits, and to calculate their tax valuation if they were all to be
reclassified as residential cooperatives. Finally, I asked him to calculate the property tax loss to
the various taxing bodies, including the City of Iowa City, if they were to be reclassified
residential. Based on the preliminary tax levies for this year, the tax loss to the City of Iowa City
would be $3,708,0606 per year. Similarly, the Iowa City Community School District and
Johnson County stand to lose $3,067,918 and $1,510,164 respectively, each year. The
spreadsheet is attached hereto for your review.
There is at least one residential cooperative in Iowa City that is consistent with the spirit of the
law, and which the City Assessor's Office has properly classified as residential. An example
that most are familiar with is the Summit Apartments Co -op, 228 S. Summit St., near the corner
of Summit and Burlington, which was formed in 1946. The Iowa City Assessor has declined to
reclassify the rapidly growing number of apartment buildings whose owners have attempted to
reformulate themselves as cooperatives. There are a number of legal arguments for refusing to
treat these "cooperatives" as such, many revolving around their formation being inconsistent
with legislative intent. The apartment owners in these cases have created entities which are
typically still controlled by a single couple (usually a husband and wife) and operated not for
cooperative purposes, but instead for financial gain. I have yet to find a "member" of such a
"cooperative" who actually lives in the cooperative. The Iowa City Board of Review has
supported the Iowa City Assessor's Office in this position, also refusing to reclassify the
properties as residential when the property owner appeals the classification to that body. Our
office has reviewed the statute and what little caselaw can be found on this topic, and agrees
there is support for this position. Several cooperatives owned and operated by a James and
Becky Buxton (husband and wife) have appealed the Board of Review's decision to District
Court. We are presently litigating the issue as counsel for the Board of Review.
A similar case was filed in, Jasper County, resulting in litigation. There, a district court judge first
ruled the cooperatives were a "sham" and disregarded their formation. He later reconsidered
his ruling, and reversed himself. Jasper County appealed, and the case was heard before a
three judge panel of the Iowa Court of Appeals. That panel sided with the landlord on a 2 -1
vote, and a dissent was filed. Because the majority opinion was unpublished, it does not count
as "controlling legal authority" under Iowa law, and district court judges are not bound by it.
Yesterday the Iowa Supreme Court decided to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.
April 21, 2010
Page 3
Assessors throughout the state have not taken a unified position on the classification of these
"cooperatives" resulting in uneven treatment. For example, the Polk County Assessor has
allowed reclassification from commercial to residential. The City of Des Moines, whose property
is assessed by the Polk County Assessor, has recently seen an influx of these "cooperatives"
and is concerned about and attempting to address the tax ramifications. A decision of the Iowa
Supreme Court and /or legislative clarification will be necessary to resolve the issue.
We will keep you apprised of developments. In the meantime, please call if you have questions.
Cc: Dale Helling, Interim City Manager
Kevin O'Malley, Finance Director
Marian Karr, City Clerk
Denny Baldridge, City Assessor
Z
C
N�
I.I..
a
a
W
U
U
w
m
L
d
CL
0
0
U
N
m
:a
.p
d
a�
cc
.dl
N
0
J
x
N
O
J
F-
w
XJ
Q
H
W
v
z
w
w
LL
W
O U Z - H
LLJ wLL z
j V) Cl
>v(L
QYC9
w mJ W
Noce
Ida
m -j
Q¢ -z
Q LL w
¢�Ow�LLJ
-J
O a
O > U ¢
O
m
0
xz_
Q
H
(0m14- amr-no
O�(oo) �t m
00-- -OMI-M
00 Il- O M () 1- (O
O(O - OIT - d
I� O In - 6i 63 Vo
M M 00
69 69 69 6)
�(OMMNl��i'(O
�MI��f�OMO)
(p r to M O Lo
to O M N M 00 o N
I� d 100000
o 0 0 0 C) 'IT
O o 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
WWW(DWWW
vI-rvv7VrVV
N N N N N N N
00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00 00 00 00 00 00 00
O O O o 0 0 o
N N N N N N N
696) 6.6969 EA 61i
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
LO wU') to LO LO U)
LO LO LO LO LO Lo to
�iN�V -��
w 00 0o 0o 00 00 00
69 EA 60- 69�69696fl
�o o Ia �.Olo
IT It�v
rnrnrnrnrnrnrn
O o 0 0 0 0 0
0) 0) 0) C) (3) 0) m
co co co (4 co (o co
vvvIt vIry
0000000
M M M M M M M
M M M M cM cM M
M M M M M M M
0 o O O o o O
M M M M M M M
69 69 6R 69 69 69 69
J
_J Q
U ~
J O? O
O� U) 0
OZ w Q
cU Q Q 0
z0 wO LL
U U U O U H w
QQz Qwf-
o<
OO�YOQU)
O
D
r
D� * °��
-
ImD zDD
m--110 C /)oo
mZ 0 z �
0 00
0U) On
Dom z=
�
O
0 c O
cn
z V'
n
F
fo ��4f.9 f.9 4f.9
CD (D wwww
W W W W W W
0 00 00 00 00 00
000000
.A .9h. P.- -ph, �-9h,.A
mmmmmmm
0000000
A A A .A A A A
0000000
EA 4.9 EA 69 r.9
.A A A6 - A A ?
O O O O O O W
rnrnrnrnrnrnm
0000000
wwwwwww
mmmmmmm
to 69 to to to to b9
CnmCnCnCnLnm
N N N N N N N
V V V V V V V
.A A A A ? � �
�
��
01000000
0000000
.A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 4 - 1 f A
O 000 W N N 000
Cn W W A Cn N (o
- ��0Vrn0 V
0 O V N m V N
N W :,4
Cn to A W V W
mm 4 N 00 O A m
OIN.A4000000m
wG)O�OOO>
--DImD zDDZ
O Z� O z ca
cn On O
5ocDn Oo
Dom zp
Oc O
O Z0 cn
D n
r r
ay -�
ca
m O
W 69 69 to 69 W9 b9
wwwwwww30-j
0 m r
-
- I
lu
—
0
p
CD
o P000�o�om0D
"�. .�Mo
x
cD
X
N N N N N N N
o000000rNm
r
N
��i
r0
mMM
D_
CA
U)
;u0co)
o
0
O
wwwwwwwm�m
O
O
NNNNNNN"'
co co co co CO co co
m co
n �
D c7
a
'0
y
X
co co co co co
0000000m
O
m
n
O
O
CA 0
M
c -a
mm>
n
<
N
C
to to .9 .69
N o r
y
m
Z
�V�V�V�V�V �-4 �
-4 >
D
m
wi
- j x
CD
Wwwwww
NNNNNNN
-
C-
D
co co co co co w w
> "vp m
�
�
D
m Cn cn in m cn Cn
CO)
CD
—4
co co 0m co0co
y.
ic
b9 to to to tf9 to to
2
n,
m
00 00 00 00 00 00 00
r
*
cn PP cn cn cn cn
h b, -N 4+4-N
N N N N N
N N
M
X
:U
Cl V
Cn Cn Cn Cn Cn Cn Cn
m
Z
N N N N N N N
;�-4 -4 „gym
o°oo
No0o0o
°oo°C'v
-0
X
r
m
0o0o0mt�,
V
-•0
0 0 N 0 w 0 V
m
D X
m
W
O W.N w w w m
O W O w w O .A
Z 'G
mwCnwmmcn
co
N 0o N V .A Cn Cn
in
�
X
:,4 -69 rev w
Cn ty9 -r.9 ” N V w
�.A 000000
r
m
V
Cn m Cn m to aD
Cn �m -�OANN
.A
W 00 � .A W V Cn
•
h
000
z D D
z
0 C/)
On
c=
z0
�0
r
U)
4A 49 49 49
P A l
cn cn cn cn
N N N N
rn CF) 0) o)
.A���
0000
���P.
PD PD PD OD
CA cn cn cn
N N N N
co CO CD CO
Co CD c0 CO
o o
4.9 49 49 49
to to CA CA
OD OOOD OD
X0)0) 0)
qD PD 90 9D
N N N N
OOO CA
N N N N
49 4A 49 40
,J v
N N N N
OA .OA. A A
w w W w
4 -4 v v
OD oD OD OD
00
C) C)
�
c00o 0
4
OD OD
D6 cv'n
Ffl 4A
69
4ACn0N
-4 00)(0
N Co N (0
Cyl -4 w-A-
N
O
i
i
D
x
r
CA
W
m
X
0
O
cn
c
z
m
D
m
�E
�G)0�000
m X D z D D
0mn00C)c)
mz�Oz��
0 C)
�0C/) On
zcn c=
Dom z0
0C �O
O Z0 cn
D C)
r r
169 49 4.9 EA 4A 49 69
mmommmm
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
w w w w w w w
cn cn cn m cn m m
(o w (o o co w (o
0000000
0000000
aowwwwww
N N N N N N N
O t0 Co CO t0 CO CD
o�.Ol o -.-0 o o
4A49 4 x.9169 t9 4A
N N N N N N N
(0 co 00 CD0(0
cn cn Cn crn cn Cn cn
wwwww
� ww
-��
O w O w O O O
4A 4A 4A 4A 40 49 49
w w WP w w w
w w w w w w w
N N N N N N N
c0 m co CD m co to
CD 00 00
0
°0000 0
0o0 °0
OOOOOCA.A. —
4 O O N O CD Cn -1
cn O w .A, co m co m
W O W OOcDO -,
mwcnwwwCn —
coNwN�I.ACnCn
69
-� 4A fA 4A
N EA N .A cn
4 w -&Om
�A
C)Oi 0) J N COO O OD
00 O N N co cn A -4
-i
D
k
z
O
O
O
D y -�
0 rn n
r
m-n
01
r-
rNrn
mry
m
Z
G0 >
C
CO) r
O
;avn
mrnr
v -a
Z 0
0
r y m
v
m
X
m
z
0
m
= a
o x
aM
z
X
r
O
U)
Cl)
N
O
i
O
D
X
r
m
X
n
O
T
c
z
m
D
T
T
m
iG)o�000y
1 0> z D D Z
n z 0 z�� O
0 o 0 O
�0U) 00 <
Dnm cn Z0
om
0 Z�
D n
r r
a D -i
CO) r O
O m a r
40 40 f»tfl'694fl69 30
000000006 0D
NNNNNNNa -0m
0000000
IV X
n
O ca
A A A A A A A v
W W ao ao aD aD ao m r m
CnCnCnCnCncncn -4D Z
N N N N N N N
0co00co0co> 0
co co cow0(0w0 A a
0 0 ,-oa o 0 o m r-
ca 0
Mv
mm a
r
N O
���v>tfl�tfl 0 M >
0o ao 00 0o 90 W Oo m
cnmcncncncnn
cz0
c0wowc000 .�
A.AAAA AA 000
A - p�AA -N Ar'Om
v-4 v-4 v-4 -41
N
Cn _cn Cn Cn Cn _cn Cn
A A A A A A A
w w w w w w w
v
n
Z
m
O00oo0000
00 Oo Oo
X
° 0 o ° o
C r-
m
C) o O O O rn A�
W m
�1OON000cn-4>
Cn O OD A 0 OD CO 00
rnOwcwilwww(nn�C
Z
^
O N W N -1 A M Cn"
a
-09 Efl 69
X
N W N
CEO P
�
cn
v0m
CO IN Oi A O — O w
00NCnAOOA
--I
0
D
r
D�::E
-4 M >
n Z
0 0 (/)
> m
n
0C/)
C 0
Z�
0
r-
N N N
A A A
000
w00OD
N N N
co OO COO) CO
C OO
rnrnrn
OD OD OD
www
N N N
4 -4-4
N N N
OD 00 OD
A A A
w w w
00 OD Cb
O o O
0
OAO00o0
0 Cl 0 0
� I O O N
Cn O OD A
W O W O
rn w Cn w
CO N Cb N
69
N
0
ccnn W COO D.
CITY OF IOWA CITY 1;;:1114 Ott IP10
WPM
10% '1 I I * ��w �` � � TRk
MEMORANDUM=
Date: August 9, 2011
To: Tom Markus, City Manager
From: Jen Jordan, Recycling Coordinator
Marcia Bollinger, Neighborhood Servi Coordinator
Jody Bailey, Neighborhood Services Coordinator Intem_JV
Re: Rummage in the Ramp — 2011
Rummage in the Ramp 2011 was held in the lower level of Chauncey Swan Parking Ramp from
Saturday, July 23 through Monday, August 1. This was the fifth year for the event, which was
introduced in 2007 as an effort to keep reusable household items out of the Iowa City Landfill
and redistribute them to households who could reuse them. The event is always scheduled in
late July /early August, when annual lease turnovers occur. Other goals of the project include:
• Improving neighborhood relations between single - family homeowners and renters
• Utilizing the sales events to provide a way for low- income families, who may not be able to
afford new items, to purchase furniture and household goods
• Creating a fundraiser for local environmental groups and human service agencies
• Reducing the workload of City refuse workers and private waste haulers
This year, we had 30 agencies participating. Over 270 volunteers helped raise funds for their
organizations by splitting the profits from Rummage in the Ramp sales; groups will receive a
check for $480.00 for their four hour shift (five groups worked two shifts and will receive $960).
The City retained about $1,140 to cover advertising and disposal costs. Staff overtime is paid
by the Landfill; about 260 hours are utilized to plan and execute the event and do follow -up
analysis and reporting. Below are some statistics from the five years the event has been held.
Annual Comparisons
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
numbers of donors
250
320
564
648
664
number of shoppers
800
1124
2062
2124
2114
tons sold, recycled & diverted from landfill
20
19
24
25.8
23.5
tons to landfill
1.5
2
1.135
2.4
4.1
tons recycled (Goodwill, books, scrap metal)
1.1
0.5
0.25
0.9
1.0
number of volunteers
70
105
155
215
270
income
$4,090
$8,957
$13,540
$15,202
$17,930
donations (included in income)
$250
$210
$225
$229
$244
volunteer agency groups
10
12
22
28
30
income per group
$410
$698
$575
$515
$480
sponsors
0
3
8
12
8
sponsorship cash
0
r
$650
$800
$0
Ultimately, we feel that this event continues to be a huge success and expect that it will continue
to be a popular, win -win event for the City, non - profits and the public. Each year we receive
great press about the event and have capitalized on that to help encourage the public to reduce,
reuse, and recycle, not only for Rummage in the Ramp, but year- round.
For more information, please see the website at www.icc ov.org/rummag eintheramp, or contact
Jen Jordan at the Landfill ( Jennifer- iordan(a)iowa- city.orq or 887 -6160) or Marcia Bollinger at
Neighborhood Services ( marcia- bollinaer(a7iowa- city.orq or 356- 5237).
Li��� � ®11
CITY OF IOWA CITY
August 8, 2011
Pat Heinitz
1080 Silvercrest Way #203
Iowa City IA 52240
Re: Refuse / Recycling Collection
Dear Pat,
Thank you for your letter requesting that your solid waste fees be suspended while your house
is for sale. Although we cannot offer to suspend only your solid waste fees, we can offer to
suspend your water, sewer and solid waste fees. We offer this service primarily for people who
leave for extended periods, such as snow birds, however some people who have their house on
the market choose to use it as well.
The reason we have an "all or nothing" policy for these services is that when services are
suspended we shut off the water. This is our only assurance that no one is continuing to live
there. It also provides assurance that when someone returns to the home they will need to
reestablish all services to get water. There is no practical way to shut off only sewer service or
only garbage service. While I do not question your word that you are no longer living in the
home, I hope you understand the reason for the policy. With over 25,000 accounts and a high
rate of turnover in Iowa City, this is our only practical way to accurately track which houses are
occupied and which are not.
If you would like to suspend your water, sewer and solid waste, please call 356 -5066. Good
luck with the sale of your home.
Sincerely,
Toni Davis
Clerk
Solid Waste Division
Cc: City Council
City Hall
410 E. Washington St.
Iowa City, Ia. 52240 -1826
Good Morning,
The first of June 2011 we moved from 2051 Hannah Jo Ct. The house is for sale. We
moved into a retirement place. So we have not lived there for about 7 weeks.
When we moved I talked to someone in your office about the fact, that since we no
longer live there, we have no need of refuse and recycling service. I think I was told that
even though we no longer lived there, we still are forced the pay the refuse and recycling
fees.
That makes no sense to me. We are on a limited income as older folks are. I cannot
believe that the city would force us to pay these fees.
Don't you think that we are justified in deducting the amount of $11.40 and $4.10? If
you insist that we pay this, to me that am stealing from us. I don't mind paying the other
fees.
So I am deducting the amount from the current bill. If you insist that we pay for this
service that we cannot use, please send me a detailed letter explaining the injustice and
why it is fair to us to force us to pay this.
Thanks,
t Heinitz
1080 Silvercrest Way #203
Iowa City,la.
July 17, 2011
r
��.! CITY OF IOWA CI T Y �P12
MEMORANDUM
Date: August 11, 2011
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk��`
Re: KXIC Radio Show Update
Please note the following schedule:
August 17
- Open
August 24
- Hayek
August 31
-Wright
Sept. 7
- Dickens
U:radioshowappts.doc
City of Iowa City - News & Headlines
Page 1 of 1
««
Back t IP13
Back to News Releases
News Releases
Originally posted on Thursday, August 04, 2011 at 2:27:41 PM
ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES PAYING OFF FOR CITY
Electricity usage at two of the City's parking ramps dropped so significantly after energy- efficient light emitting
diode (LED) lights were installed that MidAmerican Energy wondered whether some of the City's equipment
was malfunctioning. It wasn't. In fact, the savings were the result of a new lighting system that was functioning
exactly as it was supposed to.
Three of the City's parking ramps, Court Street Transportation Center, Capitol Street and Tower Place, have
now been retrofitted with LED lighting, which uses less electricity, thereby lowering energy costs. The new
lights have reduced overall electricity usage by 52 %, saving over $3,300 per month, due to a combination of
LED technology and motion detectors that power down and dim the lights by 80% when an area is unoccupied
for more than five minutes. Long -term, the LED lights will provide even more savings for the City because the
lights are expected to last for 10 years and require one -third of the maintenance required by the old lighting
fixtures.
Two other City parking facilities - Dubuque Street and Chauncey Swan have recently been completed but do
not have any energy usage data available.
Funds for the project came from a $419,000 grant from the Iowa Office of Energy Independence and are part
of a City -wide effort to invest in and implement green, sustainable practices. Numerous energy- efficiency and
energy use reduction projects have been implemented in other City buildings and facilities.
For more information, contact Kristopher Ackerson, Assistant Transportation Planner, at 356.5247 or e -mail
kristopher- ackerson(cDiowa- city.org.
Originating Department: Planning Department
Contact Person: Kristopher Ackerson
Contact Phone: (319) 356 -5247
Back to News Releases
http: / /www.icgov.org /default/ apps /GEN /news.asp ?newsID= 7280 &output =print 8/4/2011
Iowa City's Community Development
17J PzJ T I r:J U
Tuesday, August 23, 2011 4:00 to 7:00 p.m.
(Program at 5:00 p.m.)
Johnson County Extension Council &
Big Brothers Big Sisters of Johnson County's new facility
(CDBG funded)
3109 Old Hwy. 218 South, Iowa City
Adjacent to the Johnson County Fairgrounds
Co- hosted by:
Johnson County Extension Council, Big Brothers Big Sisters of
Johnson County & the Housing & Community Development
Commission
IP14
CITY OF IOWA CITY
IP15
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
JULY 13, 2011 -5:15 PM
CITY HALL, EMMA HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Brock Grenis, Adam Plagge, Caroline Sheerin
MEMBERS ABSENT: Will Jennings, Barbara Eckstein
STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Sara Greenwood Hektoen, Nick Benson
OTHERS PRESENT: Lee Eno, Wim Murray, Julie Riggart
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
None.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM.
ROLL CALL: Grenis, 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 JUNE 8, 2011 MEETING MINUTES:
Grenis moved to approve the minutes as amended.
Plagge seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 3 -0 (Eckstein and Jennings excused).
SPECIAL EXCEPTION:
EXC11- 00004: Discussion of an application submitted by Lee Eno for a special exception
to allow a reduction in the rear principal setback requirement for property located in the
Medium - Density Single - Family Residential (RS -8) zone at 1026 Fairchild Street.
Walz shared a location map of the property, a corner lot at the intersection of Fairchild and
Center Street. Walz said that the property is somewhat unusual in that it is a square lot and is
slightly smaller than the minimum allowable lot size for an RS -8 zone under the current code.
Another characteristic of the property is that the front setbacks are so deep as to make the
Board of Adjustment
July 13, 2011
Page 2 of 7
required rear setback impossible to achieve. Walz said that the because the north side of the
property comes closest to meeting the required setback it was designated as the rear property
line. Presently, the rear setback is 12 -feet whereas the requirement is 20 -feet. The proposed
addition is on the second floor of the building; however, because the existing first floor of the
house is already within the required setback area, any addition, even one on the second floor,
must have a special exception to reduce the setback requirement. Walz said that in this
particular case, the applicant is also requesting that the second floor addition be allowed to
cantilever out two feet beyond the first floor.
Staff believes that there is an unusual situation here, with the square corner lot and the deep
front setbacks for the house. Walz said that this case is unusual because what is actually the
rear setback functions practically as a side setback. She said that staff thinks this is a
reasonable request due to the unusual nature of the corner lot and the way that the house is
established on the corner lot such that there is a a practical difficulty in complying with the
setback requirements. Granting the special exception is not, in staff's view, contrary to the
purpose of the setback regulations because the subject lot is a reverse corner lot —the back of
the property abuts the side of the neighboring property.
Walz stated that the surrounding neighborhood is characterized by homes that are more
densely built and are closer together, typically at the side property line. She said that it is not
unusual in this neighborhood to have small corner lots or to see side setbacks of 10 feet or less.
The proposed addition is located above the existing first floor of the house and cantilevers out
two feet beyond the existing wall of the house. Walz said that this seemed to staff to provide
reasonable separation that would not interfere with light or air flow and or fire protection, while
still providing privacy and compatibility with the neighborhood.
Walz noted that she has provided the Board with a copy of a letter concerning the project which
had been written by a neighbor.
Grenis asked why the rear setback applied to the side -yard even though for all intents and
purposes it served as a side setback. Walz explained that except for lots which are double -
fronting, there is always a requirement for a rear setback. In this situation, on the short side of
to the block where the lots have been split in half, the setback functions as a side setback rather
than a rear setback because the neighbor's side - property -line abuts the rear property line. It is
still however considered a rear setback. Sheerin said that the Board still needs to treat it as a
rear setback, not a side setback. Walz said that the question is whether or not the Board feels
the rear setback can be adjusted. Though, she added, it is the opinion of staff that the function
of the setback is different based on the fact that the lots are laid out differently than lots would
typically be laid out.
Sheerin pointed out that the letter written by Julie Riggart addresses privacy concerns the
addition might raise. Sheerin said that in the letter- writer's opinion granting the special
exception for the decreased setback requirement would result in decreased privacy. Walz said
that staff's opinion is that it will not; this is based on the design configuration of the building and
the adequacy of the existing setback in terms of privacy, which is similar to a side setback.
Sheerin said that she thought that the second story nature of the addition may contribute to
privacy concerns. Walz said that staff believed like the ten foot setback is adequate.
Walz reiterated that staff's recommendation is to approve the special exception subject to the
condition that the setback reduction applies to the addition only, and subject to substantial
compliance with the site plan and elevations submitted.
Board of Adjustment
July 13, 2011
Page 3 of 7
Sheerin opened the public hearing.
Lee Eno, 1629 Esther Street, introduced himself as the operator of a company known as
Creative Improvements which would be doing the construction of the addition.
Plagge asked if the two -foot cantilever was vital to the addition or if the addition could be
constructed without it. Eno said that the removal of the cantilever would result in the loss of two
feet of the 12x14 -foot room. He said that while the square footage of the addition is not large, it
is functional for the purposes to which the homeowner's wish to put it. Eno said the costs of the
project would increase in proportion to the square footage the homeowners would gain from the
project.
Plagge said asked if the window could be on the east or the west side of the house instead of at
its current placement. Eno said that the window will not have a typical placement, as it will be
four feet off the ground, and is designed to provide natural light. Sheerin asked if it is possible to
put the window higher or make it a skylight instead. Eno noted that there has to be a certain
amount of structural support for the window, and he would be willing to place it as high as he
could without compromising structural integrity of the addition. Sheerin said she was just trying
to think of a way to provide the light while still maintaining the neighbor's privacy. Eno said that
the four foot height is a minimum; he will raise the window as high as he can without
compromising the structure.
Plagge asked if the final decision as to window height was up to the Building Official that would
be reviewing the site plan. Eno said that gable ends are not typically load- bearing walls; typically
side -walls where the trusses /rafters come down are the walls that are load- bearing. He said that
in order to proceed with the project he would have to be issued a building permit, which will
have been reviewed by the Building official.
Sheerin asked about the possibility of a skylight to provide natural light rather than putting a
window at that location. Eno said that in his opinion a skylight would not look right on that house
and would not really maintain the character of the home. Eno said that they are trying to make
the addition look like it is supposed to be there by doing such thing as using cedar shingles and
maintaining the roofline.
Wim Murray, 1026 Fairchild Street, identified herself as the owner of the subject property. She
said that the plans for the addition were actually designed by an architect with the idea of
keeping the addition and the home itself in keeping with the character of the neighborhood.
Murray said she does not want to do a skylight because it does not fit the character of the house
at all.
Sheerin asked if the glass in the window could be obscured in order to maintain privacy. Murray
said that the purpose of the windows is not for view, but for light. Murray shared photographs
which she said demonstrate that more of the neighbor's property could be seen from their
kitchen windows than could be seen from the proposed addition due to screening by a tree.
She also shared photographs of the neighborhood that demonstrated how typical it is for homes
there to be located very close to one another. Murray said that while they do not at all want to
make their neighbor uncomfortable, they also do not want to be held to backyard standards
when that space functions as a side -yard.
Julie Riggart, 509 Center Street, said that the pictures shared by Murray are not reflective of the
real view. Riggart said that this addition will allow a view directly into her backyard. She said that
Board of Adjustment
July 13, 2011
Page 4 of 7
the addition and the special exception will be a part of that property long after the Murray's have
moved on. Riggart said that the properties were both purchased with the current zoning and
setbacks in effect and it is only fair to apply the standards of the zone. Riggart said that at some
point the homeowners may just need to decide that the home is not large enough to raise their
family in, or find a way to put the additional bedroom somewhere else in the home. Riggart said
that the addition will present a hardship for her property, and will ultimately make it difficult to re-
sell. She said the two homes are very close together already.
Plagge asked Riggart's opposition was primarily to the window, or more to the structure itself.
Riggart said that the structure itself is objectionable. Riggart said that the house is too big for the
lot as it is, and the addition will further dwarf her little house by comparison. Riggart said that the
current zoning code came about because of issues like this, where people built and added on
whether or not it was appropriate for the lot size or the neighborhood.
Grenis asked whose property the tree was on. Riggart said the tree is on her property but it
does hang over onto the Murray's property.
Sheerin invited the applicant to respond.
Eno said that it did not seem fair that the neighbor could build within five feet of the applicant's
rear yard because the neighbor's setback is considered a side setback, whereas the subject
property cannot build ten feet from the neighbor because their's is considered a rear setback
even though it actually functions as a side -yard.
Murray said that her understanding is that the yard in question is considered their backyard
because their property has a Fairchild Street address. Walz said that is not correct; on a square
corner lot the property owner has the option of choosing which lot -line is their back property line.
In this case, Walz said, both of the frontages from Fairchild and Center Street are the same.
She said that the rear setback cannot be met on either side of the property, so the side where
they come closest to meeting the setback was used as the rear setback.
Murray said that her family is not adding onto the house willy - nilly, but are taking the addition
very seriously. They have hired an architect to make the design compatible with the existing
home and are planning on taking the home back to wood siding. She said that it is her
understanding that these improvements would actually improve the property values of hers and
surrounding homes. Murray reiterated that even with the special exception, her structure will still
be further from the lot line than Riggart's is required to be.
Plagge asked if the applicant could live without the window, or if she would proceed with
construction if the room had to be slightly smaller. Murray said she would not proceed with
construction. The cost of the addition is $40,000, and that is for what will be the smallest
bedroom upstairs even without reducing the size. Murray said that the house will still be a
modestly -sized house for a family of four at only 1,600 square feet. She said that she would be
willing to make the windows higher if the view was a concern, but even with them at a height of
four feet she did not think the neighbor's deck could be viewed from the bedroom. Plagge asked
if they planned to have windows on all three sides and Murray said that they do because it is a
very dark, north- facing part of the house and they think the windows will not only add light but
improve the appearance from the exterior.
Walz said she wanted to offer a correction to something that was stated earlier. She noted that
Board of Adjustment
July 13, 2011
Page 5 of 7
from a zoning standpoint the subject house is not too big for the lot —it does not come close to
meeting the maximum coverage standards. She said that while the house was placed there
prior to current zoning regulations, the Board needs to decide whether or not the special
exception is reasonable and satisfies the criteria. Walz noted that the reason that the special
exception for setback reductions exist is because there are situations in town, particularly with
properties that were established long before current zoning, where the zoning does not fit. Walz
said that a special exception is not the same as a variance. Exceptions are written into the
zoning and the Board is given the authority to review situations on a case -by -case basis and to
decide whether or not it is appropriate and reasonable to grant the exceptions.
Walz said that at this point the Board could decide if it wished to proceed with a vote or if it
preferred to wait and have the benefit of a full board. She noted that in order for a special
exception to pass, three Board members must vote in favor of it. Since only three Board
members are present, that means that unanimous approval would be required. She said it may
be appropriate for the Board to wait to have two more members to consider the matter, or it may
proceed with the vote.
Grenis said that the specific proposed exception is not supposed to impede on the use or
enjoyment of other property in the vicinity, or substantially diminish or impair property values in
the neighborhood. He said this criterion continues to be a sticking point for him, given the
neighbor's concerns. He said that as the proposal stands now he does not think the criterion is
satisfied.
Plagge said that he has seen board's rule both ways on this issue. He said that while he does
not have a terrible concern with the actual structure, he does respect the privacy concerns.
Plagge said that if the window to the north was a half window that was six or seven feet up he
would be fine with the addition. He said he saw no problem with the other two windows being
full windows.
Grenis said that he would like to have a chance for the other two Board members to weigh in on
the issue. Sheerin said she would too as she thinks it is a tough call. Plagge asked if it would be
possible to get the Building Official's input on how high the window could go and still be
structurally sound. Eno said that if the height of the window and the view from the window are
the greatest concerns and a deferral was in order, then he would definitely explore some
options to alleviate those concerns. He said that the customer is quite adamant about the
natural light, and he would be willing to put together several different options without eliminating
the window altogether. He said that a month's deferral would certainly give him enough time to
explore options. Plagge asked if the deferral would present timing issues for the contractor. Eno
said they would not cause timing issues for him, but the homeowner was anxious to get going
with the project. Murrays said they had been hoping to have the project done before school
starts. Plagge said he would be happy to rule on the application this evening if that is what the
applicant desired. Sheerin asked if there was any way for the Board to come back to the
application before the next scheduled meeting. Walz said that she would have to check
schedules. Plagge said that he would be out of town quite a bit in the coming weeks.
Riggart asked if the applicant was not required to show that there would be some hardship to
the property in order for a special exception to be granted. Riggart said that whether the area in
question is a side -yard or backyard is irrelevant unless the applicant showed there was some
sort of hardship that would result from having to comply with zoning codes. Plagge said that his
findings of fact would include a finding that the property is unusual enough that such hardship
Board of Adjustment
July 13, 2011
Page 6 of 7
could be found. Riggart said that a higher window would not satisfy her privacy concerns.
Sheerin said that while she understands that Riggart's personal concerns are most important to
her, what the Board is examining is what is the best way for these two properties to co -exist in
this awkward situation. She said that she appreciated Riggart being there and taking the time to
express her concerns.
Murray said that it had occurred to her during the discussions that she would be fine with some
kind of stained - glass, fixed - windows, as that would be compatible with the period of the house.
She said that if that would satisfactorily obscure the view for Riggart's purposes, she would be
willing to compromise on the decreased natural light that would result. Plagge asked if that was
something that could be stipulated. Greenwood Hektoen said that wording could be included to
require an opaque glass in the windows. Walz noted that the maintenance of such a
requirement would be through the application for building permits or on a complaint basis.
Grenis said that he would still really like the other two members of the Board to weigh in on the
issue.
Greenwood Hektoen advised the Board to close the public hearing and invite a motion. Walz
asked if the public hearing could then be re- opened at the next meeting. Greenwood Hektoen
said that it could be. There was some discussion as to whether or not the public hearing should
be closed or continued until a certain date. It was determined that the public hearing would
remain open on the issue.
Grenis moved to defer the application until the August meeting or an earlier date as can
be arranged.
Plagge seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion to defer carried 3 -0 (Jennings and Eckstein excused).
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION:
None.
ADJOURNMENT:
Plagge moved to adjourn.
Grenis seconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 3 -0 vote (Jennings and Eckstein excused).
W
0
U) LLI
OC
W
Q Z N
LL
Op
0
IX W
Q �
caQ
E
`0
7
-0d
0
�z
v �-0
x
LU }�- E
a) C E co
<Z0
�.Qn nz
n n w � n
XOOz I
W
Y
M
0
X
LLI
0
X
X
X
X
-
X
X
M
X
X
X
X
X
M
X
X
X
X
X
N
X
X
X
ix
N
LL!
-7
CO
Lo
N
cM
T•-
CC
r
r
CC
r
r
0
N
N
C N
N
N
HX
w
00000
c
c
Y
•N
c
O
N
W
I
E
Co
1
a
c
W
U
aci
�
E
L
0=
:Q
O
L
Z
mc`�QU
E
`0
7
-0d
0
�z
v �-0
x
LU }�- E
a) C E co
<Z0
�.Qn nz
n n w � n
XOOz I
W
Y
08 -11 -11
IP16
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PRELIMINARY
JULY 18, 2011 — 6:00 PM — INFORMAL
LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Elizabeth Koppes, Michelle Payne,
Tim Weitzel, Carolyn Stewart Dyer
MEMBERS ABSENT: Wally Plahutnik
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Nick Benson, Becky Soglin, Karen Howard, Sara
Greenwood Hektoen
OTHERS PRESENT: None
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
None.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
REZONING ITEMS:
REZ11- 00005: Discussion of an application submitted by Melrose Retirement Community,
LLC, for a rezoning from Planned Development Overlay Medium Density Single Family
(OPD -8) zone to Planned Development Overlay Low Density Multi - Family (OPD /RM -12)
zone for approximately 10.0 acres of property located at 350 Dublin Drive.
Miklo introduced Nick Benson, a graduate student in Urban and Regional Planning doing an
internship with the Planning Department. Benson presented the staff report.
Benson explained that the application is to rezone this property to allow for an addition onto the
assisted - living area of the retirement community. Benson said that the Comprehensive Plan
and the Southwest District Plan both identify this location as ideal for low- density multi - family
residential housing; the RM -12 rezoning would comply with these plans.
The proposed addition is off the southeast wing of the assisted - living area of the facility and
would include nine units. Benson said that the parking and drive configurations shown in the
plans will satisfy the parking requirements of the zone.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 18, 2011 - Informal
Page 2 of 5
Benson said that the applicant is proposing the use of materials and design features that are
similar to the current structure.
Benson said that the biggest issue with the property is the stormwater detention facility located
along the south and east sides of the structure. Because the addition and the drive will extend
into the current location of the stormwater detention facility, it will have to be reconfigured.
Benson said that the applicant is working with the Engineering Department to address technical
discrepancies with the current plans,
Benson said that staff recommends deferral if the technical discrepancies are not resolved by
the formal meeting. If those issues are resolved, then staff would recommend approval.
Koppes asked if Benson knew how the facility intended to handle parking issues for residents
while construction was underway. Miklo said that he believes the effected parking is visitor
parking as most of the resident parking is inside. Benson said that his understanding is that the
facility has far greater parking- capacity than is actually required by code. Koppes asked Benson
to confirm that parking will not be an issue during construction.
Eastham asked if the stormwater management facility served this property only, or if there were
other properties that fed into it. Miklo said that he believes it serves this property only, but he
would confirm that prior to the formal meeting.
Freerks asked about the large, windowless expanse on one side of the building. Miklo said that
staff could check into it with the applicant. He said that he believed that wall had bedrooms
along it so it may be possible to add windows.
REV 1- 00009: Discussion of an application submitted by Apartments Downtown for a
rezoning from Low Density Single - Family (RS -5) zone to Low Density Multi - Family (RM-
12) zone for approximately .88 acres of property located at 2218 Rochester Avenue.
Becky Soglin, graduate student in Urban and Regional Planning, presented the staff report.
Soglin noted that the area in which the subject property is located has a large variety of zoning.
She said that the Comprehensive Plan and the district plan for the property do support low -
density multi - family in the area and along arterials. It was noted that the property is located
along the border of two planning districts, though it is covered under the Central District.
She said that the existing structure is a bungalow built in 1930, and there is no indication of
historical significance for the home. Freerks asked if there had been any conversations with the
adjacent property owner, as it was possible that putting a multi - family structure on this lot might
make the next door neighbor an island of single - family residential. Soglin noted that this
particular area has a lot of mixed uses, and this rezoning would be compatible with the existing
neighborhood.
She said that the property is largely flat with a large slope at the back.
Staff's main concern with the application is the access issues that could be created by the
property. Staff recommends that the access be from Rochester on the far west side of the
property. Freerks said she would like to know whether the trees buffering the adjacent homes
would remain in place.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 18, 2011 - Informal
Page 3 of 5
Koppes said that she would like to see a site plan for this property, especially given the fact that
there are two single - family houses next door. Koppes said that the property will also be seen by
a lot of people traveling in and out of the community, so it is important that it is also aesthetically
pleasing. Freerks asked staff if the Commission could require site plan review for this
application. Miklo said that the City could place conditions the rezoning if the conditions were
necessary to address a public need. Koppes said that this is a busy, arterial intersection that it is
a gateway into the city. She said that qualifies as a public need. Greenwood Hektoen said that it
is good to consider whether or not the use would be compatible with the neighborhood, but the
final decision should be based on land -use issues. Miklo said that staff did discuss the
possibility of recommending that the rezoning be tied to a concept plan and building design, but
decided that because the property was in the Central Planning District, which has multi - family
design standards, that it was not necessary. He said that if the Commission wanted design
concerns to be addressed as part of the rezoning they should identify the issues and staff would
work with the applicant to address them.
Koppes asked about protections for the nearby single - family homes. Miklo said the applicant
has indicated that he may have a site plan by Thursday. Weitzel said that he would like to know
what the Commission's duty was in terms of protecting the adjacent property owner's.
Greenwood Hektoen said the Commission is required to consider compatibility with the
neighborhood. Freerks said that having a buffer and transition between the RS -5 and the RM -12
would be appropriate. There was an extended discussion on the driveway access, the best
placement for it, and the need for an easement in case it was later determined that shared
access was required. Payne requested a plat in order to actually see locations of structures and
roads. Freerks said that the two arterials complicated things in terms of access, and the two
single - family homes complicated things in terms of zoning and buffering. Miklo noted that there
is a code requirement for a buffer between single - family and multi - family. Koppes said she
would like to know why there are no balconies or windows on the side of the building hat is
adjacent to the single family homes..
Weitzel asked how staff came to the conclusion that the property was not historic. Miklo
explained that as a matter of practice staff reviews properties for historic significance if they are
more than 50 years old. Weitzel asked what criteria were used to determine the property was
not historic. Miklo said that the discussions include architectural or historic significance
associated with the property. He said that staff did not delve deeply into the issue. Miklo said
that what staff tries to determine is whether the structure is of such significant local historical
merit that it should be prevented from being torn down. Weitzel said that he believed the
processes for City departments, boards, and commissions determining historical significance
should be consistent. Greenwood - Hektoen said that at this point no one has expressed a desire
to save the home on historical grounds. Miklo said that the property is not in a historic district,
and has not been designated as a landmark. Weitzel said that he is simply trying to get
consistency in standards and terminology regarding historical significance.
Freerks noted that a vote did not have to be taken at the formal meeting.
CODE AMENDMENT ITEM:
1. Discussion of an amendment to the Zoning Code to clarify the definition of
enlargementlexpansion as it relates to alcohol sales- oriented uses.
Karen Howard explained that the state of Iowa recently changed the law to allow convenience
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 18, 2011 - Informal
Page 4 of 5
stores and gas stations to sell hard liquor. Because of this change in the law, the City needs to
clarify the definitions in its own code. Howard said that the change in definition will effectively
prohibit downtown businesses that do not already hold liquor permits from expanding their
businesses to include liquor sales. Eastham asked if it was then possible that a downtown
convenience store could apply for and be granted a liquor permit by the state of Iowa, but would
be prohibited from using the permit due to local zoning code. Howard said that the state allows
local governments to set their own spacing requirements in zoning codes. It was noted that the
spacing restrictions only apply to the downtown area.
2. Discussion of an amendment to the Zoning Code to allow pet supply stores in the
Intensive Commercial (CIA) zone.
Howard explained that the City has received two requests to locate pet stores in CI -1 zones.
Howard said that one of the reasons the CI -1 locations are desirable for pet supply stores is that
there are often veterinary clinics and grooming businesses in that zone and it is advantageous
for the pet suppliers to locate near those kinds of businesses. Howard said that all of the other
animal - related commercial uses are allowed in the CI -1 zone, and this code amendment would
allow pet supply stores to locate there as well. Payne asked for an example of a CI -1 zone.
Howard said that there is a CI -1 zone located on Gilbert Street just north and south of Highway
6. Howard said that the zone includes auto - repair shops and some of the more land intensive
type of uses.
OTHER:
Miklo said that as part of the Comprehensive Plan update, staff is reviewing demographic data.
In the Commissioners' packets there was a memo pertaining to the demographic figures that
were released from the last Census. He noted that the Baby Boomer generation is the fastest
growing segment of the local population and the Commission will likely see the implications of
that in zoning requests and planning matters. Benson said that the percentage of older
residents in Iowa City has increased dramatically in the last ten years; those in the age group
54 -64 years old grew by 81 % between 2000 and 2010, and the population of those 65 and older
grew by 26 %. Benson said that a great deal of the increase is due to aging Baby Boomers, but
also in part due to the fact that Iowa City has been identified in national publications as a very
attractive place to retire. Benson said these demographic figures are helpful in guiding policy
decision, and there was a great deal of discussion about what the implications for the
community might be. Benson noted that more specific local data will be available in the fall.
ADJOURNMENT:
Payne motioned to adjourn.
Weitzel seconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 6 -0 vote (Plahutnik absent).
z
U) Q
G
OU
u Wa,
?U�
z z N
OQ
N
ad z
o W
Z
za
z
a
J
a
z
W
W
Q
W
a
z
W
W
Q
LL
z
i•
XXXxoox
Z25
i
OxxOxxx
'Wxxxx�x
O
O
�
�
X
X
X
X
X-
0
X
N
X
X
�
X
x
X
X
C'4
X
�
X
X
X
X
X
X
i
X
X
X
X
X
0
x
,X
X
X
X
X
X
X
c�X
xxxo
xx
N
XXXXXX
Nx
;
xxxXXX
�W—
CO
M
z
NLOLOM
LO
z
LO
—
M
Z
W d
LO
LO
LO
LO
LO
LO
0
Ui
�X00000000
W
w
m
z
J
mm
W
J
z
m
z
W
mQ
J
Q
N
OOVQJvY�
J
a
z
N
—
2
�
N
OOUQJVY�
J
=
z
N
-
2
V=
ot
W
W
Ga
W
Nv62H
IL
W
z
J
LNNWa�
Q��am0aJW
-Q~
ui
WaGI-Waz2F-
LL.
l(L
a�
�cnwc
a�>
a
LU0-
m
O
a
a-
J
w
Z
m
a
w
w
Y
a
a
a
z
W
W
Q
LL
z
E
O
7
� O
o
z
U p�
X
LU a�
} c a)
c N E
a)0
a� aQz
11 n LLJ 2
XOOz
W
Y
co
X
X
X
X
X
0
X
C'4
X
�
X
X
X
X
X
X
co
Nx
XXXXXX
N
c�X
XXXXXX
C-4x
XXXXXX
N
w
LO
M
z
N
—
LO
z
LO
—
M
Z
W a
�x00000000
Ln
LO
LO
0
LO
0
0
0
W
w
m
z
m
mm
J
a
a
z
N
OOVQJvY�
J
2
Z
N
—
2
�
'a�N
W2z�
V=
ot
W
W
m
W
IL
W
z
N
LNNWa�
Q��am0aJW
-Q~
zm0W
LL.
l(L
a�
E
O
7
� O
o
z
U p�
X
LU a�
} c a)
c N E
a)0
a� aQz
11 n LLJ 2
XOOz
W
Y
IP17
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PRELIMINARY
JULY 21, 2011 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL
LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Elizabeth Koppes,
Michelle Payne, Tim Weitzel
MEMBERS ABSENT: Wally Plahutnik
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Nick Benson, Becky Soglin, Sarah Greenwood
Hektoen
OTHERS PRESENT: Jeff Levy, James Clark
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
The Commission voted 6 -0 (Plahutnik excused) to recommend approval of REZ11- 00005,
an application to rezone approximately 10 acres at 50 Dublin Drive from OPD -8 to OPD-
RM12, subject to substantial compliance with the site plan and elevations submitted, and
the addition of fenestration as approved by staff.
The Commission voted 6 -0 (Plahutnik excused) to recommend approval of an
amendment to the Zoning Code clarifying the definition of an en largement/expansion as
it relates to alcohol sales- oriented uses.
The Commission voted 6 -0 (Plahutnik excused) to recommend approval of an
amendment to the Zoning Code to allow pet supply stores in the Intensive Commercial
(CI -1) zone.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
REZONING ITEMS:
REZ11- 00005: Discussion of an application submitted by Melrose Retirement Community,
LLC, for a rezoning from Planned Development Overlay Medium Density Single Family
(OPD -8) zone to Planned Development Overlay Low Density Multi - Family (OPD /RM -12)
zone for approximately 10.0 acres of property located at 350 Dublin Drive.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 21, 2011 - Formal
Page 2 of 9
Miklo introduced Nick Benson, a graduate student in Urban and Regional Planning doing an
internship with the Planning Department. Benson presented the staff report.
Benson explained that the rezoning is being requested in order to allow for nine additional
assisted living units. Currently, the property is at its maximum allowable density with 80 total
units.
Benson said that the Comprehensive Plan does contemplate that this property could be zoned
multi - family residential in the future, and the application to rezone to RM -12 is consistent with
the Comprehensive and Southwest District plans.
Benson shared a site plan of the existing and proposed facilities. He explained that the southern
wings are assisted - living and the northern wings are designed for independent living with a
commons area joining the two facilities.
Dublin Drive is a collector street to the west of the property which runs north to Melrose. Benson
said this street has sufficient capacity for the proposed assisted living addition. He said that
there is currently a private drive that runs around the property. Benson said that in terms of the
proposed addition, the biggest obstacle to it has been the storm -water detention facility that runs
along the south and east sides of the lot.
Benson said that the materials and scope for the proposed addition are similar to the existing
building. Benson said that the applicant would be addressing the concerns brought up at the
informal meeting by Commissioners concerned about the lack of windows on the northeast and
southwest sides of the building.
The proposed addition will jut out from the southeast part of the property. The applicant has
proposed extending the private drive out to the south in order to allow for the additional wing.
Benson said that the Commission had expressed concerns about whether there would be
sufficient parking during construction. He said that there is a significant excess of surface
parking available, so parking during construction will not be an issue.
The storm -water detention facility is a large one and runs to the south and east of the property
and will need to be modified with the addition. Benson said that the Engineering Department will
be working with the applicant to reconstruct the detention facility, and the Department feels that
the remaining issues with the site and the detention facility have been resolved.
Staff recommends that the application be approved. The changes are compatible with the vision
laid out in the Comprehensive Plan, and are an extension of the uses that are already there.
Freerks opened the public hearing.
Frank Levy, President of Newberry Management and Development Company, which co -owns
with Mercy Hospital the existing facility, spoke on behalf of the application. He said that there is
currently a waiting list for the existing assisted - living facility, which houses 22 units. Leevey said
that the relatively small size of the existing facility is due to space constraints rather than
strategic planning. Leevey said that the local demand for assisted - living units is strong enough
to warrant the $2 million project. He noted that those looking to move into the independent - living
wing often take into account whether there is availability in the assisted - living wing. He said that
many residents do this kind of transition planning for the future.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 21, 2011 - Formal
Page 3 of 9
Freerks said that the proposed plans reflect a nice development, but when the Commission saw
that windowless expanse on two sides they were concerned about the building fitting in with the
existing neighborhood. She asked for more information on the decision not to place windows on
that side of the building. Levy said that the wall in question is configured as a bed -wall. Levy
said that putting full windows on that wall would likely mean reconfiguring the bedroom
orientation which could result in having to lengthen the building. This would be wasteful in terms
of space and expense. Levy said that small square windows high above the bed placement may
be possible. He asked if it would be possible to discuss it with his builder and then submit
something to staff for approval. Dyer said that the windows could add some nice light to the
rooms as well.
Leevey next addressed the concerns about parking during construction. Benson noted that the
property has significantly more parking than what is required by the code. Miklo said that the
parking will exceed the zoning requirements throughout construction.
Eastham said that his understanding is that the current zoning allows eight units per acre on the
site, a maximum which has already been met. Leevey said that was correct. Eastham said the
proposed zoning would allow for 40 more units on -site, though only nine are being proposed.
Eastham asked if there were plans to build more units at a future date. Leevey said that the
existing assisted living wing is only one -story and the proposed addition is only one -story. He
said that there are no plans for a second story or additional units. He noted that if the
Commission wanted to place a restriction on the number of units that could be added, then he
believed that the applicants would be agreeable to that. Freerks asked if the site was not
already restricted somewhat by its terrain. Benson said that the storm -water detention facility is
especially restrictive and prohibitive of additional expansion. He noted that any reconfiguration
of the detention facility would require a review by the Commission.
Freerks said she was not certain what the language should be for adding light and windows on
the end of the building. Miklo suggested that the application could be approved subject to the
addition of clear -story windows on the end elevations subject to staff approval. Leevey said that
what is being proposed by the Commission seems fair and will probably have a positive impact
on the project.
There were no further comments on the issue and Freerks closed the public hearing.
Weitzel moved to approve REZ11- 00005, an application to rezone approximately 10 acres
at 50 Dublin Drive from OPD -8 to OPD -RM12, subject to substantial compliance with the
site plan and elevations submitted, and additional fenestration as approved by staff. It
was noted that the discrepancy with the detention facility noted in the staff report has
been resolved.
Eastham seconded.
Freerks said that she believed this would be a nice addition. She noted that there is a great
demand for this kind of housing and the Comprehensive Plan does anticipate that use in this
area. She said that this would be a great addition to the community.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6 -0 (Plahutnik absent).
REZ11- 00009: Discussion of an application submitted by Apartments Downtown for a
rezoning from Low Density Single - Family (RS -5) zone to Low Density Multi - Family (RM-
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 21, 2011 - Formal
Page 4 of 9
12) zone for approximately .88 acres of property located at 2218 Rochester Avenue.
Miklo introduced Becky Soglin, a student in Urban and Regional Planning, who is interning in
the Planning Department and presented the staff report.
Soglin explained that this property is at the intersection of First Avenue and Rochester Avenue.
The request is for rezoning from RS -5 to RM -12. The Comprehensive Plan shows low- density
multi - family zoning for the property, given its close proximity to city services and bus routes. The
Comprehensive Plan also supports this type of multi - family housing at the intersection of two
arterial streets.
Soglin said that the property immediately to the west is zoned RS -5. The entire area on the
other side of First Avenue is in the Northeast District and is zoned RM -12.
Soglin shared a location map with the Commission to show the location of buildings on the
property and nearby. Freerks asked if the elevations showed any slopes that would be
considered steep or need to be protected and Soglin replied that there are no environmentally
sensitive concerns on the site.
Soglin said that multi - family would be compatible with the existing neighborhood. Soglin said
that there is no information at this point concerning the historical importance of the existing
home. She said that it is a brick bungalow built in the 1930's, but neither the City nor a private
citizen has filed to have it considered a local landmark. The building is also not currently on the
historical register.
Soglin said that because that area is heavily trafficked, there have been concerns about where
to place a driveway for a multi - family dwelling unit. Staff recommends that the driveway comes
off of Rochester, and that an easement is added to the western border to facilitate a shared
driveway in the future if need for one arises.
The applicant has submitted a concept plan for a 12 -plex of three - bedroom units with the
garages in back. The building would be subject to the Central District Site Development
Standards which includes requirements to place the drives and garages so that they are not
visible from the street frontage. Balconies would not be allowed on the side adjacent to the
single - family homes. Soglin noted that the site plan had not yet been fully reviewed by staff as it
had just been submitted that afternoon.
Koppes asked why only Rochester was considered a frontage in this case, as opposed to a
double- frontage, given the presence of First Avenue as well. Miklo said that both streets would
have frontages. Miklo said that they would have to review the site plan against the standards in
terms of garage placement. He said there might be some kind of an exception for a corner lot.
Staff recommends that the rezoning be approved subject to the conditions relative to the access
on the drive and the easement.
Freerks noted that because the property is in the Central Planning District, staff would be
reviewing the site plan according to those guidelines.
Payne said that it looks as though there is inadequate visitor parking for a 12 -plex under the
current plan. Miklo said that could be a legitimate concern given that there is no parking along
Rochester or First Avenue.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 21, 2011 - Formal
Page 5 of 9
Koppes asked what the rules would be governing the headlights of cars shining into the nearby
residences. She said the driveways seemed very close to the residences. Koppes said she was
concerned because any buffer afforded by the existing trees would be removed when the trees
were taken down. Miklo said that the code requires three -feet of buffer for a driveway and ten -
feet of buffer for a parking area. He said that staff would have to review this when the site plan
is submitted. Freerks said that it was good to voice these kinds of concerns so that the applicant
could see ahead of time the thought - processes of the Commission members. She said that
even if the neighboring properties were rezoned at some time in the future, the Commission
needs to take into account only what the current zoning is for those properties.
Payne asked if the plan is to fill in the drop -off in order to bring the garages up to the level
indicated in the site plan. Soglin said that the drop -off is a little more gradual than indicated by
the site plan, but the applicant could better address that concern.
Dyer said that her concern was the plans for a big, chunky garage facing First Avenue in a
residential neighborhood and adjacent to Hickory Hill Park. Soglin said that there are standards
that would govern the appearance of the structure in order to make it suitable for the residential
neighborhood. Miklo said that he did not believe there were any standards that would govern
the garage design, though if that was a concern for the Commission they could certainly make it
a condition of the rezoning. He said that one thing staff will be looking at is whether the parking
area is adequately screened from the street view. Miklo said that if the Commission was
concerned about buffering the neighbor to the west and the appearance from First Avenue they
could put conditions on the rezoning that address those concerns.
Dyer said that she believed all of the other multi - family structures in that area have parking
underneath, surface parking, or both. Soglin said that the property immediately to the north has
garages above - ground, while others have them underneath.
Koppes asked why this application is not being linked with the concept plan in the same way
that other properties just to the north of the subject property were linked to their concept plans.
Miklo said that the property to the north was a planned development and, as such, had to go
through the design review process. Miklo said that staff discussed the possibility of requiring a
concept plan, but decided that the fact that the property was governed by the Central District
Plan was adequate. Miklo added that the Commission could certainly make design review a
condition of the zoning if it cited a reason to do so that concerned the public good. Koppes said
that she thought the two frontage roads were two pretty good reasons but she would see what
the applicant had to say.
Eastham asked if making the building into an L -shape rather than a square or a rectangle would
alleviate any of the parking visibility issues. Miklo said that it might but it was difficult to say
without having specific dimensions and plans.
James Clark, 414 East Market Street, spoke on behalf of the application. Clark said that the lot
itself would probably be sheared down five or six feet to reduce the back slope to the lot line. He
said the garage designs facing First Avenue will have a very nice design and will be tied in with
the nearby apartments. Clark said that there would be proper screening and buffer along the
driveway, in excess of the requirements. Clark said that the design of the building is not yet in
place, but he is aware that every fifty feet there must be design elements employed to break up
the fagade. He said that the garages will be in back in order to keep the cars as hidden as
possible.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 21, 2011 - Formal
Page 6 of 9
Payne asked if Clark had thought about visitor parking. Clark said that he had not considered
that, but he would look into it further. Milko explained that with three - bedroom units, the
developer is required to supply two parking spaces per unit. With this structure, the two spaces
are provided in garages; such an arrangement does not take into account visitor parking. Miklo
said that was probably a good thing to look into as the application moves forward, especially
considering there is no nearby on- street parking. Freerks said that it may be worth deferring the
application in order to give staff and the applicant time to address that issue. Clark said he too
agreed that visitor parking was needed.
Eastham asked if Clark had any comments regarding the possibility of making the building an L-
shape rather than a rectangle. Clark said that the lot is not big enough to get that done. He said
that he had tried different configurations, but the rectangle shape fits best.
Freerks asked what the landscaping plans were for the property. Miklo said that for residential
building one tree is required for every 550 square feet of building area. Soglin said that there are
additional requirements related to the corner lot and visibility. Clark said that the building too
must be set back in such a way as to maximize visibility.
Koppes asked if there are plans to have a sidewalk leading from the building to First Avenue.
Miklo said that one is only required if there are doors on that side. Soglin said there is not an
entrance on the east side. Koppes said she would like to see the Commission look at this
project in terms of a double- frontage and a gateway into Iowa City. She said that the garages
are a big concern for her, and she would like to see an entrance on the First Avenue side as
well. Clark said that the garages could be made to look very decorative and tie into the decor of
the building. Miklo said that the application is well within the 45 -day limitation period, so if the
Commission wishes to defer in order to work out concerns there is plenty of time to do so.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Koppes moved to defer to REZ11 -00009 until the August 4"' meeting.
Payne seconded.
Koppes said she was very concerned about the double- frontage and wanted to make sure the
Commission considered this property as a gateway into the city. She said that she would like to
see more specific design plans before voting for approval. She also said she was a little
concerned about headlights from the driveway bothering nearby residents. Miklo said that the
Commission could require a buffer if that was a concern.
Payne said she would like to see the issue of visitor parking addressed.
Eastham agreed that the visitor parking should be more clearly defined and should be
reasonably adequate for the use. He said that there should be a screening requirement on the
west side of the lot. Eastham said he is also concerned with the design of the garages, and
would like to see something that was at least compatible with the buildings to the north. He said
that the appearance of the building from First Avenue is also a concern for him.
Dyer said that the whole neighborhood is pretty attractive even though a number of the buildings
are multi - family. She said that the duplexes are attractive and there are nice big setbacks of the
multi - family units. She said the proposed site plan looks too crowded to her.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 21, 2011 - Formal
Page 7 of 9
Weitzel said that he agreed with everything that had been said by other Commissioners. He
thanked Soglin for clarifying the historic status of the existing home.
Freerks said that she thought there were many ways to address the concerns expressed by the
Commission and she looked forward to seeing a little more solid plan come together in the
coming weeks.
A vote was taken and the motion to defer carried 6 -0 (Plahutnik excused).
CODE AMENDMENT ITEM:
Discussion of an amendment to the Zoning Code to clarify the definition of
enlargement/expansion as it relates to alcohol sales- oriented uses.
Miklo said that the state recently changed laws pertaining to liquor licenses and convenience
stores. In order to clarify how the City controls the enlargement and expansion of non-
conforming uses, staff suggests that an additional line be added to the definition to read: For
Alcohol Sales Oriented Retail Uses, any change in the type of liquor license that would increase
the types of alcohol or alcoholic beverages that can be sold is considered an
enlargemenf/expansion.
Freerks opened the public hearing. No one wished to comment and the public hearing was
closed.
Eastham moved to recommend approval of an amendment to the Zoning Code clarifying
the definition of an enlargement/expansion as it relates to alcohol sales- oriented uses.
Weitzel seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6 -0 (Plahutnik absent).
Discussion of an amendment to the Zoning Code to allow pet supply stores in the
Intensive Commercial (CI -1) zone.
Miklo said that the CI -1 zone is intended for intensive commercial or land consumptive uses;
however, pet supply stores are consistent with other uses permitted within the zone.
The public hearing was opened; no one wished to comment and the public hearing was closed.
Payne moved to approve an amendment to the Zoning Code to allow pet supply stores in
the Intensive Commercial (CI -1) zone.
Koppes seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6 -0 (Plahutnik absent).
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: July 7th, 2011:
Koppes moved to approve the minutes.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 21, 2011 - Formal
Page 8 of 9
Eastham seconded.
The motion carried 6 -0 (Plahutnik excused).
OTHER:
A new schedule for which Commission members would attend City Council meetings was
discussed and redistributed.
ADJOURNMENT:
Weitzel moved to adjourn.
Koppes seconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 6 -0 vote (Plahutnik excused).
z
N
�p
Ov
Vw
ZwV-
ZVo
0z
Np
06 z
Ur W
Z_ ~
Z Q
z
Q
J
CL
E
O
7
d
N o
(nz
X C
uj a�
c �
5 c E
in O
9) 0 z
n u w
XOOz
W
Y
N:XXXXXwX
ti
XXXX00X
O
X
X
O
X
X
X
T�-
XXXXXX
Z
,
XXXXXXX
X
X
X
X
X
X
04
X
XXXXXX
X
X
X
X
X
co
N
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
N
X
X
X
X
X
0
X
Mx
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
N
X
XXXXXX
N
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
�wc-
CDC
-MN�U.)M
waLnLoU.)Lo
Ln��n
I- XOOOOOOOO
W
W
H
W
>-
J
S
z
m
mQ
J
Q
_3
> -azN
W
N
00L)
J
X
Z
N
<XY
_
L
ou<U
Q
N
W
m
z
F-
J
wQ
at
=
eC6
m
W
W
H
M
J
w4mE-wazX
w
&HWaz2�-
xwwuJ:)N
QCOQmOQJw
>QmOQJw
zmGwwYaa�
E
O
7
d
N o
(nz
X C
uj a�
c �
5 c E
in O
9) 0 z
n u w
XOOz
W
Y
Z
,
XXXXXXX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
co
N
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
N
M
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
XXXXXX
r
N
�w�Cp�MNMLoM
waLnLoU.)Lo
Ln��n
�X00o0o000
W
W
J
N
W
)-
J
z
m
W
mm
J
Q
_3
> -azN
N
OOUQ-
J
=
Z
—
jC_�Y_-
_
L
ou<U
Q
N
W
m
z
F-
J
wQ
at
=
eC6
m
W
W
H
M
N
&HWaz2�-
Q�
zmmwwY.mm
>QmOQJw
E
O
7
d
N o
(nz
X C
uj a�
c �
5 c E
in O
9) 0 z
n u w
XOOz
W
Y
YOUTH ADVISORY COMMISSION
Saturday, July 16, 2011- 4:00 PM
HARVART HALL, CITY HALL
DRAFT
IP18
Members Present: Alexandra Tamerius, Matt Lincoln, Caroline Van Voorhis, Sam Fosse, Leah Murray
Members Absent: Jerry Gao
Liaison absent: Ross Wilburn
Staff Present: Marian Karr
Others Present: None
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 4:00 PM. Vice Chair Tamerius chaired the meeting due to Chair Gao's
absence.
MINUTES:
Lincoln motioned to approve the minutes. Murray seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously,
5/0.
UPDATE ON VACANCIES:
The Commission currently has the Tate vacancy. Two applicants applied for the Regina position: Chris
Nepola and Katherine Rapp. The appointed Commission member would serve out the remainder of
Lincoln's term. Both applications will be presented to Council on August 2 for appointment or the
Council may re- advertise the position. Because Commissions must be gender balanced, a male applicant
would have priority, but Council could consider a female applicant after 90 days. City Clerk Karr
distributed Youth Advisory Commission Information which included the current members and their term.
BUDGET UPDATE:
The Commission discussed its budget for FY12, and that there are no new expenditures.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS:
GRANT PROGRAMMING:
No new updates.
WEBSITE & ADVERTISING:
No new updates.
GLOBAL VILLAGE:
Murray and Van Voorhis shared some of their successes with Global Village. They were able to
create a rainforest in their booth to represent the country of Brazil. Children who stopped by the booth
could color an animal. Once completed they could either place the animal in the rainforest or they
could take it home with them. Along the booth were facts about the different wildlife in Brazil.
Murray and Van Voorhis expressed an interest in doing the project again, but stated they would like
to get more volunteers from the Commission.
RECOGNITION GRANT:
No new updates.
YOUTH ADVISORY COMMISSION
July 16, 2011
Page 2 of 3
BULLYING PANEL
Tamerius spoke to the Commission about her experience at the Bullying Panel sponsored by the Iowa
City Human Rights Commission and co- sponsored by the Youth Advisory Commission. Tamerius
stated that a video was shown about modern day bullies. Despite the small turnout, Tamerius
confirmed that it was a successful endeavor that truly explained the facts and falsities of bullying.
ANNUAL REPORT FOR YOUTH ADVISORY COMMISSION:
Karr provided the Commission with an Annual Report for the Youth Advisory Commission which
represents the Commission's General Responsibilities, Activities and Accomplishments and Goals for the
next for the next fiscal year. The Annual Report will be submitted to Council in the Fall. The Commission
discussed its Activities and Accomplishments. Members wanted to list specific grants awarded (Regina
Christmas Basket Project and City High's GSA Club); and the participation in the Bullying Panel
sponsored by the Iowa City Human Rights Commission. The Commission brainstormed goals for the next
fiscal year including filling the Tate vacancy, using Global Village to gain overall awareness of the
Commission, and developing a sustainable garden project within all schools. City Clerk Karr stated that
she would compose another draft of the Annual Report including the amendments made, and the
Commission will explore the Annual Report further at the next meeting.
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE:
Karr commented that the Fourth of July fireworks and the Jazz Fest were successful. The Council is
approaching the budget process in the upcoming months of October and November. Karr also stated that
the city is establishing Moped Parking around the downtown area due to mopeds becoming a popular
form of transportation amongst students. It is the goal of the Council to have moped parking options in
place by the new school year.
MEETING SCHEDULE:
The Commission set a date for their next meeting, Sunday, September I I at 4:00 PM.
Karr presented Lincoln with a certificate signed by Mayor Matt Hayek and Councilman Ross Wilburn
thanking him for his time served on the Youth Advisory Commission. Lincoln stated he was honored to
serve on the Commission and is grateful for the experiences and lessons he learned while serving.
Lincoln motioned to adjourn, which was seconded by Van Voorhis. The motion to adjourn passed
unanimously, 510, 4:38 PM.
Minutes submitted by Lincoln.
Z
O
U�
r�
2O
Owl
CD
w U N
fn a W
OZ�
aW
�a
D
O
a�
D
Ot
C
a�
v
L
0
'a3 Cl
0
�Z d
x = E
Ord
(D E
N N o
aLQazz
11 II UJ II I
XO0Z
Y
X
X
X
0
X
X
ti
'
r
�o
ti
z
z
z
z
z
z
X
X
X
X
X
X
,W)
M
X
X
X
X
x
x
M
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O
X
N
X
X
X
X
X
X
N
r
N
e-
r
r
N
a
M
CO
M
M
M
M
M
W X
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
F- W
A
Aa
L
0
'a3 Cl
0
�Z d
x = E
Ord
(D E
N N o
aLQazz
11 II UJ II I
XO0Z
Y