Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-03-06 Bd Comm minutesAirport Commission December 15, 2011 Page 1 3 Wj MINUTES FINAL IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION DECEMBER 15, 2011 — 6:00 P.M. AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING Members Present: Minnetta Gardinier, Howard Horan, Rick Mascari, Jose Assouline, Steve Crane Members Absent: Staff Present: Sue Dulek, Michael Tharp Others Present: Matt Wolford, Philip Wolford, Jeff Edberg, David Hughes, Tim Busch, John Yeomans, Chuck McDonald, Daryl Smith, Eric Scott RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: Approve Amendment #2 to listing agreement with Skogman Realty to extend the term of the listing agreement CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Gardinier called the meeting to order at 6:02 P.M. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: Mascari moved and Assouline seconded a motion to aoorove the minutes from the November 17 meetinq. Motion passed 5 -0 PUBLIC DISCUSSION: None. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION /ACTION: A. Airport Farming Operations — John Yeomans stated he had given Tharp a lease agreement for the packet. Yeomans discussed the details of the lease agreement Crane asked if the price was changing, Tharp noted that the base rent increased from $25,000 to $31,000. Yeomans mentioned that the rates at Iowa City were similar to the rates at the Cedar Rapids airport. B. Airport Commerce Park — Edberg mentioned that the listing agreement was due to expire and that he has signed the amendment to extend the agreement. Edberg stated the purchase agreement for Lots 16 and 17 had been approved by City Council. Edberg stated he had contacted the individual that made a previous offer on Lot 17 to discuss moving to a different lot and that he was going to meet Monday with him. Edberg said he would be suggesting Lot #12. Assouline asked about leasing the other lots and the vetting process for lease offers. Edberg responded to his questions. i. Consider a resolution approving amendment #2 to listing agreement with Skogman Realty — Mascari moved and Horan seconded resolution # A11 -27. Motion passed 5 -0. C. Privately Constructed and Owned Corporate Hangar — Tharp stated that he and Gardinier had been involved in some discussions with a group interested in building their own hangar at the airport. Tharp noted the Airport Commission needed to set some policy decisions regarding privately constructed facilities. Tharp noted that one of these is a policy regarding self - fueling systems. Tharp stated that he had been researching Airport Commission December 15, 2011 Page 2 airports around the state. The pattern he saw was that if the airport had a full -time Fixed Base Operator then generally the self - fueling operations were not allowed. If there was not a full time FBO, then they were treated on a case -by -case basis. Tharp stated that there was one underground storage tank on the field that was attached to a building leased by the University of Iowa. Tharp commented that as the Airport Commission considered whether to allow more of these systems, they need to focus on the liability issues associated with the facilities. Tharp noted that today there are significantly more regulations in play and having some controls over the handling would be critical. Tharp noted that if the Airport Commission was to allow these self - fueling facilities they should be above ground systems. Members discussed different options regarding the storage tanks. Mascari asked about the possible location of the hangar. Tharp responded that the best area available now is just east of the university hangar. Gardinier questioned whether the Commission wanted to set the precedent of allowing these tanks or to consider giving priority to supporting the FBO on the field. Horan asked Wolford about how much fuel is in a typical delivery. Wolford responded to his experience with fueling. Wolford mentioned that Jet Air would be willing to work with any potential group to provide fuel services. Wolford mentioned Jet Air has a similar operation with the airline operating out of the Burlington Airport. Members continued to discuss the options of supporting the FBO versus self - fueling. Horan asked about development in the south area regarding folks putting in facilities there. Tharp noted that there are plans in place for service roads to serve the south area until a time that traffic might justify a second facility on the field. Gardinier stated that she would not like to see self - fueling systems. Mascari stated he agreed with Gardinier's position. Members agreed to a consensus not to allow self - fueling systems. Tharp mentioned the other item of concern was infrastructure to the area. Tharp noted that if there is a group that does lease ground getting taxiway infrastructure to the area would be something that needed to be done. The immediate apron area for any private hangar would be the responsibility of the hangar owner and part of their construction costs. Tharp noted that in the immediate future, they would be able to work within the Hangar L project to extend the taxiway to the area. Crane asked about how much cost they'd be looking at. Tharp mentioned he had asked Eric Scott to put some costs together and stated the estimate is about $80,000 to build the taxiway out to the building. Mascari asked about road access to the area. Tharp mentioned that initially the entrance point would be the common gate by the maintenance shop. He mentioned that phase 2 of the Hangar L project does finish the area with a parking area for direct access from the south. Gardinier restated she wanted to express that the Commission would be happy to have these facilities at the airport. D. Hangar L — i. Consider a resolution setting public hearing for plans and specification for Phase 1 construction — Tharp stated he had the plans and specifications in hand. Crane moved and Assouline seconded resolution #A11 -28. Motion passed 5 -0. E. Terminal Building Brick Repair — L Consider a resolution setting public hearing for plans and specifications for the Terminal Brick Rehabilitation Repair Project — Tharp stated he had the plans and specifications in hand. Mascari moved and Crane seconded resolution #A11 -29. Motion passed 5 -0. F. FAA/IDOT Projects: AECOM — i. Runway 7/25 & 12/30 — Hughes stated that they did finally get closure of the grants for the previous work. Tharp noted they did get their final payment from FAA. Airport Commission December 15, 2011 Page 3 ii. Obstruction Mitigation — Hughes stated they were working with Dulek and the attorney for the Hargrave property to lower some light poles. iii. 7125 Parallel Taxiway — Hughes stated they have hit winter shutdown. He stated the contractor needs to do some stabilization work to complete that process. Horan asked about when the project would be restarted. Hughes stated they'd be looking toward mid - March. Hughes stated the contractor has about 50 working days expired out of the 80 days allowed in the contract. a. Consider a resolution approving Task Order #8 with AECOM for design and construction services for Airport Electrical and Lighting Rehabilitation — Horan asked about what all was in the project. Tharp responded that the project would consist of LED light replacements for / the entire airport's exterior lighting. Tharp noted that originally he had been working with the Public Works department, but due to the work and e knowledge AECOM has from previous electrical work, he wanted to pull i d ask the 'stance. Horan moved and Assouline seconded reso u A11 -2 Motion approved 5-0. b. Consider a resolution approving Task Order #9 with AECOM for ! r design services agreement for construction of Runway 7125 parallel yy� �ttaxiway pavi d lighting — Mascari moved and Crane seconded o u i #A11 -30 Motion approved 5 -0 G. 2011 Pavement Repairs 1. Consider a Resolution Accepting Work for concrete replacement by All / �- American Concrete - Hughes stated the repair work had been completed by All e. Mascan he liked the work. Mascari moved and Horan seconded resolutio #A1 -3 Motion approved 5 -0. H. FY2013 FAA Airport Improvemen rogram Application — Hughes handed out the summary sheets from the program application. Hughes stated the sheets go along with the comments from the last meeting. Gardinier asked about the Master Plan section and the process for it. Tharp noted this would be a large process for the 20 -year plan, with the last plan completed in 1996. Members discussed the application package items. Horan stated they need to begin planning for the south development now. Hughes stated that would also be a component of the master plan. I. Airport "Operations ": Tharp noted that there was some electrical repair work to still be done. i. Strategic Plan - Implementation — No discussion. ii. Budget — Crane asked about the land rental account noting the revenue planned and paid to date did not appear to be in line. Tharp noted that the bulk of the account is the farm lease payment. iii. Management — a. FY2011 Annual Report — Tharp noted that he had placed a draft of the report into the packet for review. He noted that with the budget schedule set up they could approve the report with revisions in January. Gardinier asked if Tharp would send the report electronically. Tharp noted he would send the electronic file to everyone. b. Consider a resolution approving contract amendment to Airport Maintenance Agreement with Jet Air — Mascari asked what services Jet Air provides to which Tharp responded. Tharp stated the desire to extend the contract in two parts. Tharp noted that if the contract were not renewed at the end of the year, the Airport would be scrambling to provide for winter services in the middle of the season. Tharp noted that Airport Commission December 15, 2011 Page 4 the other reason was to clean up and clarify some of the language in the contract to better outline the responsibilities of each party. Members discussed the extension. Mascari noted that the monthly maintenance generated b should be completed by Tharp. Crane moved resolutio -32 d seconded by Mascari. Motion carried 5 -0. c. Airport Operations Specialist Position 1. Evaluation Process - Tharp noted that he was due for evaluation in February, and he put this on the agenda for the Commission to have an opportunity to discuss the evaluation process. Gardinier asked if Tharp would send the evaluation form to her, and she would forward to members. [Shouldn't Mike forward this to members and request that their input be forwarded to Minnetta? then I would take their input and complete a review document. Can I communicate this to all of the Commission ?] J. FBO / Flight Training Reports — i. Jet Air / Air Care — Matt Wolford handed out the maintenance activity list. Wolford noted the hangar door seals were completed [on how many hangars? He mentioned that, and it's better than giving the impression that all hangar doors were completed.] prior to Thanksgiving. Wolford noted they were waiting for the tractor blade. Tharp noted he had talked with the equipment shop and that it was due yet within the week. Mascari asked about how the purchases work. Wolford noted they usually purchase via their business credit card and then give receipts to Tharp. Tharp noted that Jet Air does have some purchasing authority in the contract to allow them to purchase things on behalf of the airport. Wolford stated that they were working on some international aircraft sales. Philip Wolford stated they had sold 4 corporate jet aircraft recently. He stated that one went to Germany, but the others stayed locally. Philip Wolford mentioned that a number of previously frequent charter customers are looking at purchasing their own aircraft. Philip Woolford brought up the declared distances on the runway and how they impact the airport operations. Members discussed the runway distances with Wolford. Horan asked about the changes in the computer weather station. Tharp noted that the default website is set to the National Weather Service aviation site. Mascari stated that when the weather service was installed it was cutting edge, but now due to other technology, it wasn't as popular. Tharp noted the subscription cost was $2100 per year. ii. Iowa Flight Training Tharp noted that both instructors appeared to be flying a lot. Gardinier noted they had two simulators online for use. K. Subcommittee Reports Gardinier noted that no subcommittee was due to report. She noted that the infrastructure committee was due to report in January. L. Commission Members' Reports — Mascari thanked Dulek for her work on recent correspondence. M. Staff Report —Tharp noted that he had been in contact with the owner of Whirlybird Helicopters and that they were interested in having an opportunity to discuss with the Commission a return to operation. Airport Commission December 15, 2011 Page 5 SET NEXT REGULAR MEETING FOR: Members set the next meeting for January 19, 2012. ADJOURN: Gardinier moved to adjourn. Meeting adjourned at 7:40pm CHAIRPERSON DATE Airport Commission December 15, 2011 Page 6 Airport Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD 2011 Key: X = Present X/E = Present for Part of Meeting O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = Not a Member at this time ` N N W -A, .A cnn W � Oo co co NAME TERM EXP. ° N o 0) 0) N j � N N Cn caN n Rick 03/01113 X X X X X X X X X/E X X X X X X X Mascari Howard Horan 03/01/14 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Minnetta Gardinier 03/01/15 X X X X X X X O/E X X X X X X X X Jose Assouline 03/02/12 X X X X O/E O/E X X X X X X X X O/E X Steve Crane 03/02/14 O/E X X X X O/E X X X X X X O/E X O/E X Key: X = Present X/E = Present for Part of Meeting O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = Not a Member at this time Airport Commission January 19, 2012 Page 1 MINUTES IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION JANUARY 19, 2012 — 6:00 P.M. AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING Members Present: Minnetta Gardinier, Howard Horan, Rick Mascari Members Absent: Jose Assouline Staff Present: Sue Dulek, Michael Tharp Others Present: Matt Wolford, Darrell Smith, Eric Scott FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action): None CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Gardinier called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: Minutes of the December 15, 2011, meeting were reviewed. Mascari moved to approve the minutes as submitted; seconded by Horan. Motion carried 3 -0; Assouline absent. PUBLIC DISCUSSION: None. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION /ACTION: a. Airport Commerce Park — Tharp noted that Members received a marketing report in this week's packet. He did not have any updates for the Commission. Members decided that Jeff Edberg, realtor for the Commerce Park lots, may show up later on in the meeting that deferred this item for further discussion. Mr. Edberg did not arrive and no further discussion occurred. b. Hangar L — i. Public Hearing — Tharp noted that the plans and specs consist of what the Commission discussed over the past few months, as far as how they would like to phase this project. He added that the bid window has been extended in order to give contractors more lead time for getting their figures together. ii. Consider a resolution approving the plans and specifications for Phase 1 construction project — Horan moved to recommend approval of Resolution #Al2 -01, approving plans and specifications for Phase 1 construction project; seconded by Mascari. Motion carried 3 -0; Assouline absent. c. Terminal Building Brick Repair — i. Public Hearing — Tharp spoke to Members regarding this project, noting that with the bid schedule they will be acting on this at the February meeting. Estimates are still within their window, according to Tharp. Darrell Smith briefly 3b(2) Airport Commission January 19, 2012 Page 2 explained where they are with the numbers on this project. He also responded to Members' questions regarding this project and further explained how some of the repairs will take place. ii. Consider a resolution approving the plans and specifications for the Terminal Brick Rehabilitation project — Mascari moved to recommend approval of Resolution #Al2 -02, approving plans and specifications for the Terminal Brick Rehabilitation project; seconded by Horan. Motion carried 3 -0; Assouline absent. d. FAA/IDOT Projects: AECOM — David Hughes - i. Obstruction Mitigation — Tharp noted that a few more trees were found on City right -of -way property that are being cut down. ii. 7/25 Parallel Taxiway — Tharp noted that they are officially in winter shutdown on this. They have been moving some dirt around, but not much else will be going on. e. Care Ambulance: L Consider a resolution approving Commercial Business Agreement with Care Ambulance — Tharp asked that the Commission defer this item to the February 16, 2012, meeting. f. Airport Operations: — i. Strategic Plan — Implementation — No report. ii. Budget —Tharp responded to Members' questions. He added that the budget meetings went well at City Hall. The FY13 budget does have funds for a full -time Operations Specialist, according to Tharp. Members also discussed changing this position to Airport Manager. Gardinier shared with Members her conversation at a recent budget meeting with City Manager Markus and advised that a position title change discussion should be deferred for now. iii. Management — 1. FY2011 Annual Report — Tharp noted that he will need Members' comments on this very soon, as it needs to be in the Council's upcoming Info Packet. 2. Airport Operations Specialist Position a. Evaluation — It was noted that this still needs to be completed, and that if Members have any comments they should email them to Gardinier. g. FBO / Flight Training Reports — i. Jet Air / Air Care — Matt Wolford spoke to Members next. He stated that he has been working with Tharp on coordinating maintenance issues. As far as Jet Air, Wolford stated that they have been keeping busy and have hired several new employees. Wolford then shared some figures with the commission, noting that their sales have increased 33% in the past two years, putting them back to where they were in 2009. The maintenance report showed an increase in snow plowing, according to Wolford, especially with the last storm. Members then briefly discussed a few minor items that need some attention. ii. Iowa Flight Training — No report. h. Subcommittee Report — i. Subcommittee Assignments — ii. For January — Infrastructure (Horan, Mascari, Tharp) — Horan reported on this subcommittee, noting that Tharp had put together a good report to get them started. They discussed the idea of having an equipment asset management schedule process, noting that they are reviewing what should be on this list. Airport Commission January 19, 2012 Page 3 Having regular inspections of these assets will be key. Horan continued, noting that Mascari has offered to do some needed welding on a storm water grate. Another item of note was obtaining some airport directional signs to be placed on city streets near the airport (e.g., Highways 1 and 6). Tharp will contact the DOT on the signage. Other general maintenance /upkeep items for 2012 include painting the conference room and stairwell. Members continued to discuss various items that need attention, in particular moisture /leakage on the glass bricks of the terminal building front wall). Some of the long -term projects would include replacing carpeting and furniture in the terminal building, and also roof replacement. Horan also added that fencing will need to be completed, as well, in the future. Gardinier added that she would like to see Tharp get some new office furniture, as well. iii. For February — Budget (Chair, Secretary, Tharp) L Commission Members' Reports — Horan noted that he has completed 21.8 hours of flight time now. Mascari stated that he recently went for a dual- instruction flight with Tim Busch, head of Iowa Flight Training. Gardinier added that she recently gave Jet Air a check for her airplane engine replacement. Gardinier also noted that she was sorry to hear that Steve Crane was leaving the Commission, and that Jose Assouline's term is up soon. Assouline has stated that he is interested in remaining on the Commission though. Dulek will check with the City Clerk's office to see if anyone has applied for the Commission yet. Mascari noted that he will be having surgery on his foot this next week and will be on crutches for a few weeks. j. Staff Reports — Tharp stated that the annual Iowa Public Airport Association's "Day on the Hill" is next month. He will let Members know the exact details. He added that it is always a good idea to be in Des Moines for this. SET NEXT REGULAR MEETING FOR: The next regular meeting will be Thursday, February 16, 2012, at 6:00 P.M. at the Airport Terminal building. ADJOURN: The meeting adjourned at 7:10 P.M. CHAIRPERSON DATE Airport Commission August 25, 2011 Page 4 Airport Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD 2012 Key: X = Present X/E = Present for Part of Meeting O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = Not a Member at this time TERM o NAME EXP. 3 N 03/01/13 X Rick Mascari 03/01/14 X Howard Horan Minnetta 03/01/15 X Gardinier Jose 03/02/12 O/E Assouline Key: X = Present X/E = Present for Part of Meeting O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = Not a Member at this time 3b(3) MINUTES APPROVED HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION DECEMBER 15, 2011 — 6:30 PM LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Chappell, Cheryll Clamon, Jarrod Gatlin, Holly Jane Hart, Charles Drum, Michael McKay, Rachel Zimmermann Smith MEMBERS ABSENT: Michelle Bacon Curry, Scott Dragoo STAFF PRESENT: Steve Long OTHERS PRESENT: None RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL: None. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Michael McKay at 6:30 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE NOVEMBER 17, 2011 MINUTES: Zimmerman Smith moved to approve the minutes. Drum seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7 -0. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. STAFF /COMMISSION COMMENT: Long talked about the 93 homes that have been constructed with the CDBG Disaster funded Single Family New Homes program with another 15 homes that will be built in the next few months. The City just found out that there will be a round 4 of the program that will allow for another 32 homes to be constructed over the next 15 months. The price of the homes HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION DECEMBER 15, 2011 PAGE 2 of 4 will have to be below $150,000. He discussed that the home buyer will receive 25% down payment assistance that is forgiven over five years. Long stated that VNA recently purchased a parcel of land near Sycamore Mall with CDBG funds. They will be constructing a new facility next year at that location. PUBLIC MEETING: DISCUSSION REGARDING FY13 AID TO AGENCIES FUNDING REQUESTS: • Discuss Aid to Agencies Allocation Process Long discussed the Aid to Agencies process. Long asked the Commission members to review the materials and to make recommendations for the funding process. Long stated that the Commission would need to come up with the allocation plan for the January meeting. Chappell stated that he felt that the ranking form used for the regular CDBG /HOME allocation process may not be the appropriate one to use for this process. He asked if staff can prioritize the priority levels of the applications into high, medium and low. McKay stated that the money is coming from Iowa City tax payers. He wanted to see if they could pick the applications that have the most impact on Iowa City residents. The Commission discussed ways to reformat the ranking form and came up with the following questions to ask each applicant prior to the next HCDC meeting: 1. Please list the counties and municipalities that you serve. Is there a state or federal organization that mandates your service area? 2. Where are your clients /consumers coming from? Please provide a breakdown by municipality /community or county (if from rural area). e.g. Iowa City, West Branch, rural Iowa County, etc... 3. Please provide a breakdown of the income of your clients /consumers by the following categories, if possible. Please see the attached income chart. a. 0 -30% b. 31 -50% c. 51 -80% d. >81 % 4. Briefly describe efforts to secure funding from other entities, municipalities, counties, etc... The questions will be incorporated in to a new ranking form for the allocation of funds at the January meeting. MONITORING REPORTS: • Successful Living — Rental Rehabilitation & Van Acquisition The rental rehabilitation project will begin shortly. Drum talked about Successful Living and they were able to purchase a 12 person van just before Thanksgiving HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION DECEMBER 15, 2011 PAGE 3 of 4 and were able to pick up the clients to take them to a Thanksgiving dinner. The van will be used to transport clients to activities and appointments. Shelter House — Rental Rehabilitation & Operations The rehabilitation project is going well and is under budget. Iowa City Housing Authority — Tenant Based Rent Assistance The Iowa City Housing Authority said the TBRA program is about 50% complete. ADJOURNMENT: Chappell made a motion to adjourn. Clamon seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7 -0. z O O U F- z W a O J W W O z � e- UN 0� Q W om z2 U) LLj 00 z _O U) U) 2 O z w CL O w W D Z O V D z Q Z N O U w w V r z° Q N O z w H Q N X.9 W C C N a` Q z° W YXOZ N x x x x x x x o T- oo LLI x x x x x x x o o �- 0 x x x x x x o o o X X X X X X LLI�— X O x x x x o x x x x x x x x x x 0 o ti X x X X X X X M _ _ o X X X X X x X X x x X X X X X X N ' x x x x x x x IL � N 'IT M Cl) N M N w o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w ) 0) 0) O) 0) O) m 0) O) J W W = J W w 2 V W J w 2 Z w O w = Q 2 V J re U N Q V v w w z O _ } w �Q � W V Q n pQ� V Z m 1 V V D 1 O 1 0 N N X.9 W C C N a` Q z° W YXOZ 3b(4) MINUTES APPROVED HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION JANUARY 19, 2012 — 6:30 PM MEETING ROOM A, IOWA CITY PUBLIC LIBARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Chappell, Michelle Bacon Curry, Scott Dragoo, Charles Drum, Jarrod Gatlin, Holly Jane Hart, Rachel Zimmermann Smith MEMBERS ABSENT: Cheryll Clamon, STAFF PRESENT: Steve Long, Tracy Hightshoe OTHERS PRESENT: Delaney Dixon, Sarah Traeger, Scott Hansen, Phoebe Trepp, Karen Fox, Tracey Achenbach, Sandy Pickup, Ron Berg, Mary Palmberg, Becci Reedus, Roger Goedken RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL: 1. The Commission voted 7 -0 to recommend Aid to Agencies funding as specified in the following exhibit: EXHIBIT A FY13 Aid to Agencies Funding Recommendations Housing and Community Development Commission Agency FY12 Actual FY13 Request HCDC 1/19/2012 Recommendation Arc of Southeast Iowa $2,000 NA - 4 C's $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 Big Brothers / Big Sisters $32,000 $35,000 $32,000 Crisis Center $40,000 $42,000 $40,000 Compeer $5,000 $10,000 $5,000 Consortia for Youth Emp. $14,000 NA - DVIP $52,000 $55,000 $50,000 Elder Services $54,000 $55,620 $52,000 Four Oaks $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 Free Lunch Program $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION JANUARY 19, 2012 PAGE 2 of 9 Free Medical Clinic $7,500 $8,000 $7,500 Housing Trust Fund of JC $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 MECCA /ICARE $18,950 $20,000 $18,950 Mayor's Youth Emp. Program $10,000 NA - Neighborhood Centers of JC $60,000 $63,000 $60,000 Pathways Adult Daycare N/A $5,000 $4,879 Red Cross $6,000 NA - RVAP $12,000 $14,000 $12,000 Shelter House $36,500 $40,000 $36,500 United Action for Youth $60,000 1 $65,000 $60,000 Total Request: $422,950 I $425,620 $391,829 FY13 Budget Source: ($274,173 General fund) ($91,000 CDBG) (26,656 Utility user fees) CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Vice -Chair Andrew Chappell at 6:36 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE DECEMBER 15. 2011 MINUTES: Hart moved to approve the minutes. Gatlin seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7 -0. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. STAFF /COMMISSION COMMENT: Long stated that the Planning and Community Development Department of the City will host two Community Planning Workshops in February to discuss the future of Iowa City for the next 10 to 20 years. These will be interactive discussions about where economic, natural resources, physical growth, energy conservation, etc., should occur. Long also reported that there is a HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION JANUARY 19, 2012 PAGE 3 of 9 website called Good Ideas through the Planning and Community Development Department where you can go and give the City your ideas about what to change in Iowa City. Hightshoe stated that the CDBG /HOME applications are due Friday, January 20 at noon, so the Commission will be getting those in February. Hightshoe gave an update on the Single Family New Homes Program. There were 108 homes in the first three rounds. Only 15 homes remain to be built. 93 homes have been built and sold to income eligible homebuyers. The remaining homes will be built this upcoming construction season. It's been a very successful program. The stated announced another round of the program. Developer proposals for this upcoming round are due January 27 for an additional 31 homes. She explained that the State changed their selling price restrictions and now all homes must be sold for $150,000 or less. Cities with high land values such as Iowa City are going to have difficulty, so there will most likely not be a lot of single - family detached homes. There will most likely be a mix of duplexes, rowhouses and condominiums. Once the 139 homes are finished through state Flood Recovery funds, it will more than make up for the homes that will be bought out due to the flood. Chappell publically thanked Michael McKay, who resigned because he was concerned about the appearance of some conflicts of interest, for his service on the Commission. PUBLIC MEETING: DISCUSSION REGARDING FY13 AID TO AGENCIES FUNDING REQUESTS: • Discuss Aid to Agencies Applications Chappell noted that this was a relatively new process for both the Commission and the applicants because previously it was handled by an ad hoc City Council Committee. Last year was the first year HCDC made funding recommendations for Aid to Agencies. This year there was not a lot of time to make changes or coordination of the process, but Chappell is hopeful that next year it will be more efficient and elucidated. Chappell opened the floor for questions about the applications because most of the applicants were present for the purpose of answering questions. Hightshoe stated that she received an email from MECCA and their request for $20,000. This request includes both MECCA and (CARE., Last year MECCA received $10,000 and ICARE received $8,950. This year they submitted one application as ICARE is administered by MECCA. Ron Berg from MECCA requested that the FY12 line item should be changed to MECCA/ICARE for$18,950. Chappell had concerns that the Housing Trust Fund did not apply. His understanding from a letter received from the City Manager is that historically, The Housing Trust Fund received their funding through the City Manager's office based on discretionary funding that the City Manager has. Hightshoe explained that the Housing Trust Fund would submit a letter to the City Manager with their request for funding. This year the City Manager wanted all the aid to agencies requests be considered at the same time. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION JANUARY 19, 2012 PAGE 4 of 9 Chappell said he assumed that the Housing Trust Fund did not submit an application through any fault of their own and that next year they know that they will need to submit the same application everyone else does. Hightshoe stated that this is the case. Charles Drum said that he had the idea to go through the list of applicants and give every agency what they had asked for last year, with the exception of a new agency called Pathways. Then he started dividing up what was left among the remaining applicants. What threw the wrench in the process was the MECCA/ICARE application. They would be getting substantially less than they did last year. Chappell said that in past years there has been a contingency fund, and the staff has a position about whether or not we should have that fund. He wanted to know if things have changed. Hightshoe said that Linda Severson had said that a request for contingency funds was very rare. The last time it happened was when there were bedbugs at Shelter House. Hightshoe said she doesn't think it's common to get multiple requests. Long noted that the money is tighter than it has been in the past since there has been a 5% cut in the General Fund and a cut in CDBG funds as well. He would like to get the money budgeted for this fund out to the agencies. Chappell asked if anyone felt strongly about the need to have a contingency fund. Bacon Curry stated that she thought at this point the Commission IS the contingency. If the agencies have to come back and ask for more, they are probably going to need more than what could be budgeted for this purpose. Zimmerman Smith tried to think of any kind of emergency where the agencies aren't going to need more than $1,000 or $2,OOO.Hart wanted to know the amount of the contingency fund. Hightshoe stated the year before we budgeted approximately $7,000, but due to cuts in funding these funds were allocated. The prior year, it may have been $9,000.. If there are unused funds at the end of the year, there is no guarantee that these funds won't be allocated to some other city purpose. Gatlin suggested that they roll over all the numbers from FY12 and then tweak from there. The Commission concurred. Gatlin said they would need to shave off about $4,000. He felt that they should leave Pathways in and then if they decide to take the $4,000 from somewhere, they can decide where they will reduce the amount. Upon looking at Pathway's application, they did not serve a high number of low- moderate income persons. Zimmerman Smith said she recommends funding Pathways, but not their full request and try to increase funds to MECCA. Drum said if they took about 10% from everyone, it would be close. Zimmerman said she thinks it makes sense to go by the priorities. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION JANUARY 19, 2012 PAGE 5 of 9 Chappell thinks that some of the agencies with smaller requests are going to have a harder time absorbing a loss of $1,000 to $2,000. Gatlin suggested that to reduce they should look at areas that have the higher total request amount. Removing $1,000 from $60,000 is much easier than taking away from an agency requesting $5,000. He thinks the Neighborhood Centers is an area where they can reduce that number. Zimmerman Smith said that they have a high priority and serve predominantly low to moderate income persons. She stated it's important that they balance those two things. Bacon Curry said that Elder Services is not a high priority in CITY STEPS and had a lower number of Iowa City residents, but a higher request. She wants to reduce their amount. Gatlin said he would like them to review priorities when deciding what agencies to reduce funding. Zimmerman Smith suggested taking $2,000 from DVIP and $2,000 from Elder Services and you're almost there. Chappell said that these are two when you look at CITY STEPS both have a lower priority and a higher funding request. Gatlin suggested that the rest be taken from Pathways even though they have a smaller request. Bacon Curry said that Neighborhood Centers have a very high request and that the Commission has given them a lot of money. Drum noted that they do serve city residents. Gatlin asked if anyone felt strongly about changing any of these recommendations. Chappell said he got the impression last year when Council handed this over to the Commission that there might be big changes in allocations, but from the Commission's perspective, that will have to be done incrementally. They are not being given a big pile of money and told to divide it up. They are responding to specific requests for specific amounts of money. This is the first time they have talked about CITY STEPS in relation to the Aid to Agencies and in the future the applicants will take that into account as they submit applications that are going to maximize perceived benefit through CITY STEPS when they do the United Way application. As they discussed at last month's meeting, so much of this available money is from the Iowa City General Fund, so the Commission will have to start paying attention to which organizations are giving the most benefit to Iowa City residents. Bacon Curry stated that some of these agencies are also getting money from the municipalities that they serve. She sees a difference in how the Commission ought to fund if an agency is getting proportional benefits from another municipality, or if they are serving 5 municipalities and only getting money from Iowa City and Johnson County HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION JANUARY 19, 2012 PAGE 6 of 9 Chappell said that if you are going to have a lower percentage of Iowa City residents involved in your program, other applicants are going to want to know that those agencies have approached other municipalities for funding. Hightshoe stated that she had explained to several of the agencies that something the Commission would review in determining allocations would be the total population served. An agency serving 2,000 clients with 1,000 of those being Iowa City residents would be more likely to get its funding request than an agency who serves only 30 clients, even if they are all Iowa City residents. Chappell stated that although the Board had decided that they want that kind of information, they don't know yet what they will do with it. He thought maybe they could use that as a starting point for funding discussions in the future. Hart asked if it would be possible to come up with a uniform standard to review the applications, but stated it would be hard to do. She would like to know how much these other municipalities are kicking in and how many funding sources an agency has. Bacon Curry would like to know how many funding sources an agency has approached. It would matter to her if an agency had been denied other possible funding. She also said she thinks the Aid to Agencies money is so important because it's one of the few sources that doesn't have certain allocation stipulations attached to it. It can be used for whatever the agency wants. Hightshoe said she also thought these funds were extremely valuable to agencies as the majority are local funds, without the federal CDBG strings attached. This being said, $91,000 is CDBG funds and should be funded by CITY STEPS priorities. The General Fund and user utility fees are the majority of funds and come from Iowa City residents, so for those two funding sources, she encouraged the Commission to consider what's best for Iowa City residents. For the CDBG funds, if we don't fund the types of activities identified in the City's 5 -year plan, the City must justify why we didn't. When staff decides which agencies receive Aid to Agencies funds through CDBG, staff will choose the activities that meet the needs as identified in the Plan and encourage HCDC to fund those agencies. Hart wanted to know why DVIP and RVAP came out as medium priorities in regard to the needs level. Hightshoe explained that in CITY STEPS, services for "battered spouses" a HUD category, was medium and that RVAP was classified as a health service, which is also a medium. Chappell said he thought HCDC had made a good attempt in the past two years to identify priorities in CITY STEPS so that not all services were considered high priorities. This is always difficult as almost all the services are needed, but not all services can be identified as high priorities. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION JANUARY 19, 2012 PAGE 7 of 9 Bacon Curry moved to make budget recommendation to Council for Aid to Agencies funding as follows: EXHIBIT A FY13 Aid to Agencies Funding Recommendations Housing and Community Development Commission Agency FY12 Actual FY13 Request HCDC 1/19/2012 Recommendation Arc of Southeast Iowa $2,000 NA - 4 C's $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 Big Brothers / Big Sisters $32,000 $35,000 $32,000 Crisis Center $40,000 $42,000 $40,000 Compeer $5,000 $10,000 $5,000 Consortia for Youth Emp. $14,000 NA - DVIP $52,000 $55,000 $50,000 Elder Services $54,000 $55,620 $52,000 Four Oaks $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 Free Lunch Program $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 Free Medical Clinic $7,500 $8,000 $7,500 Housing Trust Fund of JC $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 MECCA /ICARE $18,950 $20,000 $18,950 Mayor's Youth Emp. Program $10,000 NA - Neighborhood Centers of JC $60,000 $63,000 $60,000 Pathways Adult Daycare N/A $5,000 $4,879 Red Cross $6,000 NA - RVAP $12,000 $14,000 $12,000 Shelter House $36,500 $40,000 $36,500 United Action for Youth 1 $60,000 1 $65,000 1 $60,000 Total Request: $422,950 1 $425,620 1 $391,829 FY13 Budget Source: ($274,173 General fund) ($91,000 CDBG) (26,656 Utility user fees) HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION JANUARY 19, 2012 PAGE 8 of 9 Drum seconded. The motion carried on a 7 -0 vote. REVIEW OF THE FY13 ALLOCATION PROCESS AND PROFORMA Hightshoe reviewed the FY13 allocations timeline and meeting locations. Chappell noted that Commission members should highlight that on February 24, HCDC ranking forms are due to City staff. Hightshoe said that the week after the applications are received, staff will be sending them out to the Commission. Hightshoe explained that the reason HCDC requires a proforma for rental projects is to ascertain the applicant's capacity and to review the project's revenues and expenses. Projects should show they are viable over the compliance period. The enclosed Bankability Guide explains basic revenues and expenses in rental housing. It also provides a guide as to what is realistic or common for expenses in the operating budget, why a vacancy rate must be included for unit turnover, what tenant contributions are, etc. Staff encourages all applicants to budget for maintenance and reserves. Staff looks for projects that are financially feasible, but do not unduly profit the applicant (above market returns). The applicant may apply for certain financial terms, but staff will review the proforma and review if the applicant has the ability to repay 100% of the funds or to make partial repayment. If the revenue source is limited by reduced rents such as 70% of the fair market and the project has high private debt, then staff might recommend the majority of funds as a "grant." If the project has higher rents (full Fair Market Rent), no or low debt, the project most likely has the ability to repay all or a significant portion of the award. Staff will review the proformas and make a recommendation as to financial terms. The Commission accepted Drum's monitoring reports. Chappell said they are still looking for someone to fill the vacancy on the Commission and would particularly like someone with a financial background. ADJOURNMENT: Bacon Curry moved to adjourn. Hart seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7 -0. z 0 O U F- z W d O J W uj W z ON Uo N 2: ZQ D� Oz O s� Z O N N O U H z w a O J W W O Z O U G Q O z 0 oc O U W w WN U r" ZN Q N D z n 10 �r N 7 U C c c y aQz W_ Y x O z x x o x x x x i x d W V' o N O O M o M o N O M O O N o W rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn H J LLJ J J W = uj 2 U w U W Q W Q J W x Z O U O J 0' c=j D H W Q J _ H = N z W Z m V U G G 0 x N N 7 U C c c y aQz W_ Y x O z MINUTES HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION APPROVED 3b(5) January 17, 2012 Lobby Conference Room Members Present: Orville Townsend Sr., David B. Brown, Harry Olmstead, Connie Goeb, Howard Cowen, Kim Hanrahan. Absent: Diane Finnerty, Henri Harper, Shams Ghoneim. Staff Present: Stefanie Bowers. Others Present: Charlie Eastham, Andrew Alemao. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: None. CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Goeb called the meeting to order at 18:10. CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 20, 2011 MEETING: Townsend moved to approve the minutes. Cowen seconded. The motion passed 5 -0. (Olmstead not present for vote) WELCOME NEW COMMISSIONERS Goeb: New Business - welcome to new commissioner and I know last year and the other years we've asked the new commissioner to just say a little bit about him or herself and your interest in the Commission. Hanrahan: I'm Kim Hanrahan. I was born and raised in Iowa City. I left when I was a younger adult and came back to raise my children. I live in the Longfellow neighborhood and it's very much like the neighborhoods that we talked about at least when my kids were growing up. I'm a licensed master Social Worker and right now I work at United Action for Youth and have been there for six years. Before that I was with the School District. I was the Director of the Human Resource Center and before that I was in public health and the Coordinator of the Pheasant Ridge Neighborhood Center. So I've worked in and around a lot of human rights issues, and I've been involved in a lot of social justice issues since I've been in town. So I felt this made perfect sense to kind of go to the next step and formalize some of the stuff that I've been involved in. I'm excited to be here and anxious to learn and figure out what you all do. Goeb: Okay welcome and our other two new commissioners are not here or don't expect to be here tonight probably, so we'll go onto the next month welcoming them. Cowen: Howard Cowen. I'm Director of the Special Needs Program at the College of Dentistry. We're an agency of United Way. the University level and done some community outreach Brown: I'm David Brown and teach at City High School, Special Education. Actually this will be my one year completed. Townsend: Orville Townsend and I started my second year on the Commission. I supervised the Rehabilitation Office here in town for quite a few years, and it's probably yeah. I've been in Iowa City since 1962 and there have been considerable changes over the years. Goeb: I'm Connie Goeb and I'm starting my third year, so this will be my last year on the Commission. I grew up in Iowa and went to school here, and then left and worked around different places. My area is human resources and labor relations, and I'm retired also. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Human Rights Commission meeting of December 20, 2011. Page 2 of 15Human Rights Commission Meeting 1 -17 -12 NOMINATIONS /ELECTIONS Goeb: I have communicated with Stefanie that I am nominating Harry Olmstead for chairperson for this coming year. I don't know if we want to hear from others, in terms of other nominations? Do we want to vote on that, make a motion to vote or do we want others? No one else has any other ideas? Bowers: Maybe start with the vice chair first. Goeb: Any nominations for vice chair? Cowen: I'd like to nominate Connie for vice chair. Bowers: Is there a second? Brown: I'll second it. Bowers: All in favor? Bowers: Opposed? Goeb: Then nominations for chairperson? The one that stands is Harry. Townsend: I'll second that. Cowen: I was seconding Harry's nomination. Goeb: All in favor? Goeb:Aye Goeb: Opposed? Congratulations Harry. PROCLAMATIONS Bowers: Well the one that's on here is for Black History Month, and so, it would be nice to have a commissioner there to accept that. It will be submitted to the City Council, and of course Black History Month is the entire month of February, but because of the City Council's meeting dates they only meet the 24th of January and then they meet again the 215t of February. I guess ideally it would be great to have it accepted, presented and accepted next Tuesday, which would be the 24th, because if not you would have to wait almost a month to do it. Bowers: David did the Martin Luther King Jr. Proclamation, and if there are any proclamations you know, because each month kind of has their own thing and I try to stay on top of that, but certainly email me or call me so that I stay on top of that myself, so February is Black History Month. It would be a commissioner to accept on behalf of the Commission. David just did it last Tuesday. It would be at 7:00 pm on either the 24th of January or the 21St of February, and usually it is the second item on the agenda so you're out of there usually by 7:10 pm. They might do Student Awards first, which are Awards that recognize local students at the elementary level. So there could be three or four of those, but then the proclamations are right after that so. Townsend: Just to be there to accept? Bowers: Correct, all you do is say my name is Stefanie Bowers and on behalf of the Human Rights Commission I'd like to thank you. If you want to say anything else you certainly can, but you don't have to. Townsend: What are those dates again? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Human Rights Commission meeting of January 17, 2012. Page 3 of 15Human Rights Commission Meeting 1 -17 -12 Bowers: The 24th of January or we would have to wait until February 21St, which is the next scheduled City Council meeting after next Tuesday. Townsend: I'll do it. Bowers: Okay thank you, and David can you just kind of do the FYI from what you learned last Tuesday? Brown: What I learned? Bowers: Yes when you're accepting? Brown: Oh yes. Bowers: Just the protocol so other commissioners know it. Brown: Yes pretty much what you do is you go straight to the City Council, shake the Mayor's hand and then you go back to the podium. Then you can say hello, my name is Orville Townsend, and on behalf of the Human Rights Commission I want to say thank you. Now one thing that threw me off was the Clerk gave like an agenda and she mentioned my name, so I still repeated my name. Bowers: Tomorrow I'll email the City Clerk and let her know who is tentatively accepting. Townsend: And this is what time? Bowers: It's 7 pm and it will be in the room right across from here in Emma Harvat Hall, which is just right directly across. Brown: Wear your badge also you know, but yeah protocol is to go straight to the Mayor shake their hand and come back to the podium, and then say on behalf of the Human Rights Commission I want to thank you. Brown: The Mayor will read the proclamation and say I understand that Mr. Townsend is here to accept on behalf of the Human Rights Commission, so that will be your prompt to go to the front and shake his hand. CULTURAL DIVERSITY DAY Goeb: Then we've got Cultural Diversity Day. Bowers: Last year the Commission chose to participate in this event. They don't have the registration forms out yet. It is scheduled for March 31St, which is a Saturday. It's usually held on a Sunday. So they've kind of changed things this year. It's at the University of Iowa Field House; at least that's where it's been in the past. So it's from 12 -5 on March 31 St, so at the next meeting in February if there's any interest for the commission to participate then at that time we'll be signing folks up to do the shifts there. Usually you may only need three commissioners at most. Goeb: Do we contribute to that too as a Commission financially? Bowers: Well there's a registration fee of like $10 that goes for a table and chair, but other than that no. Hanrahan: So that's what would be expected to set a table and to hand out information about what the Commission does and Bowers: Since it's geared towards kids or youth, generally there's candy or erasers or pencils, stuff that kids would like. NIGHT OF 1000 DINNERS Goeb: Then the next item is the 2012 Night of 1000 Dinners. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Human Rights Commission meeting of January 17, 2012. Page 4 of 15Human Rights Commission Meeting ] -17 -12 Bowers: There's a letter or email letter that was sent to the Commission asking for a contribution. The Night of a 1000 Dinners is an annual event that the United Nations Association of Iowa, looks like it's held each year to support actions to eliminate violence against women. It supports local and national efforts to end violence against women and girls around the world. It will be held on March 8th, which is a Thursday at the Old Brick from 5:30- 8:30 pm. The tickets are $12 in advance and $15 at the door, and from reading the email it looks like they at least want at minimum a $50 donation is how I, for a co- sponsorship. It looks like any amount greater than $50 will be donated to the UN Trust Fund, which must be at the national level is how I'm reading that. I don't know if anybody else reads that differently. It is something that the Commission has participated in in the past. The Commission did the flyer for the event, so it wasn't an in -hand cash donation so to speak, but it was a way for them to advertise the event Document Services did that here at the City. Townsend: Is there any part of this event that we could look at and see that the community is going to benefit from it in terms of furthering human rights? Bowers: The way I read it is it appears that it would have to be, the way I read the email is that the $50 is going to help put on the event. If anybody else reads it differently please let me know. Olmstead: But it's going to be a fundraiser? Bowers: Yes, but it says anything in addition or in excess to the event costs will be donated. So that implies to me that the $50 is somehow going to fund the event, and then anything over that amount would be part of the fundraising. Townsend: We've donated to this before? Bowers: In the past yes, like I said in the last year we did a flyer for them or the Commission I should say did a flyer. Goeb: Isn't this pretty similar to one that we turned down last month in terms of the one that was um I saw it in the minutes. Bowers: The Choice Event, yes. Goeb: We were talking about the fact that if it wasn't directly educational or such, that we would and local, that it wasn't something that with our limited funds that we would necessarily want to do. Just for consistency purposes thinking of that. Cowen: Well it seemed like this was more of educational thing as well with tables and educational material available than just a fundraising dinner. Townsend: I would like to be consistent, and I'd like to be able to see where if we donate something to this it's going to benefit the community in terms of some need. The way they presented this my vote would be no, but then I see that they're saying it supports local and national efforts to end violence against women and girls around the world. So the way they put their report _ now my vote would be no, but if they want to resubmit it and be more specific I would probably look at it differently. Bowers: I can certainly send them an email if you want to table it to the February meeting? Townsend: I mean I'm just saying the way it is now I probably wouldn't vote on it, but then looking at the letter it seems that there are some areas that they're working on that will benefit the community. They just didn't really focus on that when they submitted it. Specifically what is the educational part of it going to be? Goeb: Is there a chance for us to do flyers for them again instead of or an in -kind donation like that or? Bowers: If that's something that they would want. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Human Rights Commission meeting of January 17, 2012. Page 5 of 15Human Rights Commission Meeting 1 -17 -12 Goeb: Did they ask specifically for that last time I wonder, do you remember? Bowers: I don't think they asked for that specifically. I think what happened last year was it was at a time where they had missed when the Commission meets, and so it was just a staff decision to address it that way because then there's not really any exchange of money going on. Goeb: Okay then so are we in agreement that we're going to ask for more information or do you want to make a motion otherwise? Townsend: More information requested that they would be specific in terms of how is this going to benefit the community. Goeb: Okay that's what we will do. Do we need to take a vote? Do we need a motion on that? Bowers: I think there was a motion, it's just all those discussions and if any. Goeb: Aye? Goeb: Opposed? Bowers: I think I had David down as already seconding that motion and Orville was the one who made the motion. YOUTH AWARDS ADULT HONOREE Bowers: I have a handout here. Goeb: That is something that David, Harry and Henry met on, but they were kind enough to include me by phone. I'll just introduce it quickly because I think probably Kim might be familiar with this, but we have an annual award that recognizes folks, actually Youth Awards. This isn't Youth Awards though. We're talking about the ones that we have in the fall right? Several of us, and I think Harry brought it up, that perhaps there should be another category. We have a number of categories named after prominent citizens and such, people that have contributed to human rights. There might be a place to have a separate category for people that in particular have worked with the youth in the community. So we got together to come up with some language to try to pinpoint that in terms of who would be nominated, and what they would need to bring to the nominations. So David or Harry do you want to expand on that? Brown: Well we did a lot of research in finding the right verbiage to use that can articulate it also. We have, I guess I want to talk about like setting up more criteria and as we start getting more candidates. Also the most important part of it, which Mr. Harper brought up was, this is from youth selecting. That's what makes it unique. So it's more youth choice and that's the biggest piece of this I think, along with we need some kind of feedback. Maybe I don't know what the time constraints are between now, and we could bring that up. How we could come up with a better mechanism to have whoever the candidates are provide us feedback to give us some more information. Bowers: When you referred to the candidates are you referring to the..? Brown: The nominees I'm sorry. Bowers: The children or the adult who they're trying to ...? Brown: The adult who they are nominating to give us more feedback. Bowers: I don't get it? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Human Rights Commission meeting of January 17, 2012. Page 6 of 15Human Rights Commission Meeting 1 -17 -12 Brown: So the kids pick person abc. Person abc might not, well we need to find out more about abc by asking more information about. Bowers: I think that can be part of the nomination form just like for the Breakfast Awards. Once they're in here you don't have a long time to, so if there's information that you feel is helpful to make a decision, then that can be part of the nomination form. I think that's the best way to handle it. Brown: That will work okay. Hanrahan: Can you just explain to me, so nomination forms will be distributed among students within the Iowa City School District, and then from there they just randomly select an adult, and from there we see who has the most votes? What's the process? Brown: I wasn't part of the process to do that. I mean I don't know. I wasn't a part of the process at the Youth Awards, how it works. Bowers: Well this is the thing. The Youth Awards has never been a competition. The Breakfast for adults is, and so this Award I don't know how you want to do it, but I guess I would caution against basing it on a popularity contest as to how many votes. I mean I think it either needs to be, it should be a Commission decision or sub- committee, but not up to the public. Brown: Right, that's what I'm saying. We need some kind of criteria to. Townsend: I would suggest that, you know they're saying the criteria we have now is, well it's not vague, but its, I wouldn't feel comfortable turning that along with youth. I think we need to outline specifically what criteria, guidelines we want them to follow, like three years of consecutive experience working with youth. I couldn't fly with that because that's like saying just because you work three years you qualify. I think we need to be specific. So many years working with youth, that have displayed you know the ability or concern, and the ability to go beyond the call of duty, and to be able to specifically point out what are some of the things they've done. Cowen: Well I think that's where we would put it in the application process. What we would have in if you wanted to nominate someone, list these attributes that the candidate has. I think that the general description could be this. I don't know if it needs to be three consecutive years, but I think that's the only thing up for decision here. But then the nomination process would list those attributes that we would decide on in different categories that we want. Townsend: So you guys want to grade the application? Brown: That's what I'm asking about is how we are going to set this up to do it. You know like you said we don't want it to be a popularity contest, and I was just trying to find a way to get more feedback, and I guess the application itself will be the feedback. Just making sure that we have enough information because like I said, you give it to the youth and the youth picks somebody, but the youth also has to have some standards. So I'm just trying to find a way to. Cowen: Sure, why did you select this person, that's just an opening question. A little more detail for youth to be outlined and a number of different categories. I think that we could do that and they would you know fill that part in, and then it would be up to a group of us like the - - -- adult - - - -- to make the decisions to how many or who we would like to present these awards to. Now would this be done at the Youth Awards Ceremony? Bowers: It would be done at the Youth Awards. It would only be one adult and they would not have an opportunity to speak. I just want everybody to know that. They will get recognized, yes. Goeb: Then do we, I guess that's one thing I'm a little bit confused on. I was thinking we wanted to add it to the adult one, but you're saying that we should do it at the Youth Awards. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Human Rights Commission meeting of January 17, 2012. Page 7 of 15Human Rights Commission Meeting 1 -17 -12 Brown: This is a Youth Award thing. Goeb: It's a Youth Ally Award, but it's an adult that will get it, so I was just wondering if it was, I thought at one point we were talking about doing it at the fall breakfast as opposed to the Spring. Brown: What makes it special is youth picking the person, which is why we want to spotlight them, literally spotlight them, get them to recognize and go... Olmstead: Two things, one the reason that we came up with the 21 year age or older and the three consecutive years was we wanted to give the, a possibility of a student at the University, the opportunity to receive the award and the three consecutive years came up because we felt that that gives some longevity to it, rather that someone being nominated that just has one year of working with youth. It doesn't really that they're. Cowen: Committed? I understand. I just didn't know the consecutive year aspect as opposed to three years or five years, but consecutive nature of the years. That's one thing that potentially bothered me. Townsend: You know I'm not so hung up on the years of experience as I am on the content you know, and the attitude that they exhibit while trying to help youth work with issues. Cowen: You know we could not have that necessarily in the description, and then in the criteria say how long has this person worked with youth, or what has been their experience. So we could, that could be a part of two, you know applications that we see or nominations that we see. Ones that work with youth and they look very similar and one is for five years and one has been ten years, that would make a difference in our decision or the subcommittee's decision as to who they would pick. So I don't know if necessarily the consecutive year's aspect of it needs to be here as opposed to how long have you worked with youth in the criteria, or the nomination, or the nomination form itself. Townsend: I understand that, that makes sense. I just had a brainstorm, an example, you know like hypothetical situation. A young man or young lady would recommend someone and paint a scenario where they had had difficulty you know in class because of reading, and that this went on, and then they stumbled across this teacher or this individual who basically discovered that they couldn't read. Then basically took the time to work with them on their own personal time and come in here with materials and stuff like that. That basically helped them to , finally get to the point where they could read you know. I mean something like that. I think it's important that we point it out because we're dealing with youth, and it's my concern is it's going to turn out to be a popularity contest. Brown: Well that's why the criteria laid out for the youth; they have to really give a good description you know of who the people are. Hanrahan: I'm getting this right then, a sub - committee then selects from the nominees? You also don't want it to be just a one project where they just completed one project with youth and then they were really popular with youth because of that. Bowers: There are a few things here. One, some of the concerns I have that I'll let the sub - committee know about. One you actually give an age for an adult? I guess the Human Rights Ordinance does not give, and a person can be discriminated at any age in Iowa City. So if you want to call it an Adult Award that's fine. I guess I would caution about setting the marker at 21, at the state level its 18. So if you want to call it an adult award I think that's fine, but to actually put the age that you want I'm not sure. I would recommend that. Technically you could get one from someone who is 20 who has been working with kids for three years. Another one is the individual development. I really think as a City Commissioner you want to look at it and you want to get nominations from somebody as important as those individual role models are in each of our lives, and I could give you a handful right now. I think you really want to look at somebody who has benefited more than one child versus just one child in their personal development. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Human Rights Commission meeting of January 17, 2012. Page 8 of 15Human Rights Commission Meeting 1 -17 -12 Townsend: I was thinking in order to you know, can we say professionals. You know someone who has been in the system, whether it's in a school system, or whether it's — or Bowers: I guess the word professional gives me some concern too. I think you know certainly you can look at the way that somebody has assisted someone, were they a teacher or were they a Big Brother or Big Sister. I mean I think those are all things based upon the competition that you're to look at, but I guess that word just you know. I think it can mean a lot of things to different people, which may indicate you know kind of bias. Townsend: It's kind of an awkward touchy situation. You know my concern is I know when I was coming along and somebody asked me to do something and then when I did it they totally disregarded it. You know that did a lot of harm and I guess I'm hoping that we can come up with something that we're going to have the guidelines to the point that, you know it's going whatever they come up with, we're going have some guidelines that we can accept. Bowers: I think the sub - committee can certainly, some of your suggestions I would encourage you to email David, Harry or Henry or call them and let them know. Then I'm hoping the three of them can meet again before the next meeting, Connie sorry. The four of you can meet before the next meeting. If you can get me something a week, well probably two weeks out because I like to mail the packets out to you a week in advance. If you can just send me an email or a word document with what you want on the form, then somebody else can format it and lay it out how you want it. So don't worry about that part, it's just the information contained in it, but really I mean the calendar for me would be March 1St to start advertising for the Youth Awards, and so we don't have a lot of time to kind of hand it back and go back. So if there was a handout that the Commission could look at, make suggestions at the next meeting, that would be the best. Brown: A handout? Bowers: The nomination form, a draft nomination form. Hanrahan: I understand Stefanie what you were suggesting about contributed to their individual development, but it could also be just to their individual or collective development. Cowen: Or just their development. Bowers: Right that individual just implies yes, that's it. Goeb: I was thinking of getting around three years you could just say those who have significant experience working with youth and then we could decide what significant is. If we don't like the three. Townsend: like that it's kind of _ into the direction that we can accept. Hanrahan: I do agree with Stefanie about the age 21 though. Brown: What about going to what I call social media as far as how applications on paper format? Bowers: There are some rules about social media and the City. So like a Facebook page? Townsend: I'm just trying to. Bowers: I'll have to double check because there are regulations and rules about that so I'll have to check. Hanrahan: That was my question about how you distribute it to the school district. I work with youth at United Action and we do there, so , but if we hand them out along those lines. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Human Rights Commission meeting of January 17, 2012. Page 9 of 15Human Rights Commission Meeting 1 -17 -12 Olmstead: It would also have to be handed out to churches because there are a lot of youth leaders at the churches that are doing... Goeb: You already distribute ah for the Youth Award stuff too. Bowers: I mean we have a list that we've had for a while, so I mean it's, I'm sure yeah. Hanrahan: Would you like some help looking at that list or who generates the list? Bowers: It's not really that, it's more I mean when you're sending stuff to Mayor's Youth or United Action, I mean you're not sure who is getting the mail. So you're not sure if it's even going to the intended person. So it's more following up with phone calls saying we sent this to you did you get it? Do you have any questions? When you're just sending it to you know. Townsend: Situations like that can if it's an electronic document, can we indicate that you know it's important to us that you receive this. Could you please call blank, blank, blank number to let us know that you received it? Cowen: They can just check it, electronic they can have an electronic return. Hanrahan: So it's a list of all United Way agencies or faith based? Bowers: Yes. Goeb: Okay so the way we're leaving it right now is we'll get together and look at an application form and have it to Stefanie two weeks before the next meeting. Olmstead: What about the name that we're using, Youth Ally Awards. Is there any concern there? Bowers: I should let you know that the Youth Awards will be at the Englert this year and they'll be held on May 9`h which is a Wednesday. I'll be sending a letter to the Mayor on Thursday to see if he's available. Olmstead: 7:00? Bowers: Commissioners will need to be there at 5:00 maybe, but I'll say 5:30 now. Goeb: It's a Wednesday May 91h? Bowers: Correct. IMMIGRATION SUBCOMMITTEE Olmstead: Well the integration sub - committee. I think they tabled last month the idea of putting together a review committee, and ah we were going to discuss it further this month. Goeb: Any other ideas or what direction? I think in reading over the minutes we talked about getting or having the Commission perhaps stay involved, or provide interim leadership with the hope that it would be led by others in the community after it was established. That we would not be the primary standard bearers of that committee. But other than that I don't think we talked too specifically about where the committee would come from. Do you remember differently or? Olmstead: No. Goeb: So I don't know what, what direction we want to go here. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Human Rights Commission meeting of January 17, 2012. Page 10 of 15Human Rights Commission Meeting 1 -17 -12 Townsend: I think we as a committee have to get beyond being disappointed because we basically, we all felt we did a fantastic job, and I think we all agree that the Council didn't act on it. You know that they basically just kind of threw it back to us. So I would suggest that we ask the sub - committee maybe get together and just kind of be honest about it and ascertain whether we feel there are other things that we need to do. Right now I'm thinking that we, our disappointment has kind of got us this kind of stagnate. Goeb: The immigration sub - committee Townsend: Yes. Goeb: So is the thought that. Olmstead: We need a new member on it. Hanrahan: I think in the minutes it said. Goeb: I'm sorry what was your question? and Diane Hanrahan: I wondered if the City Council had responded. I think in the minutes it did say Diane had tried several times to contact them and hadn't heard back. Goeb: Well they came back with Cowen: Responded with a proposal. Goeb: Not to us but they did respond to some of the proposals and kind of I'll just use the word cherry picked. I don't know if that's a good word, but kind of took the low hanging fruit perhaps. That's a good one, and agreed to the easy ones you know and then kind of threw it back. One of the main things that we is that there was a separate Commission on this issue or a separate City group. They, that was the one that I got the clearest direction on, is that they definitely didn't want to a separate group, and they pushed it back to us and said if you'd like to do it as a sub - committee of the Human Rights Commission that's where it belongs because we have more commissions and committees than we can handle right now. So that was one thing, which really to me gives us a blank page to do whatever we want to do on that. Townsend: You know I'm not being negative about it, but I think we as a sub - committee, we really need to get together and revisit it and see because there is still the need there you know. That's the reality of the situation. The need is still there and I think we need to get together and take a look at what yet needs to be done, and what we as a sub - committee can do to improve the situation. Eastham: Charlie Eastham a member of the _ Sanctuary City Committee. The Sanctuary City Committee met several days to review our reaction to the Council's consideration of this commission's . One of the things we are very much hoping will be done is that this Commission will establish an immigration and that committee will carry forward with this work. The Sanctuary City Committee talked about folks , that . We had several ideas about so I am saying now I hope this Commission will actually establish and we can go forward at this point. Also the Council's is going to be asked at their meeting _ March to adopt a resolution, which hope I'm not speaking out of turn here. _ urge the Council to be more receptive to the many suggestions and fine recommendations that and take a firmer stance This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Human Rights Commission meeting of January 17, 2012. Page 11 of 15Human Rights Commission Meeting 1 -17 -12 Goeb: I guess the question that brings up to me then is would your group formally ask us in a letter or whatever to establish that? Or we could as a group say that we're formally establishing that, you know in terms of the immigration review committee as a sub - committee. So my thought is we could do it now or we could wait till we have somebody ask us to do it or. Townsend: I think you have a good idea you know. If your committee could send us a written request that we do this. When we meet we would have that and then because you know I'm strongly feeling that we need to get together = and see exactly where we are with something like that in writing. It kind of gives us something to work with. Cowen: Is there any precedent for a formal sub - committee of the lower commission to do something. Bowers: Yeah I mean I think you know just as a matter of first impression for me since I've been in this position with the Commission. I think you need to establish how many, how large, how people will be determined. You don't want to draw it out so that the purpose is defeated and the time it takes to do it, but you also want to have some type of clear protocol for. Cowen: Submission of the committee. Bowers: Right, right. It's kind of like just having a sub - committee that, full of members that you have selected to advise the sub - committee, you know and then to advise the Commission. Townsend: Step back and having to make sure I'm on the right track. You know when we met with the City Council you know I'm sure that they said they didn't see the need to create another committee. Now did they leave it open that we could create a review committee. Bowers: I just want to make sure we're all on the same page. I think the City Council who are the only people who can establish a new commission or board for the City. I think they clearly said no to that, and I don't think that no implied that the Commission has the authority to set that up. What they're saying is you can set up this sub - committee under the Commission, but it is not going to be side by side or parallel with the Commission. So I just want to make sure we're all on the same page here. Brown: It has a definite expiration also right? Bowers: Well I think, I mean I don't know about that. Cowen: What they report to us we go to the Council if we want to go to the Council with any reports from the... Bowers: So I'm not sure if I answered your question. Townsend: In a way you did and like I said I think it's important that our sub - committee get together and see where we are and where we want to go. Hanrahan: I think it's a great opportunity to do some collaborative work. I mean you guys have been working these issues for so many years. I think it makes a lot of sense. Brown: So are you joining the subcommittee? Hanrahan: Me? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Human Rights Commission meeting of January 17, 2012. Page 12 of 15Human Rights Commission Meeting 1 -17 -12 Goeb: Well then do we ask or leave it? I understand your thoughts on the current sub - committee regrouping. That makes perfect sense. Then do we ask that Charlie's group presents us with something and maybe gives the input on mission vision whatever and then we debate that? _ debate it as a sub - committee... Townsend: My suggestion is that Charlie's group sends our sub - committee the written request and our sub- committee will get together and then at our next meeting we'll have a report to the Commission. Goeb: About the direction? Bowers: And Charlie if you don't mind just for the record it may be best to address it to the sub - committee but send it to the, you can either send it or drop it off or send it email, however you want, but so that its addressed to the entire Commission but with the sub - committee in there. Thank you. Olmstead: Charlie if you give us those names. Townsend: Why don't we just send it to you and request that it be given, shared with the sub - committee. Bowers: Sure. That's fine. If somebody sent something to a sub - committee, then technically it has to go to the, so it's just easier to send it to in care of everyone, but you can just send it to me directly. Bowers: Kim officially, you're replacing Diane Day's place on the immigration sub - committee, so thank you. FACES OF IOWA CITY Goeb: I had a question Stefanie on the ongoing Faces of Iowa City thing. Has that gone out in terms of, I think in the last we talked about it being sent to the different groups here in Iowa City, in terms of the availability of speakers? Bowers: No it hasn't been sent to the groups yet, but my understanding is we're waiting for the students to get back. But other than that if that's the only thing holding us up they're officially back. JUVENILE JUSTICE Townsend: I'll just give you an update. Our committee of Juvenile Justice, we met with Henri and basically what we decided is that you know we could sit around and think about what needs to be done, but we'd probably get best results if we talk to individuals who are actually working with the youth and organizations in the community. So we identified several individuals that are working with various organizations, and we've sent out an invitation to them to meet with us. What we plan to do you know, we're having problems getting the dates together, but when we finally do get a meeting, Diane and Henri and I have basically outlined some things that we would like to accomplish. So we'll start off with them and just point out that these are the things that we would like to have on the program, programs and content. Then from there we will take their input as to whether we're on target, and then their input would be how we can go about it or maybe they have some things that they feel would be more productive. So you know once we get with them we'll put our specific programing together. Goeb: Is there any timeframe on that? Did you have a target date for when you wanted to do the program or is it just kind of an evolving? Townsend: I'm feeling a little pressed you know, but basically I'm hoping within the next week or two we can get everybody together and hopefully after we get everybody together within the next month we can kind of have our first program outline so that we can put a date with it. We started off thinking we could go with three different programs, but I got a sneaky suspicion that when we actually meet with the individuals that are involved with the community, we might end up just going with one program. How much time do we have? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Human Rights Commission meeting of January 17, 2012. Page 13 of 15Human Rights Commission Meeting 1 -17 -12 Bowers: I mean there was never really a deadline, so whatever you need to do to have the best program you can have is fine. If that takes six months, or longer. Townsend: Right now we're looking; we're talking about three programs. We're talking about the history of you know what is the current situation, and then maybe a second program in terms of ah you know education. For example education informed choice. What we're trying to get at with that is individuals who come to Iowa City from the inner city. They are prone to be a victim because what happens in the inner city, you know a lot of things happen it's so big and so huge, things happen, it's no big deal. When you come to Iowa City the same thing can happen and it is a big deal. So if you know that you're into a new environment that's much more focused on legal issues and things like that, the chances are you may not do some of the little things that were okay in the big city that's not going to be okay in a small city. So those are the kind of things that we're looking at. Goeb: Sounds good. Any other sub - committees? REPORTS OF COMMISSIONERS Olmstead: I have, I just learned this today. Ray Suarez author and senior correspondent for PBS the News Hour is going to be speaking tomorrow at the MERF building and he's talking on immigration demographics and the changing face of America. So I'll pass this around. PUBLIC COMMENT OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: Alemao: My name is Andrew Alemao and I addressed you guys here last month. I served 30 days and it went fine. I was just wondering if I could count on anyone's support if I were to address the larger Council. I thought they had a meeting on the third Tuesday. Bowers: Usually they do but it changes according to their schedule, but because you're not on the agenda that's not something that they're going to be able to answer for you. I mean it's not on the agenda so if they respond that's a discussion and that's a problem for them. Goeb: I think you had that thought for him last month. How does he get on the agenda if he wants to do that? Bowers: For the City Council or for the Commission? Alemao: Well I'd like to start small if ... Bowers: Well I mean really there's discretion with the chair of the Commission as to what makes the agenda or not, so that's not something I guess can be decided right now today. As far as the Council I would suggest you talk to the City Clerk because that's just not you know my area. Alemao: I appreciate it. Hanrahan: Can I make a suggestion? I mean there are public comments before every City Council meeting so you'll have that opportunity. Alemao: I keep showing up here Bowers: If you go to the bulletin board just earlier this afternoon there was a handout that had future Council meetings. Is that not there anymore? It listed every Council meeting for at least the next few months. No it was just a handout I'll show you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Human Rights Commission meeting of January 17, 2012. Page 14 of 15Human Rights Commission Meeting 1 -17 -12 ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Townsend moved to adjourn. Commissioner Olmstead seconded. The motion passed 6 -0 at 19:07. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Human Rights Commission meeting of January 17, 2012. Page 15 of 15Human Rights Commission Meeting 1 -17 -12 Human Rights Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD 2012 Meetin Date) NAME TER M EXP. 1/17 2/21 3/20 4/17 5/15 6/19 7/17 8/21 9/18 10/16 11/20 12/18 Dr. Howard Cowen 111/13 X Constance Goeb 1/1/13 X Harry Olmstead (8 -1 -2010) 1/1/13 X David B. Brown 111/14 X Diane Finnerty 1/1/14 O/E Orville Townsend, Sr. 1/1114 X Henri Harper 1/1/15 O/E Kim Hanrahan 1/1/15 X Shams Ghoneim 1/1/15 O/E KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting /No Quorum R = Resigned - = Not a Member This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Human Rights Commission meeting of January 17, 2012. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVED DECEMBER 15, 2011 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Stewart Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Elizabeth Koppes, Tim Weitzel, Michelle Payne, John Thomas MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Sarah Greenwood Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: None RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: The Commission voted 7 -0 to recommend approval of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to change the boundary of the Northside Marketplace to exclude properties at 228 & 232 Bloomington Street and 311 & 313 N Linn Street. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEMS: Public hearing to amend the Comprehensive Plan to change the boundary of the Northside Marketplace to exclude properties at 228 & 232 Bloomington Street and 311 & 313 N Linn Street. Miklo explained that these boundary issues came to the attention of the Commission with the rezoning and Comprehensive Plan proposal at Linn and Bloomington Streets. Concern was raised by the Commission at that time about implications for these properties on the west side of Linn St. and north side of Bloomington. Since the Central District Plan calls out preservation of historic properties as a goal and as all three of these properties qualify for the National Register of Historic Places, the Commission had asked that these properties be removed from the Northside Marketplace. City Council had the same idea and has asked that this change to the Comprehensive Plan be initiated to make it clear that these properties aren't included in Northside Marketplace so no commercial expansion would take place in this direction. The proposed amendment would move the boundary of the Northside Marketplace from the west side of these three properties to the east side. Planning and Zoning Commission December 15, 2011 -Formal Page 2 of 5 Freerks opened the public hearing. There was none. Freerks closed the public hearing. Freerks said that this doesn't seem to be a controversial proposal, as both the Commission and City Council are in favor of it. Eastham stated that he's in favor of this amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. The inclusion of these properties in the plan as it stands now doesn't conform with the idea of preserving neighborhood structures. Since these properties are eligible for historic designation, replacing them with commercial properties at some time in the future is not a useful step. Weitzel said that this is something that the Commission discussed at length with City Council, so it's not a surprise to see it come up. He stated that the majority of other historical properties in the Northside Marketplace are commercial, so commercial designation is not necessarily incompatible with its historic use, but in this case because these properties are residential it makes sense to take them out of the Northside Marketplace. Freerks agreed that as the plan stands now, it might prompt others to think this is a place where the Commission wants commercial development and that isn't the case. Weitzel moved to approve the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to change the boundary of the Northside Marketplace to exclude properties at 228 & 232 Bloomington Street and 311 & 313 N Linn Street Eastham seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7 -0. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: November 28th, 2011, and December 1$`, 2011: Payne moved to approve the minutes. Weitzel seconded. The motion carried 7 -0. OTHER: Miklo explained that City Council had a public hearing for rezoning for the property at 911 N Governor Street, an application that the Commission recommended approval of. After the first hearing there was a vote, and majority of City Council approved the first reading of the ordinance. At the second meeting, the majority of City Council indicated that they were not going to approve the second reading. As the zoning code requires, when there's an indication that City Council is not going to accept the Commission's recommendation, they offer the opportunity for a joint meeting with the Commission to discuss the subject and see if either group can be persuaded to change their minds. Miklo asked the Commission to consider whether they want to have a joint meeting to discuss the rezoning at 911 N Governor Street. Planning and Zoning Commission December 15, 2011 - Formal Page 3 of 5 Eastham recused himself from the discussion. Freerks asked if the rezoning is dead right now. Miklo explained that before City Council takes a vote on the second reading, the Commission has the opportunity to meet with them, and after that meeting City Council would vote. He said that if the Commission chooses not to meet, City Council most likely will vote it down. He explained that at a second meeting a number of neighbors spoke, raised objections and concerns, and the majority of the City Council decided that they would not have the second reading without first offering to have a joint meeting with the Commission. Freerks said she thought that the Commission didn't see a final plan on the application. She asked if the developer is taking it back and if there were signs from City Council that with alterations it would be accepted. Miklo stated that the Commission recommendation was for a Conditional Zoning Agreement addressing site distance and set -back but it didn't tie development to a specific plan. The maximum number of units that could be placed on the property in terms of zoning would be 18 but there was no plan showing how those could physically fit on the property. It depends on what City Council decides in the end whether the developer will come forward with a design or submit a second application with a specific plan or walk away. Payne stated that at the first reading the developer commented that if he couldn't develop it with the 18 units, it wouldn't be economically feasible. Freerks said that's something they often hear, and they aren't sure if 18 units really could be built on that site. Payne asked that with the way it's zoned now, could they put commercial below and put 18 units above. Miklo explained that it's currently zoned Commercial Office, which requires that the ground floor be office use. It's questionable if a second floor could be added to the existing building for residential use. The developer had said that would be a challenge. Miklo said it's questionable if there would be a market in that location for office. Freerks said she's torn about this one. This idea could work, but there could be other ideas that could work. But the building has been sitting empty for some time. Koppes agreed with Freerks that there's zoning in place that would allow something else to be done. It's not like it's incorrectly zoned. Weitzel said he thought opinions of the Commission weren't fully taken into account at the last meeting with City Council about the Commission's recommendation for the rezoning at Bloomington and Linn Streets. Koppes said she thinks at the last meeting City Council had their minds made up and that this one might be different because they changed their minds once on it, and might be persuaded to again. She asked about the nature of the neighbors' comments. Miklo said concerns were traffic, density and the issues of rental properties similar to those heard on other applications. Freerks thinks eventually it will be redeveloped. She's willing to pass on this one. Planning and Zoning Commission December 15, 2011 - Formal Page 4 of 5 Koppes urged that the results of the last meeting with City Council not sway the decision on this one. Koppes thinks 18 units would be a lot right there. Freerks thinks there would be a number of ways to configure that property to make it work but doesn't know exactly what the right density is. Miklo said the lesson to be learned here is that in some cases, staff, City Council and the Commission are reluctant to approve rezoning without a concept plan, but it seems that when a concept plan isn't asked for, projects tend not to move forward because of the uncertainty of what might develop if the rezoning is approved. Freerks thinks there's sense of security with a concept plan. She is not opposed to redeveloping that property but doesn't know that it's a strong enough case to spend time with City Council. At the end of the discussion, there was not a majority of the Commission who wanted to meet with City Council. Freerks presented certificates of appreciation to Wally Plahutnik, retired, and Michelle Payne, retiring, commission members. ADJOURNMENT: Weitzel moved to adjourn. Eastham seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 7 -0 vote. z O U) ND 20 0 UL ZW� O Q N N od z o z_ za z a J a N T X X X X x i x r j X x X X X i x T- X 0 x x X i X M �Xxxxx r ; x oxxxx0 r i x (D pxxxxxxx r V_Xxxxxxx Of X x x x x X c- xxoXxxx Co X X LIJ x x X x co C4 xxxxxoX co - xxxxoox � OxxOXxx - X �OXXXx - X � �XXXXXX Ln0XXXXOX XXXXXX N _I XXXXXX T M_! XXXXXX 1.-_I XXXXXX M_I XXXXXX N_. xxx�xx N N_! XXXXXX r r r r T �W (D(OMNtnld)M LO In LO LO U) LO wa0 �-X0000000 U-)(nLO LO U) LO w w �- Va z = W Y� J Z d2zJ w w ?� W Wd=� 1-WaZ =N 0�am(Y a>- zaLUWxmW Q�C aac oa�W -2z J E O 7 U d O wz 7 � X ✓T Z) N C N c c N E U) 0 0 ��az a Q II II u II W xOOz w Y co r X X X X X i X T r-XXXXX i X T- X x x x x X T N �XXXXXXX rn NXXXXXXX co �XXpX�XX XXXXXX - X � �XXXXXX co C'4 XXXXXX N _I T M_! XXXXXX T CD N_• XXXXXX T N Ww(OMN(nLoM N T r r r r T I.L w mU*) l� LO In 0 0 In 0 V- X0000000 W w �- 'J z = W J J Z w ?� 0�am(Y Q�C -2z J V x Ix uj w m WdF- waz 2wtnWa� Q> - QwwOQ�W z0wwYaa� E O 7 U d O wz 7 � X ✓T Z) N C N c c N E U) 0 0 ��az a Q II II u II W xOOz w Y PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 15, 2011 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Carolyn Stewart Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Koppes, Tim Weitzel, Michelle Payne, I) None Bob Miklo, Sarah Greenwood 3b(6) APPROVED i Freerks, Elizabeth Thomas The Commission voted 6-0 to recom end proval of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to change the b un ary of the Northside Marketplace to exclude properties at 228 & 232 Bloomington S et and 311 & 313 N Linn Street. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order F None. Public hearing t amend the Comprehensive Plan to ange the boundary of the Northside Mar tplace to exclude properties at 228 & 2 Bloomington Street and 311 & 313 N Linn St et. Miklo explai ed that these boundary issues came to the atten "on of the Commission with the rezoning d Comprehensive Plan proposal at Linn and Bloom gton Streets. Concern was raised by he Commission at that time about implications for the a properties on the west side of Linn St. and north side of Bloomington. Since the Central District Ian calls out preservation of histori properties as a goal and as all three of these properties qu lify for the National Register of Historic Places, the Commission had asked that these properties a removed from the Northside Marketplace. City Council had the same idea and has ask d that this change to the Comprehensive Plan be initiated to make it clear that these properties ren't included in Northside Marketplace so no commercial expansion would take place i this direction. The proposed amendment would move the boundary of the Northside Marke lace from the west side of these three properties to the east side. Planning and Zoning Commission December 15, 2011 - Formal Page 2 of 5 Freerks opened the public hearing. There was none. Freerks closed the public hearing. Freerks said that this doesn't seem to be a controversial proposal, as both the Commission and City Council are in favor of it. Eastham stated that he's in favor of this amendment to the Comprehe sive Plan. The inclusion of these properties in the plan ag it stands now doesn't conform with a idea of preserving neighborhood structures. Since Nese properties are eligible for hi oric designation, replacing them with commercial properties t some time in the future is n a useful step. Weitzel said that this is something t t the Co/etplace. is ssed at length with City Council, so it's not a surprise to see it come u . He sta ajority of other historical properties in the Northside Marketplace are corn ercial, cial designation is not necessarily incompatible with its historic use, but i this c these properties are residential it makes sense to take them out of the N hsidce. Freerks agreed that as the plan stands now, it might pr ompt others to thi k thiwhere the Commission wants commercial development and that isn't t ca Weitzel moved to approve the amendr boundary of the North/mlon Street and 311 $ 313 Eastham seconded. A vote was taken and CONSIDERATION OF Payne moved to ap ove the minutes. Weitzel seconde . The motion c ried 6 -0. OTHER: to the Comprehensive Plan to change the exclude properties at 228 & 232 Bloomington st Miklo a lained that City Council had a public he ing for rezoning for the property at 911 N Gover or Street, an application that the Corn i n recommended approval of. After the first hearing there was a vote, and majority of City Cou it approved the first reading of the ordinance. At the second meeting, the majority of CI Council indicated that they were not going to approve the second reading. As the zoning ode requires, when there's an indication that City Council is not going to accept the Commissio 's recommendation, they offer the opportunity for a joint meeting with the Commission to dl cuss the subject and see if either group can be persuaded to change their minds. Miklo ask the Commission to consider whether they want to have a joint meeting to discuss the rezoning at 911 N Governor Street. Planning and Zoning Commission December 15, 2011 - Formal Page 3 of 5 Eastham recused himself from the discussion. Freerks asked if the rezoning is dead right now. Miklo explained that before City Council takes a vote on the second reading, the Commission has the opportunity to meet with them, and after that meeting City Council would vote. He said that if the Commission chooses not to meet, City Council most likely will vote it down. He explained that at a second meeting a number of neighbors spoke, raised objections and concerns, and the majority of the City Council decided that they would not have the second reading without first offering to havka joint meeting with the Commission. / Freerks said she thought that the m mission didn't see a final plan on the a lication. She asked if the developer is taking it b ck and if there were signs from City Co cil that with alterations it would be accepted. Miklo stated that the Commission r ommendation was for a Conditierhal Zoning Agreement addressing site distance and set -ba k but it didn't tie developmen o a specific plan. The maximum number of units that coul be placed on the property ' terms of zoning would be 18 but there was no plan showing how t ose could physically fieill the property. It depends on what City Council decides in the end hether the develope com e forward with a design or submit a second application with a sp cific plan or walk ay. Payne stated that at the first reading t e developer Xmmented that if he couldn't develop it with the 18 units, it wouldn't be economicaV feasible.,Ffeerks said that's something they often hear, and they aren't sure if 18 units really c uld be b t on that site. Payne asked that with the way it's zoned now, could they put commer 'al be! and put 18 units above. Miklo explained that it's currently zoned mmercial Office, which requires that the ground floor be office use. It's questionable if a seco floor could be added to the existing building for residential use. The developer had s ' t at would be a challenge. Miklo said it's questionable if there would be a market in that loc on f office. Freerks said she's torn about thi one. could work. But the building h@9 been Koppes agreed with Freer that there's zc done. It's not like it's inco ectly zoned. Weitzel said he tho/nStreets. pinions of the Coi meeting with City about the Comm Bloomington and L idea could work, but there could be other ideas that i empty for some time. g in place that would allow something else to be ion weren't fully taken into account at the last 's recommendation for the rezoning at Koppes said sh thinks at the last meeting City Co \ncil had their minds made up and that this one might be ' erent because they changed their s once on it, and might be persuaded to again. She asked out the nature of the neighbors' com. Miklo said concerns were traffic, density and the issues of rental properties similar to those heard on other applications. Freerks thinks eventually it will be redeveloped. She's willing to pass on this one. Planning and Zoning Commission December 15, 2011 - Formal Page 4 of 5 Koppes urged that the results of the last meeting with City Council not sway the decision on this one. Koppes thinks 18 units would be a lot right there. Freerks thinks there would be a number of ways to configure that pro to make it work but doesn't know exactly what the right density is. r Miklo said the lesson to be le rned here is that in some cases, s ,City Council and the Commission are reluctant to a rove rezoning without a conce plan, but it seems that when a concept plan isn't asked for, pro 'ects tend not to move forwar because of the uncertainty of what might develop if the rezonin is approved. Freerks thinks there's sense of sec ity with a concept an. She is not opposed to redeveloping that property but doesn't know that it a strong enoug case to spend time with City Council. At the end of the discussion, there was of a major' y of the Commission who wanted to meet with City Council. Freerks presented certificates of retiring, commission members. ADJOURNMENT: Weitzel moved to adjourn. Eastham seconded. The meeting was adjourned a 6 -0 vote. Wally Plahutnik, retired, and Michelle Payne, z O N O z z N C7 z_ Z z a J a D O c.i W w V� z C Q N O z w 0 r o �n N XXXXX i X r XXXXX i X 'NXXXXX i X �X0XXX i X M r X X X X X i X oXXXXO i X oX XX_l X co oX XXXXX X X X o� NXII 0 XXOXXX V-XX -XXX Ln X0X0XX LLJ NXXXXX —X ti XX XXOX ti X X X X 00 C4OXXOX -XXX XX X c LU O X X p X LnOX XX0X r _' XXXXXX r CD N_i _f XXXXX M_I XXXXXX 0 C4 CflCOMNLOLOm r r r r r r N_! r XXXXXX N �W CO COMNLO MM w �-K0000000 W w J W J .�J =zZzxW� �VamV1_� V Q �LZJ Y F c�QYOC �fnmMZJ WWf V=ceW xLLIN - wazx� WN W S)w �wmwa� - wazx� -a- zOw�Yaa� wa�Q z H W W 2 0 -v d a) o Nz X pJ X ..� CD C CD �yN O n 0 N n Q Z II II NW � Oz w Y co r XXXXX i X r . =XXXXX i X r ti oX XX_l X r �XXXXXXX CD NXXXXXXX 00 Ln X0X0XX LLJ co Go XX XXOX ti -XXX XX co N. XXXX X N r XXXXX r CD N_i XXXXXX �LL, CflCOMNLOLOm r r r r r r aI Li r �X0000000 w W J W J .�J =zZzxW� �VamV1_� �LZJ Q�N V=ceW W :W W�F - wazx� �wv� Q�QxOQJW wa�Q zowU.Yaa3: 0 -v d a) o Nz X pJ X ..� CD C CD �yN O n 0 N n Q Z II II NW � Oz w Y AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 19, 2012 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL APPROVED U3-00- 114 3b(7) 10090 MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Stewart Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Elizabeth Koppes, Tim Weitzel, Paula Swygard, John Thomas MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Sarah Greenwood Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: None RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: The Commission voted 7 -0 to recommend indefinite deferral requested by the applicant on a public hearing to amend the Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation from Private Institutional to Low to Medium Density Multi- Family Stabilization for property located at 602 E. Washington Street. The Commission voted 7 -0 to recommend indefinite deferral requested by the applicant on a public hearing to amend the Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation from Private Institutional to Low to Medium Density Multi- Family Stabilization for property located at 602 E. Washington Street. The Commission voted 7 -0 to recommend the work list Items 1. Comprehensive Plan Update. 2. Complete Riverfront Crossings Plan 3. Review of CB -10 zone requirements including setbacks and height limits. 4. Draft Urban Mixes Use Zone for Riverfront Crossings, Towncrest and other areas 5. Review RM -44 Zone and neighborhood stabilization issues 6. Revise nonconforming situations regulations to create a trigger point for bringing properties into compliance with site development standards based on the value of the improvements being made to the property 7. Add bonus provisions for CB -10 Zone to allow FAR to exceed 10 8. Review woodland buffer requirements 9. Review Comprehensive Plan land use map for properties on Governor St. north of Happy Hollow Park 10. Draft entryway overlay zone or standards for properties at the major entrances to the City of Iowa City 11. Research prohibiting or limiting residential development in the flood hazard area 12. Review Comprehensive Plan land use map for Roosevelt School. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM. Planning and Zoning Commission January 19, 2012 - Formal Page 2 of 11 PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: Eastham stated that he had met with City Council member Jim Throgmorton, who had indicated that he planned on attending some of the Planning and Zoning Commission meetings. Throgmorton had requested that the Board ask other City Council members to also attend in order to see how the Commission works. Freerks stated that Council members are always welcome to attend, but that the Commission would not make a point of inviting them. Miklo stated that the Planning literature generally advises against having Council members in attendance at Commission meetings, because the members then have to vote on what they have seen at the meeting. In the past, there was the impression on occasion that when Council members came to Planning and Zoning meetings that some intimidation was felt by the Commission. Eastham clarified that Throgmorton's interest was just to understand the Planning process. Freerks suggested that perhaps the best path would be for Throgmorton or other interested Council members to sit down with Miklo and staff. However, if they came to a Planning and Zoning meeting, they would not be denied entry. Greenwood Hektoen noted that these are public meetings and are open to everyone. However, if Council members participated in the conversation at a Commission meeting they run the risk of disqualifying them at the Council meeting level. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEMS: Indefinite deferral requested by the applicant on a public hearing to amend the Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation from Private Institutional to Low to Medium Density Multi - Family Stabilization for property located at 602 E. Washington Street. Freerks opened the public hearing. There was none. Freerks closed the public hearing. Freerks asked for a motion for indefinite deferral. Eastham moved to defer indefinitely a public hearing to amend the Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation from Private Institutional to Low to Medium Density Multi - Family Stabilization for property located at 602 E. Washington Street. Koppes seconded. Freerks invited discussion. Koppes asked if she could get clarification on the status of this application. Planning and Zoning Commission January 19, 2012 - Formal Page 3 of 11 Miklo explained that the applicant is working on the design of the building, primarily the exterior. There have been a few neighborhood meetings and some contact with the Historic Preservation Commission. No one was satisfied with the direction the exterior of the building was going. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7 -0. REZONING ITEMS Indefinite deferral requested by the applicant on REZ11 -00017 / VAC11 -00002 submitted by Hunter Properties for a rezoning from Low Density Multi - Family (RM -12) zone and Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RSN -20) zone to Planned Development Overlay Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (OPD /RSN -20) zone for approximately 1 acre of property located at 602 E. Washington Street and the vacation of a portion of the alley right -of -way located east of Johnson Street, south of Ralston Creek. Miklo reiterated that the applicant is working on the design of the building and is hoping to come back with something more in scale with the neighborhood. Freerks opened public hearing. There was none. Freerks closed public hearing. Freerks asked for a motion to defer indefinitely. Weitzel moved to defer indefinitely. REZ11 -00017 / VAC11- 00002, an application submitted by Hunter Properties for a rezoning from Low Density Multi - Family (RM -12) zone and Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RSN -20) zone to Planned Development Overlay Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (OPD /RSN -20) zone for approximately 1 acre of property located at 602 E. Washington Street and the vacation of a portion of the alley right -of -way located east of Johnson Street, south of Ralston Creek. Eastham seconded. Freerks invited discussion. There was none. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7 -0. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: December 15,2011: Eastham moved to approve the minutes. Koppes seconded. The motion carried 7 -0. Planning and Zoning Commission January 19, 2012 - Formal Page 4 of 11 OTHER: Freerks explained that the Commission is asked every year to look over the Commission Work Program. In light of requests by the public and Council to add items to the work program there was a need to prioritize the order in which these items should be addressed. Freerks noted that there has been a reduction in planning staff to accomplish this work. She asked Miklo about the current staffing level. Miklo said that when Associate Planner Christina Kuecker left in June, Planning and Community Development was not able to fill that position because of budget concerns, and that position has been eliminated from next fiscal year. Full -time planners are Miklo and Karen Howard. Sarah Walz works half -time. She works primarily with the Board of Adjustment and occasionally works with development cases and also comprehensive planning. The position that was eliminated was half -time historic preservation and half -time urban planning. Miklo is now staffing the Historic Preservation Commission. They now consult with an architect who reviews some of the detailed projects for that commission. Miklo is also responsible for staffing the Planning and Zoning Commission. In the past Howard has done more long -range comprehensive planning and code work and is now also working more regularly on current development cases. Freerks explained that City Council has asked that a number of items be added to an already long list that staff and commission are responsible for. The task tonight is to look at the list and the recent additions and discuss priorities. The Commission is also invited to add things to the list, which staff will then bring before City Council. Eastham asked Miklo if the number of development items, rezoning or subdivision, was different this past year than in previous years. Miklo said going back 6 or 7 years, it was approximately 40 to 50 cases per year. In 2008 and 2009 there was a drop -off but then in 2010 and 2011 it started going back up. Last year there were 42 cases, almost as many as they did prior to 2008. He explained that every case is different and that some cases take more time than others for the staff and the Commission to review. Miklo explained that staff has an architect who works on Historic Preservation projects who works on Fridays and a few hours in the evening. They haven't been able to do any growth in terms of studying historic districts or landmarks. Other than the annual awards programs, they have not been able to do much with their educational programs. In the past, they have applied for grants to do some of that work, but those are scarce these days. Thomas asked about the update to the Comprehensive Plan which is funded by a grant and is due November 2012. Weitzel wanted to know if there are things that the Commission asks about and for staff reasons or other reasons can't be done, and if those can be put off until the next year. Miklo explained that it hasn't been unusual for projects to be bumped to the next year. He said that it will not be possible to complete all the items on the list for fiscal year 2012, so staff needs to know what the priorities are. Miklo said that on the existing list, items 1. Comprehensive Plan Update, 2. Riverfront Crossings Plan, 3. CB -10 zone and 4. Urban Mixes Use zone, he sees no movement in how those are addressed, and his advice is that they should continue as planned. He believes items 5. Planning and Zoning Commission January 19, 2012 - Formal Page 5 of 11 Entryway overlay zone and 6. Researching residential development in the flood hazard area is less urgent. Miklo said that Issue #5 concerning the entryway overlay zone was raised when some big box retailers and car dealerships were being built on the edge of town and there were concerns about how entry-ways to the city look along with some traffic concerns. Miklo thinks this is one that could wait. Item #6 concerned the flood hazard area. There were amendments last year that strengthened regulations in the floodplains. There was concern about going even farther, especially with residential development. Miklo thought that you have to weigh the urgency of this item against other things on the list. As far as the recent additions on the list, Council had directed staff to review the RM -44 zone. Staff is in process of researching that issue. Council then decided to broaden its scope and review neighborhood stabilization issues. Miklo said that would entail looking at how many bedrooms a rental unit can have, parking issues, public and private open space, and incentives to produce one or two bedroom apartments as opposed to the larger number of bedrooms in the student market. Neighborhood stabilization would also look at code enforcement, trash and litter laws and other concerns that other departments will have to be involved in. The next item on the list. Reviewing the Comprehensive Plan land use map for properties on Governor Street north of Happy Hollow Park, came about when Council reversed their first vote on the rezoning from Commercial Office to Low Density Multi - Family on a property on Governor St. Council asked staff to look at that case because there are other areas in town where that may be of concern in the future. Miklo thinks this item could wait until some of the other items on the list are addressed. The next item concerning CB -10 amendments are already in rough draft form. This amendment includes trying to provide quality housing downtown with diversity and number of bedrooms. The next item on the list concerns woodland buffer. There's a rough draft started, so that could come before the Commission as it can be fit in. The last item on the list concerns non - conforming situations. Staff had looked at this in the past couple years. In most cases these are parking or landscaping standards. Staff is looking at ideas at how to make this apply more strategically; setting a threshold that brings more properties into compliance but is not difficult for small businesses. There is a rough draft that could come before the Commission relatively soon. Miklo went back to Freerk's question about whether the Commission thinks there are other issues that need to be looked at and fit into the list. Koppes brought up the issue of Roosevelt School. Miklo said at some time in the future, especially if the property is anything other than a public institution, it will require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. The City Council with the Commission's recommendation will have final say on what the land use should be. Koppes is leaning toward reviewing the RM -44 zone as a priority. Freerks agreed, especially since City Council has indicated these as priorities and has already Planning and Zoning Commission January 19, 2012 - Formal Page 6 of 11 asked staff to start researching it. Koppes said that it's become a priority for the public also, so it needs to be looked at sooner rather than later. Eastham said he had no problem ranking the priorities as 1. Comprehensive Plan Update, 2. Riverfront Crossings Plan, 3. CB -10 zone and 4. Urban Mixes Use zone, and then adding Review RM -44 Zone and neighborhood stabilization issues, Review Comprehensive Plan land use map for properties on Governor Street and Add bonus provisions for CB -10 Zone, the first 3 items from the recent additions, list as a priority plan. He does question, though, exactly what he is being asked to do. For him, the residential items are being driven by the perceived and sometimes real effect of student occupancy in residential areas and the near downtown. He wants to know what the Council is asking the Commission to do about that. Freerks said it was to review the stabilization efforts. Eastham said he needed a better definition of what stabilization means. Miklo said this is what staff is researching and they have many proposals in some of their District Plans about stabilization efforts. They are also looking at what other college communities do. He thinks their strongest tool in neighborhood stabilization will be how many bedrooms are allowed in a rental situation. Eastham said he thought Iowa City has a distinct land use situation, especially in the Central Planning District because there is a substantial, large and growing demand from students for housing within that limited geographical area that is already pretty well developed. He thinks attempts to limit the number of bedrooms in dwelling units in most of that area will not have any desirable effect without rezoning in other areas to increase the number of units with bedrooms which students would want. Freerks said these are ongoing issues addressing quality of life for everyone, including student, and the fact that they might start to talk about capping the number of bedrooms she sees as a positive thing for the community as a whole. Eastham said he looks favorably upon that approach but that he knows the student housing market increases every year. Thomas wanted to know the demand for student housing with respect to the number of students who are looking for it and the available housing stock that is marketed for the students — is there an over - supply. He says it seems in reading the Comprehensive Plan and the central District plan of 2008 there's strong demand for other household types to move into the Central District and because of how development is occurring that's closing off those kinds of opportunities. He thinks everyone is acknowledging that the issue of stability is addressing the problems that come with large numbers of student housing, especially the itinerant aspect. He wanted to know how they can promote the Central Districts as areas welcoming for other populations. He thinks that concerning stabilization, most of the emphasis is on the problem of the short-term renter at the expense of making these districts inviting for the other populations. Thomas also thinks that the University really needs to assume sufficient responsibility. Planning and Zoning Commission January 19, 2012 - Formal Page 7 of 11 Miklo said that in terms of the Council identifying stabilization as one of their strategic plan goals, he felt that the University has to be involved in a long -term solution to the issue. Addressing Eastham's' earlier remarks, Miklo said that there may be areas where they identify for higher densities, but they may be in the form of 1- bedrooms or efficiencies. The supply would just be in a different form. Freerks said she thinks they have found that there are certain types of living environments that haven't benefited anyone — the people living in them or near them for the businesses around them. Dyer noted that with the cost of land, 1 or 2- bedrooms would be prohibitively expensive for students. Eastham said that he would like some more information so he could see more clearly what number of bedrooms per apartment actually would provide opportunities for housing for students. Dyer said that the university is adding students rapidly because of economic issues, and it seems to her that the university and the City need to coordinate on that issue so there's some notion of what to anticipate. She thinks that if, as stated in a newspaper article recently, the head of housing at the university doesn't think there's a problem with student housing off- campus, something needs to happen. Thomas said with the issues of neighborhood stabilization what is of most concern to him would be stabilization as it relates to interface zones between downtown and the Central neighborhoods. He thinks people are interested in the concept of pocket neighborhoods and wanted to know if that concept could move forward with the existing zoning. Miklo explained the concept of pocket neighborhoods, also called co- housing. Smaller dwelling units surround a common or green area. Often there will be a shared kitchen or dining room. He said that would be possible in the RS -12 zone or through planned developments. Freerks thought that the non - conforming regulation probably needs to be close to the top of the list. She thought # 1 -4 stay as they are. The item under recent additions Review the RM -44 Zone needs to move up to #5. Then add in the non - conforming situation and the CB -10, which are already partially done. Overlay zones could move down and researching the flood plain has been addressed at length already. They know they need to do more on this, but Freerks thinks that could move down because what they need is to get a lot of information and feedback from the community, and they don't want to hurry that process. Eastham and Koppes agreed that researching the flood plain could be delayed. Weitzel thinks that having the ordinance in place for a couple years to see what the results are would be helpful before moving forward with the flood plain issue. Freerks thinks the Woodland Buffer could move up under reviewing RM -44 and the Non - Conforming Situations. After that, perhaps place the Governor Street issue, which is maybe more crucial than what are currently #5, entryway overlay zone, and #6, researching the floodplain, on the list. Koppes said she thinks that RM -44 is going to become more and more important. Planning and Zoning Commission January 19, 2012 - Formal Page 8 of 11 All agreed that the RM -44 issue should be ranked at #5. Miklo summed up the list as Freerks had suggested. Items #1 -4 remain as is: 1. Comprehensive Plan Update, 2. Riverfront Crossings Plan, 3. CB -10 zone and 4. Urban Mixes Use zone for Riverfront Crossings, Item #5 is review of RM -44. Item #6 is non - conforming situations. Item #7 is bonus provisions for the CB -10 zone. Item #8 is Code Amendment Woodland Buffers. Item #9 is Review of Comprehensive Plan pertaining to Governor St. Items #10 and #11 would be the entrance -way zones and development in the flood plain. Miklo said that in the upcoming months, new ideas will come up through Council and developers, so keeping #10 and #11 will help the Commission think where the new things should go in the priorities, so it's important to leave them on them. Eastham wanted to know what adding the FAR to the CB -10 would accomplish. Miklo explained there are two regulations that control what happens downtown. One is the FAR in the zoning code right now which means that you can take a property and cover it entirely with a 10 -story building or you can cover half the property and build a 20 -story building. But the 20 story is not achievable because the airport overlay puts a cap on the height. There are places where if someone builds a building that covers the entire property the FAA ceiling would be a bit higher than 10- stories. The thought is not to make it a blanket right to any property downtown but you could have it as a bonus if you do certain things such as 1- bedrooms or efficiencies, better quality building materials, not tearing down a historic building. The draft on this has been started by staff. Eastham asked if the items on the work list that might be available for increasing housing for students in non - residential areas would be the CB -10 requirements as well as the Riverfront Crossings Plan. Miklo said that it would mainly be the Riverfront Crossings Plan. Freerks said she thought that many of the items on the work list would initiate conversations about the student housing issues. Thomas asked that if they didn't make the Governor Street a priority, would they just be waiting for a developer to come in. Miklo explained that with the current zoning, someone could propose to redevelop that property. If someone proposes other zoning, the application would have to go through the Commission and City Council so something other than office with apartments on the second floor is going to be reviewed by the Commission anyway. Miklo thought there was less urgency about that item unless someone was going to build an office building on that site. Thomas thought this offered an opportunity for planning to the City rather than just reacting to an application. Miklo agreed with Thomas' assessment, but asked if the Commission wanted to tackle that particular item before other items on the list. Thomas thought part of the prioritization should factor in how much time each of these items Planning and Zoning Commission January 19, 2012 - Formal Page 9 of 11 would take. He thought that when Governor Street rezoning came before the Commission, the staff report had been prepared by an intern, and he's not seeing this item taking a lot of work. Miklo said they would want to consult with the property owner, the adjacent property owners, and the larger neighborhood to get some ideas. It might not take much work, but again, how does the Commission perceive this item as a priority in relation to all the others on the list. Koppes said she would actually like to expand that item to include the Roosevelt School property. She suggested that they include a work item that identifies any institutional land that could become private. Miklo said staff would love to tackle issues like Roosevelt School, the synagogue and Governor Street but they just don't have the resources to do that immediately. Almost all those projects are going to have to go through some process for redevelopment, so they do have some control on what happens to them. Freerks said there was a bit of comfort in the fact that if something were to happen with Roosevelt School and Governor Street before they came up on the list that there would be a level of review. With some of the other items on the list, that is not the case. She is comfortable with the list as revised. Koppes suggested that they add Roosevelt School to the list as #12, even though she doesn't expect staff to be able to get to it. Freerks said that was a good idea just to let people know that they are aware of it. Koppes asked if Washington Street could be added. Freerks asked if there were other properties in those interface zones like the Washington Street property that would be best to have a different zone assignment and could be added to the list. Miklo said in 2005 those were identified. They went forward with proposals on some of those and were partially successful He thinks that rezoning areas is more difficult than amending codes. Thomas would like to avoid another Washington Street. Freerks agreed, but said she understands that they have limited time to work on these things. She stated that she hopes Council will read these minutes regarding discussion of the list. Miklo said staff will present a memo to Council putting this forward as the Commission's recommendation for the work program. Council will then agree or make changes to it. Freerks asked if there was any other business under this agenda item. Miklo reminded the Commission about the meetings February 1 st and 9th and their roles as Commissioners if they attend. He asked them to check out the Good Ideas page. ADJOURNMENT: Koppes moved to adjourn. Planning and Zoning Commission January 19, 2012 - Formal Page 10 of 11 Eastham seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 7 -0 vote. z O U) N� � OC 20 OV V Lu z W N z z N 04 06 Z Ow z� za z a J CL c� z w w 'a LL. 0 z w w 2 a O z mill ■ ■ ■ 1 oil 01 1 mill oil I mill 0 z w w 2 a O z mill 1 E _ O �a O O U p� X LU C C C N d Q 11 II u n w XOOz w Y 3b(8) PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVED FEBRUARY 2, 2012 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Stewart Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Elizabeth Koppes, Tim Weitzel, Paula Swygard, John Thomas MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Sarah Greenwood Hektoen, Karen Howard OTHERS PRESENT: None RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: The Commission voted 7 -0 to recommend approval of amendments to Title 14, Zoning, Article 4E, Nonconforming Situations, that would simplify the process for regulating nonconforming development, such as parking areas, screening, landscaping, outdoor lighting, and similar as alterations are made to a property. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. Freerks said that she had received a phone call that week from a Mr. Pattshull, who owns property behind the synagogue. He had some ideas and wanted to know what would be a good time to talk about them. Freerks indicated that there is public discussion time at the beginning of every Planning and Zoning meeting. She also told him that he could contact staff or talk to the developer. She told him that if he has ideas, it's better to get them out early because it's much more difficult to do things later. ZONING CODE ITEM: Discussion of amendments to Title 14, Zoning, Article 4E, Nonconforming Situations, that would simplify the process for regulating nonconforming development, such as parking areas, screening, landscaping, outdoor lighting, and similar as alterations are made to a property. Howard explained that nonconforming situations are created when the zoning designation of a property changes or when the zoning regulations themselves change such that an existing lawfully established use, structure, lot or site elements no longer comply with the zoning regulations. In this case we are focusing on nonconforming development, meaning an element of development such as a parking area, loading area, outdoor lighting, signage, landscaping, Planning and Zoning Commission February 2, 2012 - Formal Page 2 of 10 screening, or similar site element that does not conform to the Code due to a change in the zone or in the regulations. Because there were few standards regarding site development prior to 2005, there are a number of nonconforming properties in the city's older commercial areas. She explained that the intent of this portion of the zoning code is to bring these elements into compliance over time, but allow some flexibility to address site constraints on existing developed properties. Howard explained that currently the triggers for bringing sites into compliance are when a new use is proposed on a property with buildings that have been vacant for over a year, the entire property has to be brought into compliance with the site development standards. The second trigger is if there is a change from one land use to a different land use. The final trigger is if someone expands a building or use on a property, they are required to bring certain site elements into compliance. Eastham asked for an explanation of a new use for properties that have been vacant over a year and a change of use. Howard explained that even if the same type of use moves into a building that has been vacant over a year, it's still considered a new use due to the amount of time it has been vacant. A change of use could be a florist shop changing to a restaurant, for example, and the building is not vacant for any period of time. Howard said that these triggers aren't quite working the way that had been intended. There are still situations where small changes trigger site development improvements that are so costly as to discourage the reuse or improvements to existing commercial properties. In some cases, it may be easier for a business to simply move to a new location rather than makes changes on an older site, which may create an incentive for sprawl on the edge of town and vacant areas in the center of the city. Freerks asked if the discussion is solely about commercial properties and if the site development amendments applied to all zones. Howard affirmed that it did apply to all zones, but because commercial properties are more likely to have exterior site elements such as large parking areas, extensive exterior lighting, outdoor storage and display areas, that the vast majority of the noncompliant cases are commercial properties. Howard said because these triggers weren't working as hoped, they have looked at other zoning ordinances to find out what other mechanisms they can use. Staff is recommending a new mechanism where site improvements would be triggered whenever physical improvements are made to buildings on a site. If the cost of the alterations exceeds $25,000 or if the value of alterations is 35% or greater than the assessed value of all improvements on the site, noncompliant site development would need to be brought into compliance with current standards, but only up to a cap not to exceed 10% of the value of the proposed alterations. These changes would not be cumulative, so every time a there were improvements to or expansions to a building or buildings on a site, more of the noncompliant site elements would be brought into compliance. This will have the effect of spreading out the costs of bringing these elements into compliance and also making sure that the costs of site improvements is reasonable and proportional to the improvements that the owner is making to the buildings on the site. Planning and Zoning Commission February 2, 2012 - Formal Page 3of10 Thomas asked about a shopping center scenario and if the property owner would be responsible for bringing the site development up to standard in the case of a large parking lot or it the individual tenants within the building would be responsible. Howard explained that it would be up to the property owner to decide whether to make their tenants help pay for the improvements. She cited a case where a retail tenant had moved out of Sycamore Mall and an office tenant moved in. Very few alterations were done in the space, yet that new use would require any non - compliant screening around the entirety of Sycamore Mall to be brought into compliance, which would be a significant one -time cost. Freerks asked what kind of work had been done in that case. Howard explained that the City is making improvements to Lower Muscatine Drive, so making site improvements to the mall property are on hold until the City project is completed. She said that a number of properties have been caught in a similar situation as Sycamore Mall, but also noted that a lot of improvements had also been made to properties around town since 2005 and these improvements have been beneficial to the properties and to the general function and aesthetics along some of our older commercial streets. Eastham asked for more explanation about the choice of trigger amounts and the cap. Howard said she had chosen these amounts as a model from an existing zoning ordinance. In this case the model that was used was the Portland, Oregon zoning code. Freerks asked whose burden it is to provide the dollar amount assessment for the improvements. Howard explained that when someone applies for a building permit, they have to estimate the value of the improvements they are making. As for the value of the property, this would just be based on the assessed value according to the Iowa City Assessor. Freerks wanted to know if the City would need to review the estimate of the improvement costs. Howard said that building permit fees are already to some extent based on the value of the improvements being made and that the Building Department is used to reviewing these values to make sure they are reasonable and truthful. Thomas asked if there would have to be some evaluation of the cap as well. Howard explained that it is the responsibility of the applicant to document that the cost of the required site development or permits will be greater than 10% of the value of the proposed alterations. She noted that the City Housing Inspectors are knowledgeable about the costs of improvements. Thomas sees a potential conflict of interest with the person paying for the improvements also estimating their value but sees it as less of a problem as long as the City has the ability to verify the accuracy of the cap. Freerks questioned why the applicability sections under 14 -5E -7 and 14 -5E -8 have been deleted. Planning and Zoning Commission February 2, 2012 - Formal Page 4 of 10 Howard explained that the purpose of striking these particular provisions were just to eliminate redundancy within the zoning code. There is another section at the beginning of that chapter of the zoning ordinance where these applicability items are listed as well. In other words, these are not substantive changes to the content of the ordinance, but merely eliminating redundant and unnecessary language. Swygard asked for an explanation of why the priorities are listed in the order they are in 14 -4E- 8. Howard said that the City received the most complaints about there being nothing in the Code prior to 2005 regarding screening parking lots and vehicular use areas from the street and the sidewalk such that cars were sometimes parked and extending over the public sidewalk. Lack of standards in these areas created an unpleasant and sometimes unsafe pedestrian experience, and the City thought it was important to put standards into place. So, these types of standards were placed at the top of the priority list, so would be the first things to be improved over time. Miklo stated that when the Commission reviewed this a few years ago, it also identified this as a priority. Howard said she thought the order was basically a judgment call. The City does have the discretion to re -order those priorities if a particular situation merits it and every property would be different. Swygard asked how staff would evaluate the outdoor lighting standard in order to move it up on the list. Howard replied that perhaps if staff knew there had been a lot of complaints about noncompliant lighting they could change the order or priority so that the lighting could be addressed earlier. Swygard said she was thinking of a situation at Paul's Discount on Highway 1, which has come before the Commission in the past. There are proposals to improve and expand this development and the site is noncompliant with a lot of these site development elements, such as screening and lighting. She noted that the exterior lighting if not shielded or properly placed on the property can be very intrusive to neighboring properties, particularly if close to residential areas. Eastham agreed and said he would be interested in moving the standard of outdoor lighting up the list to at least the third priority, if not higher. Howard said this is a general order of priority but there is the ability to adjust that based on the needs of the site. She added that if Paul's, for example, were buying new light fixture, they have to be compliant. If you are building a new parking lot or redoing it, everything has to be built to current standards. Eastham reiterated that he thought outdoor lighting standards should be put higher on the list. Ordering the priority list in this way would give the Housing and Inspection Department more authority in telling an owner to meet the outdoor lighting standards before doing anything else. He asked if the term "development standards" is well defined in the Code and if there would be any reason for adding a 10th development standard in case the current list of 9 standards misses something that's in the Code now or will be in the future. Planning and Zoning Commission February 2, 2012 - Formal Page 5 of 10 Freerks said the Code is a document that has frequent changes, and a change could be made for future standards that arise. Howard stated that outdoor lighting could certainly be moved up in the priority list. She also said she thought that all contingencies had been well covered already in the Code, but a catch- all provision could be added per Eastham's request. Freerks opened the public hearing. There were no public comments related to this item. Freerks closed the public hearing. Freerks asked for a motion to approve. Weitzel moved to approve amendments to Title 14, Zoning, Article 4E, Nonconforming Situations, that would simplify the process for regulating nonconforming development, such as parking areas, screening, landscaping, outdoor lighting, and similar as alterations are made to a property. Koppes seconded. Freerks invited discussion. Eastham moved to move (9) on the priority list — Outdoor lighting standards — to position (3) and reorder the other items in sequence as follows: 14 -4E -8 Regulation of Nonconforming Development 2.b. (1) Screening of existing parking, loading, vehicular use areas, and outdoor storage and display areas along street -side lot lines according to the applicable screening standard. Setback requirements may be modified to address site constraints; (2) Screening of existing parking, loading, vehicular use areas, and outdoor storage and display areas from the Iowa River or from any Parks and Open Space Use, including trails, according to the applicable screening standard. Setback requirements may be modified to address site constraints; (3) Outdoor lighting standards; (4) Bicycle parking requirements; (5) Street and residential tree requirements; (6) Design, layout, landscaping, and tree requirements within parking areas; (7) Pedestrian circulation standards; (8) Screening of existing parking, loading, vehicular use areas, and outdoor storage and display areas along side or rear lot lines. Setback requirements may be modified to address site constraints; (9) Access management standards. Compliance with these standards may be moved up in the priority list, at the discretion of the City, to address traffic safety concerns. Swygard seconded. Planning and Zoning Commission February 2, 2012 - Formal Page 6 of 10 Thomas said he assumed the outdoor lighting standard was so low was because of the expense involved. However, he said if there's existing lighting with a glare problem that shouldn't be that expensive to correct. Howard referred them to 14 -4E -8, Nonconforming Outdoor Lighting that states that any existing light fixture that is nonconforming with regard to how the fixture is aimed must be brought immediately into compliance if it is possible to re -aim the existing fixture. Thomas stated that it was also possible to install shields without even redirecting the light. Howard said the second item in the 14 -4E -8, Nonconforming Outdoor Lighting refers to that issue and agreed that existing lighting fixtures can sometimes be retrofitted with better shielding. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7 -0. Eastham asked about Number 3 under Section A., Demolished or Destroyed Site, and wants to know if these changes would be applicable to correcting the property at the corner of Benton and West Riverside Drive. If the owner of that property decides to re- establish a filling station use there with the same building, would these provisions require compliance with the change to the code. Howard stated that it would depend on the amount of money the owner is putting in to improving the site. She noted that the paragraph Eastham had referred to related to if they tore down the buildings or if they were destroyed in some way. Freerks noted that there was a typo on line 7 on page three of the staff memo. Dyer asked if a commercial building were damaged 50% by a tornado, would they be improving the property or bringing it back to value and what would trigger what. Howard said that would be getting into the "nonconforming structure" portion of the code, which is a separate issue from the topic being discussed at the current meeting. She noted that there is a trigger for bringing a building into compliance based on the percentage of the building loss. Number 3, Section A. is saying that if an owner cleared a site for whatever reason, just like a new site, the owner would need to make everything compliant. Dyer asked if there was a percentage of damage sustained that would preclude rebuilding. Freerks wanted to know what the percentages were. Miklo stated that in the current Code it is 75% Thomas said he applauds the City for having these standards to bring sites into compliance. He said he thinks they are important. However, he said he got the sense that there is a devaluation of them in some way that is implicit in that they are considered a burden on site development when in fact they are important. These standards for site development are in the Code and they are there for a reason. He stated he thought they were in some ways as important as bringing a building into compliance. He said he might personally have some argument with the way they are prioritized, as in the extent of them as they might pertain to a shopping center where you are required to bring into compliance with respect to screening the entire parking lot. At the same Planning and Zoning Commission February 2, 2012 - Formal Page 7 of 10 time, he said that other aspects of bringing the site into compliance with respect to planting trees in a large parking lot, for example, are extremely important, as is lighting. Thomas asked if there was a way of value engineering bringing a site into compliance so that the costs are not so great, or of extending the time period, ways of reducing the burden for bringing the site into compliance short of making this kind of proposal. He said he was concerned because this proposal may mean that there will never be a sufficient trigger to change. Howard said the last time they made some changes to the Code the standards were that certain things would have to be brought into compliance and the rest of the things would never have to be brought into compliance. She said she thought that this is a better approach because it's more incremental and even those things at the end of the list would eventually be brought into compliance. These new standards were put in the Code because they are important, but at the same time there's the desire to make it easier for businesses when they are trying to decide whether or not to stay where they are or move to a new site. Thomas asked if this could be handled through the Board of Adjustment (BOA) or staff review. He said it was hard for him to envision every circumstance in which this comes up and that there might be a way of intelligently applying that list of items. Howard said this would all be triggered by the building permit and the site planning process so it's an administrative process through staff. When the plans come in, staff would first list the things that are non - compliant. There's then an assessment done at the site. There would be an assessment of the improvement being made to the buildings. It would be staff's recommendation not to put additional reviews on the BOA's docket. These are fairly clear and objective standards so there is no need for a separate review body to review each application for improvements to a property. It may have the effect of increasing the time it takes to make fairly minor improvements to a property. Freerks said she thought the proposed changes to the ordinance are worth trying and if there needed to be additional changes or tweaks the Commission could revisit this issue again in the future. Eastham said he thought this was an attempt to try to balance noncompliance and relatively modest sized commercial developments against noncompliance in much larger developments. Thomas said he thought this is an economic hardship issue, and if there isn't an economic hardship, then he would like to see a more rigorous application of bringing a site into compliance. He said he doesn't know how to bring into the process the question of economic hardship. Howard said that would be a question of how complicated you would want to make the process. Determining economic hardship by assessing an applicant's business and investment decisions would quite possibly create hard feelings about the City being heavy- handed in its regulations, and it would be difficult to judge what an economic hardship would be for any owner. Owners would be reticent to provide information proving economic hardship because it could then potentially become a public document. Thomas stated that the City thinks site development compliance is important enough that it requires it for new development. Planning and Zoning Commission February 2, 2012 - Formal Page 8 of 10 Freerks reiterated that she is open to coming back to this in a couple of years and reassessing how it's working. She knows the issue has been a problem for a number of business owners and that the Code is not working the way it is now written. Eastham said by requiring new development to meet the current site development standards it provides an example and perhaps an incentive for other owners who want to do redevelopment to compare and decide they need to invest some money in improving their site. Howard clarified that this proposal would not prevent any owner from improving their property whenever they want to. Thomas said that in his research about the way other cities handled this issue, Portland has two scenarios, the second scenario being paying for the improvements over a longer period. Howard said Portland's scenarios were based on their system of regulating property and were a balancing of the nonconforming situations on the property itself. Portland also has a different system of land use regulation, so it's hard to compare to Iowa City. The intent was to use the relevant portion of their ordinance as a model, not to propose a wholesale change to the way Iowa City addresses these issues. Thomas said he has concerns about this, but he said it's less problematic if it can be revisited in time so they can see if it's reducing the onerousness of meeting the standards while at the same time moving toward the goal of achieving compliance and achieving a balance between the two. Howard said there were other mechanisms to improve commercial areas besides just the zoning rules, for example, if it's an area that's been targeted for revitalization or if it's in the Comprehensive Plan, the City Council can make improvements to a whole corridor using capital improvement funds or other economic incentive tools. The Zoning Code is just one tool. Thomas asked if the City was in compliance with all these site development standards Howard stated that the City probably was not compliant in all cases. Thomas urged that the City set a standard if they are requiring it of others. Howard explained that should the City make an improvement that would trigger requirements, they would have to come into compliance as well. Eastham said he thought that Thomas's idea was not a bad idea to make to the City Council in a year when there are more funds available. Thomas said he thinks planting trees has many advantages like storm water management and temperature management in the summer in this climate. He said he thinks many aspects of the site development code are extremely important and that the City should be emphasizing compliance with regard to certain aspects. He admitted that he is struggling with the list because some of them are quite expensive and have benefit than others. Miklo said that if this is approved by Council, it could be tracked over the course of the next two years and then report on the building enforcement observations over that time and evaluate whether it's working or not. Planning and Zoning Commission February 2, 2012 - Formal Page 9 of 10 Freerks asked if there was any more discussion. Seeing none a vote was taken. Motion was approved unanimously. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: January 19,2012: Koppes moved to approve the minutes with corrections. Dyer seconded. The motion carried 7 -0. OTHER: Update on Comprehensive Plan Meeting at West High School on February 1 and at SE Junior High on February 9cn Miklo reported that at the first Comprehensive Plan Update meeting held February 1 at West High. He reminded the Commission that another meeting is scheduled for February 9 at SE Junior High and they are all welcome to attend. Eastham asked for an update on the application for rezoning at 821 E. Jefferson St. Greenwood - Hektoen said the Council didn't consider it because it had been deferred. ADJOURNMENT: Weitzel moved to adjourn. Eastham seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 7 -0 vote. z O N U� 20 00 V� CD W N 0 Q N N o!f z OLU z �. za z a J CL O LL z W W millQ oil O z F= w W O LL z I� Ell milli I ■1■1 E O C (o z U p� L11 X C C L , E II - Q z X< II II II W de OOz } W Y ■ 111 ■IYN t ■ ■■c� oil O z F= w W O LL z I� Ell milli I ■1■1 E O C (o z U p� L11 X C C L , E II - Q z X< II II II W de OOz } W Y E O C (o z U p� L11 X C C L , E II - Q z X< II II II W de OOz } W Y CALL TO ORDER: MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT: STAFF ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: FINAL /APPROVED POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD MINUTES — January 10, 2012 Chair Donald King called the meeting to order at 5:30 P.M. Melissa Jensen, Peter Jochimsen, Royceann Porter, Joseph Treloar None Staff Kellie Tuttle and Catherine Pugh None 3b(9) Captain Rick Wyss of the ICPD; Caroline Dieterle, Charles Eastham, and Marian Coleman Public. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL None CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by Jochimsen and seconded by Treloar to adopt the consent calendar as presented or amended. • Minutes of the meeting on 11/16/11 • ICPD Use of Force Report — July 2011 • ICPD Use of Force Report — August 2011 • ICPD Department Memo #11 -40 (July- August 2011 Use of Force Review) • ICPD Quarterly Summary Report (Quarter 4 and all Quarters) IAIR /PCRB,2011 Motion carried, 5/0. Motion by Porter, seconded by Jensen to accept additional correspondence by Annie Tucker, which was handed out at the meeting. Motion carried, 5/0. Motion by Treloar, seconded by Porter to add correspondence to the next meeting agenda for discussion. Motion carried, 5/0. OLD BUSINESS Board Packet Distribution — Tuttle had emailed the Board the meeting packet in a PDF file and also hard copy. All Board members, with the exception of Jochimsen who would still like hardcopy distribution, agreed that this was acceptable for packet distribution with the exception of confidential material which would still be mailed hardcopy. January 10, 2012 Page 2 NEW BUSINESS PUBLIC DISCUSSION BOARD INFORMATION STAFF INFORMATION EXECUTIVE SESSION Community Forum — The Board discussed ideas for the topic of the forum and agreed that some clarification of the Board name should be discussed and Pugh also agreed to give an overview of the Review Process and the purview of the Board. Dieterle inquired about childcare during the meeting. Tuttle said she would look into it but did not know what the City's position would be because of liability issues, staffing, space, etc. It was suggested by Treloar and Porter that an outside group could be asked to do it. Tuttle will check with the City Attorney's office and report back to the Board at the next meeting. Dieterle asked the Board what had happened with the comprehensive review of the ordinance, by -laws, and standard operating procedures that the Board had been working on and stated those might be good items for discussion at the forum. King responded that for the time being those items have been tabled. Coleman commented on how she believed there was some confusion regarding the name of the Board and thought some clarification would help citizens. Dieterle also suggested looking at changing the name of the Board. None. None. Porter read and handed out a statement that she prepared. Moved by Jochimsen, seconded by Jensen to accept correspondence from Porter which was read and handed out at the meeting. Motion carried, 4/0, Porter abstaining. Motion by Treloar, seconded by Jensen to add correspondence to the next meeting agenda for discussion. Motion carried, 4/0, Porter abstaining. Tuttle informed Board members that several new items had been added to the PCRB webpage. A link to the Board packets is now available, all forum summaries and annual reports are now assessable on the website, and the public complaint reports are also being added. Motion by Jochimsen and seconded by Treloar 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 Kew .'P 10, 2012 Page 3 government, to the extent that the government body receiving those communications from such persons outside of government could reasonably believe that those persons would be discouraged from making them to that government body if they were available for general public examination. Motion carried, 5/0. Open session adjourned at 6:02 P.M. (Porter left executive session due to a conflict of interest — 6:04 P.M.) REGULAR SESSION Returned to open session at 6:21 P.M. Motion by Jochimsen, seconded by Treloar to set the level of review for PCRB Complaint #11 -02 to 8- 8- 7(13)(1)(a), on the record with no additional investigation. Motion carried, 4/0, Porter abstaining. Motion by Jochimsen, seconded by Jensen to request a 30 -day extension for PCRB Complaint #11 -02, due to timelines and scheduling. Motion carried, 4/0, Porter abstaining. TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subject to change) • February 14, 2012, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm (Moved to 2/22/12) • February 22, 2012, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm • March 13, 2012, 5:30 PM. Helling Conference Rm (Moved to 3/21/12) • March 21, 2012, 5:30 PM. Helling Conference Rm • April 10, 2012, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Room • April 17, 2012, 7:00 PM, Iowa City Public Library — Rm A (Community Forum) Motion by Treloar, seconded by Porter to move the February 14th meeting to Wednesday, February 22nd and to move the March 13th meeting to Wednesday, March 21St due to timelines and scheduling. Motion carried, 5/0. ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Jensen, seconded by Treloar. Motion carried, 5/0. Meeting adjourned at 6:27 P.M. O WO 5UN N a w�W �z � W U F W� U a 0 a bt u u u a��zz �coOZ ; W �ti A L tiH a ° as u a��zz �coOZ ; Approved Minutes January 2012 MINUTES SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION JANUARY 19, 2012 ROOM 209, IOWA CITY /JOHNSON COUNTY SENIOR CENTER Members Present: Jay Honohan, Daniel Benton, Rose Hanson, Chuck Felling, Michael Lensing Members Absent: Sarah Maiers Staff Present: Linda Kopping, Kristin Kromray Others Present: None RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: None. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 4:00 PM. Honohan chaired the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM DECEDMER 15, 2011 MEETING: Motion: To accept the minutes from the December 15, 2011 meeting. Motion carried on a vote of 5/0. Lensing /Benton. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. COMMISSION ASSIGNMENTS: Honohan will attend a City Council meeting on January 24th. No commission member is available to attend a Board of Supervisors meeting this month. STEERING COUNCIL REPORT: Felling reported that Mary Lou Henley is joining the Steering Council as a replacement for Paula Vaughn who has moved. Felling reported that Louis De Grazia suggested that the Center do some classes or forums related to aging topics such as downsizing your home, dealing with chronic pain, moving into assisted living and other pertinent topics. 3 Approved Minutes January 2012 Kopping reported that a letter is being sent out to the membership regarding the budget meetings that are occurring at the Senior Center in February to discuss various ways to raise revenue. Felling inquired about the temporary sign. Kromray reported that the she is working with Old Capitol Screen Printers to order a temporary vinyl sign to put over the existing blank limestone sign. REPORT OF NOMINATING COMMITTEE: Felling reported that the nominating committee proposed the following officers for 2012: Honohan, chair; Lensing, vice chair; Maiers, secretary. ELECTION OF 2012 OFFICERS: Motion: To accept the slate of proposed officers proposed by the nominating committee for 2012. Motion carried on a vote of 5/0. Benton /Hanson. BUDGET UPDATE: Kopping reported that she had presented to the City Council about the Senior Center Budget. Honohan reported on an annual basis he, as a representative of the Commission, and Kopping have gone to the City Council to speak with them about the budget. Because Kopping has already talked with the Council, he would like to send a letter reinforcing Kopping's remarks to them instead. A copy of the letter is attached to these minutes. Motion: To submit a budget letter written by Honohan to the City Council. Motion carried on a vote of 5/0. Benton /Hanson. OPERATIONAL OVERVIEW: Kopping reported that she is working on finishing the operational handbook, working on the accreditation process with the NCOA, and finishing the spring program guide. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Honohan inquired about the amount of funding that the Board of Supervisors is providing this year. The Board has provided $17,500 the past two quarters this fiscal year. Approved Minutes January 2012 ADJOURNMENT: Motion: To Adjourn. Motion carried on a vote of 5/0. Lensing /Felling. N C%4 �O C: N c6 N CU O L Q Q Q 0 .N .E E� O O L) 0 C d 0 N t0 � � � N N Q O N N r LO r co r O r O N CD co r co O ti (O LO O LO M O r N X X X X X w O cn N N v M M N Cl— �— .-- �- x w E N N N N N N N H O C O O O C O O a — N O O cc m LL t3 p 0 C __1 _ _ = O N V N E E Y U Z 0 U a c a� :3 n X C E W N � E m d Q Q Z Z II II II II W � II XOOZ i i+ N Y 3b(11) IOWA CITY TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION APPROVED MONDAY, NOVEMBER 28,2011--5:30 P.M. CITY CABLE TV OFFICE, 10 S. LINN ST. -TOWER PLACE PARKING FACILITY MEMBERS PRESENT: Laura Bergus, Alexa Homewood, Hans Hoerschelman, Saul Mekies MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Mike Brau, Bob Hardy, Ty Coleman OTHERS PRESENT: Josh Goding, Beth Fisher, Michael McBride, Kevin Hoyland, Emily Light RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL None at this time. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION Hardy suggested that in the future the access channels submit a written report that summarizes their activities and forego the oral reports. Mekies said written reports would make more information available to the public. The Commission agreed to request written reports from the access channels. Goding said he would be interested in exploring the possibility of getting a high definition channel for the local access channels. Hoerschelman said the access channels need to be moving to digital modulators. Hardy said he would inquire of Mediacom about the possibility of a high definition channel and what their technical needs would be to cablecast high definition programs from the access channels. PATV will be closed for 2 weeks beginning December 20. Programming will continue uninterrupted. ICCSD Superintendent Morley has directed the principal of each of the school to provide content for the "Education Exchange" program. Coleman reported that the Community Television Service was quite busy in October and November. Nineteen programs were recorded in October and sixteen in November. Typically eight to twelve programs are recorded each month. The "In Focus" program featured the City's leaf vacuuming program and a look at the Neighborhood Centers. The next "In Focus" will feature information on snow emergencies, the Winter Farmer's Market, a tour of the fire station, and a segment on Table to Table. Hardy reported that channel 5 now offers a video on demand service for City Channel 4 programs. Hardy said that he discussed a new process for allocating the $17,500 in community programming funds with Kara Logsden. Hardy suggested that in the future requests for funding be sent to him and he would inform Community Television Group (CTG) members by email. Small items would need no approval. Hoerschelman suggested that for items $2,500 or greater that the Commission be informed. Hardy said he would inform the Commission of all expenditures. Hardy said the funds would not be used for personnel. Bergus said that any request for funds should be sent to all CTG members so they could have some input. Hardy said he would develop rules outlining a procedure and make them available at the next Commission meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Bergus moved and Hoerschelman seconded a motion to approve the amended October 24, 2011 minutes. The motion passed unanimously. ANNOUNCEMENTS OF COMMISSIONERS It was agreed to move the next meeting up one week to December 19, 2011. Hardy suggested that in the future the access channel submit a written report that summarizes their activities and forego the oral reports. Bergus asked if the preparation of written reports in addition to attendance at Commission meetings might be a burden for the access channels. Hardy said he spends about the same amount of time gathering and preparing the data for an oral reports as it would take for a written report. Hoyland noted that there is a time lag between the period when a written report would need to be provided for inclusion in the meeting packet and the meeting itself and noted there may be some significant events that occurring in that period. Hardy said new events could be brought up at the meeting. Mekies said written reports would make more information available to the public. The Commission agreed to request written reports from the access channels. SHORT PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS None. CONSUMER ISSUES Hardy referred to the complaint report in the meeting packet and asked if there were any questions. Hoerschelman asked about Mediacom requesting a subscriber's social security number. Hardy said Mediacom's customer service representative was asking for the number to verify that the caller was who they claimed to be before processing an upgrade. It should not be necessary for Mediacom to use social security numbers for that purpose. Hoerschelman asked what time service calls are switched to the Philippines. Hardy said he would find out. Hardy said that Mediacom does not communicate well with subscribers regarding planned outages for maintenance. Hoerschelman asked about the complaint regarding a misplaced digital to analog converter and asked if consumers have adequate information that the converters are not the property of the subscriber and need to be returned to Mediacom when service is terminated. Hardy said written materials provided consumers make that clear. Hoerschelman suggested that Mediacom apply a sticker to all consumer equipment owned by Mediacom. MEDIACOM REPORT Hardy said Grassley informed him that he would be unable to attend the meeting. Hardy said that Mediacom's rate increase in large measure could be attributed to increased programming costs. Mediacom has been involved in efforts to change federal law and regulations regarding retransmission consent agreements. Homewood asked about the termination of the dollar discount for electronic bills. Hardy said Grassley told him that few people took advantage of the program and it took more money to administer than it was worth. UNIVERSITY OF IOWA REPORT McBride reported that UITV had an encoder fail and was off the air for about 12 hours last Wednesday. UITV has been busy editing a number of programs including four concerts and four dance performances. Three commencement ceremonies will be recorded at the end of the semester. KIRKWOOD COMMUNITY COLLEGE No representative was present. PATV REPORT Goding said he would be interested in exploring the possibility of getting a high definition channel for the local access channels. Goding reported that the annual membership meeting was held in November. "Professor Noodle" and "Cold and Grey" were given awards for their programs reaching the 10 -year point. Yale Cohn received the volunteer of the year award. The next guidelines workshop will be held December 5 at 7 p.m. The next board meeting will be December 15 at 7 p.m. PATV will be closed for 2 weeks beginning December 20. Programming will continue uninterrupted. PATV recently recorded 8 hours of a symposium at the University of Iowa on civility in politics. Bergus said that when Mediacom was looking to recover some of the spectrum space occupied by the access channels they offered a video on demand service and suggested that would be one possibility for a local access television high definition outlet. Hardy said it would need to be determined which of the access channels could provide high definition content. Bergus said Mediacom should be asked what they would require. It may be as simple as providing programs in the proper file format. Hoerschelman said the access channels need to be moving to digital modulators. Hardy said he would inquire of Mediacom about the possibility of a high definition channel and what their technical needs would be to cablecast high definition programs from the access channels. Hoerschelman said each access channel needs to be asked if they can provide high definition programs. Mediacom also needs to be asked about providing digital modulators. The difference in costs between a high definition and standard definition digital modulator needs to be explored. SENIOR CENTER REPORT Light thanked Ty Coleman for his assistance in setting up equipment for the "Generations of Jazz" program recorded at the Englert Theater. Holiday concerts will be a major source of programming in December, including the Voices of Experience and the New Horizons Band. A program titled "Celebration of Dance" will also be featured. SCTV has been transferring many older programs on videotape to DVDs. Some of the best material will be pulled out for future programs. SCTV provides a tape to DVD transfer service to Center members so they can archive and have a more permanent collection of their home videos. LIBRARY REPORT Fisher reported that a new employee to manage the library channel has been hired. There were six children and five adult programs in November. The last program in the International Writers series was recorded. A program on the Iowa presidential caucuses will be recorded. Ten children's programs are planned for December. ICCSD REPORT Hoyland reported that the move to the new facility is complete. The first recording of the board of directors meeting encountered no major problems. Superintendent Murley has directed the principal of each of the school to provide content for the "Education Exchange" program. The Chamber of Commerce has a video on education on their website. Hoyland will see if he can make it available on the school channel. Hoyland is working to get some of the video content on the school's website made available for the channel. CITY CHANNEL REPORT Coleman reported that the Community Television Service was quite busy in October and November. Nineteen programs were recorded in October and sixteen in November. Typically eight to twelve programs are recorded each month. Many programs were recorded regarding the city council elections including many forums, the "Meet the Candidates" programs, and live election results. A two -day marathon of election programming was carried on channel 4 on the two days prior to the election. The Media Unit produced programs on the new fire station and the East Side Recycling Center. The "In Focus" program featured the City's leaf vacuuming program and a look at the Neighborhood Centers. The next "In Focus" will feature information on snow emergencies, the Winter Farmer's Market, a tour of the fire station, and a segment on Table to Table. Hardy reported the channel 5 now offers a video on demand service for City Channel 4 programs. PASS THROUGH FUNDS Hardy said that he discussed a new process for allocating the $17,500 in community programming funds with Kara Logsden. Hardy suggested that in the future requests for funding would be sent to him and he would inform Community Television Group (CTG) members by email. For small items no approval would be needed. Hoerschelman suggested that for items $2,500 or greater that the Commission be informed. Hardy said he would inform the Commission of all expenditures. Hardy said the funds would not be used for personnel. Bergus said that any request for funds should be sent to all CTG members so they could have some input. Hardy said he would develop rules outlining a procedure and make them available at the next Commission meeting. BROADBANDSURVEY Hoerschelman said the table of broadband service providers included in the meeting packet should be put on the City Channel 4 website. The next item to be addressed is how broadband impacts economic development issues. A draft of questions to ask the population of Internet users also needs to be developed. There appears to be five categories of users: residential users, large businesses, small business, governments and schools, and nonprofits. ADJOUNMENT Bergus moved and Hoerschelman seconded a motion to adjourn. The motion was approved unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 7:16. Respectfully submitted, Michael Bran Cable TV Administrative Aide TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 12 MONTH ATTENDANCE RECORD July 2008 to CURRENT Meeting Date Hoerschelman Saul Meikes Bob Kemp Gordon Gary Hagen 7/28/08 X X X X X 8/25/08 X X X o/c X 9/23/08 x x x x X 10.27/08 X X X o/c X 11/24/08 Did not meet 12/15/08 X X X X X 1/26/09 X X X X o/c 2/243/09 X' x o/c o/c X Laura Ber us 4/27/09 X X X X X 6/1/09 x x x vacant X 6/22/09 X X X X Mekies 7/27/09 X X X o/c x 8/24/09 X X X X X 9/28/09 X X X X X 10/24/09 x x xx o/c 11/23/09 x x o/c x X 1/25/10 X X X o/c o/c 2/22/10 X X o/c X o/c 4/26/10 X X o/c X o/c 5/24/10 X X 0 X X 6/28/10 X x 0 X o/c 7/26/10 X x 0 o/c X 8/23/10 X X Vacant X X 9/27/10 o/c x x X 10/24/10 X o/c X X Klouda 11/22/10 X X X X X 12/27/10 X X X X o/c 1/24/11 X X X O X 2/28/11 X X X X X 5/28/11 X X X X Homewood x 6/27/11 x o/c x x X 8/27/11 x x x o/c X 9/24/11 X X X X X 10/24/11 X X X X X 11/26/11 X X vacant X X Kilberg 2/25/12 X X x x x (X) = Present (0) = Absent (O /C) = Absent/Called (Excused)