HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-06-05 Bd Comm minutes Airport Commission
IMor
April 19,2012 4b(1)
Page 1 -
MINUTES FINAL
IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION
APRIL 19, 2012—6:00 P.M.
AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING
Members Present: Jose Assouline, Minnetta Gardinier, Howard Horan, Rick Mascari
Staff Present: Sue Dulek, Michael Tharp
Others Present: Matt Wolford, David Hughes, Eric Scott, Toby Myers
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council
action): NONE
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Assouline called the meeting to order at 6:02 P.M.
APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES:
Chairperson Assouline asked for approval of the March 15, 2012 minutes. Mascari moved to
approve the minutes of the March 15, 2012, meeting as submitted; seconded by Horan.
Motion carried 4-0. Mascari then moved to approve the minutes of the April 5, 2012
meeting as submitted; seconded by Horan. Motion carried 4-0.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION:
None.
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION:
a. South Aviation Development—Mascari asked if there was anything happening here.
Horan stated that he wanted to thank Jeff Davidson for the help with the Airport's long-
range conceptual planning. Assouline added that they will continue to pursue this
planning.
b. Airport Commerce Park—Tharp noted that the sale with Deery closed the beginning of
April. He added that he has heard they may pick up a couple of option lots. Mascari
asked if they could make a request of the realtor to attend Airport meetings in order to
give Members an up-to-date report. A brief conversation ensued regarding the
frequency that Members would like to see.
c. Terminal Building Brick Repair—Tharp stated that the work is progressing, with just a
couple of weeks left on the project. He added that the contract end date is June 3, so
basically the work is right on target.
d. Hangar L—
i. Consider a resolution approving a contract with Foth Infrastructure
and Environment for construction services— Horan moved approval
of Resolution #Al2-12 for a contract with Foth Infrastructure and
Environment for construction services; seconded by Mascari.
Motion carried 4-0.
Airport Commission
April 19,2012
Page 2
ii. Hangar#71 —
1. Public Hearing—Assouline opened the public hearing. Tharp
noted that the overall lease extends for 20 years, with a 5-year
individual term. The tenants will have options for the additional
five-year blocks, up to 20 years. He then responded to Members'
questions regarding how these leases will work with regard to
covering the Airport's debts. Assouline then closed the public
hearing.
2. Consider a resolution approving lease for hangar#71 —
Mascari moved to approve Resolution #Al2-13 for a lease for
Hangar#71; seconded by Gardinier. Motion carried 4-0.
iii. Hangar#72—
1. Public Hearing—Assouline opened the public hearing. Tharp
responded to Members' questions, noting any changes in the
leases. The discussion turned to subleases under Jet Air and how
the Airport handles these. Assouline then closed the public
hearing.
2. Consider a resolution approving lease for hangar#72— Horan
moved to approve Resolution #Al2-14 for a lease for Hangar
#72; seconded by Mascari. Motion carried 4-0.
e. Iowa DOT— FY2013 Aviation Grant Program —Tharp requested that this item be
moved to later in the agenda, after Item h.
f. FAA/IDOT Projects: AECOM/David Hughes
i. Obstruction Mitigation— Hughes noted that there are no updates on
this.
ii. 7/25 Parallel Taxiway— Hughes stated that they have a set of plans
almost ready for the FAA's approval. Before they finalize these plans,
however, Hughes noted that the Commission needs to discuss the
connecting taxiway at Hangar H. Members discussed what they believe
to be the best configuration for this. Hughes continued to detail how the
pavement projects will progress, further explaining the phases and what
should be accomplished in each. Members stressed the importance of
keeping the runway closures to a minimum.
iii. Airport Electrical Rehab— Hughes then spoke to the electrical rehab
projects. This would encompass changing all of the current lighting to
LEDs. Hughes continued, briefly explaining what this rehab will cover. It
was noted that this project will be done through an informal bid process.
g. Airport "Operations":
i. Strategic Plan-Implementation— None.
ii. Budget—Tharp stated that the last few months of the fiscal year will be a
bit tight due to the projects they have had to undertake, but that there
won't be any major problems with this. He added that the farm payments
are in now so that makes the account balances look better.
iii. Management—Tharp reminded Members that he will be at the Aviation
Conference next week in Des Moines. He added that he is working with
the Fire Department on some Airport specific training. This will take place
the end of May.
h. FBO/ Flight Training Reports —
i. Jet Air/ Care Ambulance— Matt Wolford with Jet Air spoke to Members
next. He noted that mowing has started up again at the Airport. Wolford
Airport Commission
April 19,2012
Page 3
continued, noting that Jet Air is doing well. They are booked through next
Tuesday on their charter flights. Airplane sales are still going well,
according to Wolford. The Care Ambulance service is also doing well and
may have 24-hour call service soon. Gardinier noted her good
experience with Jet Air and the recent engine installation in her plane.
1. Mascari moved to consider Resolution #Al2-15 setting a
public hearing on a ground lease with Jet Air Inc. for the May,
2012 Airport Commission meeting; seconded by Horan.
Motion carried 4-0.
2. Tharp spoke about the snow removal contract and the janitorial
contract under consideration this evening. He explained how the
contracts have been handled and how a change has been made
to the timelines. Tharp briefly touched on the changes to this
contract, stating that it will go for three years. Gardinier
addressed the issue of a `checklist' that could be used, especially
for those odd items that don't need addressed on a regular basis.
Jet Air will look into this issue. She also brought up the issue of
the restroom and some needed maintenance there. Tharp noted
that he will work with Jet Air on this. Mascari moved to consider
Resolution #Al2-16 approving a contract for snow removal,
grounds keeping, and maintenance services with Jet Air Inc.;
seconded by Gardinier. Motion carried 4-0.
3. Gardinier moved to consider Resolution #Al2-17 approving a
contract for janitorial services with Jet Air Inc.; seconded by
Horan. Motion carried 4-0.
ii. Iowa Flight Training — Horan noted that he had a couple of flights
recently. He added that IFT appears to be doing well and will be adding
an instructor.
e. Iowa DOT— FY2013 Aviation Grant Program —Tharp noted that as part of the ground
lease agreement, the Airport Commission is going to offer to build the taxiway for
Hangar L. The best way to handle this project, according to Tharp, is to apply for a State
grant. Applications are due in about two and a half weeks. The second application will
be to redo the flat roofs on the Care Ambulance building and the Terminal building.
Total application package will be about $200,000. Tharp then responded to Members'
questions regarding these projects.
i. Subcommittee Reports—
i. Review assignments—Tharp noted that this would be the time to make
changes to subcommittee assignments. Mascari asked if they could have
page numbers on the packet, so it would be easier to find things.
Gardinier stated that she would like to see them organize a bar-b-que
type event at the Airport. This would be a good way to get people out to
the Airport. The discussion continued, with Members agreeing that the
subcommittee should come up with a plan for this event.
j. Commission Members' Reports— Horan noted problems with the fuel tanks and a
possible warranty on the paint. He stated that there is rust coming through. He added
that he has passed the 25-hour mark in his flight hours now. Assouline noted that he
has been trying to get in touch with Jeff Davidson at City Hall, and that once he does he
will report back to the Members.
k. Staff Report—Tharp noted that his new office furniture will be arriving soon.
Airport Commission
April 19,2012
Page 4
SET NEXT REGULAR MEETING FOR:
The next regular meeting will be Thursday, May 17, 2012, at 6:00 P.M. at the Airport Terminal
building.
ADJOURN:
The meeting adjourned at 7:27 P.M. Mascari made the motion to adjourn the meeting at
7:27 P.M.; seconded by Horan. Motion carried 4-0.
CHAIRPERSON DATE
Airport Commission
April 19,2012
Page 5
Airport Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2012
TERM o 0 0 0 0 0
IIv oa - 01
NAME EXP. c°n i
N N N N N N
03/01/13 X X X X X
Rick
Mascari
03/01/14 X X X X X
Howard
Horan
Minnetta 03/01/15 X X X X X
Gardinier
Jose 03/02/12 O/E X X X X
Assouline
Key:
X = Present
X/E = Present for Part of Meeting
O = Absent
O/E =Absent/Excused
NM = Not a Member at this time
4b(2)
MINUTES APPROVED
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MARCH 28, 2012—5:15 PM
CITY HALL, EMMA HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, Brock Grenis, Will Jennings, Caroline Sheerin
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Sarah Holecek
OTHERS PRESENT: None
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
None.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM.
ROLL CALL: All were present.
CONSIDERATION OF THE FEBRUARY 8, 2012 MEETING MINUTES:
Jennings moved to approve the minutes for February 8, 2012.
Baker seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-0.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION
EXC12-00002: Discussion an application submitted by Steven Sacks for a special exception to
allow a reduction of the required front yard setback for property located in the Low Density
Single-Family (RS-5)zone at 1215 Pickard Street.
Walz explained that Pickard Street is very low-volume and not connected to any arterial streets.
She said that the lots in this neighborhood are typically very small but the area in general does
not have a dense atmosphere such as a downtown area would have. She said the applicant has
indicated that the nine foot wide garage on the house is not practical to accommodate a car.
She said that the applicant would like to make the garage interior into part of the living space.
Board of Adjustment
March 28, 2012
Page 2 of 8
Walz said that the Code requires the principal building setback in this neighborhood to be 19.5
feet, based on setback averaging. She explained that the current Code requires a single family
use to have off-street parking space for one vehicle, and that would typically be provided in the
garage. She explained that the Code does not allow the required parking within the principal
building setback. She said that because this applicant wants to turn the garage into living space,
he is seeking a reduction in the front principal building setback in order to provide the required
off-street parking in the driveway.
Walz explained that location standards for parking in the single-family zones are intended to
ensure that parking areas are located to prevent drainage onto adjoining properties. She noted
that this house and driveway are set back more than five feet from the neighboring property.
She said another location standard is to prevent vehicles from blocking sidewalks and to ensure
that front yard areas remain free of large parking areas that detract from the residential
character of the neighborhood. She said other location standards are to enhance public safety
for residents and visitors by lining streets with active living spaces, ensuring that there is a
physical and visual connection between the living area of the residence and the street, and to
enhance the pedestrian-oriented character of the neighborhood by preventing blank facades
and large expanses of concrete along the street. Walz said that staff believes this can be done
while allowing the parking in the front setback because the garage that will become interior
space is actually set back 25 feet from the property line or the street right of way line and is set
back 32.5 feet from the sidewalk, which is within the street right of way. She explained that the
Code requires a garage entrance to be a minimum of 25 feet from the street right of way line in
order to provide space for parking. She said there is ample room at this property to allow
parking without blocking the sidewalk.
Walz said that a standard parking is 18 feet in length, and there is 25 feet available in this case
and the driveway is set back more than the three required feet and because the neighborhood is
characterized by ample space between houses, this is not a situation where there is a visibility
issue for someone backing out or for pedestrians. She said staff is recommending approvable
subject to the condition that the reduction is for the purpose of satisfying the parking location
standard only and does not allow for any expansion of the house into the required setback.
Sheerin invited discussion.
Baker asked if this special exception adheres to the property rather than the owner. Walz
replied that this is true.
Baker asked that if this property were to be eventually used as a rental would it require a
different parking standard.
Walz explained that depending on how many bedrooms are in the house they would have to
provide a different number of parking spaces, and in this case they can only rent two bedrooms.
Holecek clarified that the Code required one-half space per bedroom.
Baker asked if it's the parking that restricts the number of people. Walz and Holecek affirmed
this.
Jennings asked if this was ever intended to be a real garage because it appears that it was
designed as a garage in name only. Walz explained that it was designed at a time when cars
Board of Adjustment
March 28, 2012
Page 3 of 8
were smaller.
Jennings said it seems more like a feature for storage and that it was always intended for the
car to be parked on the driveway.
Baker noted that in his house that was built in 1922, there was a free-standing garage in the
back that wasn't any bigger than the space being considered, and couldn't be used for a car.
Walz said she thinks perhaps people let passengers out and then pulled into the garage. She
noted that there are many small garages like these in the Longfellow and Northside
neighborhoods.
Jennings said that many of them were intended to be used for wagons or for horses when they
were built, but that he doesn't know of any time when someone would have built a nine foot
entryway for a garage and that it was intended for storage but that it has the design features of
a garage.
Walz explained that you are not prohibited from parking on your driveway.
Baker asked if the applicant has to do this because he's going to get a building permit. Walz
affirmed this.
Jennings asked if a place like this were to be rented is there a limit even if there are the
bedrooms and the driveway is long enough to the number of cars that can be parked nose to
front.
Walz explained that situation is called stacking, and it is illegal to park across the sidewalk. She
said if you owned three very small cars and could figure out a way to stack them on your
property side of the sidewalk you could do that. She said neither could you park on your grass in
the front yard.
Sheerin opened public hearing.
Sheerin closed public hearing.
Sheerin invited discussion.
Jennings moved to approve the application submitted by Steven Sacks EXC12-00002 to
reduce the front principal building setback from 19.5 feet to seven feet to allow a required
parking space to be located along the driveway for a single-family use located in the Low
Density Single-Family (RS-5) zone at 1215 Pickard Street subject to the conditions that
the setback reduction is for the purpose of satisfying the parking location standards only
and does not allow for any expansion of the building into the required setback.
Grenis seconded.
Sheerin submitted her specific findings.
The specific standards that the Board feels are satisfied are:
1. The situation is peculiar to the property in question because the attached garage is
approximately 9 feet wide, makeing it difficult to use for storing a standard size car or larger.
Board of Adjustment
March 28, 2012
Page 4 of 8
2. There is practical difficulty in complying with the setback requirements because the Zoning
Code requires one off-street parking space for single-family uses' in the RS-5 zone, but does
not allow the required parking space to be located within the front principal building setback,
and, here, because the garage is small, the applicant stores his car on the driveway.
3. Granting the exception will not be contrary to the purpose of the setback regulations. For
this application the standards that are appropriate relate to the location standards for
parking in a single-family zone and here the application is in keeping with these standards
because the standard for parking space is 18 feet in length, and under the current Code
driveways that lead to a garage are required to be a minimum of 25 feet in length. In this
case the street right of way line is located 25 feet from the garage and the sidewalk is
located 32.5 feet from the garage so there is plenty of room to park the car in the driveway
without blocking the sidewalk. The driveway is set back more than the required three feet
from the side property line, and in this particular neighborhood there is ample space
between the buildings and the driveways. The subject frontage is 267 feet in length and has
just three homes, so there should be plenty of room in this neighborhood for this kind of
exception.
4. For the reasons above, the potential negative effects resulting from the setback exception
are mitigated to the extent practical.
5. The subject building will be located no closer than three feet to a side or rear property line
as noted above.
Jennings submitted his general standards.
The general standards the Board feels are satisfied are:
1. The proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety,
comfort or general welfare because the front property line is located 25 feet from the garage,
and the sidewalk is located 32.5 from the garage. Because a standard parking space is 18
feet in length, under current Code driveways that lead to a garage are required to be a
minimum of 25 feet in length in order to minimize the opportunity for vehicles to be parked
across the sidewalk. There is adequate space here for a car to be parked and not block the
sidewalk. Pickard is a low-volume street only two blocks in length and does not intersect
with any collector or arterial streets, and only 10 homes front onto the entire length of
Pickard Street running between Kirkwood Court and Friendly Avenue (both residential
streets), so pedestrian and vehicular traffic along the street is characterized as low-volume.
2. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other
property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values
in the neighborhood. The Board finds that the proposed setback reduction is solely for the
purpose of allowing required parking to be located on the existing driveway that the current
occupant is using for this purpose now. The house itself would not expand further toward the
neighboring properties or toward the street right-of-way and the subject house satisfies all
building setback requirements for the zone in which it is located.
3. The Board finds that the establishment of the specific proposed exception does not impede
the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses
permitted in the zone in which such property is located. Those reasons are covered under
the first two criteria of general standards#1 and #2.
Board of Adjustment
March 28, 2012
Page 5 of 8
4. The Board finds that the subject neighborhood is fully developed with all of its necessary
access roads, drainage and other facilities and alleys so those are in place and already
provided.
5. The subject property is a single-family resident and does not generate significant traffic so
therefore adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress
designed so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets.
6. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception being
considered, the specific proposed exception, in all other respects, conforms to the
applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located. It conforms to
the applicable regulations for single-family residences in the RS-5 zone, and the applicant
will be required to secure a building permit to convert the garage to living space. The Board
finds that this special exception is not concerned with the details of the conversion of that
space other than the implications it has for the required parking.
7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the
Board find this so.
Grenis added that for general standard #2 the Board had received a letter from the next door
neighbor supporting the exception so that perhaps would strengthen the argument that it won't
diminish surrounding property values.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-0.
DISCUSSION ITEM
Board discussion of a proposal to seek clarification from the Planning &Zoning Commission
and City Council regarding the criteria for a special exception to allow off-site parking in a
municipal parking facility for residential uses in the downtown commercial zones.
Walz explained that after reviewing pertinent minutes and talking with staff, she is asking staff
and Planning and Zoning Commission to help the Board clarify several key issues. She said the
first issue is how the Board is to interpret"substantiate" because the key to the special
exception is that the Director of Planning and Community Development and the Director of
Transportation Services substantiate that there is adequate space in the ramp. She said the
second issues is how the Board is to evaluate the general criteria whether the special exception
impedes normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties for uses
permitted in the zone because once the pool of available parking dwindles, at some point,
something may impede development. Walz said the third issue is how much discretion the
Board has, if any, in reviewing the specifics of the development being proposed, for example,
how it contributes to the diversity of downtown housing. She said the other area is the question
of the meaning of pedestrian-oriented. She said she believes that staff can with the next
application provide clarification as to what that term means in regard to the downtown. She said
the Board will have an application on the April agenda that will be seeking off-site parking so if
they need clarification, the discussion should focus on criteria and what the Board's authority is
and not on personal feelings about parking or development downtown.
Jennings said his concerns on interpretation focus on how this parking relates to housing. He
said that in Tower Place and the former Old Capital Mall, there is specific assignation of specific
Board of Adjustment
March 28, 2012
Page 6 of 8
parking spaces for specific uses, which allocation is based on some zoning or level of request of
use. He said that for two prior applications for exception, the definition or terms by which these
parking spaces were being assigned changed radically. Jennings noted that in the first
application regarding the Gilbert Street property where Happy Joe's used to be, the parking
spaces were not tied to individual apartments or tenants, but were only associated with the
property owner who was granted these parking space, but if said owner did not sell them to
members in that apartment building was then able to sell them to other people elsewhere.
Walz stated that they had changed that.
Jennings said in the second application they wanted these parking spaces to be assigned to a
specific tenant who must reside at that specific address. He said he needs clarification about the
spirit or intent of attaching parking to residents and anytime they say that in other
neighborhoods you actually have to have a real live parking spot that has to exist for that
vehicle. But in this case, you just have to have a permit which sort of a promissory note saying if
no one has taken that space, then odds are there will be one there for you, but it's not an actual
allocation of a physical space. He said he is concerned that the original intent of having a zoning
restriction of parking associated with residents especially rental properties and larger rental
units must provide so many spaces per bedroom that the intent of that is to assert incentive or
influence over what can or can't reasonably be developed in any site and once that begins to
move off-site they are no longer working with the original intent.
Walz explained that until 2 or 3 years ago any residential development in the downtown required
no parking, in fact, developers were discouraged from providing any parking. She said the
remedy was that the Code was changed to require some parking but that the parking could be
provided in the ramps because there are properties downtown that can't accommodate parking.
The idea wasn't that a particular space would be assigned or reserved for a particular person
but that somehow within the City system of municipal parking we were accounting for demand.
Jennings said he understands Walz's explanation but what he is very, very concerned about is
what may or may not result as unintended consequences. He said in his neighborhood where
they are close to dorms and where first-year students who bring cars are assigned parking
spaces so far away that they have no incentive to use the space they are provided so they park
in the neighborhoods nearby, which has a tremendous impact on the neighborhoods.
Walz declared that she understands what Jennings is saying but that is part of the legislative
process.
Jennings said that if someone wanted to build a 20-story building but in order to do it they would
need to provide eight stories below for underground parking, then that would make their costs
prohibitive. But if they could get that parking put in the ramp next door, then they will build the
20-story building. It's beyond the purview here, but if the Board is approving an exception for a
20-story building where only 10 are allowed, would they even be faced with that.
Walz said that she thinks this is precisely why Council made the special exception because they
wanted development, and they wanted parking to be accounted for, but on many, many parcels
it would be impossible to provide.
Holecek said that is accurate.
Board of Adjustment
March 28, 2012
Page 7 of 8
Walz said the reason for that is not the purview of the Board. She said it was the Council's
decision to separate those two things. She said that they want to clarify how they substantiate
that there is enough space in the ramp so that 9 times out of 10 the person is going to find
space.
Jennings said that often when we consider urban parking we think of a model where people live
downtown and it's inconvenient to take your car downtown, so you park your car and you leave
it there unless you're going away from downtown and often the car stays parked more than it's
used. That's not how it works in dense areas between community and campus. He would like to
see the grounds they are using to articulate what they mean by substantiate. What are they
using as metrics, because that does go to an issue of safety. He said that they will give 60
parking spaces in an apartment in a parking ramp predicated on expecting people to park it
there and leave it most of the time when in fact those cars are going and coming frequently. He
wants to know what the baseline presumptions or assumptions are when they use these words,
otherwise, he feels that when these applications come before the Board, it's just a formality to
approve recommendation and there is nothing to be done about it and they don't even know
why they are hearing the exception.
Baker asked if when the Board grants off-site parking the property owner literally buys a parking
permit.
Walz explained that the residents of the building granted a special exception have an
opportunity to purchase permits held for anyone who proves they are a resident of the building.
She said that the permits are tied to the residents.
Baker asked if someone working downtown buys a permit to park in a ramp gets an assigned
spot.
Walz said there are some assigned spots in the ramps that have been negotiated as part of
economic development and other relationships with the university but those are minimal. She
said the number of permits they sell is based on making sure that the ramp is not full.
Baker asked if they would ever sell out a ramp with permits.
Walz declared they would not.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION:
Walz said that there will be four applications for special exceptions before the Board at the next
meeting, only one of which is for parking. She explained that by that time there may be a fifth
Board member.
ADJOURNMENT:
Jennings moved to adjourn.
Baker seconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 4-0 vote.
I— 0
2O
U) UJ
CWr- N XXXX
CI M
Z N r
a V
O p c' XXX �
O Z
rt Ili
0OQ ■ XX � X
CO
2w 1- (1) ' cn
CL r4 � 000 =
HX � � � � 0o
W p 0 0 0 7 Z `
U p, a)
X
N N
C�
C .+
cD o N co
�
C 2 .n Z 0
C Q. < II II
a)c Z
II II W m II
6-
• 0)� X O O Z i
`)
t0
LLI mY C N
N C
W
Q ct o c5
Z J m § 0
J-
4b(3)
MINUTES APPROVED
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
APRIL 11, 2012—5:45 PM
CITY HALL, EMMA HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, Brock Grenis, Caroline Sheerin
MEMBERS ABSENT: Will Jennings
STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Karen Howard, Sarah Holecek
OTHERS PRESENT: Marc Moen, David Bentz, Dallas Robertson, David
Robertson
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
None.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM.
ROLL CALL: All were present.
A brief opening statement was read by the Chair outlining the role and purpose of the Board and
the procedures that would be followed in the meeting.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION,
EXC12-00003: Discussion of an application submitted by Marc Moen for a special exception to
allow above ground structured parking for two vehicles and to allow 12 required parking spaces
to be provided off-site in a municipal facility for a proposed mixed use building to be located in
the Central Business (CB-10) zone at 114 S. Dubuque Street.
Howard showed the Board slides indicating the property location, which fronts directly on the
pedestrian mall and Blackhawk Mini Park, both of which are public right of way. She said there
is alley access to the property on the south. She showed renderings of the proposed building,
which is a fourteen story tower. Howard explained that what is proposed is ground floor retail
space along with the two proposed parking spaces off the alley, three floors of Class A office
space, and residential units above that up to and including the fourteenth floor. She showed
photos of that location now and also floor plans of the proposed building.
Howard explained that one of the standards in the Central Business District is that a fifty foot lot
depth is required to be reserved for commercial uses on the ground floor so parking can't
generally be within the first fifty feet of the lot depth. She said that because of the constraints of
this site, in order to get any parking on-site the applicants are requesting to reduce that lot depth
Board of Adjustment
April 11, 2012
Page 2 of 19
for the retail space to thirty feet and then provide a mezzanine level for the retail space in lieu of
ground floor space. Howard explained this is allowed through a special exception that the
Commission will consider at this meeting. She read from the staff report that said "The Board
may reduce this storefront depth requirement if the applicant demonstrates the conditions on the
subject property create a practical difficulty in achieving full compliance. In such case, the
applicant must demonstrate that the resulting alternative storefront space, both the interior and
exterior, will be of a quality in both design and materials that will enhance the commercial
character of the Central Business District. To mitigate for loss of ground floor commercial space,
the Board may also require additional quality commercial space be included on an upper floor or
mezzanine level and said space reserved for non-residential units." She said that the applicants
are trying to balance the parking needs of the building and the needs for the commercial space
on the ground floor that meets the City's standards for retail space in the downtown. She added
that they are also proposing to build three levels of commercial office space, which is a
development goal of the City.
Howard said that the second special exception that's being requested is to allow parking off-site
in a City parking facility. She said that two years ago the City adopted a standard requiring a
minimum amount of parking for residential in an attempt to balance the needs of parking for the
commercial businesses and the needs of parking for the residents. She said that in order to
accommodate residential parking, builders are required to put as much parking on-site as
possible, and they can also ask for parking in the City's parking facilities. She said these
applicants are requesting twelve spaces for long-term rental in the City's Dubuque Street
parking ramp, and the other two spaces will be on the ground level of the proposed building,
which will satisfy the requirement in the zoning code for parking. She said the City Manager and
the Director of Transportation Services in consultation with the Director of Planning have
determined that the Dubuque Street parking facility does have adequate space for the twelve
parking permits. Howard said that staff recommends approval of this special exception with the
conditions specified in the staff report.
Baker asked what would happen if for some reason the developer does not build three floors of
office space. Holecek explained that methods have been used to lock in the design as it is being
proposed, but if that were not to occur, there would be a violation of the special exception and
the applicants would have to rectify that before the Board.
Baker asked what would happen if the developer changed the number of residential units.
Howard said that staff's position is that three floors of office space is more than adequate to
meet standards, and even if the developer were to propose less office space, staff may have the
same recommendation. She said if the developer was going to add residential units, more
parking spaces would be required, and he would need to come before the Board again to
request them.
Baker asked about the definition of substantial in the Code as it relates to structured parking.
Howard said that substantial as defined in the Code is a fifty foot depth of that retail bay.
Baker asked if there is a percentage definition of substantial and how the Board will know if
someone has met"substantial." Howard explained that in the Code substantial is defined as a
fifty foot storefront depth, that is, at least fifty feet of the first floor has to be reserved for principle
uses allowed in the zone and not for parking unless a special exception is granted to reduce
that fifty foot depth of the storefront.
Board of Adjustment
April 11, 2012
Page 3 of 19
Baker asked how staff believes that one-bedroom units will add to the diversity of housing
opportunities in downtown Iowa City for long-term renters or owners. Howard explained that the
diversity that staff alludes to in its report is the diversity of types of residential units.
Sheerin asked if they knew for certain that there was a demand for this type of residential unit in
the downtown area. Howard said that there's such a low vacancy rate for one-bedroom units
that they demand a premium price on a per bedroom basis.
Grenis wanted to know if when the Board is considering the consistency of the Comprehensive
Plan it should be for the project as a whole or just for the parking requirements that are being
considered. Holecek said it was for the project as a whole. Walz said because there was some
confusion at a previous meeting of the Board regarding providing parking in the ramp and
parking in general and what that meant for pedestrian-oriented design in a pedestrian-oriented
downtown, she took language from the Code and from the Comprehensive Plan to show the
Board what that means and included it in the staff report.
Sheerin said that still doesn't answer the fact that the Comprehensive Plan has ambiguity in it
regarding "downtown merchants and business owners feel the residential population burdens
the parking system in the district to the detriment of businesses." She said that issue still needs
to be debated and resolved. Howard said the resolution of that issue to date has been that in
2008 the City Council added parking requirements for residential uses in the downtown area
where previously there had been no parking requirements for residential. She said that currently
there is no parking requirement for commercial uses in the Central Business Zone, but there is a
requirement for residential uses.
Sheerin stated that policy for residential parking seems to encroach on the parking that is meant
for people shopping downtown in the parking ramps. Sheerin asked if the Commission is
supposed to follow Council or the Comprehensive Plan. Holecek stated that the Commission
should act consistent with the legislative process, which is what Howard was describing in the
choices that were made by the Council when they required parking be available in the
downtown in City provided facilities. She said whether that is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan, staff has provided some justification as to how those two things can be reconciled.
Grenis said that in past cases similar to this, staff has required design review. He asked if that
would be required in this case. Howard said this project has to go through design review
because it's done through a development agreement with the City.
Sheerin invited the applicant to come forward.
Marc Moen of 221 E. College Street#1301 said this project will add diversity to the type of units
that are available as well as to the population of downtown. He said what's been done all over
the country but not in Iowa City are true one-bedroom units with nice finishes, in a quiet
environment that attract young professionals and entry level condo buyers. He said this project
will have only three units per floor and will be priced to meet that market at under$1500 per
month in the low$200,000 range as opposed to Plaza Tower one-bedrooms which are almost
$400,000. Moen said the lenders have responded very well to the concept of units that size and
pricing in that range.
Baker asked if this proposed building will be both rental and condominium. Moen said their goal
is to get people vested in Iowa City downtown with owner-occupied units, but they also need to
Board of Adjustment
April 11, 2012
Page 4 of 19
respond to the market by renting. He said there are a total of twenty-six units in this proposed
building, and their ultimate goal is to have all the units owner-occupied. Moen said the goal with
Plaza Towers was to get diversity downtown, a mix of non-students with students. He said there
is now a gap between student housing and $400,000 one-bedroom units.
Sheerin opened public hearing.
Sheerin closed public hearing.
Sheerin invited discussion.
Baker moved to approve the application submitted by Marc Moen EXC12-00003 for a
special exception to allow above ground structured parking for two vehicles and to allow
12 required parking spaces to be provided off-site in a municipal facility for a proposed
mixed use building to be located in the Central Business (CB-10) zone at 114 S. Dubuque
Street subject to the following conditions.
• The applicant must submit the required agreement for off-site parking prior to
securing a building permit. The agreement shall include the following conditions:
o The permits shall only be available to residents of 114 South Dubuque Street at
a cost not to exceed the market rate determined by the Director of
Transportation Services at the time of leasing.
o The property manager must provide the Director of Transportation the name,
license plate number, and address of all permit holders. Permits will only be
granted to residents with the primary address of 114 South Dubuque Street.
• The final building plan is generally consistent with the plan submitted as part of
this application with regard to the design for the retail and office floors, and the
residential unit and bedroom mix and must comply with the Central Business Site
Development Standards as set forth in the Zoning Code.
Grenis seconded.
Grenis submitted his specific findings.
The specific standards that the Board feels are satisfied are:
Where parking is located within the exterior walls of the building:
1. The limited size of the property makes it impractical to provide parking below grade and any
parking provided within the building cannot meet the 50-foot setback requirement. The
proposed mezzanine space, which will be located above the parking and the amount of
space committed to retail floor area is the same as would occur without the parking. The
applicant is proposing to build three additional floors of Class A office space above the retail
space. The proposed building design as characterized in the application will be constructed
with high quality building materials and designed to provide maximum visibility and access
for retail customers with storefront windows and floor to ceiling height that appear to exceed
City standards. The applicant will be required to demonstrate compliance with all Central
Business standards with regard to building entrances, floor to ceiling heights, minimum
fenestration, and building articulation prior to issuance of a building permit.
Board of Adjustment
April 11, 2012
Page 5 of 19
2. This criterion is satisfied because the site plan shows that access to the proposed
structured parking is located with access from the public alley on the south side of the
building.
3. The two parking spaces are located off the alley, so they will not be visible from a public or
private street.
4. Vehicles entering or exiting the parking will not be crossing any public sidewalk or City
Plaza.
Specific Standards Relating to Alternatives to Minimum Parking Requirements:
a. Special Location Plan
• An aerial view was provided showing the location of the property in relation to the
Dubuque Street parking facility.
• The pedestrian entrance to the parking facility is located approximately 450 feet from
the entrance to the proposed building.
• There is a direct walking route between the parking facility and the subject property is
through City Plaza.
b. Location of Off-site Parking
The proposed off-site parking is located in a municipal parking facility. The distance was
such that it met the standard.
c. Zoning
The proposed parking is located in a municipal parking facility.
d. Shared Use of Off-Site Parking
The applicant is not proposing to "share" parking with another use.
e. Off-Site Parking Located in a Municipally-Owned Parking Facility
• The subject use is located in the CB-10 zone.
• In consultation with the Director of Transportation Services, staff has determined these
12 spaces are available for long term rental and that the capacity of the parking facility
will not be exceeded.
• The Director of Transportation Services has indicated that there is available capacity in
the ramp at this time. The Director of Planning and Community Development and the
City Manager concur with this analysis.
f. Approval Criteria
• The zoning code allows that for properties located in the CB-10 zone, up to 100% of
parking may be provided in a municipal ramp. The Dubuque Street ramp is
approximately 450 feet from the proposed dwelling units.
• The proposed parking is located in a municipal parking facility, which is designed to
provide safe vehicular access.
• The parking facility is already constructed, so there will be no change to the area.
g. Covenant for Off-Site Parking
This covenant will be submitted as part of the building permit application based on the
number of spaces approved by the Board. The agreement will require that the property
manager provide the Director of Transportation Services with the name, license plate
number, and address of all permit holders; and that permits be granted only to residents
with the primary address of 114 South Dubuque Street.
Board of Adjustment
April 11, 2012
Page 6 of 19
Sheerin submitted her general findings.
The general standards that the Board feels are satisfied are:
1. The proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety,
comfort or general welfare because ingress and egress from the parking facility is designed
to be safe and has good visibility to and from adjacent streets;
Access to the on-site structured parking is from the alley, minimizing conflicts with
pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles;
Access at grade will improve visibility for vehicles entering and exiting the parking.
2. The proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property
and will not substantially diminish or impair property values because the structured parking
is accessed from the alley, and thus will not disrupt pedestrian areas;
The structured parking is not generally visible from the public street or pedestrian areas;
The proposed development devotes 1,702 square feet to retail use (80% of the ground floor
space), and includes three floors of Class A office space, which contribute to the Downtown
commercial vitality;
The proposed residential units add to the diversity of Downtown housing and will not
substantially increase parking demand.
3. The proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and
improvement of the surrounding property because the Director of Transportation Services
has reviewed the application and has indicated to staff that presently there is adequate
capacity in the Dubuque Street Ramp to provide the requested 12 spaces;
The structured parking allows for more than 30 feet of depth for storefront use plus an
additional mezzanine level highly visible to pedestrians through floor to ceiling storefront
glass windows;
The structured parking will not be generally visible from public streets or sidewalks and will
be screened from view by garage doors located along an alley;
With inclusion of the mezzanine level, the building will provide the same amount of retail
floor area as it would without structured parking.
4. All utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are in place.
5. There is adequate ingress or egress to adjacent public streets and with regard to the
structured parking space, the spaces are accessed from a public alley that is designed to
provide safe ingress and egress, and there is a double garage entry door set back
approximately 10 feet from the property line, and the building provides a 40-foot wide
opening onto the alley for appropriate visibility.
6. Municipal parking facilities are designed to meet all applicable standards, and all aspects of
the residential development will be reviewed administratively by City staff as part of the site
plan and building permit process so it will conform with applicable regulations or standards
of the zone in which it is to be located.
7. The proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because while there is some
ambiguity in the residential plan, in 2009 City Council required residential uses to provide
parking, and so this response to any concerns about growing competition for parking in the
Central Business District. Furthermore, this plan will increase the diversity of housing
opportunities in downtown Iowa City.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 3-0.
Board of Adjustment
April 11, 2012
Page 7 of 19
Sheerin read a brief statement regarding the appeal process for this decision.
EXC12-00005: Discussion of an application submitted by Parish Apartments LLC for a special
exception to reduce the required width for a parking aisle for the preservation of a historic
property located in the Planned Development Overlay / Neighborhood Stabilization Residential
(OPD/RNS20) zone at 108 McLean Street.
Walz showed the Board photos of the property. She said that this is an historic property that the
neighborhood wants to see preserved. She noted that there are a number of mature oaks on the
site, and the property owner as well as the neighborhood would like to preserve as many as
possible and do as little grading as possible. Walz said there is a special exception in regard to
historic properties that can help in the preservation of them. She said in this case, it would be for
the historic site rather than for the building. She noted that there is a ten foot wide driveway that
serves as access to the parking in the rear of the building. She said for the apartment units
planned, additional parking needs to be created on the west side of the building. She said there
is a of change in grade there, and that is where the grove of oak trees in question is sited. Walz
said that what would typically be required in that area just behind those parking spaces is for a
twenty-two foot width parking aisle. She said the applicants want to minimize the grading and
paving necessary on the site, so they are requesting the Board reduce that to seventeen feet in
width. She said the Zoning Code would allow a seventeen foot wide parking aisle on a one-way
drive, and this two-way drive is going to function as a one-way drive by nature of the property
itself. She said staff does not see an issue because there is not going to be a lot of traffic
associated with the site, and they see a compelling interest in preserving that grove of trees.
Grenis asked if there were any screening requirements. Walz said that the applicants had
added some screening on the west side due to the change in grade.
Sheerin opened public hearing.
Sheerin closed public hearing.
Sheerin invited discussion.
Grenis moved to approve EXC12-00005, an application submitted by Parish Apartments
LLC to reduce the minimum aisle requirement 22 feet to 17 feet to allow minimize paved
surfaces and preserve existing oak trees for a multi-family use located in the Planned
Overlay Development / Neighborhood Stabilization Residential Zone (OPD/RNS20) zone at
108 McLean Street.
Baker seconded.
Baker submitted his specific and general findings.
The specific standards that the Board feels are satisfied are:
1. The modification or waiver will help preserve the historic, aesthetic, or cultural attributes of
the property because modification of the aisle width from 22 feet to 17 feet will make the
reuse of this historic property feasible allowing for the preservation of the historic building
and its picturesque site.
2. The applicant will obtain a certificate of appropriateness from the historic preservation
commission. Assuming that the Council approves the ordinance designating this property
Board of Adjustment
April 11, 2012
Page 8 of 19
as a Landmark, any future exterior alterations to the property that require a building permit
will be subject to compliance with the guidelines contained in the Historic Preservation
Handbook.
The general standards that the Board feels are satisfied are:
1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health,
safety, comfort or general welfare because the proposed exception will primarily affect
users of the parking lot, and result in minimal traffic generation to and from the site.
2. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other
property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values
in the neighborhood. Rather than removing trees, the proposal preserves the trees that
contribute to the overall aesthetic quality and that serve as a buffer from the adjacent
property.
3. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly
development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the zone in
which such property is located because a 5 foot reduction of the minimum aisle width for the
subject property does not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of
the surrounding property.
4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being
provided. These are apparent in the approved OPD site plan and standard #5 will govern
access roads.
5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed so as
to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. The parking lot will primarily be used by the
occupants of the building, and the existing/proposed parking lot will adequately serve a low
volume of traffic. Therefore there should be little congestion on McLean Street as a result of
the reduced parking aisle width.
6. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception being
considered, the specific proposed exception, in all other respects, conforms to the applicable
regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located. Aside from the proposed
exception, the parking lot and aisle conform to the applicable regulations or standards of the
zone. The width of the existing contiguous lane between the street and the parking spaces
will likely result in alternating traffic, meaning the aisle will only be able serve vehicles moving
one direction at a time.
7. The proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended, promoting the
preservation of historic properties as well as environmentally sensitive areas.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 3-0.
Sheerin read a brief statement regarding the appeal process for this decision.
EXC12-00006: Discussion of an application submitted by McDonald's USA, LLC for a special
exception to expand the existing drive-through facility on property located in the CC-2
(Community Commercial) zone at 2440 Mormon Trek Boulevard.
Walz showed a site plan and explained that this area is undergoing a rezoning from CI-1 to CC-
2 so any exception the Board grants is subject to that rezoning. She said that the two drive-
throughs on the agenda are very similar and that McDonalds is using this format at all of their
stores. She said it creates two order-board lanes to more efficiently get traffic across the site,
Board of Adjustment
April 11, 2012
Page 9 of 19
and then the lanes come together for the payment and pick-up window. She said that what the
concern is with all drive-throughs is that there is good circulation on the site and that the site is
set back and screened adequately from surrounding uses. Staff had asked the applicant to
provide additional screening on the site and to better demarcate the pedestrian crossing from
the Mormon Trek right-of-way.
Sheerin invited the applicant to come forward.
David Bentz, of Bishop Engineering at 3501 104th Street, Urbandale, Iowa, said they are in
agreement with all City staff recommendations.
Sheerin opened public hearing.
Sheerin closed public hearing.
Sheerin invited discussion.
Grenis moved to approve the application submitted by McDonald's USA, LLC for a
special exception to allow an expansion of the existing drive-through facility on property
located in the CC-2 (Community Commercial)zone at 2440 Mormon Trek Boulevard
subject to the following conditions:
That substantial compliance with the site plan submitted including signage and
pavement markings indicating the one-way circulation of the drive and the marking of the
pedestrian areas at the front of the store and approval by the building official of the final
site plan, lighting plan and any new signage for the site and that the subject property
must be rezoned Community Commercial 2 (CC-2).
Baker seconded.
Sheerin submitted her specific and general findings.
The specific standards that the Board feels are satisfied are:
1. The number of drive-through lanes, stacking spaces and paved areas necessary for the
drive-through facility will not be detrimental to adjacent residential properties or detract from
or unduly interrupt pedestrian circulation or the commercial character of the area because:
• It is consistent with the commercial character of the area. It also improves the
efficiency of the drive-through facility.
• There is space for three cars to stack between the order boards and the pick-up
window.
• The site plan shows that the drive-through will be marked with directional arrows.
• The site plan also shows that pedestrian access is provided from the Mormon Trek
right-of-way at the southeast corner of the property, and pavement markings are
shown on the site plan and are a requirement of the parking area design standards.
• The site plan for the drive-through expansion shows that the McDonald's lot meets the
minimum parking requirements based on the square foot of floor area of the
restaurant, which are part of the commercial site development standards.
2. The transportation system is capable of safely supporting the proposed use in addition to
the existing uses in the area because:
Board of Adjustment
April 11, 2012
Page 10 of 19
• Both Mormon Trek and Highway 1 are designed to handle the level of traffic generated
by this kind of retail use.
• There is sufficient space for vehicles to stack before reaching the entrance from
Mormon Trek.
• The drive-through circulation is not in conflict with the pedestrian access because the
site plan shows that the entrances to the restaurant are provided on the south of the
building so that pedestrian access is appropriate from Mormon Trek.
• The addition of a second drive-through, furthermore, is intended to provide more
efficient service therefore minimizing time cars are stacked along the south side of the
building.
• Cross access drives with the adjacent commercial properties are designed to provide
the circulation needed between sites; cross access on the north side of the site
provides an alternative or secondary access point.
3. The drive-through lanes must be set back at least 10 feet from adjacent lot lines and public
right-of-ways are screened from view to the S2 standard. This criteria is met because:
• The drive-through lanes meet the 10-foot setback from adjacent lot lines and public
rights-of-way requirement.
• The submitted site plan shows added S2 screening along the east and south property
lines.
• There is no need for the S2 screening along the west side of the property due to the
change in grade between the two abutting properties.
4. Lighting for the drive-through facility must comply with the outdoor lighting standards. This
criteria is met because:
• Property lighting must be reviewed by the Building Department as part of the building
permit process
• The drive-through area location and traffic circulation are directly behind the building
and are not in view of residential zones.
The general standards that the Board feels are satisfied are:
1. This application will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or
general welfare because:
• Mormon Trek Boulevard and Highway 1 are both designed to serve the levels of traffic
generated by CC-2 uses such as the one proposed.
• The drive-through lanes are located more than 200 feet from the public street
• Cross access drives with the adjacent properties provide adequate circulation for the
proposed use.
2. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other
property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values
in the neighborhood.
• The proposed drive-through is located at the rear of the building and the subject
property is surrounded by other commercial uses.
• Views of the drive-through will be minimized by installation of S2 screening along the
south and east property lines where the property is in view of the Mormon Trek and
Highway 1 rights-of-way.
3. This application does not impede the normal and ordinary development and improvement
of the surrounding property referring back to the reasons already stated.
4. No additional utilities, drainage or other necessary facilities will be needed for this
expansion, and the site plan indicates that the applicant intends to remove storm sewer
Board of Adjustment
April 11, 2012
Page 11 of 19
intake and a section of the gutter at the east end of the lot, but also plans to replace the
storm sewer intake and section of the gutter. Cross access drives with adjacent properties
provide appropriate circulation for the proposed use.
5. Relating to ingress and egress the drive-through is located to the rear with traffic circulating
behind the commercial building, and there is adequate space for vehicles to stack so it will
not interfere with public streets, and the cross access drives that serve the site are
designed to control ingress and egress to minimize congestion on the public streets.
6. With regard to specific regulations and standards a site plan must be submitted for final site
plan review and building permit, and a building official will review that to make sure that
applicable zoning requirements are met.
7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because this area is a
general commercial area, and it is also near a highway interchange so it will promote the
economic development of the area.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 3-0.
Sheerin read a brief statement regarding the appeal process for this decision.
EXC11-00005 an application submitted by McDonald's USA, LLC for a special exception to
expand the existing drive-through facility on property located in the Community Commercial
(CC-2)zone at 804 S. Riverside Drive.
Walz explained that this property already has the required CC-2 zoning. She said this
application is one that had originally been filed late last summer, and then the applicant decided
to look at some other franchise opportunities but was now ready to bring it before the Board.
She showed photos of the site to the Board that showed access to the site off S. Riverside Drive
and off Benton Street. She explained that what's important in considering this site is that it is
part of the Riverfront Crossings District, so there are a number of redevelopment sites in the
immediate vicinity. She said that when the Staples property was redeveloped to the south, they
were required to provide cross access easements onto their property, as will be the case with
other properties that are redeveloped. She explained that this means drivers will not always
have to go back to S. Riverside Drive in order to move from site to site.
Walz said this property was originally granted a special exception for the drive-through some
years ago, and one of the things the Board looked at then was the S. Riverside Drive access.
She said staff had recommended that it be a one-way drive, but the Board did not ultimately
adopt that, saying "The situation at this intersection may result in delays, but if delays are
experienced by customers trying to access and leave the site, this may serve to discourage use
of the site at peak traffic time, and, in a sense, be a self-regulating mechanism to keep vehicle
trips at the restaurant at acceptable levels." She noted that the City's transportation staff looked
at the crash history at the intersection and found no safety concerns. Walz said that cross
access easement along the Staples site would only come into play if this access point was
closed off, at which point a consolidated access between these two sites should be considered,
so maybe a drive would come in here and then cars headed to McDonalds would spill off to the
north and cars going to Staples or other sites would spill off to the south.
Walz noted that the site doesn't quite meet all the set-back standards in terms of the space
required between the property line and the parking, but that updates would only be required if
Board of Adjustment
April 11, 2012
Page 12 of 19
they were doing large modifications to the building or to the paving, but what they are doing is
not sufficient to trigger that. She said they are coming into compliance with screening
requirements along this property line. She said staff has recommended waiving the requirement
where there's a change of grade between the McDonalds lot and the Mum's lot to the east. She
said the screening along the south is required but is already being provided on the Staples side.
Walz said that the McDonald's property is actually two separate properties, with one square
parcel at the front of the site and an arrow-shaped parcel at the rear, each owned by a different
owner. She said that with the franchisee and McDonalds, there are four owners involved. She
said that the Comprehensive Plan and the planning for Riverfront Crossings have staff looking
more carefully at development and congestion in this area. She said staff believes it's important
that some sort of cross access be provided at the drive onto Benton Street so that when the
property at Mum's redevelops there can be one shared drive.
Walz said that if the Board requires cross access, the applicant will have to resubmit site plans
that showed the access, but right now all the parties are not in agreement. She explained the
easements are on the Staples side, and if eventually McDonalds was no longer on its site and it
was redeveloped, those cross access easements would be required by the property on the
other side. She said that the special exception doesn't trigger the requirement, but the Board
can make it a recommendation based on some of the general criteria for the special exception.
Baker asked if the Board can require it. Walz said that the Board can require it, but it's not
required by Code. She said if the property were being fully redeveloped, it would be required,
but since that is not happening at this time, it's a recommendation that the Board could require
based on some of the criteria that deal with access. She said staff believes that the drive-
through can function safely at this time, but their concern is with the redevelopment that will be
occurring in this area in the next five to ten years.
Baker said he understood that the Board could approve this special exception without requiring
those easement agreements, but if they approved them subject to those agreements being
signed, then the easements are a requirement, and various property owners aren't in agreement
currently. Walz affirmed this.
Grenis asked if those agreements would trigger one of the entrances being closed either to
McDonalds or Staples. Walz said the one staff recommends would be on this drive, and it would
only come into play if at such time the property to the east redevelops.
Sheerin asked if staff is recommending cross access at the southwest end at this time. Walz
said they are not. She said she believes the reason staff didn't want to recommend that at this
time is because that would be part of a larger redevelopment where you would close this access
and provide a joint access between the two properties.
Sheerin asked if the Board doesn't require it at this time, and it does become more congested is
there an opportunity to go back and change it. Walz stated that they would then have to rely on
this entrance drive over here to bring traffic over and around.
Sheerin invited the applicant to come forward.
David Bentz, of Bishop Engineering at 3501 104th Street, Urbandale, Iowa, said they are in
agreement with all of City staff's recommendations except cross access easement. He said that
Board of Adjustment
April 11, 2012
Page 13 of 19
McDonalds likes to have 100 feet from where you pay to where you order, so that's why the
island between the side by side is curved around to the southeast. He said the drive would not
fit if laid out directly to the east. He said McDonalds can do 80 feet stacking from that window
back, but it's not preferred, and that option doesn't work on this site because of the land
constraints. He said the trash enclosure used to be in the southeast corner of the property but to
get the delivery semis through with the side by side, it had to be shifted to the north in
approximately the same area where the easement would be. He noted that there isn't a lot of
room to provide a shared ingress and egress easement. Bentz said that McDonalds does not
wish to ease congestion on a public street by having drivers cut through the property and
possibly causing accidents. He reiterated that McDonald's goal is to serve their patrons, not to
provide public access from one point to another.
Baker asked if as long as that is operating as a McDonalds, will they never agree to the cross
access. Bentz said McDonalds would like the Board to consider not requiring that at this time.
Walz clarified that the cross access would be granted by the property owner.
Sheerin asked if McDonalds wouldn't be contributing to the congestion by adding the drive-
through. Walz said that is why staff is not recommending that the Board add the cross access,
but that they do want to see some sort of cross access agreement so that as such time as the
property to the east redevelops there would be only one curb cut onto Benton Street that the
two properties would share. Bentz replied that McDonalds is already on site, so he doesn't
believe that what they are doing would increase traffic flow on the street, so all the drive-
throughs would do is eliminate back-up on Riverside from the drive-through.
Baker asked if that in a sense doesn't increase probable business. Bentz said that speaking
from experience that if he wants to go to a McDonalds and whether he finds a long line or not,
he's going there. He said but if he is driving by on that street and sees a long line, he doesn't
pull in, but he's still on the public street.
Bentz said that McDonalds asks that the Board consider not requiring the easement at this time
until such time as the area is redeveloped and meets the criteria of a redevelopment.
Grenis asked if the purpose of the side by side is to increase efficiency or to get more
customers. Bentz replied that the side by side increases efficiency by pushing the traffic through
and out of parking areas and with the shorter line, it might be more attractive to people driving
by, which, he pointed out, was traffic that was already on that street. He said that he doesn't
know if a side by side will actually draw more people.
Sheerin opened public hearing.
Dallas Robertson of 4293 Maureen Terrace in Iowa City said he is speaking in favor of the
application He explained that there are two lots on this site and that he and his brother are half
owners of the lot that borders Mums, and the Hippee Trust is owner of the other lot. He said that
Kevin O'Brien is the franchise owner and owner of the Mums property. He said he's in favor of
their updates to the site because it's more efficient for the customers. He said he's against the
cross easement because there's a motel planned for the former Wendy's site, and if it were him
staying at the motel, he would never drive up to McDonalds, but rather walk there. He said that
the cross easement benefits everyone but McDonalds and would actually make traffic flow on
the property hazardous, even with only one drive-through. He said it's not right to have public
Board of Adjustment
April 11, 2012
Page 14 of 19
traffic going across private property to access streets because there's potential for fender
benders in the parking lot and business is disrupted. Robertson said other cities have frontage
roads that are owned and maintained by the City. He said in this case, a private owner would be
required to allow public transportation across their lot. He said he has a problem with the cross
easement going to the east because they are close to a bridge and because he doesn't want to
put Kevin O'Brien in a bind over something he doesn't want that may hinder his business. He
said in the future if O'Brien wanted that cross easement, Robertson would work with him.
Baker said he understands Robertson's objections based on his current situation but wanted to
know his objections based on the possibility of redevelopment. Robertson said that in the future
a cross easement would reduce the amount of usable land on his property in order to benefit
other people. He said that Benton Street runs through the middle of what used to be his
grandparent's property and that the City has taken most of their property. He explained that with
less usable land, he can't get the rent he would like and besides, he would have to pay property
tax on the cross easement land that's being used by the public. He said that neither of the two
lots is big enough to separately make a big enough financial gain for the property owners.
Baker asked how much sellable property he would lose if there's an easement built here. Walz
said that you wouldn't lose sellable property and by consolidating the curb cuts, you would
actually provide more shared set back areas that open up other opportunities for other uses on
the property.
Baker said if the property is redeveloped, one curb cut will be closed, which would open up
some area that is currently taken up by access and takes it away from the area at the east side
of the lot. Walz said it would depend on if they rely on this current access point or if it's
consolidated and shared by the two properties, but the idea is that people going to either
property would be able to use the same drive.
Baker said he had no desire to require the access now but wanted clarification on what the City
will need to do in the future to get the access it believes is necessary. Holecek said it would be
on redevelopment, rezoning, other intensification of the use that might require special exception,
but basically changes to the site.
Baker said that this, then, wasn't the only option the City had to get that access. Holecek said
that wasn't necessarily the case. She said there would be opportunity if there is redevelopment
in the future of either of the Mums site or other activity on this site.
Walz said the redevelopment of the Mums site would only affect that site and that cross access
is only required on one side.
Sheerin said that even if there was redevelopment on the Mums property that would not allow
for cross access. Holecek and Walz said that was correct, that it wouldn't allow for cross access
on this side.
Baker said he thinks that cross access will be necessary at some point but wants to make sure
the City still has mechanisms that will achieve cross access in the future. Walz said there is
probably not another likely special exception opportunity for McDonalds. Holecek said another
opportunity would be if the City were to require the consolidation of the two driveways through a
condemnation process or a reconstruction of Benton Street. She said such a process in now
underway on Lower Muscatine where drives will be eliminated and consolidated.
Board of Adjustment
April 11, 2012
Page 15 of 19
Baker said the objection before the Board tonight is the possible future diminishment of the
value of the property. Walz said staff would disagree, that typically better access makes
properties more valuable. Holecek clarified that the Board is also debating whether or not the
addition of the drive-through intensifies the use and the traffic coming to the property based on
less queuing.
Baker asked Robertson if a future easement requirement impacted his current operation or if his
only concern is for the future redevelopment or sale of the property. Robertson said that with the
odd lot configuration, an easement on the east end of the south side through to Staples would
remove four or five parking spaces and shoot the traffic right into the drive-through. He said that
the other easement that would be on the northeast side of the property could bring
consequences to the Mums property owner.
Baker asked if Robertson would agree that a future easement requirement does not affect his
current operation. Robertson said a future one going onto Benton Street would not necessarily
be a bad thing, but he's really against the south easement going into Staples. He said that if the
City forces them to do this through condemnation then he assumes they would be reimbursed.
Sheerin said that was not the bailiwick of the Board.
Robertson said the land is theirs, they rent to McDonalds, O'Brien has a franchise for
McDonalds, so why should they be responsible for Staples' customers or any hotel customers.
Sheerin said their concern was traffic on Riverside Drive, not the private businesses in the area.
Robertson said that typically people don't come to the west entrance of McDonalds and try to
turn left but rather come out on Benton Street once they come out of the drive-throughs.
David Robertson of 2260 Balsam Court in Iowa City said he is one-hundred percent in
agreement with what Dallas Robertson has said. He said that when the Mums property is
redeveloped he would like to see the curb cut more centered between the two properties and
would be in total agreement in working on that. He said that when the Mums property is
redeveloped, he would like to shift the southern easement over and make it a requirement of the
other property and then you wouldn't have to cut through the McDonalds' property but rather the
newly developed property to use the access onto Benton Street.
Sheerin asked if staff had considered that alternative. Walz said they had, but that all staff is
recommending now is access easement that allows consolidation of the two curb cuts
here upon redevelopment of the Mums property.
Baker asked if the Board asked for a future cross access easement agreement, does that
agreement specify the exact location of the access. Holecek replied that because they don't
now know how or what is going to redevelop on the Mums property it's hard to tell where the
location would be. She said what the Board could articulate is that they want the one to the
north so that the drive can be consolidated upon redevelopment of the Mums property, and the
trigger would be the redevelopment of the Mums property.
Walz said you would get the easement on the McDonald's property right now, but would there
only on paper. She said that at such time as Mums redevelops, they would grant their side of
the easement, close their curb cut and do whatever is needed to consolidate the drive.
Board of Adjustment
April 11, 2012
Page 16 of 19
Baker asked if without a future access agreement does the City have the ability to achieve this
same result once Mums redevelops. Walz said not unless McDonalds redevelops. She said
they would get the agreement on paper now for McDonalds, and then when Mums redevelops
you get the agreement from them. She said you need to get the two halves, and the only time to
get them is either when a property is being redeveloped or a property going through a process
such as this one.
Bentz asked if McDonalds provides an easement and O'Brien develops, would they then use his
drive or McDonald's or are they sharing. He asked what if O'Brien starts redevelopment in four
months, and McDonalds has just built their side by side is that the time McDonalds has to rip out
its trash enclosure. Holecek suggested that they angle it and not have a trash enclosure. Bentz
asked if what they are looking for is an easement across that green space just north of the trash
enclosure. Holecek affirmed this. Bentz said if McDonalds hooked on to Staples, would they
have to pay for the concrete from McDonalds to Staples current parking lot so O'Brien would
have to provide some sort of service drive, and he would have to access onto Benton. Holecek
said no, that what she would envision is something going between the two with a new curb cut
and moving everything to the east.
Sheerin closed public hearing.
Sheerin invited discussion.
Baker said he does not share the property owners' concerns about the diminishment of value of
the property in the long run. He said he has concerns that trying to get cross access in the
future would be difficult. He said he recommends that the Board approve this application
maintaining the four recommendations of the staff.
Sheerin concurred. She said she understands the concern about the Staples curb cut but
doesn't see any problem with the Benton Street curb cut.
Grenis agreed that cross access easement on the east side is for the public benefit, meaning
less congestion on Benton Street, and he didn't see the need for the southern one at this time.
Baker moved the adoption of EXC11 -00005, a special exception to allow the expansion of the
existing drive-through facility in the Community Commercial (CC-2)zone at 804 S. Riverside
Drive be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. Substantial compliance with the site plan submitted, including signage and pavement
markings indicating the one-way circulation of the drive and marking of the pedestrian
areas at the front of the store.
2. Re-landscaping of areas currently covered in rock as necessary to meet the code standard
for turf or other plant covering.
3. Approval by the Building Official of the final site plan, lighting plan, and any new signage for
the site.
4. A cross access easement for the drive entrance from Benton Street to allow the
consolidation of curb cuts along this arterial street at such time as the property to the east
redevelops, and the easement must be granted prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Grenis seconded.
Grenis submitted his specific and general findings.
Board of Adjustment
April 11,2012
Page 17 of 19
The specific standards that the Board feels are satisfied are:
1. In regard to drive-through and stacking spaces
• The site plan shows space for at least five to six cars to stack at the order boards.
• There is adequate space for five cars to stack on the north side of the building in the
pick-up lane.
• There are pavement markings along and traffic islands that demarcate the drive-
through lanes from other vehicle circulation on the site.
• The property is surrounded by commercial properties and is not readily visible from the
residential zones.
• The pavement along the drive-through will be marked with directional arrows.
• Pedestrian access is provided from the Riverside Drive right of way.
• Pavement markings are shown on the site plan and are a requirement of parking area
design standards.
2. In regard to the transportation system being capable of supporting the proposed use
• This is supported by several of the facts from the first standard and that the property is
accessed via curb cuts along Benton Street and S. Riverside Drive, both of which are
arterial streets.
• There is sufficient space for vehicles to stack before reaching the entrance from
Riverside Drive.
• The drive-through circulation is not in conflict with pedestrian access to the restaurant.
Pedestrian access is therefore appropriate from Riverside Drive.
• The addition of a second drive-through lane is intended to provide more efficient service
and minimize the amount of time that cars are stacked along the south side of the
building.
3. That the drive-through lanes must be set back at least 10 feet from adjacent lot lines is
satisfied because the drive-through lanes meet the required set back standards, and the
site plan shows the required S-2 screening along Benton Street and Riverside Drive, S-2
screening is present on the Staples side of the south property line, and the S-2 screening
along the east property line as the existing retaining wall and change of grade serves as an
effective buffer
4. The lighting standard is met because the property line will be reviewed by the building
department at part of the building permit process and the drive-through area is not in the
view of residential zones
The general standards that the Board feels are satisfied are:
1. The specific proposed exception not being detrimental to or endanger the public health,
safety, comfort or general welfare is satisfied because Riverside Drive and Benton Street
are designed to accommodate levels of traffic generated by this zone, the drive-through
lanes are located more than 100 feet from the entrance on Riverside Drive, and the access
to Benton Street provides an alternative entry and exit point during peak traffic time.
2. That the exception not be injurious to the use or enjoyment of other property is satisfied
because the drive-through facility is located at the rear of the building, the subject property
is surrounded by commercial uses, and the use of the drive-through will be minimized by
the installation of S-2 screening.
3. That the proposed exception not impede the normal and orderly development and
improvement of the surrounding property is satisfied because for the reason provided in
previous general standards relating to circulation, set-backs and screening.
4. That the adequate utilities and access road drainage and necessary facilities have been or
will be provided is satisfied because all necessary utilities and drainage are available at the
site, Benton Street and Riverside Drive are designed to support these sorts of intense
Board of Adjustment
April 11, 2012
Page 18 of 19
commercial uses, and easement that the Board discussed for the east property line will add
to this in future years provided the redevelopment of the Mums property provides for such
easement.
5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress to minimize
congestion has been satisfied because there is adequate space for vehicles to stack such
as will not interfere with public streets, having ingress and egress from both Riverside Drive
and Benton Street will minimize traffic congestion and provide safer ingress, and the site
plan shows an existing parking space directly adjacent to the drive that will be removed and
landscaped, in addition to the cross easement discussed for the eastern property.
6. Except for the specific regulations, the special exception in all other respects conforms to
the applicable regulations and standards of this zone is satisfied because the applicant will
replace rock and sod and mulch to satisfy the requirements of the zoning code, and the
building official will review the plan to determine that applicable zoning requirements are
satisfied.
7. That the proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan is satisfied because
the proposed site plan improves the attractive landscape features that are already present
on the site, attention is called to traffic congestion and turning conflicts along this portion of
Riverside Drive and calls for cross access between commercial sites and the consolidation
of curb cuts. and the cross access for this site recommends cross access easement for the
Benton Street entrance.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 3-0.
Sheerin read a brief statement regarding the appeal process for this decision.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION:
Baker asked if legally there is a process for the specific and general standards by which the
Board could say that they find themselves in agreement with the findings in the staff report and
then adopt the findings in summary form and allow for additions or disagreement after that.
Holecek said that under case law, the staff report is looked at, but articulating the standards as
being adopted by Board helps bolster the staff report for controversial for contentious cases.
Baker suggested that when there is disagreement would be the time for precise articulation of
the standards but perhaps for cases where the Board is in agreement, they could simply adopt
the findings in the staff report.
Holecek said when applications are approved is typically when a lawsuit occurs because
someone is not in agreement with it. She said that things could be simplified in the non-
controversial cases where no one is protesting. She said that case law does suggest that the
staff report could be adopted with commentary.
ADJOURNMENT:
Grenis moved to adjourn.
Baker seconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 3-0 vote.
H
2p T' W
XX � X
M CL
-) Wr-
G V N XXXX
0 M
O a0N c co
XXXW
O• W O
OQ XX0X
CO
N W tiCOl1) M
2
re cC -- oo0 3
La . ONNN pU'
f'- X e- c- e- O O
W o 0 0 0 = z ,_
Xc1
C
N O
CD 0 12 crl
CO
JO Q z o
C C1,2 aa ` z
N u II W
Q E D X O O z 1
al —C� - m
L
ZJ
L
Or
03 0
06-05-12
4b(4)
MINUTES APPROVED
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
APRIL 12,2012
EMMA HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Ackerson,Thomas Baldridge,William Downing,Andrew Litton,Pam Michaud,
Ginalie Swaim,Dana Thomann,Alicia Trimble,Frank Wagner
MEMBERS ABSENT: Esther Baker,David McMahon
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo,Chery Peterson
OTHERS PRESENT: Barbara Eckstein,Brad Moore,Justin Mulford,Steve Vincent,Jean Walker,Kevin
Watts,Maeve Clarke
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action)
None.
CALL TO ORDER: Trimble called the meeting to order at 5:15 p.m.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA:
Mulford said he was before the Commission to discuss the possibility of going ahead with a plan he is discussing
with a fraternity. He said that the Sigma Nu Fraternity lost its house about five years ago and had been renting since
then. Watts said he is wondering if the two houses he owns at 111 and 115 South Governor could be demolished
and replaced with a new fraternity house built on the property.
Mulford said he has already had preliminary meetings with the Building Department. He said the Building
Department laid out everything he needed to have,and the rough plan is acceptable to the Building Department.
Mulford said he would like to have the Commission's input to see if the idea is feasible.
Trimble asked if the two properties have historic designations. Muilford replied that they are both contributing
structures. He added that there are four sorority houses in the immediate area.
Mulford said the fraternity is ready to commit to this plan. He said that before spending money on an architect,he
wanted to make sure this idea is feasible.
Peterson read from the section of the Preservation Guidelines discussing demolishing the primary building that
states that removing an historic structure is disallowed. Trimble said that based on the Guidelines,it appears that the
Guidelines do not allow the Commission to permit the demolition of properties designated as historic or contributing
properties.
Mulford said that the houses have been party houses for a very long time and have not been taken care of inside or
outside. He stated that he would like to put a building on there that is going to stay there for one hundred years,
because the current houses probably won't last another twenty-five years.
Trimble said that she has been on the Commission for five years,and she has never seen the Commission allow the
demolition of a contributing structure that was structurally sound. She said that she could not predict the
Commission's vote but would say that this does not look likely,based on her experience.
Regarding an appeal process,Miklo said the owner would first have to make an application to take the buildings
down and demonstrate that they are structurally unsound. Miklo said that the owner would have to go to the
expense of making an application,and to make an application,he would also have to go to the expense of showing
what would be put in place of the buildings.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
APRIL 12,2012
Page 2 of 13
Baldridge asked if there are properties just outside of the historic district that would be a good fit for this kind of
project. Mulford said there is an area of four properties that would work,but one of the middle properties is a
contributing property. He asked if it would be an option to have the houses moved.
Trimble said that oftentimes if a house is moved,it is no longer a contributing structure. She said that for National
Register eligibility,there has to be a reason,if the house is moved,that it can contribute outside of the district.
Trimble said these houses would no longer be contributing if they were moved,possibly even if they were moved
within the same conservation district.
Miklo said that one of the points of a conservation district is to conserve a neighborhood. He said that moving the
structures would be counter to that.
Walker said that she is the Melrose Neighborhood representative. She said that she wanted to discuss the vacation
of Melrose Place for the University to build a parking lot off Melrose Place. Walker showed the Melrose
Neighborhood on a map and the historic district within that neighborhood.
Walker said that 711 Melrose Avenue and 727 Melrose Avenue are within the historic district. She said that both
are contributing structures to the designation by the National Register of Historic Places. Walker said the University
is planning this parking lot and wants to have Melrose Place vacated up to a certain point.
Walker said that,in talking with the City,they have to have a two-way street coming in,but because this is so close
to the drive,the City prefers to have the traffic come out here(showing a place on the map),so the traffic turning
west has a chance to get out. She said that in order to have a two-way,with the property line where it is,the only
way they could save 711 is if the neighbor would give an easement over a small amount of his property.
Walker said that was pending when this went before the Planning and Zoning Commission,but Planning and Zoning
went ahead and approved the vacation of Melrose Place. She said this comes before the City Council on May 1.
Walker said the neighboring property owner has said that he does not wish to give an easement to the University.
She said this plan is therefore out,and the only way to get two lanes is if it encroaches on 711 Melrose Avenue.
Walker said that 711 Melrose Avenue also has an historic barn. She said it is 100 years old and is the last existing
barn in the neighborhood and is in pretty good shape. Walker said that in trying to preserve it,the University has
agreed to relocate the barn so that it would be preserved.
Walker said that now that the neighboring owner will not give an easement,711 is in jeopardy. She asked if the
Commission could send a supportive communication to the City Council to state that 711 should be preserved.
Walker said that it is an integral part of the historic district. She said that if it goes,then there are two properties that
are isolated.
Male(Ackerson?)asked if 711 is currently a residence. Walker replied that it is currently a residence. She said the
University bought it but,as part of buying it,allowed the previous owner to rent the house out to the people who
were renting it before. Walker said that was to stand for five years,although there could be a break in that contract.
Miklo suggested that,because the historic district is on the agenda and there are quite a few people waiting to hear
other items,this be discussed at that time. Walker said that would be fine; she just didn't want to miss out on this
being discussed.
CONSENT AGENDA:
Certificates of Appropriateness:
20 E.Market Street(door replacement in west addition).
509 Rundell Street(siding repair,repair/replace window by chimney).
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
APRIL 12,2012
Page 3 of 13
727 Rundell Street(replace `porch'window).
1501 Center Avenue(window replacement at east side).
1110 E College Street(carport demolition).
910 Bowery Street(replace rear window).
Peterson said that one motion could approve all of these items. Miklo said that the details are listed in the packet,
and the Commission members should feel free to ask any questions.
Regarding 501 Rundell Street,Swaim said that the Commission does not have any purview over paint color. She
did not want people to think that was something on which the Commission ruled. Peterson said she advised the
applicant that the Commission does not consider paint color.
MOTION: Baldridge moved to accept the consent agenda as recommended in the Commission's packet,
subject to the recommended conditions. Wagner seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0
(Baker and McMahon absent).
CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS:
728 Rundell Street.
Peterson said this application involves a remodeling project on a Moffitt house on Rundell Street. She showed a
photograph of the house as it is now.
Peterson said there was an attached garage on the left,but in the past it was remodeled into interior space,and that is
what is going to be remodeled in the new project,all the way back to the sliding door that would be replaced with a
new door. She said there would also be a different window arrangement.
Peterson referred to the plans,showing the existing floor plan and the proposal. She said the work will include new
siding and all new windows in one part of the house,and with the windows there are aluminum storms and also the
back door and the storm door at the back. Peterson said the windows are in slightly different locations and they are
slightly different sizes than what is there now.
Peterson said the packet contains examples of some other houses in the neighborhood. She said the main thing is
that when this is all done,the window that is in the center of the projecting gable will not be centered anymore;it
will be offset,because it works better with the interior plan. Peterson said there is a good example in the packet of a
similar house.
Peterson said staff recommends approval of this project.
Vincent,the owner of the house,said that this house is one of about 16 Moffitt houses in the Longfellow District and
about 16 two-story houses. He said that there was a comment made to him about the symmetry of the window
below on the left. Vincent said that of the other 16 houses,only three have any symmetry at all associated with the
Moffitt home.
Vincent said the new window will be off center because of the closet window. He said the small window in the
space of the house throws the center off. Vincent said that,in general,what he is doing is trying to get the windows
more appropriately sized. He said they are larger than the other windows in the house on the exterior.
Peterson said the plans show how the proposal results in a better interior arrangement of the space. Vincent stated
that the windows in every room of the original first floor of the house are centered. He said that in this case,the
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
APRIL 12,2012
Page 4 of 13
previous owner wanted to center the windows' exterior and violated the interior principle by moving the widow to
the side of the room so there is not even enough room for the casing.
Swaim asked if Vincent was discussing the two double windows. Vincent confirmed this. He said the original
garage opening was off center from that space. Vincent said he is centering the windows in the same way the garage
door would have been centered.
Baldridge said that because of that closet,there is a wall between those two windows. Vincent agreed. Wagner said
they end up being in the corner. Vincent said that is true.
Miklo said staff almost put this on the agenda as a consent item,but because the change is significant,felt the
Commission should see it. Trimble reminded the Commission that the interior of a building is not to be considered.
She said that because there was no standard way of building these distinctive Moffitt houses,she feels this change
would be more to the original design of the building.
MOTION: Swaim moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for an application for 728 Rundell
Street,as presented in the application. Baldridge seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0
(Baker and McMahon absent).
814 Ronalds Street.
Peterson stated that this house is in the Brown Street Historic District. She showed the front of the house and a shed
off the alley. Peterson said the proposal is to put solar panels on the shed. She said that the shed and the house are
not close and showed a view of the shed from the house.
Peterson showed examples of the product that was sent to her. She showed two sketches of the proposed
arrangement of the panel. Peterson said the panels have to be sloped to face south,and the roof actually slopes to
the north,so that is why they are tilting that way.
Peterson showed the version with fifteen panels in rows of three and the other version with fourteen panels in two
rows high. She said she did not think the exact arrangement has been determined. Peterson said that one version did
not have as much height,and there may be other ordinances that restrict height. Eckstein,the owner of the house,
pointed out the version that she prefers.
Peterson said that all of the electrical and cabling is underground,and the equipment would be in the shed.
Eckstein said that with the panels,80%of the electricity in the house would be served. Swaim said that the
Guidelines are not specific regarding solar panels, so this is something that will probably come before the
Commission more often. She said it is a good chance for the Commission to learn about it.
Baldridge asked if the whole thing be slid toward the alley. Moore,the contractor for this project,said that,
depending on the exact size of the panels that end up here,that is a definite possibility. He said there is one other
issue in that there is actually a utility pole on the corner of the shed,and he needs to keep clearance from that and
cannot go back too far.
Peterson said her recommendation is to approve the application with the condition that staff and chair approve the
final layout.
Miklo said the City really does not have guidelines to address things of this sort in historic districts or in other
residential districts. He said staff anticipates seeing more proposals of this sort,and the City is doing some research
on how to best address these. Miklo said that in non-historic districts,they have been handled as accessory uses,
which has not been altogether satisfactory. He said that some of these turn with the sun and have created some glare
problems and some complaints from neighbors.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
APRIL 12,2012
Page 5 of 13
Miklo said it seems that,in an historic district,for new technology to be introduced like this,this is probably the best
place on this particular lot to do it. He said that is why staff recommends approval. Miklo said it is also of a scale
and size that will not be terribly noticeable.
Swaim asked if the visible surface of the panels will be a grayish white,like the shingles on the roof. Moore replied
that they will be dark.
Michaud asked if the panels would be adjustable at all. Moore responded that if there was a major issue,if it was
glaring directly at something,they would definitely consider moving it. He said it is meant to be permanent—that
the angle is placed to get maximum efficiency.
Eckstein said that there are a lot of large trees in the neighborhood. She said that this is almost the only spot within
a several block area where this would work. Eckstein said the neighbors are all quite shaded from this,although if it
became a problem for someone,they would figure out what to do to mitigate that.
MOTION: Litton moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for an application for 814 Ronalds
Street as presented in the application,subject to the condition that the applicant provide information on the
overall dimensions of the solar array,including height,for review and approval by the chair and staff.
Swaim seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0(Baker and McMahon absent).
500 Clark Street.
Peterson said this project involves the construction of a new front porch. She said the property backs up to
Longfellow School but is in the Clark Street Conservation District.
Peterson showed a view of the back half of the lot with the house in the background. She showed the porch,which
is only a few years old. Peterson added that the porch is not original but was added when the house was re-sided
and additions were made to the house. She showed a garage that the Commission approved a few years ago.
Peterson showed sketches of the proposed porch. She said that it would be the same depth as what is there now but
would be wider. Peterson said it would use the same sort of wood elements,with an asphalt roof,square corner
posts,and a horizontal skirt at the bottom.
Peterson said everything seems fine with the proposal,and the owner was present to answer questions. She said her
only recommended condition would be to get the typical final dimensions and product literature.
Peterson showed a picture of a house across the street on Clark Street that has similar detailing to what the owner
wants to do. She said she did find approval for parts of the project across the street but did not find Commission
approval for the porch.
Miklo stated that he believes the porch was approved but it was approved as painted material and then not
unfinished treated lumber. He said the approved proposal showed actual latticework versus the horizontal board.
Miklo said the project was therefore not carried out as approved,and there was an inspection problem there.
Peterson said that the packet includes pictures of an original,old porch on this house. She said the original porch
had a steeper roof. Peterson said the owner does not want turned columns and brackets,which is okay.
Swaim asked about the IPE wood. Clarke,the owner said that this IPE wood is very durable and that is why they
would like to use it. Peterson said it seems like it is a great alternative for the deck horizontal surfaces,but it does
not take paint,so that would be a problem in an historic district.
Michaud asked if it then has to be stained or sealed. Clarke replied that it is intended to be natural;it is that type of
wood. Michaud said she used fir on her deck and has to seal it every two years.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
APRIL 12,2012
Page 6 of 13
Regarding the wood, Swaim asked how the Guidelines address this. Miklo responded that the guidelines require
that it be painted,except for the deck,which could be treated or stained. He said this is a good example of why the
guidelines have that standard,because people say they will paint it in six months,but it often doesn't get painted.
Swaim asked if treated wood is allowed. Peterson said it is allowed,and the recommendation is that it be left for six
months to a year for curing and then painted. She said her understanding is that the IPE would never be painted,
because it doesn't take paint or stain. Peterson said it would be great for the steps and the deck area. She said it is
not like treated wood and added that it can be used for the floor and the stair treads.
Baldridge said that he preferred the steeper roof pitch shown in the historic photo of the housue. Miklo said that
historic porches tend to have a lower pitch.He said the original porch on this house is quite unusual,and it would
not be odd to see a lower pitch roof,as being proposed,on a building of this sort. Trimble said she is comfortable
with the pitch of this roof for this reason.
MOTION: Michaud moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for an application for 500 Clark
Street as presented in the application,with the condition that the applicant provide final detail drawings,
dimensions,and product information for review and approval by the chair and staff. Ackerson seconded the
motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0(Baker and McMahon absent).
REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF:
Peterson said there were two certificates of no material effect and two intermediate review certificates that she and
the chair looked at. There were no questions about the certificates.
DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICTS.
Jefferson Street National Historic District.
Melrose National Historic District.
Miklo said that at its last meeting,the Commission set its goals and objectives for the next year. He said that two
items that rose to the top were considering potential local historic districts where National Register historic districts
already exist.
Miklo said this is a concern of the Commission because of some of the recent developments in the City and the
awareness that the Red Avocado proposal has brought to development. He said there are only two National Register
Historic Districts that are not local districts:Jefferson Street and Melrose Avenue. Miklo said the question is
whether the Commission wants to initiate either one or both of these as local districts. He stated that both of these
will probably be controversial.
Regarding Jefferson Street,Miklo said that there very few homeowners in this area,although there are more
institutions,including the University,three or four churches,and several rental properties. He said it is unlike some
of the other districts where property owners have come forward to support the designation. Miklo said this will be a
district where community-wide support will be necessary to be successful to establish a local district.
Regarding the Melrose Avenue area,Miklo said that there are obviously advocates for this designation in the
neighborhood. He said there may be more support,but there is also some University-owned property and some
rental properties in the area.
Miklo said he would like to revisit Walker's concern about 711 Melrose after the Commission determines how it
wants to approach this. He said that with limited staffing,a lot of the work,including the community-relations
work,would need to be done by Commission members. Miklo said that hopefully Friends of Historic Preservation
will be able to contribute in terms of educating property owners,the Planning and Zoning Commission,and the City
Council regarding the value of creating local districts in these areas.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
APRIL 12,2012
Page 7 of 13
Baldridge said that he is strongly in favor of both districts. Trimble said she believes both of these neighborhoods
are at a critical point right now. She said if the Commission doesn't try to designate districts here,properties will be
lost. Trimble suggested moving forward with both of them.
Miklo asked if the Commission wants to work on both districts simultaneously or wants to select one over the other
to try to designate first. He said they will each take hours of work on the part of commissioners. Miklo said there
are some zoning differences between the two areas. He said the Jefferson Street area has Mixed Use(MU)zoning
and some Public(P)zoning. Miklo said that anything owned by the University is exempt from the regulations,so
even if it is a local district,the Commission cannot control what happens with those properties.
Miklo said the Melrose District is in some ways better off,because much of it is zoned Low Density Single Family
(RS-5),so there is not the threat of redevelopment. He added that the University also owns a lot of property in this
area. Miklo said that there is some property that will likely be proposed for demolition already by the University,
but the local designation will not prevent that from happening.
Trimble asked,if the Commission makes something a local district and then the University buys a property within
that district,does it then become exempt from the regulations. Miklo answered that the University is exempt from
local zoning regulations,even if the property is purchased after the area is made a district.
Miklo said that if federal funds are used for a property in a National Register district,then there has to be a section
106 review process. He said this involves exploring alternatives to avoid damage or minimize damage,or if it is
determined that a building will be removed,then there has to be mitigation.
Swaim agreed that both districts need to be tackled. Regarding Jefferson Street and it following so soon after
Washington Street,she said the public is probably more aware of this issue. Swaim said it can be presented as an
example of what preservation can do,and as citizens,the Commission is stepping forward. She asked for a
discussion of what is involved in the process and whether it pays for the Commission to do both at once or to create
a game plan to execute on one district and then the other.
Miklo said that both of these areas are National Register districts. He stated that the first step in designating a local
historic district would be a public hearing before the Historic Preservation Commission. Miklo said that before that
public hearing occurs,all property owners within the district and within 200 feet of the district are notified that the
property is being proposed for an historic district by the Commission. He said the time and date of the meeting is
announced,and interested parties;for,against,and neutral;are invited to speak and make a case for or against why
this should be a district.
Miklo said the Historic Preservation Commission then makes a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning
Commission,which has a similar process in which property owners are notified. He said it is a zoning decision at
that level. Miklo said the Historic Preservation Commission's decision is whether the area qualifies for a district
based on the Commission's criteria,which are basically the National Register criteria,so clearly,indications are that
these two areas meet the criteria.
Miklo said that the job of the Planning and Zoning Commission is to look at a potential district in relationship to the
Comprehensive Plan,including if these are areas where the Plan calls for preservation or redevelopment.He said
that if the Plan called for redevelopment in an area,it would be unlikely for the Planning and Zoning Commission to
recommend an historic district.
Miklo said the Planning and Zoning Commission then makes a recommendation to the City Council,and the City
Council considers both recommendations. He said that the City Council also holds a public hearing. At the City
Council level,Miklo stated that if owners of 20%of the property within the proposed district object to the
designation of their properties,it requires approval of six out of seven of the City Council members to designate a
district. He said that is a pretty high standard to meet,but it was done twice in the past: for the Carnegie Library
Building and also for the North Side Historic District.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
APRIL 12,2012
Page 8 of 13
Regarding the 20%objection,Miklo said there is a petition form available. He said that the property owners are
made aware that they have the right to make this protest. Miklo said the form is notarized and submitted to the City
Clerk. He said that before the City Council votes,the protest signatures are tallied to see if 20%of the land area is
represented. Miklo added that property owners with 200 feet of the proposed district could also be part of a protest
petition.
Miklo said that some of the community relationship work that would be necessary to make this successful includes
meeting with the University and getting its support for one or both of these districts. He said the University owns
considerable property near both of these districts. Miklo said an important role is reaching out to some of the major
property owners with education and negotiations.
Swaim asked how much clout non-residents of the district have in making the argument that this is important for the
community. Miklo said he thinks Jefferson Street will be unique in that much of the support will probably come
from the larger community.
Miklo said that several of the churches in the Jefferson Street neighborhood are already local landmarks and under
the Commission's regulation already,including Saint Mary's and the Congregational Church. He said there is
therefore no reason for those churches to object.
Wagner said he agrees that the Commission really has to do something regarding getting local designation. Swaim
said that maybe some subcommittees could put together materials and talking points. She said that lots of times
when one needs to make an argument for a particular street or neighborhood, people have to see the images of the
houses before they are convinced. Swaim said that all of that would take some preparation.
Trimble said she thinks this is definitely the primary mission of the Friends of Historic Preservation. She said they
will be there to help as much as they can.
Miklo said there may be some benefit to doing both districts at the same time. Baldridge said he thinks they both are
inevitable. He said that to only focus on one might invite insult on the other. Baldridge said it might make sense to
pursue both,giving people the flexibility to put more effort wherever it is most needed.
Downing asked if it would be possible to hold public hearings for both districts at the same time and place. Miklo
said they could be held at the same time and place,although it might be better to have them different nights.
Walker said that in the Melrose Neighborhood,402 Myrtle Avenue is within the historic district,but it was torn
down last fall. She said the house was in bad condition,but the demolition did set a precedent.
Trimble said she wondered how critical the time element is with each district. Trimble said the University seems
very willing to take down properties in the Melrose neighborhood,but in the Jefferson area, it seems like this is a
point where some of the buildings that are critical to Iowa City history could be lost.
Michaud said that public opinion is on the Commission's side,so this should be acted upon as soon as possible. She
asked about the public meetings. Miklo said that a quorum of the Commission would be necessary for a vote,and as
many commissioners as possible should attend the public hearings.
Miklo suggested that perhaps a subcommittee should be formed to do some of the background work on this. Swaim
volunteered to be on a subcommittee,and Michaud volunteered to work on a Jefferson Street subcommittee.
Miklo said the hard work is the preparation beforehand and then the actual meeting. He said the designation
involves a four to five month process,because it also goes through the zoning process,which takes three months
itself.
Walker said that the Melrose District is under tremendous pressure from The University of Iowa. She said that if it
is known that the Commission is proceeding and that this is a worthwhile thing to do,it sends a message to the
community at large and the University that the City thinks the area is worth preserving. Walker said that in 1992,
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
APRIL 12,2012
Page 9 of 13
the City stated that it should be supportive of supporting this against the encroachment of The University of Iowa,so
it has been discussed for 20 years,with the neighbors being the ones who fought for National Register designation.
Swaim said that if the Commission wanted to take both districts on at the same time, and then the subcommittee
steps up the work,the talking points could be customized for each neighborhood. She said that then perhaps
different people could be in charge of the Jefferson Street area and the Melrose Avenue area,because different
approaches might work better with each.
Walker asked if those subcommittee meetings would be open to the public to sit in. Peterson said they could be
open to the public and said that Walker's input could be extremely helpful. Swaim said she would envision a
subcommittee of Commission members,Friends of Historic Preservation members,and invested owners.
The consensus of the Commission was to at least get the work started on both districts at the same time. Trimble
asked,if this process is started but doesn't move forward fast enough,it is possible that buildings could be
demolished. Miklo said that is always the case. He said that whatever is done in terms of designating local districts,
it will have no effect on University-owned properties. Miklo said it needs to be clear that this is not going to prevent
the University from demolishing properties that it owns on either street.
Swaim,Litton,Michaud,Thomann,and Wagner volunteered to work on the subcommittee,and Trimble also
volunteered to be a member in her capacity as a member of Friends of Historic Preservation. Michaud asked Walker
if she could provide the subcommittee with her contact information for people in the Melrose Neighborhood.
Miklo said he is involved in the City's review of the vacation of the street right-of-way that the University has
applied for that the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed last week. He said the University is proposing a
parking lot on properties he specified on a map. Miklo said that as part of building the Children's Hospital,at least
one of the parking structures there would be taken down to make room for that hospital. He said the University is
doing all sorts of things to make up for that parking,because the University needs it to function.
Miklo showed an aerial photograph,pointing out the National Register Historic District western boundary. He
showed where the parking lot would be located. Miklo said the parking lot would be entered off Melrose Place;
because of very serious traffic safety concerns,the City does not want all the traffic coming and going off Melrose
Place. He said that a considerable amount of traffic comes off of Hawkins Drive,and having an intersection that
close is a dangerous situation,and the City does not want 300 cars that the University would have in that lot to come
back out at that intersection.
Miklo said there needs to be another way out. He showed the location of the University's initial proposal for a
driveway. Miklo said the parking lot is being designed so that there is only one way in, so there needs to be another
way out. He said the University was negotiating with the owner of 727 Melrose for enough room to put the exit
onto Melrose Avenue. Miklo said those negotiations broke down,and the only way for the University to fit a
second driveway on the parking lot,which staff feels is a safety issue,is to take down 711 Melrose,which is a
contributing structure.
Miklo said that he is both a community planner and a preservation planner,and with regard to this issue he feels the
Commission needs to pick its battles in terms of if it wants to go on record for this particular property. He said it is
a contributing property but not a key property.
Miklo said that,from the planning staff's point of view,there is going to be a major parking lot in this area. He said
that it is necessary for a major initiative of the University's several million dollar investment in the hospital
complex. Miklo said that for that parking lot to function successfully,staff feels there needs to be a driveway that is
separated from Hawkins Drive. He said that 711 Melrose is in the way.
Miklo asked if this one building is worth the battle. He advised the Commission to focus on the larger historic
district,the houses that are representative of the key structures,the Italianates that were built along Melrose Avenue
when this was an early settlement,and the 1920s houses that are key to the character of the district. Miklo said that
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
APRIL 12,2012
Page 10 of 13
the University can demolish the house,but the Commission is being asked to send a letter to the University to
preserve the house.
Walker discussed 711 Melrose,as Miklo showed a photograph of it. Walker said it is a wonderfully preserved
example of a vernacular house known as the front gable roof form. She said the carriage barn is a well-preserved
example of a two-story barn and the only example in the district.
Walker stated that in August of last year,the University called together the neighborhood to tell the neighbors of the
plans for the Children's Hospital. She said the University explained the new building and said it would not affect
the neighborhood in any way,shape or form. Walker said that on December 1st,neighbors received an e-mail from
the University saying that it wanted to discuss another development in the plan. She said that at that meeting the
neighbors were informed that the University planned to buy two properties on Melrose Place and put a parking lot in
the area. Walker said that left the neighbors between Monday and Thursday to get something together to send to the
Regents,which they did.
Walker said the neighbors were told that the parking lot would be temporary. She said the Regents were told that
the lot would hold approximately 250 cars and that no building in the historic district would be affected.
Walker said it has come to this point that the parking lot is to be permanent and will hold 300 cars,and the
University will demolish something in the process. She said the University actually does not need the vacation in
order to building a parking lot. Walker said the University wants the vacation,because that will enable the parking
lot to hold an extra 50 cars. She said the City's Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that the vacation
be granted to the University,because if it were not,the City will not be able to ask that the University follow some
of the City's requirements when it is not the University,such as having trees every so many parking spaces and
asking for landscaping along the side.
Walker said that this is so heavily weighted against the neighborhood. She said that because the neighbors were
only told about this a few days before it went to the Board of Regents,there was not time to come up with an
alternative plan for the parking that is needed.
Walker said the neighbors had come up with an idea to suggest building a parking ramp on one of the University's
surface lots. She said the University's argument against building a ramp is that it is too expensive. Walker said that
once again this comes down to expense versus destroying a neighborhood.
Miklo said this is also a timing issue. He said that in order to keep the project on schedule,the University needs to
get started on a lot. Miklo showed the houses that are coming down for the parking lot itself.
Miklo suggested the Commission consider the historic district as a whole. He said that the key structures,the ones
that define the district,are those great 1920s houses that represent the development of the neighborhood and the old
farmhouses that were built on Melrose Avenue when it was a rural road. Miklo said they have obviously been kept
in great condition and are key structures worth fighting for. In terms of having the Commission pick its battles,he
said that possibly there could be some negotiation with the University by saying that the Commission would not
object to this but would look for the University's support with regard to the larger historic district part of these.
Miklo said there is going to be a large parking lot here. He stated that the quality of this house in terms of ever
being a long-term residence is pretty questionable given its location in relationship to the lareg parking lot and in
relationship to the larger neighborhood.
Walker stated that the University came out with its new Comprehensive Plan,which it brought before the Regents
recently. She said that starting about where 727 Melrose is and going all the way down and including the Italianate
1870s house,there were three large buildings that were labeled medical campus. Walker said the University was
asked what that was about and said that it was a mistake on the part of the illustrator.
Walker said she realizes that the key properties are the most important,but if one starts picking away at the houses,
from the Italianate house to 741 Melrose,none of those are key properties,so the University could have a large
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
APRIL 12,2012
Page 11 of 13
building there. She said the University was asked by the Planning and Zoning Commission if there would be a
building in the future where that parking lot is,and it was not categorically stated that there will not be a building
there.
Walker said she does not have the answer to this. She said she is coming before the Commission to see what help
the Commission can offer,as part of preserving the Historic District that is the neighborhood itself.
Walker said the neighbors realize that the houses on Melrose Place are not in good shape and have expected that
there might be a modest parking lot in that area. She said the neighbors did not anticipate this huge parking lot and
now the destruction of this historic house.
Walker said that west of Melrose Place,except for the brick house at 741 Melrose,which the University owns,
except for one house that is from the 1870s and is not in very good shape,the rest of that is not deemed worthy to be
in the historic district by Marlys Svendsen.
Walker said the neighbors had anticipated that the University might use from Melrose Place west but not in the
historic district. She said this sets a precedent. Walker said this is the University taking down the first house in the
historic district.
Swaim said she feels that the Commission is not going to stop the University from tearing down 711 Melrose. She
asked if it is in the Commission's best interests,in terms of future efforts for that neighborhood,to send a letter
asking to have the property left alone or is it in the Commission's best interests to put its energies into the larger
neighborhood as an historic district. Swaim said part of that question also involves the tradeoff of not objecting to
losing 711 Melrose but asking for the University's support in making this a district.
Miklo said such a letter might be more appropriate coming from the neighborhood. He said the letter could
negotiate some support for the area to the east,which the University has said it has no interest in. Mildo said the
neighbors could ask the University to put that on display by supporting a local district.
Walker said she would take that suggestion back before the executive committee for the neighborhood. She said,
however,that at some point,the neighbors had planned to go before City Council and ask them to make a statement
reiterating what is in the Southwest District Plan to emphasize that this is a neighborhood that is worth preserving.
Trimble said she does not like the idea of the University taking down 711 Melrose at all. She said the Commission
is probably not going to be able to stop it. Trimble asked if it would be possible to draft a letter saying the
Commission is looking at making this National Register area a local district,and this includes properties the
University is planning to take down,such at 711 Melrose. Trimble said she agrees that the Commission doesn't
want to burn its political capital so that the University is the main objector to the neighborhood because it has 20%
of the property. She said that would automatically make this more difficult in that it would require a supermajority
vote.
Walker said the University keeps saying that it is for and supports historic preservation. She said that even if this is
a local district,the University can do anything it wants to. Walker said that except for a little PR,the University has
nothing to lose.
Miklo put up a map showing the key structures. He said they are in a pattern along Melrose and then in a cluster on
Melrose Place.
Walker said that she would like someone on the City's side to say that they don't like this. She said it should not
just go unnoticed,because it creates a precedent.
Miklo asked what can be done in terms of the rest of the neighborhood to use this as an argument that if 711 Melrose
goes,there is a more important,intact neighborhood to the east.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
APRIL 12,2012
Page 12 of 13
Walker asked if there would be any thought to asking the University to relocate that house within the district. Miklo
asked if there are any vacant lots.
Swaim suggested asking the University to do something that is actually likely to get done. She said she did not see
the University as likely to move a house that it does not see value in to begin with. Swaim agreed there is a more
important issue here. She said she would like to get something out of losing this house that would benefit the
creation of a local district. Swaim said the point about speaking up is valid. She suggested the Commission draft a
letter expressing its concern about losing individual houses,because it erodes the neighborhood feeling.
Thomann agreed that in this situation the Commission should use this as a bargaining chip. She said that a letter to
the University would have an impact that shows the Commission is paying attention.
Trimble said it also lets the University know that the Commission would like this to be designated a local district
and that many of the houses right near the development would be in that district. Swaim volunteered to draft a letter
to be sent to the University regarding this issue.
Walker said that would be very helpful. She said it also tells the University that the entities in Iowa City take notice
when an historic building is in jeopardy.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS:
Trimble announced that this would be her last meeting. She said she has taken Helen Burford's position with
Friends of Historic Preservation. Trimble said the City Attorney feels this would be a conflict of interest with her
Commission membership,so she has submitted her resignation.
MOTION: Wagner moved to nominate Swaim as Chair of the Historic Preservation Commission. Ackerson
seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0(Baker and McMahon absent).
MOTION: Swaim moved to nominate Litton as Vice Chair of the Historic Preservation Commission. Wagner
seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0(Baker and McMahon absent).
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR MARCH 9,2012:
MOTION: Wagner moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's March 9,2012
meeting,as written,with the correction of the spelling of Saint Thomas More,as corrected by Swaim. Ackerson
seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0(Baker and McMahon absent).
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 7:10 p.m.
Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte
M
r
5
03
n-
1
O
M
r
a
CO
N
ti
z
O
r
w
5
✓ V
O re
IWN X X 0 X X X X X X X
ZN
W CO
u9 c"-..-) X X X O X X X X X O
a, W
aI
• a x O 142 O X X O X O X X X
0
F-
N
= X X X X X X X O X X
N
O
a
X co d' N M N N N d' M N
W r �- r.
rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn 2
I N N N N N N N N N N N
M M M M M Cr) Cr) M M M M
F- O
zZ
X �D
Q C N
H a Y N y E
Z = u J W > W Z Q z a), a)
W 3 J V g u Z
• W Z QC 0 z QC Q LL aaW2 u
xOOzl
u) W z_ Q 0 z J W
W W
re p W Z 0 Q Q - CO z w
Y J Y I- 5 V 2 5 0
z Q m m G J 5 to N I- I >
06-05-12
4b(5)
MINUTES APPROVED
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
APRIL 19, 2012—6:30 PM
DALE HELLING CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Michelle Bacon Curry, Charles Drum, Jarrod Gatlin, Holly Hart,
Jim Jacobson, Rachel Zimmermann Smith
MEMBERS ABSENT: Andrew Chappell, Cheryll Clamon, Scott Dragoo
STAFF PRESENT: Tracy Hightshoe
OTHERS PRESENT: Mark Patton, Charlie Eastham, Maryann Dennis, Chad Dyson
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL:
The Commission voted 6-0 to recommend the FY13 Annual Action Plan to City
Council with the financial terms for housing projects recommended by staff(with
the corrected financial terms for Charm Homes LLC).
The Commission voted 6-0 to recommend a FY11 Annual Action Plan Amendment
for the City of Iowa City Parkland Acquisition project to City Council. The City is
unable to purchase the Chadek property and proposes to use the funds to install
a splash pad and park amenities at Fairmeadows Park.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by Vice Chair Jarrod Gatlin at 6:30 p.m.
APPROVAL OF THE MARCH 8 AND MARCH 22, 2012 MINUTES:
Drum moved to approve the minutes of March 8, 2012.
Zimmerman Smith seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0.
Zimmerman Smith moved to approve the minutes of March 22, 2012.
Jacobson seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0.
PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
April 19,2012
PAGE 2 of 10
STAFF/COMMISSION COMMENT:
Hightshoe explained that HUD takes a CDBG expenditure rate test annually to ensure that
federal grantees are spending the CDBG funds on a timely basis. The next test is scheduled for
May 2. She said that as of May 2, the City will fail its timeliness expenditure ratio. She said that
with the CDBG program, you can only have 1.5 times your CDBG entitlement in your line of
credit. She explained that in May 2011 the state allowed the City to retain the construction loan
proceeds from The Housing Fellowship's Aniston Village LP project(a Low Income Housing Tax
Credit Project). The source of these funds was CDBG Disaster Recovery funds. $2.7 million
was deposited in the City's CDBG line of credit; however our annual entitlement is only
$638,000. She said that last week HUD notified city staff that to make the expenditure deadline,
the City would have to spend over$1.7 million by May 2. Hightshoe stated the City would not
be able to accomplish this amount by May 2. Hightshoe said she contacted our regional HUD
office. They were aware of the unique situation but that approval still must go through national
headquarters. She said it's not likely that HUD will take those funds away but the City will get
placed on a mandatory work plan that includes identifying projects, committing and expending
funds on a timely basis. She said staff will be looking at every project from this point on and
reviewing timeliness. Project that are stalled or can't proceed on a timely basis will have their
funds reallocated to eligible projects that can be accomplished on a tight time frame. The City's
goal will to have all issues resolved and to be off the work plan by the next time HUD reviews
timeliness.
Hightshoe said that the City's HOME commitment deadline is July 31. The City must commit
$359,000 by that time or that money is recaptured by HUD. The commitment deadline is
different than the expenditure test. To commit funds, the applicant must identify the location of
a housing project, the environment review process must be completed and an agreement
entered. At this point, the HOME funds can be "committed." She said the City has started
allocating more money to larger projects, but if those projects are delayed you only have two
years to commit funds. HUD will be moving this deadline to one year for FY13 HOME projects.
She said she thinks between UAY, Habitat for Humanity and City HOME rehab funds, the City
should be able to meet the deadline. Hightshoe said when looking at projects in the future they
will need to look at how fast they applicant can identify a property and complete the project.
Zimmerman Smith asked what the rationale was for shortening the commitment deadline.
Hightshoe explained that an OIG audit found that many major metropolitan areas are sitting on
millions of HOME dollars that they aren't spending. She said that although this wasn't the case
in many communities, HUD will revise the rules and all grantees would be subject to the new
rules.
PUBLIC MEETING:
Discussion Regarding FY13 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME
Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) Requests
• Review Financial Terms for Housing Projects, specifically HACAP and CHARM
HOMES LLC
Hightshoe explained that after the March 22 meeting, staff reviewed the Commission's
recommendations for funding and the financial terms for housing projects. She said that if staff
recommended something different than what the applicant requested, then our recommendation
was identified in the Annual Action Plan under the activity. The only two housing projects that
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
April 19,2012
PAGE 3 of 10
staff recommended terms different than those proposed were Charm Homes and HACAP. Staff
recommends a deferred payment loan for 10 years, thereafter$1,000 per year for 10 years and
a balloon payment at the end the 20 years for Charm Homes. She said they have a required
period of affordability of 10 years. Should they sell the property after the compliance period, the
loan is immediately due. Hightshoe noted that for HACAP, staffs recommendation is a
conditional occupancy loan based on an annual review of the revenue and expenses. Each
year, the total operating expense shall be no less than $2,750 per unit to ensure adequate
reserves and operating expenses. They have a required period of affordability of 10 years. She
said they might also include conditions regarding garbage screening and additional lighting per
the police and HIS requests.
Jacobson questioned the terms for Charm Homes in regards to the $1,000 per month identified
in the plan. Hightshoe clarified that what she meant to type is $1,000 per year, not month. This
was a typo and will need to be corrected on the final plan submitted to HUD.
Gatlin asked for a motion.
Drum moved to recommend to City County the staff recommended financial terms for
Charm Homes LLC (with correction) and HACAP.
Zimmerman Smith seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0.
Review of the FY13 Annual Action Plan
• Recommendation to City Council
Hightshoe explained that this is a HUD required document that must be submitted 45-days
before the beginning of the fiscal year. She said it included the budget that the Commission
recommended on March 22, HUD required program elements, project descriptions, and the
Commission's justification memo. She said they are in the process of getting the 2010 Census
information for minorities and income information. Once obtained, staff would update the report.
Based on preliminary info. there will be no major changes.
Gatlin questioned the monitoring process identified in the plan. The City requires each
organization receiving funds to submit a quarterly report, but as a Commission member, he has
never seen one. Hightshoe said they come directly to staff. She said the quarterly report is a
way that staff keeps in touch with the subrecipients to make sure their projects are proceeding.
The subrecipient must provide status updates and beneficiary information. She said that staff
could share those with the Commission. Gatlin said he thought it would helpful for some of the
monitoring reports that the Commission does annually.
Zimmerman Smith moved to recommend the FY13 Action Plan to City Council with the
change for financial terms for Charm Homes LLC.
Hart seconded.
A vote was taken and motion carried 6-0.
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
April 19,2012
PAGE 4 of 10
Discussion of FY12 & FY11 Projects that have not Performed per the Unsuccessful or
Delayed Projects Policy
• Consider Request to Amend FY11 City of Iowa City Park Land Acq. & FY12 Iowa
Valley Habitat for Humanity Projects
Gatlin said the Commission had received the comments from each of those groups. He said the
City Parks and Recreation Department is unable to acquire the Chadek property and requests
to use the funds to install a splash pad at Fairmeadows Park. If additional funds remain, they
would replace/add park amenities or install additional parking lot space at Wetherby Park.
Hart asked if there were any other locations around the city they had explored for a splash pad.
Dyson said the only one they identified in an eligible low income census track was on the west
side in Hunters Run but they felt that Fairmeadows would be more favorable for lower income
residents.
Zimmerman Smith remarked that Fairmeadows was quite a distance from Wetherby if one does
not have transportation. Dyson said they use Sycamore Street as a separating point between
the two. Wetherby Park has been overwhelmingly popular with area residents.
Hart said that made sense but it was unfortunate that the other side of Highway 6 was not
getting the splash pad.
Hightshoe said she had talked to the school district's homeless coordinator today regarding this
project, and she had mentioned the possibility of putting the splash pad in Fairmeadows Park.
She said the coordinator was excited because Grant Wood does a before and after-school
program and a summer program where there are many families with young children in that
neighborhood.
Zimmerman Smith asked when the full park would be upgraded. Dyson replied that first will be
the splash pad and then there's a choice for remaining funds to be used for additional
playground amenities or a shelter or to expand the parking lot at Wetherby.
Zimmerman Smith said neighborhood residents are concerned about after dark activities at that
park, and she said she thought lighting might be a good way to keep the amenities and
upgrades intact.
Gatlin asked where the physical location of the splash pad would be. Dyson replied that it would
be put south of the shelter pending their review of the site. Hightshoe asked if the size would be
the same as the one at Wetherby. Dyson said yes, it would be about 1,800 square feet.
Gatlin said his concern was that Lakeside has a considerable amount of traffic on it. Dyson said
they would be open to whatever the best location in that park would be. Zimmerman Smith
asked how much the Wetherby splash pad cost. Dyson said it was about $220,000 and it was
opened in 2010.
Zimmerman Smith asked if they could get one on the west side. Hightshoe said the Hunters
Run location is not truly a low income neighborhood. A park near Pheasant Ridge or lower
income neighborhoods would be eligible/approved by HUD. Zimmerman Smith asked about
Willow Creek and Mercer Park. Hightshoe said unfortunately neither park was eligible based on
census data.
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
April 19,2012
PAGE 5 of 10
Hightshoe said it will take an Annual Action Plan amendment if the Commission approves this
request. If approved, it would start a 30-day public comment period followed by a public hearing
and Council approval.
Zimmerman Smith moved to recommend approval of a FY11 Annual Action Plan
Amendment to City Council for a change in activity and location for the City of Iowa City
Parkland Acquisition project.
Bacon Curry seconded.
A vote was taken and motion carried 6-0.
Gatlin said Habitat for Humanity requested that weatherization and energy improvements be
added to their FY12 project that was submitted for accessibility for elders or persons with
disabilities.
Mark Patton of Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity said that about a year ago they were one of 24
affiliates nationwide to be awarded a $60,000 Department of Energy grant that requires them to
do energy audits and improvements, not limited to Iowa City. He said that the CDBG grant
awarded to them by the Commission limited them to handicap accessibility and wheelchair
ramps. He said they haven't gotten as many of those kinds of applicants as they thought they
would. Hightshoe stated two projects have been requested by Habitat for a total of about
$1,700. The CDBG award was for$40,000. The projects have been approved and waiting
project completion. No funds have been disbursed yet for this project.
Hightshoe said that staff has two concerns about this request. She said the first is that
weatherization is a program offered by the City and by HACAP. She said the second is that for
weatherization you typically deal with homes built before 1978 so all the lead rules apply,
meaning you have to use certified lead safe contractors and clearance testing is required.
Habitat can hire a private firm to do this or use the City Housing Rehab Department. She said
City staff would not be able to handle the approximately 40-60 projects (if small in nature)
anticipated so a private contractor would have to be hired, which is more expensive. Patton said
they have a staff person trained and certified in lead practices, but not the clearance testing. He
said they anticipate that much of the work done would be for mobile homes. Hightshoe said if
they weren't going to test the structure before proceeding, and if it was built pre 1978, you have
to presume there is lead present and testing would be required if surfaces are disturbed. Patton
said there were approximately 3,000 mobile homes in Johnson County and about 575 were built
prior to 1978.
Jacobson asked how they tried to get referrals for this program. Patton said he spoke to Elder
Services, worked with Bob Welsh of the Housing Assistance Committee and a county housing
committee, and they have used fliers and newspaper advertising. Patton said they would have
to push to get it spent in a timely way.
Jacobson asked Patton what made him think at the time of the initial application that there was
a need for those kinds of accessibility projects. Patton explained that the Housing Assistance
Committee kept hearing anecdotal evidence that ramps were needed. He said that Habitat
could purchase aluminum ramps and install them for short-term solutions, but they are
expensive.
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
April 19,2012
PAGE 6 of 10
Hightshoe explained that these are CDBG funds, and her concern is that they expend the funds
on a timely, basically this construction season. She said that the City Rehab staff does more
extensive weatherization, so out of that$40,000 they could do three or four projects.
Bacon Curry asked if entities other than homeowners, e.g. PATV could apply to Habitat for
wheelchair accessibility projects. Patton said Habitat's application had been for low-income
homeowners. Bacon Curry said she thought PATV should ask Habitat for some money for
wheelchair accessibility since the Commission couldn't. Hightshoe said the Commission could
do that, but that would change the beneficiaries from homeowners to a non-profit and require an
annual action plan amendment.
Hightshoe said that on a project that hasn't spent fifty percent of their award by March 15th
HCDC can let them retain their funds for their proposed use or recommend recapture and re-
use of the funds. Hightshoe stated HCDC could not wait for the next allocation round. They
would have to repurpose the funds right away if recapture recommended.
Patton said when they build a twelve to fourteen foot ramp it costs about $1,000 to $1,500, but
when you buy an aluminum ramp, which is reusable, it costs about $5,000. Bacon Curry asked
if the ramp belonged to Habitat. Patton clarified that Habitat would own the ramp and have a
lease agreement with the household.
Jacobson asked if this service exists somewhere. Hightshoe said the City has one in storage,
but has been used for households in need. When not in use, it is stored.
Zimmerman Smith suggested that perhaps people would be more willing to having a ramp if it
didn't make a permanent change to their house. Patton said in that case they work with the
social workers at the respective hospitals. He said he withdraws his previous request if the
Commission agrees to let Habitat purchase aluminum ramps. Hightshoe advised him that he
would still have to document beneficiaries—over 51% must be for households under 80%
median income. Each ramp purchased must be leased so that the project can be closed and the
low-mod benefit established.
There was a consensus among the Commission that ramps may be purchased by Habitat and
"leased"to households in need. Jacobson said this would be a real benefit to an aging
community like Iowa.
Bacon Curry asked Patton what he would do to advertise that the ramps are available. Patton
said they would work with the hospitals and Elder Services.
Hightshoe updated the Commission on the other projects that have not spent fifty percent of
their awards. She said the Wood Elementary fiber optic project is moving forward. The district
took the project out to bid recently and awarded a contract. They will spend out their$33,400
by the end of June. She said Neighborhood Centers has bid out the exterior work at the
Pheasant Ridge center. The contractor entered an agreement and the work should be
completed before June 30th. She said the Crisis Center will be moving forward with their parking
lot now that the Johnson County Board of Supervisors gifted them the 1105 Gilbert Court
building so the easement issue has been resolved. The project is anticipated to be done this
construction season. Hightshoe said that Old Brick had to first get approval from the State
Historic Preservation Society because Old Brick is eligible for the national register. Approval
was granted and Old Brick ordered the doors. They will be installed by June 30th. She said that
the Neighborhood Centers Employment Training project will have no problem spending down
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
April 19,2012
PAGE 7 of 10
the money by June 30th now that they have replaced staff that left. She said the reason the
Neighborhood Centers -Aid to Agencies hadn't spent down their money was because they
didn't realize it was CDBG (as opposed to direct Aid to Agency funding) so they have recently
billed the City for$26,000. She said Emma Goldman Clinic's award was for a computer system
for medical records. She said they have been negotiating with a company and the current price
of this project is now$150,000 compared to the $50,000 they projected. She said they are
moving forward because they need the system and are testing a system now that they like so
they will be spending their money by June 30th. Hightshoe explained that Emma Goldman is a
public service, so if they don't spend these funds by June 30t , the funds are recaptured. She
said the last two projects to not spend 50% of their CDBG award was Habitat and the City
Parkland Acquisition project, which were already discussed.
Zimmerman Smith moved to recommend that the aforementioned agencies be allowed to
proceed with their projects as discussed.
Hart seconded.
A vote was taken and motion carried 6-0.
Discussion of the Community Development Celebration
Hightshoe said she put this on the agenda just to remind the Commission that there is no
committee this year. She said they had an offer by the Free Medical Clinic to host the
Community Development celebration in conjunction with their own open house on June 20th,
which will display the renovations on the front of their building. She said they would send an
email out regarding Community Development Awards. Hightshoe said the committee usually
chooses a speaker and awards but if the Commission prefers to have staff choose, there would
not be a need for a subcommittee. Consensus by the commission not to form a subcommittee.
Monitoring Reports
• MECCA— Facility Rehabilitation: Bacon Curry said they spent the money and are finished
with the project.
• Table to Table—Operations: Bacon Curry reported that they had received $6,200 of the
$7,000 allocation, and in the first quarter of this calendar year they collected and distributed
183,105 pounds of food to area agencies that serve the hungry. She said that every 1.5
pounds of collected food is considered an equivalent meal with an average value of$2.34,
so that equates to 122,000 meals and $285,000 worth of food. She said they rely totally on
outside funding, and their average monthly budget is $14,000. She said they lost a grant, so
they are very grateful that the CDBG money came through.
• Isis Investments— Rental Housing: Hightshoe presented a report on them. She said that Isis
has identified a duplex on Esther Street, which is in an allowed area on the Affordable
Housing Location map, and they have an accepted purchase agreement. She said staff will
be conducting an environmental review and completing the agreement. She said there are
tenants in the building, so they will have to deal with relocation assistance. She said they will
probably buy three homes with the funds the Commission allocated to them, and this duplex
is their first. She said they expect to purchase the property by the end of June. Bacon Curry
asked if these were going to be rent to own. Hightshoe replied that none of their prior units
have converted to ownership. She said Isis typically leases to people with incomes less
than 30% of area median income so it will take a while for the household to stabilize and
afford homeownership, but they do give the tenant the option to purchase.
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
April 19,2012
PAGE 8 of 10
• Wetherby Condos south LLC— Rental Rehab: Bacon Curry said she talked to Chris Vilihaur
of Southgate, and they are putting up new siding and are done with the new gutter system,
and are installing new cabinets in the units. She said they have purchased 106 out of 108
units, and they expect to be ready to market the units in June or July. Hightshoe encouraged
Commission members to drive by and take a look. The complex is getting new windows,
doors, roof improvements, siding and complete gutting of the interior. She said they did
have to relocate approximately 25-30 tenants. The tenants were eligible for moving costs
(about$900 for each household) and relocation assistance for up to 42 months for a
comparable unit to the one they were in. She said if low income, the tenants would get
additional funds as the calculation takes into account income if under 80% of median
income. Hightshoe explained the background of this project to Jacobson. She also said that
if they sell before the compliance period, either the new owner has to take on the same
conditions, or they have to pay the CDBG funds back.
• The Housing Fellowship— Rental Housing: Dennis provided the update. FY10 funds.
Purchased two lots in Mackinaw Village for the construction of eight townhomes with four
units on each lot with $220,000 in HOME funds. She said that part of the LIHTC project was
that they used Housing Trust Fund funds to purchase a parcel of land in North Liberty for
seven duplexes with fourteen dwellings. She said all the homes will be rented to households
with incomes below sixty percent of the area median income, and construction is scheduled
to begin in June. She said they were awarded low income housing tax credits, which will
result in $4,142,484 of private equity in the project. She said they have many partners,
including the Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County, Iowa Finance Authority, Hills Bank
and Trust, MidWest Housing Equity Group Foundation Development, Advantage Custom
Builders, Burns and Burns Architects, Element Energy Group, Hart Frederick Consultants,
Bradley Riley and Tom McMurray. FY11 project: UniverCity Affordable Rental Homes. The
Housing Fellowship was awarded $408,451. They have spent $231,376 to purchase three
existing dwellings in allowed areas. She said one of them was 1301 Muscatine Avenue,
which is under rehab now and should be finished in two to four weeks. She said they also
purchased a duplex at 230 and 232 Elizabeth Street where they may have to provide
relocation assistance. She said that the competitive bidding process, which must be done
for all of these homes, will begin on May 4th for this one. She said they have a signed
purchase agreement for a single family home at 514 Fairchild Street. Dennis said that all of
these homes will be rented to households with incomes below fifty percent of the median
income. She said it's important for the Commission to know that it's not just The Housing
Fellowship working on these housing projects, but that they engage many partners.
Jacobson asked if Davis-Bacon applies in all the projects they do. Hightshoe explained that
Davis Bacon requirements apply to all public facility projects if over$2,000. For housing, it
depends on the program. For CDBG, if 8 or more units it applies, for HOME its eleven or
more. She said that The Housing Fellowship is acquiring 4-5 properties with CDBG/HOME
funds, thus not eligible.
Jacobson asked if the Commission had the authority to require prevailing wage as a
condition to receive funds. Hightshoe said that HCDC could recommend it to the Council.
Staff would have concerns in regards to if they have the staff capacity to broaden the
regulations, when not specifically required. Jacobson said it seemed that the City should be
taking the lead and making sure that the people who are working on the projects are
properly paid and are union members. He said he would be interested in knowing how much
it would slow down a project to do this and that it would speak well of the Commission's
work to be able to say that they are making sure that people are getting paid properly for the
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
April 19,2012
PAGE 9 of 10
job they are doing. Jacobson asked if a consensus to put on a subsequent agenda.
Hightshoe said this subject would be put on a forthcoming agenda for discussion.
• Free Medical Clinic— Facility Rehabilitation: Hightshoe said the improvements were done.
• FY08 Habitat for Humanity— Homeownership: Hightshoe said there were four homes in this
project. Three were done and sold. She asked Patton for an update on the remaining home.
Patton said the foundation has been poured and construction will start the third week in
May, with completion scheduled for June 15th. Hightshoe explained that this project has to
be finished and sold by June 30th because they are at their statutory five year HOME
deadline. If not, HUD will move to recapture the funds from the City, this would force the City
to declare the agreement in default and Habitat would have to repay the City. Patton
stated they anticipated it being completed by then.
ADJOURNMENT:
Drum moved to adjourn.
Hart seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0.
Z
0
u
E
2
0
C0
I-
2
a▪ � v X 0 0 Li., X X X X X
00
V
J LU N
UJ re W W N
N X X 0 X X X X X X
CI Vo
• Z N a�
0 M X X 0 X X X X X x
= Z
2 H co
OQ N X X 0 X X X X 1 X
z 0
0
iii Z X X O w X x X X i X
Q
2
o
o Z x nt N V' Co) CI) N CO Tr
I- w z O 2 N N N N N N N N N
T-
2 I in rn rn rn rn a am -a rn a
o 1--
__I
W
W J
a w
W
J I Q
y_ =
C)
o E cc J-1 ILI z H W ,c
U } Z Ce r W O 2 2 c a°�i
a 0 rt .... W O J IX >. ' CO u) ill •c Ce C� 0 0 D J C) CO < < ■_j Z a a` QZ
v-W Z G. 0 0 V Z = Cl) w II II II
01- lL O d a C7 2 J I- 0 g W_
Oaa Z m 0 0 0 0 t9 2 ' N al
06-05-12
4b(6)
Minutes APPROVED
Human Rights Commission
April 17,2012
Helling Conference Room
Members Present: Harry Olmstead, Connie Goeb,Diane Finnerty, Orville Townsend Sr.,Kim
Hanrahan, Shams Ghoneim,Howard Cowen
Members Excused: David Brown
Staff Present: Stefanie Bowers
Others Present: Kenneth Longdon,Jerry Walker,Lavancha Walker
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Human Rights Commission meeting of
April 17, 2012.
Recommendations to Council: None.
Call to Order:
Chair Olmstead called the meeting to order at 18:10,followed by roll call.
Consideration of the Minutes of the March 20,2012 Meeting:
Ghoneim moved to approve minutes, seconded by Townsend.
Motion passed. 7-0.
Public Comments:
HO: Ken do you have anything that you wanted to say?
Longdon: Today I'm here to observe this first meeting.
HO: And you're representing?
Longdon: Magazine Yetu
SG: Can I just say a couple of things about the reminders. The ACLU Iowa annual conference is
going to be on the 28th of April in Iowa City.
SB: Can we put that down in reports of the Commissioners.
New Business: Iowa City Pride(June 16-Packet 4A)
SB: Iowa City Pride is June 16th,which is a Saturday. It's being held from 12 p.m. to 5 p.m., and it's
being held in the pedmall. There are two requests from the correspondents that the Commission
received. One being a donation,and the other whether or not the Commission wants a table at the
event to distribute materials.
HO: We've had a table in prior years?
1
SB: Yes and if there are people that want to volunteer then we certainly can get a table.
HO: I'll be available on that date.
SB: It is outside and depending on the weather it could be warm,and so the Commission doesn't have
like a tent or a canopy.
KH: How long would the table have to be set up,the times?
SB: I would presume its 12 to 5.
KH: I could be available for part of that period.
HO: Any other volunteers?
DF: So do we first need a motion to even how much we want to give?
SB: If you want to make a donation and then a motion to participate for getting a table.
CG: So $150 would be the opening bid so to speak?
SB: No the cost to get a table is$50, and that would include the chairs and everything. A donation
can go anywhere from$50 to $1,000 that is what they're asking.
HO: So do we have a motion?
SG: A motion for a donation and a table?
HO: For a table yes.
SG: Make a motion for a table and chairs and umbrella.
HO: At the$50 level?
SG: I was going to ask what our finances are.
SB: The Commission year to date is about$375 that has been given, and roughly about$1100 overall.
DF: Is that fiscal year to July 1st?
SB: Correct. There are two different emails and that may be some of the confusion. The initial email
that says Iowa City Pride 2012 vendor application form, and then after that they sent a subsequent
email. That was sent from Julia Shaffer,which maybe some of you are looking at. What the
$150 is on the second email is if you make a donation for$150 then you get a vendor table as part
of that. You could probably do one or the other. If you do both you're duplicating.
DF:
SB: Correct and that's next on the agenda.
2
DF: They're both on the same day,which is same time, same day. Are there any other
sponsorships ?
SB: No, but yes they do fall on the same date.
Longdon: Is there going to be an Iowa City or is Human Rights supposed to be available on that day or?
SB: Is there going to be an Iowa City Human Rights event on that day?
Longdon: Yes for Juneteenth?
SB: Well that's what the next item on the agenda is.
DF: So when I say that just to kinda give us a dollar figure amount of what we want to do for
sponsorship. Any funds that go unexpended,do they just go back into the city or do we get them
for the next year?
SB: No they would go back into the general fund, and may or may not be available the next year.
HC: Is there any other funding that we might need it for prior to the end of the fiscal year?
SB: It's possible. I know that there's a July 4th event in Coralville that the Commission has
participated in in the past, so it's possible. But really those requests almost have to be signed and
dated by June 20t or something.
DF: I'd like to propose a$100 donation for both events. I'm kind of thinking of them both together,
but$100 for Pride and then also for Juneteenth. it seems pretty standard
HO: Do we have a motion? Do I hear a second?
SG: I'll second.
HO: All those in favor say aye.
All: Aye
SB: So it's clear what the motion was,was that for the$100 for Pride?
HO: Yes.
DF: We would like to request a table as part of that?
SB: My understanding from the email is you would have to add$50 more to the contribution to get
the table.
CG: I don't get it either because I thought$50 when you said there were two?
SB: Yes there are two separate emails. If you want I can certainly get it clarified by the next meeting
date,which would be in May.
CG: So$50 for a table and then donate $50,think that's what we want to say.
3
SB: You could do it that way too. I think we can keep it the way it was approved, and I'll just get
more information from them.
DF: What I would propose then is whatever amount it takes to get a table.
SB: I think we can address that at the May meeting if there needs to be something changed,but for
now we'll just keep the motion the way it was given.
HO: The Juneteenth Celebration on June 16t''. It's 4B in your packet.
DF: I can speak to this, it's a wonderful event. I think_happens at the university as well,but it's a
community celebration. I'm working with Latasha Massey and we're also working on a two-day
conference to precede that on June 14th and 15th. The title is I think the Trauma and Human
Effects of Racial Disparity. So this is going to be a community celebration as part of that, so it's
part of a bigger whole which I really like too. I didn't attend last year,but I heard it was a lot of
fun, good turnout. I love that it's an outdoor community event. So I speak strongly in favor of
some type of sponsorship, and at this point I'd say the same amount as whatever went to Pride.
KH: I actually attended this last year and what was nice about it was there was a real nice mix of
neighborhood folks and then city members, and it was like all colors,everything that you can
imagine. It was a really nice turnout.
CG: I'll move that we give a contribution of$100 for the Juneteenth Celebration as well.
SG: I'll second the motion.
Longdon: There was actually someone that came that wanted to speak during this segment and they went
in the other room.
SB: Okay on Juneteenth?
Longdon: Yes. I'll get them.
HO: Are there any volunteers to have a table at that one as well?
SB: They're both on the same day.
DF: I will be at it, but I'm not sure I'll be able to table depending on what my other responsibilities,
but I'll be there so I could...
SB: It's possible that we could always have something that can be distributed. Last year they gave
bags away, so because of the conflict we could always insert something.
SB: You don't need to sign in,but could I just get first and last names if you're going to speak?
Jerry Walker: Jerry Walker and Lavancha Walker.
HO: You're here to speak on the Juneteenth?
Jerry Walker: Yes.
4
HO: We do have a motion on the floor to donate $100 towards it. Did you want to say something
about it?
Jerry Walker: Where is it at?
SB: It's at Mercer Park behind Southeast Junior High.
Jerry Walker: What do we have to do to be a vendor?
SB: Actually that would be...if you got in touch with her and I can certainly copy her information
down. She would be the person;the county is actually spearheading this event, so she would be
the person in charge.
Jerry Walker: We actually got a fair that we're going for on the 26th.
SB: Okay so you know how to get in touch with her,okay.
Jerry Walker: Is there anything else that the Human Rights Commission needs from us?
DF: This is the Human Rights Commission. There was a call to the community to show up at the city
council and they're on the other side as well. They have a work session at 6:00 where they're
going to be talking about a review committee of the police citizen review board,then they're also
going to be looking at a proposal to look at racial justice that one of the councilors has put
together. I know community members were invited to attend that meeting to show support,and
then also if you want to speak there at the 7:00 meeting they'll have an open mic as well for
public comments. That might be one of the places that you're welcome to. Here we're just kind
of going about our business.
Jerry Walker: That's what basically we wanted to know,Like I said we have all of our grills and stuff.
We've done things all over the city and stuff so.
Lavancha Walker: So this starts on June 16th?
SB: Correct it's a Saturday and it's from 12 to 6 p.m.
HO: Okay we have a motion on the floor and it's been seconded. Any other discussion?
Longdon: I'd like to say that I'm proud that the Human Rights actually wants to participate in the
Juneteenth,even though the city is not actually spearheading it, it's the county,and I think with
the number of people in the area I think that if they combined Johnson County and Iowa City
events into one,that would probably be the best anyway. When I lived in Omaha,Nebraska our
Juneteenth was quite a bit bigger,and we actually celebrated it for seven days not one. It's a
week-long celebration and it's a time where local businesses can be vendors. It's a chance that
when people come to the area and see the event,they're able to see people that they,businesses
that they end up seeing ordinarily where they would have been. It's kind of like a fair in way to
showcase,and activities where people can get involved. It's a chance for money,and even with
all that going on the actual main point issue of celebrating of ending of human slavery in America
is very important to me and a lot of people.
HO: Thank you. There is a motion and all those in favor say aye.
5
All: Aye.
HO: Opposed? Okay the motion carries. We'll move onto old business, Immigration Subcommittee
Report. Kim can you give that report?
KH: Included in the packet agenda item 5A is a little mini report. The first meeting of the
subcommittee on Immigrant Human Rights was held on Monday. We had about six or seven in
attendance. There were a couple that could not come at the last minute because it was also the
same night as the million hoodie march. So the few things that we discussed are that we
reviewed the mission statement,the history and the purpose and the composition. We also talked
about the actual,how the meeting was going to be run, if we're gonna have an open forum or if
we were going to invite families. We wanted to be sensitive to the cultural nature of meetings
and the Latino culture,and how it is a little bit looser. We were scheduled to start at 6:00 and I
think we started at 6:30. There were a lot of children there and running around,and it was
exactly as it should have been. The next meeting is going to be at the Church of the Nazarene on
May 14th at 6:00. We also discussed some names of some other potential or committee members.
Probably the biggest discussion was around the name of the committee. There were some
thoughts that just the word immigration was kind of a hot topic and a lot of people would
possibly not be comfortable in coming forward if it had that name in it. There was some
discussion of whether they wanted it to be in Spanish or if they wanted it to be all inclusive, so
including some I guess there's a rise of African immigrants in this community. So trying to just
figure out what the name of the committee should be. I have since asked from Harry,he has
given me the list that the Commission last year developed,that included all of the city services
that they could potentially bring to the table as presenting as having barriers or complications. So
I will take that to the next meeting too.
HO: Do you want to mention who is co-chair?
KH: Gloria Villatoro is co-chair.
HO: She's a minister with what church?
KH: She is with the First Mennonite Church,but they call their part of the congregation the midnight
mass or something. They needed a different time, and it's mainly focused on that population.
SG: The CRC is meeting tomorrow and that's another issue that is going to be talked about.
HO: The CRC is going to be addressing the city council tomorrow. They have their meeting and this
is just for your information on what the CRC is proposing to the city council. Many of the things
in it are similar to what our sub-committee has already suggested to city council,and I think it
doesn't hurt to reiterate those and that the community is in support of these. Stefanie is there
anything else we have to do regarding the sub-committee at this point?
SB: I don't believe so. The updated sub-committee on Immigration Human Rights,the mission
statement history is in the packet with the corrections from the last meeting.
CG: I have a question on that. I saw the correction here and it said your sub-committee will meet
quarterly? I noticed you had another meeting next month so I wasn't sure.
6
KH: Yes it will start the beginning of next quarter. I was afraid if too much time passed that we might
lose some.
CG: Okay so it's just going to be a quarterly meeting and then a quarterly report back here?
KH: If or as needed, if there are reports or requests then we're certainly willing to do more than that.
DF: I was going to announce this during my section,but also is the sub-committee_,this is coming
out of the Immigrant Voices Project. the Immigrant Voices Project is doing
training that would be wonderful to make sure the sub-committee is in on all those networks. I
can send that electronically to the members too.
CG: So the CRC is willing to meet with the city council tomorrow did you say?
SG: No,we meet on a monthly basis, so we're meeting and the sub-committee on the Sanctuary
City/Immigration is going to discuss the language and how the different congregations in unison
support or have other suggestions. Then once the language is set they plan to take it to city
council.
CG: So this is like the proposed language?
SG: Right. So that would be discussed tomorrow in more detail.
Longdon: When you were speaking about being here from countries in Africa. They actually have a
Sudanese community and a community of people from the Congo. They actually have
associations and I've actually been speaking to the president of the Congo community and some
of the people who are influential in the Sudanese,and they actually expressed interest in having a
dialogue with the city government officials.
KH: So maybe you could share with me some of that contact information. There is also an even
tomorrow night at the Coralville Public Library. It's Immigration America's Mixed Message.
HO: We are co-sponsors of that. Next are Building Relationships and Creating Opportunity in the
African American Community: A panel of parents and youth of color on May 2°d and that's in
your packet 5B. Orville?
OT: The Juvenile Justice Committee has identified a panel for participants for the program in May.
Letters have been sent to parents participate on the panel. Such a letter will be sent
out shortly before the program, and that letter will include the questions that will be asked.
We've decided that we're not going to ask individuals questions,we're just gonna throw the
question out,and then basically leave it up to the individuals to respond if they wish. We feel
that this will make it a much more comfortable atmosphere for the participants. Everybody isn't
good at public speaking, so we're trying to take that into consideration. For the event Diane has
agreed to bring her computer and take notes. We're going to see if we can get one other
individual to take notes also. As you remember from previous meetings we indicated that this is a
three part adventure. This is the first and the information that we get from this we're going to try
and take that and take a look at it and see what things can be put in place to improve situations
that the panel is basically give us information about. Then the third part of it will be we had
talked about having an event for females to have all the females in the community agree to
participate and meet with the younger females, so it's sort of like a mentoring program. Just
basically to get together to kind of rap, see what they're talking about and what they're feeling.
7
You know just get information,but mostly to give the youth a chance to communicate with some
of the older females in the community. Somebody mentioned are we gonna do the same for
males. We had talked about that,but it seems like consider, so we'll be taking a look at that.
DF: Is that the program that Latasha is around as well? Does she know about the other programs as
well?
OT: Yes we mentioned it to her,but basically I'm not sure if we talked about her doing anything
special. We just kinda threw that out. We haven't really got into planning that. We just have
that as we'll get thru the first phase and we'll jump on the second, and then we'll jump on the
third. Based on what you're saying I think she's going to be a great asset to help us put that
together.
KH: I think she offers conferences at least quarterly for young women of color, and I think there's one
coming up for young men. I don't have enough information to share,but I know that they are
organizing.
HO: We encourage all Commissioners to be in attendance. I've met with her class.
Anything else on that? Moving along with Collaboration with Diversity Focus. We heard from
them last month. Stefanie?
SB: It was something that was asked to be placed on the agenda to see if there was any follow-up
programming that the Commission thought would be a good fit with Diversity Focus. I think
more of like a brainstorming session,nothing concrete. Diane had mentioned the job fair,and
possibly doing something I think with immigration with Diversity Focus. So just kind of
brainstorming possible collaborations.
OT: I think we kind of discussed when we get to the second phase of our program we're gonna try to
bring them onboard when we sit down and begin the planning. I met with Chad Simmons so I
kinda suggested to him that when we get to phrase two it would probably be a good time to invite
him to the initial meeting and Diane.
DF: Chad is very supportive and said that the Coalition for Racial Justice has been doing work like the
million hoodie march and so many other things. He's got a person sitting on that committee and I
think he very much wants to be in the community and supporting educational efforts and
programs. I think as we make sure we throw them the chance to co-sponsor and or there's
great planning
HO: Anything else on Diversity Focus? Next is World Human Rights Day Proclamation on December
1s`and in your packets as 5D. It needs to be revised to fit our needs.
DF: Is this like an option for us? This is some other town right?
HO: Yes this came out of Birmingham,Alabama. What I'm suggesting is that we take it and put a
similar proclamation together to present to the city council during their meeting just before
December 1st, so that the city can have a proclamation for World Human Rights Day.
DF: Does this happen already like the U.N.Association do anything around this or?
SB: They usually hold programming.
8
DF: Do they ever put forth a proclamation?
SB: That I can't answer.
HO: Do I hear a motion that we go forth and put together a proclamation for the city council and
present it to them?
SG: Good idea.
HO: Is that a motion?
SG: Sure I'll make a motion.
HO: Do I have a second?
HC: Second.
HO: Any other discussion?
CG: Is this in addition to the other types of things that we're trying to do with Sanctuary City and
such?
HO: In addition to.
CG: Not instead of?
HO: Right.
DF: The only comment I'd make is I'm in support and I encourage us to work with the local U.N.
Association.
HO: I can contact them and see if they're interested in this as well.
HC: Where is that located?
SB: The United Nations here,no they're on,I don't know if it's East Market Street or Market Street.
It's for the entire State of Iowa,but it happens to be located in Iowa City
DF: Otherwise known as the Old Brick.
SG And Katy Hansen is the local chair for Johnson County.
DF: It'd be good if three groups came together for the proclamation.
SG: It shows good strength,and also the language it would be nice to know if the three can come up
with something.
HO: Okay there's a motion on the floor and we have it seconded to take a proclamation to the city for
Human Rights Day. All those in favor say aye.
All: Aye
9
HO: Opposed?
DF: Will the redrafted proclamation come back to us then?
SB: Yes I can do that.
HO: The Youth Awards on May 9th, Stefanie?
SB: It is coming up and I would ask that all Commissioners be at the Englert by 5:15 p.m. People will
start showing up a little after six so. It is a Wednesday and it is a Farmer's Market Wednesday,
so just be mindful that parking may not be like it is on a day like today with the Farmer's Market
going on downtown too. So far we have received quite a few nominations,and they're due on
Friday the 20th is the last day for people to send those in. As far as the actual ceremony for those
of you who are new to the Commission, if you haven't already the program from last year would
be a good program to watch so you get an idea. We'll try to have the entire program over within
less than an hour.
HC: Seems like there was less recipients last year from the year before.
SB: Yes,I think we've had anywhere from 80 to almost 200, so it really varies.
HO: Are we getting applications in now?
SB: Yes.
HO: And the Youth Ally Awards?
SB: I don't believe we've received any of those,but sometimes that happens.
KH: Can you explain what the selection process is?
SB: Generally if the person nominated meets the criteria then they, it's not a competition and it's not
really,I wouldn't compare it to the breakfast awards. They are a competition,the Human Rights
awards. This is more if the person fits; I should say the youth if they fit the criteria then they're
given a certificate.
HC: Most of them come from the school system. It can be anywhere from single to groups.
HO: Okay you have delegation of duties?
SB: Yes. It probably wouldn't be a bad idea if anybody gets the opportunity to watch last years,but
going over the list of Commissioner set it up pretty close to last year. For the newer
Commissions kind of having them in two different spots so that they can experience what it's like
to make sure it goes smoothly on the side of the recipients,and then having a Commissioner so
you can see how it works itself out on the stage with the Commissioners and the recipients
actually receiving their awards. I also try to do seniority so that those who are going off, if they
want a more prominent visible role to please let me know. I currently have Harry wanting to do
the closing. I have David helping out with getting the recipients lined up and ensuring that
they're in the proper order,and stay in the proper order. I have Kim helping out David. I didn't
recall if David helped doing that last year or if he was on the stage. Then in order of seniority
10
then we have Connie and Howard as far as doing stage stuff,either reading the recipients names,
and then handing out the certificates. Next in order would be Orville or Diane as far as doing the
opening, and then whichever one didn't do the opening,would by default then help out with
making sure the kids are lined up properly and get on the stage correctly. The opening is not long
and it's a welcome statement.
CG: Is the mayor the speaker?
SB: Yes, and he usually gives remarks and is brief. Shams I'll have you up on the stage so you can
get well acquainted with handing out the certificates and also the opening,the closing and the
announcement of recipients.
HO: You don't need more people to help with kids to line them up?
SB: I have Orville and I have David and Kim. Usually there's maybe four,but it is what it is this
year,and I will try to be down there myself doing that also so. The reason for arriving at 5:15 is
to go over everything and at least do a run through,and to get the folks doing the seating familiar
with how that works, and then to get everybody familiar with when the recipients are coming in
with their families. Also going over the list to see where they are seated and making sure they go
to that seat and stay in that order. They are asked to arrive no later than 6:30,and so you're going
to have people show up at 6:15 or earlier. It goes very quickly. As it gets closer in time more
information about the number,the nominations and things of that nature. The plan is to have the
letter sent out to the recipients by Wednesday of next week with the RSVP for May 2nd. I think
that is everything with the Youth Awards at this point. The rest will probably primarily be
through contacting each of you and getting you up to date as time goes on and gets closer to the
big day.
OT: We've added the_award right?
SB: Yes.
OT: How is that coming?
SB: Well I don't believe there are any nominations yet,but they are due on Friday.
HO: Did we have an ad in for that?
SB: Not in the Press Citizen, it was run in the West High paper. I contacted City High and they just
didn't follow up.
HO: I think now is a good time to say that Stefanie has done an outstanding job putting these programs
together. I for one as a Commissioner really do appreciate the hard work and efforts that you've
put in.
SB: Thank you.
HO: Updates and Reports-Cultural Diversity Report. Who would like to give this report?
OT: I can start it off. First thing there were not as many vendors this year as before. It used to be
vendors all up on the top,and I'd say in the past we'd have any place from 150 to 200 vendors.
This year I think we only had between 35-40. Basically it seems like they're leaning more
11
towards the international. It was a good event. The public was very involved and had good
entertainment, so it's still a good event but it seems as though it's going more in-house,more
university than community. The candy and all of our stuff went very well.
SG: I was going to suggest,there were a lot of younger children. I think it would be nice to think of
something for them besides the candy. I thought the erasers were great,but I remember parents
say oh they don't know anything about , so maybe on the back of it or a different bunch of
erasers saying something positive.
KH: I was just going to agree with Orville that in years past it's been much larger. Attendance was
pretty high though and there was a nice flow for as long as it lasted,and I thought the
entertainment was really diverse from all over the world, and it was some really good
entertainment. I did think it was hard to talk to people,and our table wasn't that close to where
the entertainment was,but when we were trying to share with the Ally Awards and the Youth
Awards it was just really hard to get that across.
HO: I spoke to Georgina Dodge afterwards and she had indicated one of the reasons that there weren't
as many vendors is because it's turned over to the students to do, and they're not taking or getting
out a diverse_to the community as much as they've done in the past. She felt that they needed
to do a better job with that in the future. Next is UICHR Board report. We had a meeting last
week and it's a matter of whether or not the university wants to continue having the Human
Rights Center there,and so they are having a meeting with deans from various departments in the
university. The law school,education,public health. They are meeting next week I think it is to
see whether or not they would take out of their budget to sponsor the Center for Human Rights.
Georgina Dodge came up with money for this year for the staff to pay for them. They are making
money off of the on-line courses that they're having on Human Rights,but that's not enough to
substantiate the center. They're basically presenting to the deans that someone has to come up
with money to continue the program there.
HC: At one time didn't they think that they might be,the funding might run out and the university
wasn't going to give them anything,a couple years ago maybe. At that time they were looking at
going to sources to try and get some grants and other donations. I think at one time they were
hoping for$100,000 and they made it to $20,000 or$30,000. I don't think that's not going to be
continued on or tried to be continued on. I don't know at this point.
HO: There was no talk about continuing that on. They've had matching grants that they've had from
people in the community, but the funding sources are just drying up,and they're now having to
say okay,here's a good program. We've got credited programs on-line courses going, and who
wants to take on the center and put it in their budget. That's about all that was really done at the
meeting. They came up with a prospective that we went over and they were going to rewrite it
this week and present it next week.
HC: What is their total budget, somewhere around$100,000 per year?
HO: It's not very much. They have one full-time person and three part-time people and the rest are
interns. Okay next Commission Reports,Kim?
KH: I don't have anything.
HO: Sham
12
SG: I'm going to send back to Stefanie,the ACLU Iowa is meeting in Iowa City on the 28th for its
annual conference dinner, and we're gonna have a Human Rights speaker. I'm going to resend
the email so everyone can know about it. The other thing is I'm sure everyone is aware of Nami
Walk,which is again on April 28th
HO: Diane
DF: I have a couple things. One is this week on Thursday at noon at the First Baptist Church we're
gonna host a webinar towards racial justice,and it's going to be an initiative of this, it's a
newly named,but a continued group called the Coalition for Racial Justice. The coalition is the
group that the CRC started out in August 2010, lots of different name changes, but with a million
hoodie and some of the other events happened, it got renamed just recently to Coalition for Racial
Justice. We're going to have a webinar done by the applied research center. It will be in the
lower level and we'll go into a national webinar and then have conversation afterwards. It about
kinda how to turn the hopes of racial justice actually into plans and strategies. I think it will be a
good session. It's on the 19th,this Thursday. I'd also like to draw your attention and ask you to
circulate petitions if you're interested. There's a move in town to get early voting satellite
stations at the both the Broadway Neighborhood Center and then also Pheasant Ridge
Neighborhood Center. A hundred signatures are needed by Thursday at 5:00. I've got some
petitions and I'd ask you to at least sign the one if you're interested in supporting that initiative.
I've got one that's got my signature on it,and I'd ask you to sign if you're in supportive of it,and
if you would like any additional petitions to circulate I can give them to you and then if I could
just get someone to get them back to me before Thursday at 3:00. You will see at the top it says
one is Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County-Broadway,and one is for Pheasant Ridge. Just
like at the library or Hy-Vee,just to get more early voting things out for the primary in June.
Lastly Stefanie gave this to me so I'll circulate it. The Coalition for Racial Justice sent two
communications to the city council yesterday or Monday. They were cc'd to Human Rights
Commission as well, so this is the notice of that cc. There are some members over at the city
council meeting right now,but the two issues are Councilor Throgmorton discussed at a working
session today a proposal brought forth in honor in the wake of the murder of Travon Martin, in
honor of that to call in council to look at racial disparities, and to take an active stance for the
Coalition for Racial Justice wrote a letter in support and that's what you see on the first page.
The second one was I had shared with them about our interest in the police citizen review board,
and that's actually where I even got heard the stories about ,and so the
coalition agreed to support our motion. There was conversation and said well let's write our own
letter of support in that as well. That's the second one our motion in the packets as
well. So those are two actions that were cc'd to us as well,and again there are people over there.
There's a Facebook page and a bunch of stuff and I'll circulate me more information_. For the
million hoodie march we have a mailing list of over 300 names the coalition
HO: Orville
OT: No
HO: Connie
CG: No
HO: Howard
HC: Nothing.
13
HO: The only think I have is Thursday there is going to be a Beyond Tolerance Diversity Conference
at the university, free and open to the public. There is a luncheon that starts at noon. If anyone is
interested I'll be happy to forward information to them. Stefanie anything else?
SB: Not really,but hopefully we'll have an intern that will be starting in the summer to help out staff.
We have one currently but he'll go away in May, so looking forward to that. That's it just
preparing for the upcoming programs. I'll be getting in touch with Diane and Orville over the
next few days just to kind of firm some things up for the Youth Awards for you Diane and for the
building communities.
HO: Where do we stand with complaints?
SB: We have 18 currently.
DF: I do have a question when I was thinking about the Juvenile Justice thing and Henri's departure
from the Commission. How do we go about filling that? Is that a city council issue or is that for
us to do?
SB: Correct. It's like they call it an unexpired term, so it will get posted for the remaining time. I'll
send it out. It's an official resignation,but to my knowledge there hasn't been an official due date
and post date. When that's official then I'll send it out.
HO: Aren't applications taken any time?
SB: Yes.
HO: So if you know somebody they can go ahead and apply now. Our next regular meeting for
business is May 15th at 6:00 p.m. Do I hear a motion to adjourn?
SG: I'll make a motion.
OT: I'll second.
HO: All those in favor?
All: Aye.
HO: Opposed?
Meeting adjourned at 19:08 p.m.
14
Human Rights Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2012
(Meeting Date)
TER
M
NAME 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 1/1/13 X X O/E X
Cowen
Constance 1/1/13 X O/E X X
Goeb
Harry 1/1/13 X X X X
Olmstead
(8-1-2010)
David B. 1/1/14 X O/E O/E O/E
Brown
Diane 1/1/14 O/E X X X
Finnerty
Orville 1/1/14 X X X X
Townsend,
Sr.
Henri 1/1/15 O/E X O/E R R R R R R R R R
Harper
Kim 1/1/15 X X X X
Hanrahan
Shams 1/1/15 O/E X X X
Ghoneim
KEY:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting/No Quorum
R = Resigned - = Not a Member
15