HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-11-01 Bd Comm minutes4b(1)
MINUTES APPROVED
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 8, 2011
EMMA HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Esther Baker, Thomas Baldridge, Andrew Litton, David McMahon,
Pam Michaud, Ginalie Swaim, Dana Thomann, Frank Wagner
MEMBERS ABSENT: Kent Ackerson, William Downing, Alicia Trimble
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Chery Peterson
OTHERS PRESENT: Jeremy Faden, Mitchell Kelchen, Sarah Klemuk, Josh Moe,
Andrea Rauer, Thomas Scott
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action)
None.
CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chairperson McMahon called the meeting to order at 5:15 p.m.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA;
There was none.
CONSENT AGENDA:
Certificate of Appropriateness — 30 N. Clinton Street.
Peterson said that this church is a City landmark at the corner of Clinton and Jefferson Streets
and is in the Jefferson Street Historic District. She said the project would involve removing the
existing sign and replacing it. Peterson referred to a mockup of what the proposed new sign
would look like. Peterson said that staff feels this is acceptable.
Rauer, a representative for the church, said that it became apparent over the winter that the
sign needed to be replaced. She said the church would like to take the sign down and release
the two beautiful windows that are blocked by the sign that was put up 50 to 60 years ago.
Rauer said that the proposal for the sign is in the packet. She said it would be a very vertical
look for the front of the church. Rauer said they want to match the stone archways and around
the windows. She said she has not discussed this with a sign maker until she was certain this
was headed in the right direction.
Swaim asked about the plexiglass. Rauer said that corner is in a very high traffic area. She
said they didn't want to have something that has to be constantly replaced. Rauer said the new
sign would actually be smaller than the old one. She said it has two faces and would fit right up
against the tree at the corner and would not in any way impede the triangle needed to see at the
corner, as it would meet the five -foot required setback.
MOTION: Swaim moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 30
N. Clinton Street, as presented in the application. Male seconded the motion. The
motion carried on a vote of 8 -0, ( Ackerson, Downing, and Trimble absent).
Historic Preservation Commission
September 8, 2011
Page 2
CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS:
1141 E. Court Street
Peterson said this is an alteration project in the Longfellow Historic District. She said it involves
the replacement of all of the basement windows with metal -clad wood Jeld -Wen windows.
Peterson said the windows would be a good fit except one of them, which would have to be
extensively changed to accommodate an egress unit.
Peterson showed photographs of the west -side window that would require a window well. She
showed the other windows that would be replaced. Peterson said the application seems
acceptable. She said she will still need confirmation on the number of windows and what the
window well material will be.
Klemuk, one of the owners of the house, said they could use stucco around the top of the
window well to match the appearance. She said the basement walls are all stucco - covered.
Klemuk said they have talked with their contractor about satisfying code.
MOTION: Swaim moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application
for 1141 East Court Street, with the conditions that the window specifications be
provided for review and approval and the information on the window well material also
be provided for review and approval. Litton seconded the motion. The motion carried on
a vote of 8 -0 (Ackerson Downing, and Trimble absent).
435 Grant Street
Peterson said this property is on the corner of Grant Street and Grant Court in the Longfellow
Historic District. She showed the front of the house, which faces east, and coming around from
the north side looking into the back yard. Peterson said this is an application to install a
swimming pool in the back yard. She said it is an above - ground pool, but it is going to be cut
down and submerged two feet.
Peterson said the concern with this application is the fence and the design of the fence around
the pool. She said the applicant was originally going to match the existing fencing. Peterson
showed the current fence but said she does not think it is high enough to meet the code
requirement.
Peterson said that at this point, the applicant is planning to use that but also finish out the fence
with a picket fence that she showed to the Commission. Wagner asked if the applicant knows
that she might have to have a fence up to six feet high, for insurance purposes. Peterson stated
that she checked the City Code requirements, and Iowa City only has a four -foot fence
requirement. She said she did mention that to the applicant, who said her insurance agent is
advising her.
Peterson said staff recommends the original style of fence. She said that if that can't be
replicated, then staff recommends that the new fence be installed to match the existing.
Michaud asked if it is 15 feet in diameter and about three feet deep. Peterson said it is two feet
in the ground. Miklo said the applicant intends to put the pool two feet in the ground and then
berm up around. He said that one would not see the metal edge sticking above the ground.
Historic Preservation Commission
September 8, 2011
Page 3
Miklo said staff would not advise having two different styles of fence. Swaim said that the one
style seems to work well with the house. Baldridge asked if the current fence would remain.
Peterson said it could be salvaged if it was raised up to meet the code. She said the way it is
now, she did not think it would comply.
MOTION: Michaud moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for an application
for 435 Grant Street, provided the fencing around the new pool is painted and is either all
picket style or all custom built to match the existing fence, and it complies with
regulations. Swaim seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8 -0,
(Ackerson. Downing, and Trimble absent).
416 Fairchild Street
Peterson said this proposal involves the addition of a ramp. She said the property is in the
Northside Historic District. Peterson showed a front view of the house and the west side. She
said the window at the far back is the window that would be converted to a door. Peterson said
that is where the ramp would land, and then it would ramp back and down into the back yard,
which she also showed a photograph of.
Peterson said there is another door that would stay as it is. She said the ramp would be on the
right -hand side and referred to the plan in the packet.
Baldridge said the staff report states that the project is for a ramp at the northeast corner of the
house. Peterson replied that that is an error.
Peterson said that everything seems to meet the guidelines here. She said that information
regarding the door and the door trim is missing. Peterson showed the window that would be
converted into a door, and it is her understanding that the window well would be left as it is.
Baldridge asked if the egress would then be directly west on the back wall. Peterson said it
would not. She said there is a plan; there would be a landing at that door and then it ramps
down to the north, where there is another landing and then there is a little bit of ramp that
stretches back.
Swaim asked about the design of the handrail for the first landing and if it would match the
wooden railing on the front porch. Peterson said that when she spoke to the contractor, he was
using the guidelines for handrail design and the simpler version, similar to the other.
Scott, the owner of the house, said what he would probably do, unless it is identical to the front,
if he changes it for the ramp, change the front to match the ramp. He said he doesn't really like
what is on the front anyway. Scott said the wood trim /baluster is flat, so the snow sits on it so
that it has to be painted every year. He said if that doesn't match with what he is proposing to
use on the ramp, he will change out the front porch.
Scott said the three questions he gleaned from the staff report were the sidewalk to the west,
landscaping plan, and the door trim. He stated that he plans to take the sidewalk out in front of
the evergreen bushes there and then come around and skirt the west side of the ramp and
come in back behind the ramp in the backyard so that the sidewalk is separate from the ramp.
Regarding the landscaping, Scott said it would be his preference to probably do a vegetative
buffer in front to the south, maybe skirt lengthwise the west side of the ramp. He said he does
Historic Preservation Commission
September 8, 2011
Page 4
not like the skirt totally, because then animals get caught underneath. Scott said he would
certainly want to screen at least from the flat ramp, the deck, down to the ground on the south
side.
Scott said the sidewalk will then go on the west side. He does not think there will be enough
room between the sidewalk and the ramp to do a vegetative buffer on the west side. He said he
might skirt that.
Swaim asked if the landing would stand out to the west farther than the bay window. Scott said
he assumes that is true, because it is probably about not any more than 30 inches there
between the foundation and the sidewalk. Swaim said the vegetation there, that will make the
ramp a lot less visible.
Scott stated he did not want it above the flat part of the ramp; he does not want a tree or two
trees, because he doesn't want to block the vision for security reasons. He said he would put
low evergreens, on the bottom — a couple of evergreens or whatever it takes.
Scott said he does not know yet what kind of door will be used. He said he may go with a solid
core, wood exterior door and paint it to match the house or the trim. Scott said the contractor is
proposing an insulated half - light, steel door. He said he is not sure that is what he wants to do
yet.
Scott said the only thing he objects to in the staff report is where it refers to, "...new doors
should include a wood screen door." He said that from a standpoint of access for a
handicapped person, he does not really want a screen door here. Peterson said she was
pulling out every applicable guideline.
Scott said he does not have problems with the question on the sidewalk, which will be done, the
landscaping plan, or the door trim. He said he will submit something to staff regarding the door
and the door trim. Scott said he takes pride in the north end and also takes pride in the
properties he owns.
MOTION: Baldridge moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for a proposal for
416 Fairchild Street as presented in the application with the following conditions:
provision of plans for landscaping and /or a skirt on the sides of the ramp and provision
of detail for door trim and specifications /literature for the new door. Swaim seconded
the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8 -0, (Ackerson, Downing, and Trimble
absent).
332 S. Governor Street.
Peterson said this property is in the Governor /Lucas Street Conservation District and is one of
the Univer /City projects. She said the house was built in the 1850s. Peterson showed a
photograph of the house and said the stone house faces left. She said the back has multiple
wood frame additions.
Peterson said the project includes reroofing, new gutters, most likely the removal of the
chimney, siding repair on the south side porch, removal of the railing at the front and
construction of a sidewalk out to the shared driveway. Baldridge asked if the sidewalk that
extends would be removed. Peterson replied that is not in the plans, and there are no steps to
it. She said there are no plans to replace the stairs there.
Historic Preservation Commission
September 8, 2011
Page 5
Swaim asked if the cement pad would remain but not the railing. Peterson confirmed this.
Peterson said it was suggested to her that the first wood frame section could have been as early
as the stone.
Wagner, the contractor for the project, said one of the concerns is whether the chimney should
be taken down or not. He said the little window underneath the eave on the gable on the
second addition facing south will be gutted. Wagner said he will probably also be gutting the
room next toward the front, and when he does that, he will be able to see what is underneath,
and when he does that, he'll have a good idea if that might be as old.
Swaim asked if this is the original chimney. Peterson said they are not certain. She said it has
no modern -day function.
Baldridge asked about the front door. He said the lintel would seem to be part of the original.
Baldridge said then the other place in the corner obviously held another entrance. Peterson
said the big dormer on the front also is not original.
Michaud asked if there is any way to move the electrical wire around to the side of the house so
it is not so prominent. Wagner responded that he believes it will have to stay.
Swaim said she does not have any problem getting rid of the chimney. Wagner said the
antenna will be removed along with the chimney.
MOTION: Swaim moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for an application for
332 South Governor Street with the condition that the product information for shingles
and siding be reviewed and approved. Baldridge seconded the motion. The motion
carried on a vote of 7 -0 -1, (Ackerson, Downing, and Trimble absent and Wagner
abstaining).
1130 Seymour Avenue.
Peterson said this property is the Longfellow School. She said the gymnasium addition is on
the west side of the school and was constructed in 1954.
Peterson showed a before view as submitted by the applicant. She provided a photograph from
a week ago, showing masonry repair and where the opening has been cleaned out. Peterson
showed another view demonstrating the relationship to the rest of the school.
Peterson showed a drawing from the original document, demonstrating how the window would
have been built originally. She said the square panels were probably fixed, and the lower
panels were operative.
Peterson said that one of the products being proposed for this includes Kalwall, a translucent
insulating panel with a grid look. She said the upper two corners are louvers, and she believes
they are mechanical. Peterson said there are four operable hopper windows. She said there
are ten vertical battens.
Peterson said the staff recommendation is that the same material, maybe in different
proportions, replicate the original look of the building. She said staff recommends emphasizing
the five bay, not the ten, and then instead of just the four windows across the bottom, do a
Historic Preservation Commission
September 8, 2011
Page 6
window all the way across, more like the original and probably a little taller to match the
proportion of the original.
Kelchen, the consultant on this project, said they would like to minimize the number of operable
windows because of air flow. He said the vertical battens would match the color of the panels,
(can't hear), and on the alternating ones. (
Peterson said that Kalwall can put fixed windows in too; they don't all have to be operable.
Peterson showed a sample of the product. She showed what would be the expressed grid look,
just like the drawing.
McMahon said it is nice to see they are not just bricking this in like so many schools have done.
Wagner said that what was there before looked pretty bad.
Swaim asked Kelchen if he is proposing insulated glass for the top. Kelchen said the top
windows would all be insulated glass. Kelchen said that the insulating /R value of Kalwall is
seven, whereas a window is going to only be about two to three.
Swaim asked if the clear windows would stand as they are now, rather than as in the drawing.
Peterson confirmed this. Wagner said the drawing just shows four. Peterson said she is
comparing it to the original drawing in the packet, where there were ten windows across.
MOTION: Wagner moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for an application
for 1130 Seymour Avenue with the following conditions: revision of the number and
proportions of hopper windows and battens, specifically that there be ten windows
across the bottom, as in the original; that the applicant provide information on the color
of Kalwall components and prefinished louvers; and that the above is to be approved by
staff and chair. Baldridge seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8 -0,
(Ackerson. Downinq, and Trimble absent).
109/111 S. Summit Street.
Peterson said this is a resubmission of a garage application for a property in the College Hill
Conservation District. She stated that the property is a duplex on the corner of Washington and
Summit Streets.
Peterson said the new garage would go to the north of the building. She showed a close view
of the location where there is a steep bank. Peterson said the garage would be eleven feet to
the north and would be set back from the face of the duplex five feet. She said the driveway
would have to flow up from the sidewalk.
Peterson said there is a mistake in the plan in that there are not meant to be double hung
windows. She said there would be three. Peterson said there would be a partition wall down
the center of the garage with one stall for each tenant of the duplex.
Peterson said the eave height is seven feet nine from the finished grade at the duplex. She said
what is different from when the Commission looked at this before is that there is no upstairs
studio space; it is just a very tall garage.
Historic Preservation Commission
September 8, 2011
Page 7
Wagner, the contractor on this project, said the biggest change is that before the design had
one pretty much staying at street grade or sidewalk grade going into the hill and in order to not
have the roofline be three feet from or at the level of the bottom of those windows, that's why
they thought to put a second story on it to get it up so it is at least halfway up the building. He
said that a number of engineers looked at it and decided that it would just be way too much dirt
to come out of there, and it was just too big of a project.
Wagner said the engineers decided that one can come up — there is a house just to the south of
this one that has a driveway that comes up, not as much as this one will but in an acceptable
fashion. He said without having the garage sit so far into the hill, he shortened it up and pushed
it back farther so one can drive up and get into it but still have the roofline where it was before.
Peterson said that is the west elevation, and the driveway will be pretty steep. She said the
back elevation in the packet shows a step down and retaining walls to the back doors.
Wagner said the plan was drawn presuming that it would be ten feet into the ground, but now it
might only be four, so it will have fewer tiers requiring the retaining wall. He said there will be
the limestone walls, but because there won't be so much concrete everywhere, they thought
they would put just pavers along either side to break it up a little bit so that it will be concrete,
brick, and limestone retaining walls. Swaim asked if the ones going off to the left are a terrace,
and Wagner confirmed this.
Baldridge asked if the garage is just taller. Wagner confirmed it would be taller and would
contain a storage loft. Baldridge asked about the access planned from the west. Wagner said
that is no longer in the plans. He said there is no longer really a reason for it. Miklo asked
Wagner if it would be possible to put brick down the center to kind of match the two sides.
Peterson asked about the 30 -inch railing requirement. Wagner said that there is a black railing
on the duplex, so whatever railing he uses on the garage will be fabricated to match, with the
same color, material, and design.
Swaim asked about getting from the garage to the house. Wagner said that most of the
walking would be inside the garage, and there will probably be only one step outside. Michaud
asked if this garage is being constructed to fulfill a parking requirement. Miklo said the parking
was grandfathered in for the duplex. Wagner said the owner wants parking, no matter what, as
there is currently no parking available there.
MOTION: Baldridge moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for a garage
addition for 109/111 South Summit Street as presented in the application with the
following conditions: window, door, and garage door specifications to be approved;
product information for shingles and siding to be approved; product information for
landscape materials to be approved; and use of brick trim in the center of the drive to
break up the concrete. Baker seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7 -0-
1. (Ackerson. Downing, and Trimble absent and Wagner abstaining).
REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY STAFF AND CHAIR:
McMahon stated that this information is available in the packet and asked if anyone had
additional comments.
DISCUSS COMMISSION'S RESPONSE TO FEMA:
Historic Preservation Commission
September 8, 2011
Page 8
Regarding suggestions for mitigation measures to offset the adverse effect to historic properties,
resulting from FEMA funded undertakings for The University of Iowa. Specifically, mitigation
measures to offset the demolition of Henry Sabin Elementary School and demolition of the
former Alpha Sigma Phi House.
McMahon said that members of the Commission formed a subcommittee regarding this item.
Peterson said that Baldridge, Downing, Michaud, and Wagner were on the subcommittee. She
said the subcommittee discussed two FEMA projects — the one that would result in the
demolition of the Sabin School and the other resulting in the demolition of the former Alpha
Sigma Phi House.
Peterson said she summarized the suggestions for mitigation in order of priority in a
memorandum. She said that first was the funding of an elevator addition at Horace Mann or
Longfellow School. Peterson said the second suggestion was a facility study of those two
schools, focusing on the issues of maintaining them in the long term.
Peterson said that for Alpha Sigma Phi, the strongest recommendation would be to fund a
marketing study for the Saint Thomas Moore rectory /parish building, which is sitting empty and
is for sale. Michaud said there is a sale pending on the building and asked if the suggestion
should therefore substitute something for that if it is sold. Miklo replied that the recommendation
could be left unless the building is sold.
Michaud asked if there is a backup plan, if the building ends up being sold. Peterson responded
that the Saint Thomas Moore recommendation was the strongest suggestion; the other ones all
had drawbacks. She said the other suggestions included funding a historic preservation public
education campaign for the Manville Heights District, funding the salvage and storage of
architectural elements from the fraternity house, and funding a National Register multiple
property nomination for historic fraternities and sororities in Iowa City with an education
program.
Miklo said the National Register nomination for fraternities and sororities was FEMA's
suggestion. He said the committee seemed to be skeptical of the idea in terms of the difficulty
of convincing fraternities and sororities to voluntarily be listed on the National Register. Miklo
said FEMA came back with the idea of an educational program and more outreach with the
building owners that might be more successful. He said their suggestion would be to do a
National Register nomination and try to convince the property owners, which in some cases are
corporations and other times are investors, that National Register listing is a good thing.
Swaim asked if there are existing elevators in Mann or Longfellow. Miklo said there are not. He
said the idea is that the three schools were built by the same architect in the same year, so
there are similarities in terms of historic significance. Miklo said that as one is lost, the idea is
what appropriate thing can be done to compensate for that loss to make the others more viable.
Swaim asked about the studies that are proposed. Miklo responded that FEMA, or The
University at FEMA's direction, would be responsible for coming up with a proposal. He said the
City could be a party to the agreement or could just take the role of an observer.
Wagner said the idea is to come up with a wish list and select the one thing that really would be
ideal. He said the City might as well ask for as much as it can, and then if it gets half of what it
asked for, that is still pretty good.
Historic Preservation Commission
September 8, 2011
Page 9
Peterson said that Downing did contact someone with the school administration who said that
an elevator would be a great addition to Longfellow. Miklo said that elevators would be a great
addition to both schools. He said the school district did receive an estimate for an elevator for
Longfellow. Miklo said he believed the cost was in the range of $400,000.
Swaim said she certainly agrees with suggestions one and two for Sabin. She said it is great
way of continuing the likelihood of existence for the other schools. Swaim asked, regarding the
fraternity house, what the drawback was for suggestion number two. Peterson said that the City
has tried to get a district in Manville Heights for a long time.
Swaim said, regarding suggestion four and FEMA's response regarding one -to -one contact, she
is skeptical about ever getting that done. Wagner stated that the committee thought the ideas
for the Sabin School were easier, because there are like properties that need assistance.
Swaim asked about the status of Longfellow School. Peterson responded that it is on the
National Register. Miklo said it is in the Longfellow Historic District and is therefore protected
from demolition without the Commission's approval.
Swaim said that Horace Mann is not protected. Miklo confirmed this. Swaim asked, if Horace
Mann were nominated for the National Register, if the Commission would go through the same
process of designating it locally. Miklo said it could. He stated that the National Register status
would make it a more prestigious building and give more of a reason to keep it viable.
Baldridge asked about the status of Preucil School. Miklo said it is on the National Register and
is also a local landmark building. Baldridge asked if it would be possible to extend that status to
Horace Mann School. Miklo answered that, given the history and the architecture of the two
buildings, they would really have to have two separate listings. Wagner said that Horace Mann
School is just outside of the Northside Historic District. Miklo said it is perhaps a block or two
east of the district.
McMahon asked if the Commission wanted to revise the list of priorities at all or submit the list
as it is. Miklo said the list has to be submitted by September 11`h on a form provided by FEMA.
MOTION: Swaim moved to approve the suggestions for mitigation of the demolition of
Sabin School as submitted to the Commission by its subcommittee. Wagner seconded
the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8 -0, (Ackerson, Downing, and Trimble
absent).
Regarding the list for the fraternity, Swaim said that if FEMA rejects the first three suggestions
and funds suggestion four, that might be a gift the Commission does not want, if it is not
expected to actually yield any nominations. Miklo said the City is not required to give four
suggestions for each demolition. Wagner stated that he is all in favor of the educational
projects. Swaim asked about anything educational that could be done regarding the fraternity
and sorority houses and if that would have any clout with the actual owners.
Baldridge said he thinks there is too much concern about potential restrictions involved with
having an historic property. He said that is where education is needed — to teach people that it
is in their benefit to do this. Swaim asked if such education would be beneficial in Manville
Heights, if there has not been much support there. Baldridge said he believes there has been
mixed support. Swaim asked if that neighborhood can be educated any more, or if the
Commission wishes to educate whole other portions of the City instead.
Historic Preservation Commission
September 8, 2011
Page 10
Michaud asked about the statuses of the Chamber of Commerce Building and the Press- Citizen
Building. Miklo responded that he believes the Press - Citizen Building is eligible for the National
Register, but he did not know if it is listed. He said that there have been so many alterations to
the Chamber of Commerce Building that it might not be eligible. Michaud asked about the
status of the Davis Hotel. Miklo replied that it is on the National Register but is not a local
landmark.
McMahon asked Commission members if they would like to change the list of priorities. Swaim
proposed deleting number four from the list. Miklo said the subcommittee was skeptical about
including that suggestion in the first place, for the same reasons already given.
Swaim said that the Commission could look to the work plan for suggestions. Miklo asked if,
rather than specifying the Press - Citizen Building, the Commission would want to substitute
nomination research and a proposal for other significant landmarks in Iowa City currently not
suggested as such. Swaim suggested making that the second idea and moving the others
down the list. Wagner and Michaud agreed.
Peterson asked for opinions on just eliminating the third idea regarding salvage and storage.
Miklo said that Friends of Historic Preservation has already taken that on so that it would be
covered. Swaim said the first suggestion would then be the marketing study and then the
National Register nomination would be second. She asked if the third one would then be the
public education campaign. Swaim said the Commission could suggest two things only. Miklo
replied that FEMA is not required to choose from the Commission's list.
MOTION: Swaim moved to approve the suggestions for mitigation of the demolition of
the Alpha Sigma Phi Fraternity house as submitted to the Commission by its
subcommittee to maintain number one as listed, to list number two as to fund a National
Register property nomination for other various significant structures in Iowa City, and to
include as number three the historic preservation education program for the building
owners of fraternity and sorority houses. Male seconded the motion. The motion carried
on a vote of 8 -0, (Ackerson Downing, and Trimble absent).
MOTION: Swaim moved to delete suggestion number four regarding the salvage and
storage of architectural elements from Sabin School from the suggestions for mitigation
of the demolition of Sabin School as submitted to the Commission by its subcommittee.
Wagner seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8 -0, (Ackerson, Downing,
and Trimble absent).
Miklo said a cover letter would be submitted to FEMA along with the form with the suggestions.
McMahon thanked those Commission members who served on the subcommittee.
DISCUSS NOMINATIONS FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION AWARDS:
Miklo stated that Helen Burford had provided staff with a list of potential properties eligible for
historic preservation awards, which are tentatively scheduled for early November. He said the
Commission needs to quickly decide which properties should be receiving awards. Miklo asked
Commission members to e-mail Peterson or himself with addresses of any properties that might
be eligible.
Miklo said the Commission may want to form a subcommittee to handle the process. He said it
is important for the subcommittee to go through the list and determine which properties are
Historic Preservation Commission
September 8, 2011
Page 11
actually eligible for awards and which are not. Swaim asked if Burford could send the list to
Commission members, and Miklo said he would arrange for that.
Miklo said that each property would be photographed, with as much documentation as possible,
and then subcommittee members would decide which properties would receive awards.
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR AUGUST 11, 2011:
MOTION: Wagner moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation
Commission's August 11, 2011 meeting, as written. Litton seconded the motion. The
motion carried on a vote of 8 -0, (Ackerson Downing, and Trimble absent).
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Josh Moe said he is new to Iowa City, he works across the street now and he has worked in
Cincinnati where he was involved in historic preservation. He said this was the first amenable
Historic Preservation Commission meeting he had ever been to.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 6:50 p.m.
Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte
z
O
�p
O�
UO
ZU
O w
aW�
�
Z Q N
W
N z
W Z
oW
0.
UQ
O
H
N
2
E
0
C)
0 0
�Z
U � d
w E
��
�
D 0
0 E2
a� (
2 .0 o
a. 4u uZ
u u W n
XOOZI
oX
X
o
X
X
X
X
X
o
X
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
o
x
x
o
co
x
X
o
x
x
o
x
x
o
x
x
o
x
o
x
x
o
o
x
x
x
o
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
o
o
x
o
Ln
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
X
X
X
X
X
0
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
M
X
X
X
-
X
X
O
O
O
X
X
N
X
x
o
x
x
o
x
x
o
x
o
r
a
X
W
M
0)
N
M
d'
0)
N
m
N
0)
N
M
M
0)
N
M
It
0)
N
M
19t
CF)
N
M
N
0')
N
M
N
CY)
N
C7
It
CF)
N
M
M
CY)
N
M
N
CF)
N
M
H
Q
W
Y
Z
O
W
G
F=-
LL
p
=
H
W
W
J
C9
Z
�
Z
Q
Z
O
�..
p
Q
p
ZO
=
Q
v
Q
d
Q
=
U
J
Q
Z_
C7
Q
Q
Q
p
Z
Q
U
J
Q
W
m
2
Y
Q
LL
Z
O
Q
E
0
C)
0 0
�Z
U � d
w E
��
�
D 0
0 E2
a� (
2 .0 o
a. 4u uZ
u u W n
XOOZI
MINUTES
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 15, 2011 — 6:30 PM
LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL
4b(2)
APPROVED
MEMBERS PRESENT: Michelle Bacon Curry, Andrew Chappell, Scott Dragoo, Charles
Drum, Jarrod Gatlin, Holly Hart, Rachel Zimmermann Smith,
MEMBERS ABSENT: Cheryl Clamon, Michael McKay
STAFF PRESENT: Tracy Hightshoe
OTHERS PRESENT: Nate Muller, Sandra
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL:
None
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairperson Andrew Chappell at 6:30 P.M.
APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 16, 2011 MINUTES:
Hart moved to approve the minutes.
Zimmerman Smith seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7 -0 ( Clamon and McKay absent).
PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
STAFF /COMMISSION COMMENT:
Hightshoe told the Commission that in the back of the packets staff included the Commission's
Year End Report that is provided to the City Manager and City Council. The report identifies
FY11 CDBG /HOME project accomplishments and Aid to Agency funding. The last part of the
report identifies the FY12 CDBG /HOME projects starting July 1S`
NOMINATION AND ELECTION OF OFFICERS:
Chappell stated that they need a chair and a vice chair.
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 15, 2011
PAGE 2 of 7
Chappell nominated Michael McKay for another year as chair person.
Dragoo seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7 -0 (Clamon and McKay absent).
Chappell asked for any nominations for the vice chair.
Zimmerman Smith nominated Andy Chappell.
Gatlin seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7 -0 (Clamon and McKay absent).
NEW BUSINESS:
PUBLIC HEARING & APPROVAL OF THE FY11 CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL
PERFORMANCE & EVALUATION REPORT (CAPER):
Hightshoe stated that every year it is a HUD requirement that project accomplishments are
summarized and submitted to HUD. The report identifies how the City utilized our federal
CDBG and HOME funds in relation to our 5 -year plan (CITY STEPS). The report also must
include information about other programs such as Section 8 and other federal funding sources
such as the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program.
FY11 was the first year of our 5 -year plan. For many the most useful part of the CAPER is the
CDBG and HOME project accomplishment summaries found on page 24 and 34. Staff does not
report beneficiaries or the leverage amount until the project closes. For example, if a prior year
project was not completed until FY11, no beneficiary or leverage information would be reported
in the prior year, but would be for FY11. If you notice no beneficiaries for FY11 projects, it is
that the project was not complete and beneficiary/leverage information will be reported in the
FY12 CAPER. This prevents us from duplicating beneficiaries and leverage amounts for the
same project.
Hightshoe apologized for the delay in distributing the IDIS reports. There was a problem with
the federal system multiplying dollars spent on projects with multiple housing beneficiaries. The
problem is now fixed and the reports emailed to commission members and placed online. The
IDIS reports basically summarize the charts found on pages 24 and 34 based on income, race
and type of activity.
Chappell asked when this document must be submitted to HUD. Hightshoe stated that it
needed to be submitted 90 days after the end of the program year. It will need to be submitted
to HUD by September 30. Tonight is the public hearing for the CAPER. HCDC must
recommend approval as is or with requested revisions.
Chappell stated that since this was a public hearing he asked if there were any members from
the public that would like to weigh in. There were none.
Chappell asked if there was any discussion from the Commission.
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 15, 2011
PAGE 3of7
Hightshoe stated that there was an error on the title page and apologized to Clamon. Andy
Douglas is listed as a HCDC Commission member; however Clamon should have been listed. .
Chappell asked about the annual commission report and who receives it. Hightshoe responded
that it was for the City Manager and City Council. Chappell stated his concern was that it was
titled Housing & Community Development Commission and if you look at FY11 project
accomplishments it includes the economic development fund which the commission doesn't
supervise, the Council Economic Development Committee monitors /approves, it looks like the
Commission has something to do with these types of activities based on the report. Hightshoe
stated that as the source of the funds is CDBG and the Commission in its general duties
oversee or provide recommendations for all CDBG and HOME related activities, it is provided in
the report. The Commission's duties are very broad as it relates to making recommendations to
City Council on housing, jobs and services for low income residents.
Drum stated he had some minor changes that he would like to have corrected in the report.
Hightshoe stated that would be fine as long as minor, not substantive corrections that would
require the commission to review and approve.
Chappell asked if she was asking for approval on the report. Hightshoe stated that it would be
approved subject to the corrections that Drum suggested.
Chappell closed the public hearing.
Zimmerman Smith moved to approve the report subject to Drum's minor corrections that
need to be made.
Drum seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7 -0 ( Clamon and McKay absent).
SELECTION OF PROJECTS TO MONITOR IN FY12:
Chappell stated that normally they all keep track of the projects and they divide them up. The
memo states that each member would need to take four to five projects.
Gatlin stated he would take November.
Zimmerman Smith stated she would take January.
Drum stated he would take December.
Hart stated she would take October. Hightshoe asked if she would take the two carry overs as
well. Hart confirmed that she would.
Dragoo stated he would take May.
Bacon Curry stated she would take June. Hightshoe stated that staff would provide the last two:
housing rehab and the economic development fund.
Chappell stated he would take March.
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 15, 2011
PAGE 4 of 7
Bacon Curry volunteered for the April carry over projects. Chappell stated that Clamon could
take the April carry over as she doesn't have any at this point.
Chappell stated that McKay, as Chair, has other events and meetings that he is involved with so
it would not be necessary to give him any this time around.
Hightshoe stated that she will fill in the chart and email it out to the Commission. The form
includes the contact information for the project.
Hightshoe welcomed Michelle Bacon Curry as a new commission member.
Hightshoe stated that she emails recipients to let them know that an HCDC member will contact
them before the scheduled meeting to get a project update. She stated Commission members
typically do a phone interview or visit in person (staff recommends calling first) and then
presents back to the commission what the project is, budget, status, etc.
TIMELINE FOR THE ANNUAL REVIEW OF CITY STEPS:
Hightshoe stated that FY12 is the second year of CITY STEPS. There is an annual review of
CITY STEPS, the City's consolidated plan for housing jobs and services for low income
residents. The Commission should review the plan's priorities and will need to decide to pursue
an amendment, if necessary. If the Commission would like to pursue an amendment, staff
would forward to the City Council and follow the process for amendments to the plan. Staff is
scheduling at least two meetings to get public input. One of them will be at the Senior Center.
Staff will email the Commission with the meeting information so they can attend; however, the
meetings are not mandatory.
Hightshoe asked the Commission if any of them had an idea about a different meeting or a
different clientele that they would want to hear from. The meeting that is scheduled now will
focus on the senior community. Last year it was a community mental health provider and
Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County. Chappell asked what kinds of options were
available. Hightshoe stated that the Housing Authority is seeing if there are any public housing
or Section 8 tenant meetings in the next month. She stated she emailed the school district to
see if there were any family resource meetings at any of the schools that serve primarily low to
moderate income students. The meetings will have to be done by October 19 so that she will
be able to summarize the comments and forward to the Commission. Gatlin suggested the
shelter house. Hightshoe stated she would contact them. She gave off a couple of other
locations in which they have had meetings.
Hightshoe stated that she has found many similarities for needs across several different
clienteles and many fall within the high priorities of CITY STEPS. Zimmerman Smith asked if the
idea was to get input from people who have already received assistance or from the community
as a whole. Hightshoe stated they wanted input from the community, but also from low income
persons who are in need of services and have utilized area services. Many times we also get
input from social service providers and school and county employees.
Chappell asked if staff would expect a vote at the Oct. 20 meeting. Hightshoe stated that if
there are no changes to CITY STEPS proposed, there is no action needed. if commission
members want to change a priority, then they would have to vote to recommend the change to
City Council. Chappell requested that a summary of CITY STEPS priorities be sent to
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 15, 2011
PAGE 5of7
commission members before the Oct. 20 meeting. Hightshoe stated she will summarize the
comments and email or mail the comments to members before the Oct. 20 meeting for their
consideration. Chappell stated he encouraged all the members to review CITY STEPS and go
through the priorities in CITY STEPS - Strategic plan (p. 91 to Appendix A — about 10 pages)
before the October meeting.
OLD BUSINESS:
ALLOCATION PROCESS COMMITTEE — UPDATED:
Chappell asked staff if they could send the Commission the application from last year so that
everyone can see the old version and he stated he would be giving out the new version with the
changes.
Chappell stated that the subcommittee decided against dropping the entire process. They felt
that they needed structure because there is a lot of material to digest and because the
applicants need a process. The committee thought if they could change the evaluation criteria
so that there is enough leeway and everyone could get behind the criteria themselves then
there wouldn't be extensive disputes. Chappell stated that some of the changes that are in the
evaluation criteria are to help make them more uniformed. All ranking forms, despite type of
activity, will total 100 points, currently there are two different point systems. The ranking forms
all have the same five categories, but not all of the questions are worded the same. It allows for
the individual commissioner to see if the applicant has proven what they have set out to do.
Chappell stated that they have fewer yes /no -set number of points and more that require a range
such as 0 -10.
Chappell stated that last year there were only two applications that showed innovation. The
innovation question was only worth five points and there was talk that it should be worth more
and so it has been brought up to ten points. The wording has also changed to give it more of a
broad range. Dragoo stated that he has always been confused by what is being asked with
innovation. Chappell stated that he hoped that the questions will be clearer in regards to
whether the question is asking about the project or the entity. Some questions are better suited
to ask about the entity, the financial questions, how well the project will be managed, etc.
Chappell stated that when groups made good use of volunteers, they don't necessarily get as
much credit as it doesn't translate to the specific project. The changes that are made try to t
allow for that adjustment. Staff has not had a chance to review everything yet. With all the
changes they are hoping for a more unified look.
Chappell stated that in regards to housing this was the only one that had projects scoring under
60 points being dropped from consideration. Hightshoe stated that when you see a project with
less than this amount, the project is not likely to get funding. Chappell stated that from there
they looked at the other documents in the packet to make sure it was consistent with the
documents that were just changed. What is not in the packet is the applicant guide. He stated
he did not see any changes that would need to be made to the guide. The committee will have
all three revised applications in the October packet for review. The thought is to bring these
back to the committee for the October meeting so that in November there could be a vote to
approve the changes. He told the Commission if they have any changes to email him so that he
could bring it up to the subcommittee when they met again. Hart stated that she got involved
because there were things that she wanted taken into consideration. Her concern was to not
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 15, 2011
PAGE 6 of 7
bias the ratings toward good projects that may not have some of the resource that some of the
others can bring in or that may not be as interesting but are critical. If there is an opinion that
some do not feel a question works or others do than that will be brought up to the committee as
a whole.
Hightshoe stated that the email that gets sent to the Commission will contain the three
applications and the applicant guide. The last three pages in the applicant guide are the ranking
forms. Drum stated that it seems to him that if there was more parallel between the questions
that were being asked it would help. It would also be helpful that the applicant knows what we
are expecting of them.
Hightshoe stated that the commission should also be looking at the Aid to Agency application
process as HCDC will be recommending a funding allocation this year as well. Due to several
potential changes to the Aid to Agency process, Hightshoe stated staff would keep the
commission informed.
Hightshoe stated that more emphasis might be placed on agencies serving Iowa City residents,
both in terms of CDBG and Aid to Agency projects. She did not know if it would be a criterion
that they would want to review. Aid to Agency funds come directly out of the City's general
fund. There are some agencies in Iowa City that predominately serve residents outside of Iowa
City; however many agencies request 100% of the CDBG funding from the City. In October, we
may want to discuss further. Chappell stated that another thing asked about is the services. If
the agency received Aid to Agency funding from the City the last year and whether the funding
could have been used for the project.
Chappell asked for the commission comments to be sent to him by October 1 s,
Bacon Curry asked if Aid to Agencies was an October allocation last year. Hightshoe stated
she thought it was in November or December. Hightshoe stated before the allocation process
begins, staff will need to confirm the process and amount available for distribution as there may
be several changes.
ADJOURNMENT:
Drum made a motion to adjourn.
Zimmerman Smith seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7 -0 (Clamon and McKay absent).
Z
O
Cl)
O
U
H
Z
W
CL
O
W
W
D
H
Z
D
O
U
Z
a
Z
D
D
O
U
W
W
U�
Z o
Q N
O
Z
W
H
F-
Q
a�
X S E
-W- a)
a) c
Lo CD
rn
IL Q Z o
Z
ii n n n
w�
Y X O Z
X
X
-
X
x
x
x
0
x
o�
X
x
x
x
x
o
x
x
x
X
N
v
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
M
-'
0
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
M
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
N
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Xt
X
O
N
N
O
N
d
O
N
M
O
N
M
O
N
N
O
N
Cl)
O
N
Nt
O
N
O
N
N
-
O
N
W
rn
rn
rn
rn
rn
rn
rn
rn
rn
F--
J
W
x
J
LU
()
LLI
Z
V
v
0
m
W
a
w
a
V
J
z
V
O
D
W
U
O
p
C7
W
_
2
W
W
w
2
Q
W
fV
a�
X S E
-W- a)
a) c
Lo CD
rn
IL Q Z o
Z
ii n n n
w�
Y X O Z
MINUTES
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
September 20, 2011
Lobby Conference Room
APPROVED
M�)
Members Present: Orville Townsend Sr., Howard Cowen, David Brown, Diane Finnerty, Harry Olmstead,
Wangui Gathua, Connie Goeb, Martha Lubaroff.
Absent:
Staff Present:
Dianne Day.
Stefanie Bowers.
Others Present: Hannah Downing, Stephanie Mulstay, Dave Leshtz, Maryann Dennis.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: None.
CALL TO ORDER
Commission Vice Chair Goeb called the meeting to order at 18:00.
PUBLIC COMMENT OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: None.
CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE August 16, 2011 MEETING:
Commissioner Townsend, moved to approve.
Commissioner Olmstead seconded.
The motion passed 6 -0. (Cowen and Gathua not present for vote)
INDIVIDUAL IN A SERVICE AWARD
Commissioner Townsend, David Leshtz and Maryann Dennis suggested the Commission rename the
Individual in a Service Organization Award to the Linda Severson Award in light of Linda's contributions to
human rights and her lifelong commitment to service.
Commissioner Townsend, moved
Commissioner Olmstead seconded.
The motion passed 8 -0.
REM IOWA HOST HOME MODEL
Presenter was not able to attend meeting.
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF JOHNSON COUNTY CONSTITUTION SERIES
Bowers will follow up on a few related matters such as topic, disclaimer on flyer re: accommodations and views
of speakers.
13th ANNUAL STRENGTHENING & VALUING LATINO /A COMMUNITIES IN IOWA CONFERENCE
Commissioner Brown and Commissioner Finnerty can serve as representatives for the Commission at this
event being held in late October. In addition, the Commission opted to donate their complimentary space at the
Conference to someone who would not otherwise be able to attend.
IOWA WOMEN'S MUSIC FESTIVAL
Commissioner Olmstead and Commissioner Finnerty represented the Commission at the Festival and reported
that the music was entertaining and the turn out really good for this event.
HUMAN RIGHTS BREAKFAST
The Breakfast will be held on October 20th at 7:30 am at the Sheraton. The Subcommittee set a day and time
to go over nominations and select recipients. Commissioner Townsend and Commissioner Goeb will take
tickets, Commissioner Brown will introduce the speaker, Commissioner Finnerty will introduce the recipients
and Commissioner Lubaroff will close the Awards.
Human Rights Commission
September 20, 2011
Page 2 of 3
IMMIGRATION SUBCOMMITTEE
A joint work session was held on 9/19/11. Based on the discussions with Council the Commission will send a
follow up memo to the Council by 10/18/11. The memo will summarize the recommendations along with a
request for specific action on certain items.
Commissioner Finnerty moved
Commissioner Olmstead seconded.
The motion passed 8 -0.
FACES OF IOWA CITY
Bowers will send out brochures to speakers and begin advertising.
JUVENILE JUSTICE
Bowers, Commissioner Finnerty and Commissioner Townsend are working on programs for this series and will
report back to Commission at October meeting.
Commission Reports
Commissioner Olmstead reported on the Center for Human Rights Board meeting. The Center will be showing
Postville the documentary in late October.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Olmstead moved to adjourn.
Commissioner Townsend seconded.
The motion passed 8 -0 at 19:19.
Human Rights Commission
September 20, 2011
Page 3 of 3
;F
i�
I;
Human Rights Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2011
(Meeting Date)
NAME
TER
M
EXP.
1/18
2/15
3/15
4/12
5/17
6/21
7/19
8/16
9120
10118
11/15
12/20
iianne Day
1/1/12
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
Vangui
Pathua
1/1/12
O/E
O/E
O/E
O/E
X
O/E
X
X
X
lartha
ubaroff
1/1/12
O/E
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
loward
;owen
1/1/13
X
X
X
O/E
O/E
O/E
X
O/E
X
;onstance
Poeb
1/1/13
X
X
X
O/E
X
O/E
X
X
X
larry
1lmstead
3 -1 -2010)
1/1/13
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
)rville
ownsend,
r.
1/1/14
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Mane
innerty
1/1/14
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
►avid B.
I•rown
1/1/14
X
X
X
O/E
O/E
O/E
X
O/E
X
KEY:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting /No Quorum
R = Resigned
- =Not a Member
4b(4)
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 6, 2011 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
APPROVED
MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Stewart Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Elizabeth
Koppes, Michelle Payne, Tim Weitzel, Wally Plahutnik
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Sara Hektoen, Travis Kraus, Nick Benson
OTHERS PRESENT: AI Streb, Steve Gordon
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
1. An amendment to Article 14 -213 of the Zoning code to provide a density bonus for
Elder Apartment Housing.
2. Amendment of the subdivider's agreement regarding the requirements for escrow
accounts and secondary street access for Saddlebrook Part 2.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
REZONING ITEM:
REZ11- 00015: Discussion of an application submitted by Al Streb for a rezoning from
General Industrial (1 -1) zone to Community Commercial (CC -2) zone for approximately
2.34 acres of property located on Commerce Drive.
Miklo stated that Travis Kraus is a graduate student in the Urban Regional Planning Program
and is doing an internship with the City and has prepared the staff report.
Kraus stated that the rezoning application is for the one parcel of land on Commerce Drive
located in the Southeast District. Currently the land is zoned General Industrial, 1 -1, and the
rezoning application would change it to a Community Commercial, CC -2, zoning. The adjacent
land use to the north is warehousing and truck terminal run by Goodwill Industries and to the
south are mini storage warehouses owned by Scott 6 Industrial Storage. Kraus pointed out
other various businesses located in the area.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 6, 2011 - Formal
Page 2 of 11
Kraus stated that the considerations for the rezoning would be to decide if it is in the public
interest. The lot would be a mid -block rezoning. If this zoning were to be approved, it may be
appropriate to include all three lots rather than just the one in the mid - block. It would include the
warehousing business for Goodwill and the storage units. The idea is that the zoning should be
consistent with both sides of the street. The businesses that currently exist in the area would be
nonconforming but the idea would be that they would eventually be developed to be consistent
with the entire block of zoning.
Kraus stated that the current plan for industrial traffic in the area is another consideration for the
public. 4201h Street is significantly used for the industrial area and has recently been expanded
to accommodate industrial development. There is some concern that additional retail traffic due
to this requested rezoning would interfere with the industrial vehicles that are using the roads.
The traffic count for Scott Boulevard (approximately 6,100 vehicles per day) shows that the area
has not yet reached a level that is conducive for retail development.
Kraus gave some history on the CC -2 zoning that is located across the street that includes the
Fareway grocery store. He stated that the area was annexed in 1997 to accommodate more
industrial land. The Scott 6 Industrial Park was brought in and zoned I -1 and Intensive
Commercial, CI -1, to accommodate the need for industrial land use and complimentary
intensive commercial uses. Recently the area on the west side of Commerce Drive was granted
a rezoning from CI -1 to CC -2 due to the existing grocery store.
The language in the Southeast District element of the Comprehensive Plan states that the
industrial land should be preserved and expanded and the existing commercial CC -2 areas
should be supported. The Commission should consider whether adding more retail space
would be in the best interest of the existing retail properties that are underutilized and or vacant.
Staff recommends that the Commission considered whether or not it is in the city's best interest
to amend the Southeast District Plan before approving the rezoning application. Kraus stated
that if it doesn't seem in the best interest to do the amendment than the application should not
be approved.
Freerks opened the public hearing.
Al Streb, 1700 Country Club Drive, Coralville, stated he was the owner of Scott 6. Streb stated
that what they were trying to do was create taxes because there is money coming out of that
area. He explained that if he were to put up a warehouse across the street from the Fareway it
would create more traffic in an area where it is not wanted. Streb stated that the mini storage
traffic is minimal. He stated he feels that there is enough room in that area. Streb stated that
every time he gets a customer asking to buy a lot he feels he is not able to answer their
questions. He pointed out that Goodwill is the biggest warehouse and they store a lot of semis
there. He felt that there is not that much traffic in that location. He had an architect work on
some plans and they are not final. He felt the City was not doing anything about building an
industrial park so he started one with Scott 6 all on his own. He stated that the semis use
Independence Road off of 420th Street and it was very seldom that semis came through on
Commerce Drive. He feels that if they don't make this change to commercial they are going to
miss their opportunity.
Koppes asked if Streb would be against rezoning the other two lots on Commerce Drive as CC-
2. Streb stated that he wouldn't, but he wouldn't do it if he owned the lots because the
warehouse and truck terminal would become nonconforming.
Koppes asked Streb if he owned the Lots 19 through 24, which are already zoned CC -2. Streb
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 6, 2011 -Formal
Page 3 of 11
confirmed that was correct. Koppes asked if he had thought about developing those first. Streb
stated that when the time was right he would.
Payne asked if the building that Streb would like to build, if it could be built on one of the four
lots to the north. Streb confirmed that he was going to develop that area as well. He stated that
the whole area could be made into something nice.
Eastham confirmed that Streb's plan was to phase it to develop the lots 19 through 22 and
possible 23 and 24 before trying to develop the lot that is a part of the application. Streb stated
he wasn't sure and that it depends on the project.
Freerks closed the public hearing.
Freerks stated that if this is something that the Commission would like to move forward with
then there would need to be an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, this would require
deferral.
Payne made a motion to defer REZ11- 00015.
Koppes seconded.
Freerks asked for discussion.
Koppes stated that the Fareway is extremely busy and it is important to look at the area and it
makes sense for it to be a CC -2. She stated that she wished that the other two lots on
commerce drive would get changed to a CC -2 zone. Payne stated that they could rezone those
lots but they would be nonconforming. Freerks commented that that would be separate
discussion because you would need to make the owners of those properties aware. Payne
asked if they could rezone the property without the owner's approval. Hektoen confirmed that
was correct. Miklo said that staff would make the owners aware of the discussion if there was a
decision to include them in the rezoning to CC -2.
Plahutnik stated that he had serious concern about spot zoning one property and then making
two adjacent nonconforming when they are currently conforming and in compliance with of the
Comprehensive Plan. Freerks stated that she agreed. She stated that there are six lots that
are not developed and are in the CC -2 zone. She stated she is not convinced that this is a good
idea to rezone the parcel in the center of the industrial block or to rezone the other two
properties to justify this current rezoning request.
Koppes asked if the other two property owners were even interested. Plahutnik stated that
there is an application process that they can go through. Eastham stated that the owners would
be notified if there was a rezoning. Freerks stated that it would be better to look the rezoning of
those properties and see if it was the right thing to do. Koppes stated she felt that commercial
zoning on two arterial roads makes sense.
Plahutnik asked if Commercial Drive was an arterial road. Koppes stated she is speaking of the
corner of Highway 6 and Scott Boulevard. Plahutnik asked if that was all already commercial.
Freerks confirmed that was correct. Koppes stated that the Fareway is a nice commercial area
and when Streb developed the area that there were not a lot of 1 -1 uses and now there are a lot
more businesses and it doesn't make sense to have it industrial. Freerks stated that this could
be discussed at the next meeting if the Commission decides to move forward with it.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 6, 2011 - Formal
Page 4 of 11
Hektoen stated that the Board of Adjustment just approved a special exception to allow a
cement batch plant mixing operation in the industrial area. It was a heavily debated application
that was approved. Plahutnik stated that the Fareway rezoning was a heavily contested
application. He stated he feels strongly about not limiting what people can do with their
properties or limiting their economic opportunities, but the block of properties is currently
industrial and the industrial developments going on behind makes it seem as if this is the way it
should be developed.
Freerks stated that if that if this is rezoned to CC -2 that would mean there is a possibility of
having living accommodations above any building that is built in that location. Miklo confirmed
that the CC -2 zone does allow apartments on the upper floors.
Eastham stated that he is undecided and he wants to get more information on the rational for
changing the Comprehensive Plan to add commercial use in this location.
Payne stated that typically the Commission likes to make both sides of the street the same
zone. She asked when Fareway was rezoned to CC -2 why both sides of Commerce Drive were
not rezoned. Miklo stated it was an unusual situation in that when the property were Fareway
was built was annexed into the City it was zoned CI -1. There was an application to rezone it to
CC -2 to allow Fareway to locate there. The Planning and Zoning Commission at the time
determined that it should not be rezoned to CC -2. The City Council also agreed that they did
not want to rezone parts of Scott Six Industrial Park to CC -2. However the Council did amend
the zoning code over the objection of the Planning and Zoning Commission to allow small
grocery stores by special exception in the CI -1 zone. The Fareway was built. Then a few years
later Mr. Streb asked for more CC -2 zoning in the area. Given that the Fareway was there it
was obvious that it was a CC -2 use and not a CI -1 use and that is why it was recommended to
zone the Fareway property and the adjacent lots to the north and south to CC -2 to recognize
what had already happened. There are also industrial properties built on several of the lots and
that is why those were not recommended in changing the zone. Payne stated that it was just
the way it evolved.
Hektoen asked what kind of information Eastham would like regarding amending the
Comprehensive Plan. Eastham stated that the point about possible effect of semi traffic from
Lot 41 if it is developed with industrial uses on the Fareway grocery store and convenience
store on Commerce Drive. He asked that the staff provide some analysis on that point. He also
would like the chance to review the history to include the record for the special exceptions
previous rezoning requests, and the more recent record about the special exception for the new
cement batch processing plant. Eastham stated he would also like to know the demand for
industrial uses, commercial uses and any conflicts between the two.
Koppes stated that she was on the Commission at the time of the vote on the Fareway and that
she voted against it. She stated that but now that it is there the area is very busy and this side
of town uses the Fareway. She would like to look further into this application for more
commercial zoning.
Eastham stated that staff quotes that the recently approved, Southwest District Plan, talks about
not diluting demand for retail shopping by allowing too many retail commercial acres on the east
side. He asked for additional information if developing this area as commercial might have
those effects. Miklo stated that would rely on a market study which would be an expensive
undertaking.
Weitzel noted that the preservation of the industrial land is important. It seems to happen
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 6, 2011 - Formal
Page 5 of 11
where people encroach on industrial zones problems and conflicts are created. He stated that
without a demand for more retail commercial at this point there does not seem to be a need to
rezone industrial land to commercial.
A vote was taken and the motion to defer carried 4 -3 (Freerks, Weitzel, Plahutnik voting
no)
Miklo stated that at the October 20`h meeting the Commission will have to set the public hearing
for the November 3rd meeting for the consideration of a Comprehensive Plan amendment, but
the staff would be able to answer some of the questions that were raised.
Weitzel asked what good practices will need to impose such as screening between the lots. He
also asked what the direction of the traffic for industrial use versus commercial use. Freerks
asked staff about the possibility of introducing residential units in this industrial area if this
rezoning to CC -2 is approved.
Payne asked if staff would be able to ask the other two property owners on how they would feel
about the rezoning of their properties to CC -2. Miklo stated that they would be able to approach
the question with the owners.
CODE AMENDMENT ITEM:
Discussion of an amendment to Article 14 -213 of the Zoning code to provide a density
bonus for Elder Apartment Housing.
Miklo introduced Nick Benson, a graduate student in Urban and Regional Planning, who as
doing an internship at the City. Benson stated that recent census data that shows that there
has been a significant increase in the percent of Iowa City residence of 55 and older. There has
been an 81% increase in residence aged 55 to 64 and a 26.5% increase in residence 65 and
older. The Commission received information this summer about Iowa City's aging population.
With this aging population there is an issue of housing and providing a variety of options.
One option is elder apartment housing, in the Iowa City zoning code it is broadly defined as any
multi - family use intended for elders and people with disabilities. Generally this is individual
apartments and may include communal areas such as dining facilities. Staff feels that one way
to support elder apartment housing in Iowa City is to provide density bonus for senior housing,
allowing the developer to build more densely on a lot than is otherwise allowed under zoning.
Benson stated that staff is proposing an ordinance that provides a 25% bonus for elder
apartment in all multi - family zones except for the Neighborhood Stabilization, RNS -20, zone.
Staff studied other communities that have utilized density bonuses to encourage senior housing.
Twenty five percent is enough incentive for a developer to build senior housing yet it is still
compatible with other densities within the zone.
The ordinance requires that the development be intended exclusively for senior citizens and
persons with disabilities. In order to make the units livable for the intended population the
ordinance also requires that all individual units as well as the communal areas be assessable in
design. The ordinance also would require a rental permit unless a facility is already licensed by
the state of Iowa. Nursing home facilities are an example of already being licensed by the state,
if not then staff require the rental permit as a part of getting the 25% density bonus.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 6, 2011 - Formal
Page 6 of 11
Benson stated that staff feels that this is a good way to encourage developers to build senior
housing in Iowa City. It will help to plan for the future housing of Iowa City's aging population.
Freerks asked if there was an age that defines elder housing. Benson stated that the age is
defined within the zoning code as 55 or older. Freerks asked if there would be additional
bonuses that would be possible if there was a planned development. Miklo explained that even
with the planned development you cannot exceed the density permitted by the underlying zone.
Where planned development results in a bonus is where there is a single family zone and
apartments are allowed. Freerks asked if there might be an interest in a cap on the number of
bedrooms. She stated that the idea is to not impact the smaller lots /areas with bigger buildings
but to add additional smaller units. Miklo asked Freerks what kind of cap she was thinking
of. Miklo said perhaps a limit on the number of units with more than 2 bedrooms.
Koppes recalled an elderly housing project on S. Dubuque Street that was converted to general
apartments in the last few years. She asked if it was possible to prevent that from happening if a
project receives a density bonus. Hektoen stated that this would be a covenant that would run
with the land that it has to be used for senior housing. Koppes asked if that wasn't the case
though with the one that got changed. Hektoen stated that it would not be a permanent thing
but the intention would be that it is a covenant that is running with the land unless they received
permission from the City to change it.
Miklo stated that the building that Koppes referred to on the corner of Dubuque and Court Street
was built as elderly housing and as a result had a break in parking. The property had less
parking than would have otherwise been required for the number of dwelling units. Twenty
years later the zoning of that area was changed and as a result it changed the parking
requirement. As a result of that change the property had sufficient parking and was no longer
restrict to senior housing. It was also possibly financed with a state or federal financing program
that required it to be elderly housing for a certain number of years. When that expired that
allowed the property to be converted to general apartments.
Koppes stated that what she was hearing was that they could build a project using the elderly
housing bonus and then a year later come back and ask for it to be lifted. Miklo stated that they
could remove it but they would still be required to comply with the zoning. If they built it to this
density then he didn't believe that they could change it. Freerks stated that was also her
thought in capping the number of bedrooms. Koppes asked if the parking was still less for
elderly housing. Miklo confirmed that was correct.
Dyer asked if there are any of the zones that are vacant land close to downtown where this
bonus could be used. Miklo stated he did not believe that there was a lot of land in any of the
zones near downtown that is vacant. There is a possibility of redevelopment. Dyer stated that
one problem she noticed with senior housing is that it is spread all over the edges of town and it
is not accessible to commercial. She feels that elderly cannot participate in everyday life
without being close to the center of town. Miklo stated that almost any development near
downtown is redevelopment and this will put senior housing on a better competitive footing with
housing design for other markets.
Eastham asked if the CB zones don't need a bonus. Miklo stated that CB -5 and CB -10 did not
have a density limit.
Dyer stated that the proposal suggests that only seniors or people with disabilities could live
there. She stated that perhaps part of the building could be for senior /disabled and the other
half not. Freerks stated that she would like to try what is suggested first rather than the half and
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 6, 2011 - Formal
Page 7 of 11
half because it may not go in the right direction because of the demand for student housing.
Weitzel stated he would like to see something that compares the diversity of housing unit sizes.
Dyer asked if a spouse or caretaker could live in the units.
Payne stated that staff talks about requiring all living units being accessible. That was put in the
code but the age requirement of 55 and over is not put in this amendment because it is listed
somewhere else in the code. She asked for a conformation if that was correct. Benson stated
that the reason why that staff stated the accessibility requirement was because that is
referencing the Iowa Administrative code separate from the zoning code and it is a way for the
staff to define accessibility without having to list everything out. Staff felt that they did not need
to define elder because within the zoning code an `elder' is already defined as 55 and older.
Miklo stated that all apartments would have to be accessible.
Payne asked if someone did have the density bonus and a bonus for parking because it is elder
housing would that also apply to the additional units. Miklo confirmed. Payne stated that staff
talked about the building would have to have a rental permit. She asked what would happen if
they sold them. Benson stated that they would have to have a rental permit regardless of
whether they are owner occupied or rental units. Miklo stated that it was a way to ensure that it
would be senior housing and doesn't change over time. Eastham asked if over time the units
were sold off as individual condos would that result in some units being occupied by someone
other than the elderly. Hektoen stated that the requirement for senior occupancy would run with
the land and that if a condominium as built under this bonus provision it would need to continue
to be occupied by elders. Koppes asked if someone bought it then they would have to buy a
rental permit every year. Miklo stated that it is every two years. Koppes brought up the point
that if the owner owned the place and had a rental permit and then rented it out to three guys
how would anyone know. Hektoen stated that by virtue of the rental permit the City has the right
to go in and inspect for compliance.
Dyer asked what the state law included in the definitions of accessible. Benson stated that
there was a variety of things that go into an accessible unit, such as accessible doorways,
bathroom and light switches Eastham asked if staff considered using Federal accessible
standards as opposed to the stated standards. Miklo stated that the building department, whom
does the inspecting, advised the staff to use the state standards.
Eastham asked if elevators are not required in a building that is buildable in any of the zones.
Miklo stated that that was correct however, if a bonus for elder housing is granted there would
have to be an elevator if there are upper floor apartments. Eastham asked in a two level
building to get the density bonus it would have to have an elevator in it. Miklo confirmed that
was correct.
Freerks opened the public hearing.
Freerks closed the public hearing.
Miklo stated that staff did receive a letter of support from Oaknoll that he passed out.
Weitzel moved to approve Article 14 -213 amendment with the recommendation that the
issue regarding a cap on number of bedrooms be addressed in the amendment.
Miklo stated that staff will add a clause to limit to no more than ten percent of the units having
more than two bedrooms.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 6, 2011 - Formal
Page 8 of 11
Weitzel amended the motion to include the ten percent maximum of three bedrooms or
more per building.
Payne seconded.
Freerks asked for further discussion.
Eastham stated he feels that this is an excellent concept and commends staff for bringing it
forward and hopes it will bring additional housing.
Payne asked about Riverfront Crossings and the new zones that are going to be created there.
Miklo stated the new zones could this bonus and it has already been a topic of discussion.
Freerks clarified that the ten percent does not have to be three bedrooms, this is just a
maximum that is set aside.
Plahutnik stated that the facts of the increased amounts of seniors in Iowa City and trying to
encourage some development to accommodate them and to provide option for them to live is a
great idea. He stated he feels it is an interesting reach across to the business community using
a 25% density bonus to as an incentive to build more senior housing. He feels that all the steps
in which they have talked over in using zoning to address a narrow issue. The talk of bedrooms
and who in addition could live there are layers of writing in what needs to happen. Plahutnik
stated that he can't support it because the layers of extra enforcement. Koppes stated that she
is feeling the same way in regards to the rental permits. Weitzel stated he feels free market
does not always provide for all situations. Payne stated that the Commission did not add
anything about the care taker.
Freerks stated that she thinks this amendment will be a benefit and hopes that it will add to the
number of housing options in the community.
Koppes stated that she has a concern about someone coming in and developing a property to
the maximum density bonus and putting the correct number of parking in and then trying to
convert it to other kinds of housing. Miklo stated that they could build additional parking but they
still wouldn't be able to remove the age restriction unless they get it rezoned to a district that
allows the higher density for a non -age restricted development
Dyer asked if there was any other circumstance where owner occupied units have to have rental
permits. Dyer stated that she feels it is counterintuitive. Koppes agreed. Freerks stated that
without it that you would end up in a situation where they would be rented to other people.
Miklo gave another example of owner occupied property being required to get a rental permit: a
bed and breakfast is required to obtain a rental permit. This allows the City to inspect to ensure
fire codes are being met. Miklo stated that the rental permit makes the inspection occur on a
timely basis. Dyer asked how much the rental permit costs. Miklo was unsure but thought
about $100. Eastham stated that the compliance with the housing requirements that are
beyond the general standards is not difficult. In this case using the rental permit as a way
ensuring continued compliance with the intended use of the density bonus is reasonable.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 5 -2 ( Koppes, Plahutnik)
SUBDIVISION ITEM:
Discussion of amendments to the subdivider's agreement regarding requirements for
escrow accounts and secondary street access for Saddlebrook Part 2.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 6, 2011 - Formal
Page 9 of 11
Miklo stated that when Saddlebrook was first approved the plan included a manufactured
housing park on the southern portion of Heinz Road. He pointed out where the park was to be
located and stated that there were not individual lots /units addressing Heinz Road. To ensure
that Heinz Road would get built when the plan was approved for Saddlebrook, the subdivision
required an escrow for Heinz Road. This would make sure that it got built otherwise as the plan
was laid out all of the internal manufactured housing streets could have been built and all the
traffic directed back up to the northern portion of Heinz Road and then there would be little
incentive to have the developer to build the street.
Miklo stated that over the years the plan for Saddlebrook has changed. The area along the
southern portion of the planned extension of Heinz Road changed from manufactured housing
to townhouses, condominiums, small apartment buildings and as a result they are units that
directly rely on Heinz Road for street access. Staff feels that the escrow is no longer necessary
as the proposed units provide an incentive for the applicant to build the street.
The amendment clarifies that the current subdivision has a requirement for secondary access.
That only 418 units can be built until secondary access is provided. Currently the only access is
Heinz Road. With recent development Pinto Lane and Whispering Meadows will provide the
secondary access. That is clarified in the subdivider's agreement and once that road is built
that will allow additional units to be built elsewhere in Saddlebrook. Hektoen stated that until the
connection is built they would not be able to obtain anymore building permits.
Eastham asked if that connection currently does not exist. Miklo stated that it currently is under
construction. Koppes asked when a McCollister Boulevard would get built to connect with Heinz
Road to the south of Saddlebrook. Miklo stated that it was in the City's long term plans but
doesn't believe it is in a funded year of the Capital Improvement Plan. The timing of construction
would be based on demand for development in the area. The only leg that is built is the portion
that is east of Gilbert Street in the Sand Hill Estates Development.
Koppes stated that this feels like financial and asked why they are voting on it. Hektoen stated
that it was an amendment to the subdivider's agreement. Miklo stated that when dealing with
subdivisions the City gets into details on how the infrastructure will be put in. He stated that
normally when a subdivision is approved and there is a final plan approved it is required to have
a street put in unless there is an escrow.
Eastham asked about section three in the material that he received. He stated that the fourth
line in the paragraph refers section 1 A, 1 B, and 1 C. He asked if 1 B and 1 C are in the original
agreement and are still active. Hektoen confirmed that was correct. Payne gave another
correction regarding letter A as well as the new section three regarding providing escrow for
other public improvements but not including Heinz Road improvement. Hektoen stated that
allowing for escrow will allow them to get building permits. Payne asked about the last
paragraph on the same page regarding the deposit of escrow in the sum of $2000. She asked
where that money comes from. Hektoen stated that it comes from another provision in the
subdivider's agreement. Staff is stating that the applicant does not need to provide an escrow
but they will not be able to get building permits.
Eastham stated he was unsure why someone you would build a building on a dirt road.
Hektoen stated that you would build the portion in front of the building but you may not extend it
to its terminus.
Koppes opened the public hearing.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 6, 2011 - Formal
Page 10 of 11
Steve Gordon, stated he was with AM Management and is representing the developers of
Saddlebrook. The original development started over 20 years ago and in that time there has
been a lot of changes. There are now other avenues in place to make sure Heinz Road gets
built. The parkway development is still a long ways off. They are putting in secondary access
and it is currently being developed. The goal is to having the paving completed by
Thanksgiving. There is still escrow in place for other public improvements such as ponds,
sidewalks along the parkway, and other items.
Freerks closed the public hearing.
Koppes moved to approve amendment of the subdivider's agreement regarding the
requirements for escrow accounts and secondary street access for Saddlebrook Part 2.
Eastham seconded.
Freerks stated that it seems to be a reasonable request.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7 -0.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: September 12 and 15, 2011:
Koppes moved to approve the minutes.
Eastham seconded.
The motion carried 7 -0.
OTHER:
Miklo stated as part of the Comprehensive Plan update that there will be a meeting on Tuesday,
October 11, 6 — 9 p.m. to discuss the west side of the river in relationship to Riverfront
Crossings and on Wednesday, October 12, 4 — 7 p.m., to discuss downtown.
ADJOURNMENT:
Payne moved to adjourn.
Weitzel seconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 7 -0 vote.
Z
O
N
OL)
ULU
Z W T
U
O Q N
Np
co W
C7 H
Z
Za
Z
Q
J
CL
z
p
w
W
2
O
LL
O
z
w
w
g
Q
IVA
oXXXXXXX
r
T-XXXXXXX
as
T-
XxOXXXX
X
X
X
X
X
x
o�
co
X
X
0
X
X
X
X
00
N
X
X
X
X
X-
X
ti
co
�xxxxxoX
X
X
X
X
0
0
X
04
O
X
X
O
X
X
X
CN
0
X
X
X
X
0
X
co
N
1
x
x
X
x
x
x
LODxxxx0x
N
l
xoxxxx
_
N:
X
X
X
X
0
X
M
X
X
X
X
X
X
ti
xxx
-
XX
N
_
CO
M
N
Cn
U-)
M
N
X
X
x
X
Hx�
N
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
�w(DCOMN��M
R
WO.00OOOLOO
Z
W
J
�
�-
X
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
w
CO
a
W
J
Z
�
W
�
J
0VaWUY_�.
2
Z
w
J
J
i
azaWa
-2z
-j
U
=
W
W
�
w
wCk
J
X
Z
N
wx
�wcnWa>
zVQWUY�
-Q-
a
z
Q�0)
QaOQJw
w
w
Y
2zJ
a
'S
U=
w
W
W
w
N
a�-
a�oaJw
z0wtLYaa�
O
z
w
w
g
Q
IVA
E
O
700
O
z
X p�
X
C a)
O -0 O
�U)QZ
u n w 2
XOOZ
w
Y
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
o�
M
N
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
co
LO
�XX0X0XX
co
�xxxxxoX
LLJ
CN
0
X
X
X
X
X
X
co
N
1
x
x
X
x
x
x
N
c�
l
XXXxxx
N:
X
x
x
x
x
x
N
w
(O
CO
M
N
Cn
U-)
M
X
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
w
W
J
�
�-
UJ
CO
a
Q
Z
W
J
0VaWUY_�.
2
Z
N
=
Q�co
-2z
-j
U
=
W
W
�
w
wCk
i- -waz=�
�wcnWa>
-Q-
a
z
>-
0
QaOQJw
w
w
Y
a
a
'S
E
O
700
O
z
X p�
X
C a)
O -0 O
�U)QZ
u n w 2
XOOZ
w
Y
FINAL /APPROVED
11-01-11 1
4b(5)
POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD
MINUTES — September 27, 2011
CALL TO ORDER:
Chair Donald King called the meeting to order at 5:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Peter Jochimsen, Joe Treloar
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Melissa Jensen, Royceann Porter
STAFF PRESENT:
Staff Catherine and Kellie Tuttle
OTHERS PRESENT:
Captain Wyss and Chief Hargadine of the ICPD; Students from UI Report
and Writing class
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
None
CONSENT
CALENDAR Motion by Treloar and seconded Jochimsen by to adopt the consent calendar as
presented or amended.
Minutes of the meeting on 07/12/11
• ICPD General Order 89 -04 (Civil Rights)
ICPD General Order 99 -02 (Alarm -Open Door Response)
ICPD General Order 99 -05 (Use of Force)
ICPD General Order 99 -11 (Arrests)
ICPD General Order 07 -01 (Patrol Rifle)
ICPD Use of Force Report — March 2011
ICPD Use of Force Report — April 2011
ICPD Department Memo #11 -18 (March -April 2011 Use of Force Review)
ICPD Bar Check Report (PAULA) — June 2011
ICPD Bar Check Report (PAULA) — July, 2011
• ICPD Bar Check Report (PAULA) — August, 2011
King reminded staff that the Board had agreed to not include general orders in
the meeting packets since they were available on -line. King inquired about
receiving packets electronically. Tuttle said she would send out a test packet for
the Board to look at and they could discuss it further at the next meeting.
Motion carried, 3/0, Jensen and Porter absent.
OLD BUSINESS None.
NEW BUSINESS Community Forum — In the past the Board has held the Community Forum in
November. After discussion the Board decided to hold the forum in April and
directed staff to check dates available at the Iowa City Library.
Nominating Committee - Treloar and King volunteered to be on the nominating
committee and will meet and report back to the Board at the next meeting.
PCRB
September 27, 2011
Page 2
PAULA Reports — King suggested that the Board not receive PAULA reports
anymore since they don't use them for anything. After discussion it was decided
that they would be included in the next packet and the Board could discuss at the
next meeting when everyone was there.
PUBLIC
DISCUSSION None.
BOARD
INFORMATION None.
STAFF
INFORMATION Tuttle informed the Board that the Human Rights Commission had sent some
recommendations to the City Council on Issues of Immigration and Building Safe
Communities for All. Within those recommendations was to create a standing
Immigrant Review Committee with members including (1) member of the Police
Citizen Review Board. Tuttle stated that the recommendations were going out to
staff for further review /discussion and she would keep the Board informed.
EXECUTIVE
SESSION Motion by Treloar and seconded by Jochimsen to adjourn into Executive Session
based on Section 21.5(1)(a) of the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records
which are required or authorized by state or federal law to be kept confidential or
to be kept confidential as a condition for that government body's possession or
continued receipt of federal funds, and 22.7(11) personal information in
confidential personnel records of public bodies including but not limited to cities,
boards of supervisors and school districts, and 22 -7(5) police officer investigative
reports, except where disclosure is authorized elsewhere in the Code; and
22.7(18) Communications not required by law, rule or procedure that are made to
a government body or to any of its employees by identified persons outside of
government, to the extent that the government body receiving those
communications from such persons outside of government could reasonably
believe that those persons would be discouraged from making them to that
government body if they were available for general public examination.
Motion carried, 3/0, Jensen and Porter absent.
Open session adjourned at 5:45 P.M.
Break (5:45 -5:54) for Board members to answer questions from the UI Report
and Writing class.
REGULAR
SESSION Returned to open session at 7:10 P.M.
Motion by Jochimsen, seconded by Treloar to set the level of review for PCRB
Complaint #11 -01 to 8- 8- 7(B)(1)(b), Interview /meet with complainant and 8 -8-
7(B)(1)(c), Interview /meet with named officer(s) and other officers.
Motion carried, 3/0, Jensen and Porter absent.
September 27, 2011
Page 3
Motion by Treloar, seconded by Jochimsen to request a 45 -day extension for
PCRB Complaint #11 -01, due to timelines and scheduling. Motion carried, 3/0,
Jensen and Porter absent.
TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subject to change)
October 12, 2011, 5:30 PM, Lobby Conference Rm
October 25, 2011, 5:30 PM, Lobby Conference Rm
November 8, 2011, 5:30 PM, Lobby Conference Rm
Motion by Jochimsen, seconded by Porter to hold a special executive session
meeting on October 12th at 5:30 P.M. Motion carried, 3/0, Jensen and Porter
absent.
ADJOURNMENT Motion by Jochimsen, seconded by Treloar to adjourn. Motion carried, 3/0,
Jensen and Porter absent. Meeting adjourned at 7:13 P.M.
C�
7�OyC
CD'
QtQ
y
d
�z
0
b
O
r
n
C�
n
c
0
O
UQ
N
W
W
N
a
N
A
C
y
d
�z
0
b
O
r
n
C�
n
c
0
FINAL /APPROVED
4b(6)
CALL TO ORDER:
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD
MINUTES — October 12, 2011
Chair Donald King called the meeting to order at 5:31 P.M.
Peter Jochimsen, Joe Treloar, Melissa Jensen
Royceann Porter
Staff Catherine and Kellie Tuttle
None
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
None
EXECUTIVE
SESSION Motion by Treloar and seconded by Jensen to adjourn into Executive Session
based on Section 21.5(1)(a) of the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records
which are required or authorized by state or federal law to be kept confidential or
to be kept confidential as a condition for that government body's possession or
continued receipt of federal funds, and 22.7(11) personal information in
confidential personnel records of public bodies including but not limited to cities,
boards of supervisors and school districts, and 22 -7(5) police officer investigative
reports, except where disclosure is authorized elsewhere in the Code; and
22.7(18) Communications not required by law, rule or procedure that are made to
a government body or to any of its employees by identified persons outside of
government, to the extent that the government body receiving those
communications from such persons outside of government could reasonably
believe that those persons would be discouraged from making them to that
government body if they were available for general public examination.
Motion carried, 4/0, Porter absent.
Open session adjourned at 5:32 P.M.
REGULAR
SESSION Returned to open session at 7:06 P.M.
Motion by Treloar, seconded by Jensen to set the level of review for PCRB
Complaint #11 -01 to 8- 8- 7(B)(1)(e), Performance by board of its own additional
investigation. Motion carried, 4/0, Porter absent.
ADJOURNMENT Motion by Jochimsen, seconded by Treloar to adjourn. Motion carried, 4/0, Porter
absent. Meeting adjourned at 7:07 P.M.
zz��b
a, uo c
a.
y
y
�z
rQ
CD
0
�l
u
b
O
r
�1
n
O
id
V
N
A
0
k
O
J
N
y
y
�z
rQ
CD
0
�l
u
b
O
r
�1
n
O
id
V