HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-02-19 Bd Comm minutesAd Hoc Diversity Committee, January 14, 2013
MINUTES
AD HOC DIVERSITY COMMITTEE
JANUARY 14, 2013
HARVAT HALL IN CITY HALL, 4:00 P.M.
FINAL
Page 1
5b(1)
Members Present: Cindy Roberts, Joe Dan Coulter, Joan Vanden Berg, LaTasha Massey
Orville Townsend, Sr.
Members Absent: Kingsley Botchway II, Bakhit Bakhit
Staff Present: Bentley, Dilkes, Karr
Others Present: Megan Schwalm
REVIEW MEETING MINUTES:
Co- Chairperson Roberts began the meeting with the January 3, 2013, meeting minutes, asking if
there were any amendments to be made.
Coulter moved to approve the January 3, 2013, meeting minutes as presented.
Townsend seconded the motion.
The motion carried 5 -0; Botchway and Bakhit absent.
Karr introduced Adam Bentley from the City Manager's office.
REPORT ON SUBCOMMITTEE INFORMATION GATHERING SESSIONS:
Roberts noted that they have a lot of information to digest from their recent public forums. She
asked Members how they would like to begin this review. Vanden Berg noted that she definitely
sees `themes' in the information they gathered. Roberts then suggested they start with the school
forums. Vanden Berg shared that the notes of information gathered at City High and at West
High appear to show very similar issues. She added that the students she spoke with gave good
examples of what is not working for them, as well as what does work for them. Vanden Berg
noted that many students spoke highly of Jorey Bailey, the police officer in the southeast area of
town, and they also shared their experiences with the police in general. Massey spoke to the
school forums as well, adding that students also gave solutions to these issues, which she finds to
be helpful. Being able to interact with the police was one of the issues, with students stating that
they would like to be able to speak directly with police officers about their experiences.
Roberts asked if others believe there is a general confusion among citizens of what their rights
are when dealing with the police. Massey responded that she believes some of this is due to
history and the youths' response to law enforcement in past experiences. Vanden Berg also
Ad Hoc Diversity Committee, January 14, 2013 Page 2
shared that some students had experience with police and `excessive force.' She stated that it is
obvious that there is a need to educate the public on what processes are in place when these types
of instances occur and people want to make a complaint. Coulter asked if there were other
ethnicities present at the school forums besides African Americans. Vanden Berg stated that
they had one Latino student at West High for a very brief time. Coulter added that he is bothered
with the fact that they are not getting more feedback from other ethnic groups.
Townsend spoke to the Pheasant Ridge information gathering session. He stated that there were
mostly Sudanese adults at this session. The focus here, according to Townsend, was on more
knowledge of what their rights are. He shared an example that a citizen brought up at the
session, adding that it appears there are some inconsistencies in how officers are approaching
citizens. Townsend stated that those present at the Pheasant Ridge session truly want to work
with the police, but feel they cannot trust them.
Roberts then took the conversation back to the school sessions, asking Members how they
believe the issues there could be addressed. Vanden Berg noted that having better `customer
service,' such as knowing students' names and even saying `hello' could go a long way in this
area. Working on relationship building would go a long way in this regard. Massey shared some
of the stories that students had about Officer Bailey. The fact that he knows them and explains
why he is doing what he is doing has gone a long way in building relationships with the youth in
that area of town. Massey also stated that many students suggested the hiring of more officers of
color and more female officers. Townsend then spoke to the issue of consistency among the
police officers and how it was obvious from comments that this is lacking in many cases. He
believes that standardization of procedures is needed throughout the ICPD. He shared an
example of someone who did not speak English well and during a stop had to wait until an
interpreter showed up, at which time even more officers arrived. All of this, he added, gives the
wrong impression for the police.
Vanden Berg spoke to this issue as well, noting that a comment she heard at The Spot was that if
a police call is for a Latino or African American household, the police send more than one car.
Roberts stated that a comment she heard at The Spot had to do with her asking a participant —
can you give me a sense in interactions with police officers — would you say it's a small group of
officers that approaches these situations in a negative way and not with customer service in
mind, not with respectful... is it a relatively small group or is this an endemic problem. The
person responded that they believe it is a relatively small group of officers that are perhaps
approaching these situations in an inappropriate way. She asked other Members if they heard
this at their gathering sessions, that a small group of officers appear responsible for these
behaviors. Townsend responded that people appear to expect the negativity when interacting
with the police. Massey stated that to her it appeared that five or six officers' names were being
heard more than others were, but that she couldn't put a definite number to this issue.
Roberts asked others their thoughts at this point, reiterating that it sounds like there are definite
`police issues' here. However, she added that she wondered if this committee would ever know
exactly where the problem comes from — is it the top down, is it just a small group of individuals,
or is it a communication problem. Townsend reiterated his belief that many of the participants at
these forums need education on their rights, that they are completely unaware of the procedures
Ad Hoc Diversity Committee, January 14, 2013 Page 3
that they can go through to file a complaint against a police officer in question. Massey stated
that at The Spot, participants were aware of the PCRB but appeared to feel that it would be
irrelevant in their situation. Vanden Berg noted that also at The Spot they talked about the
recruitment video and that she pulled it up recently to watch it. She suggested that everyone look
at this video. Townsend stated that he had mentioned this video previously. Roberts also spoke
to this recruitment video, agreeing that it is somewhat shocking how Iowa City is being
portrayed in the video.
Members continued to discuss the ICPD recruitment video, questioning the culture of the
department. Townsend spoke to the `protect & serve' approach of law enforcement, and that he
is not seeing this in the ICPD. He stated that several people stated that they would be glad to
interact with officers within the community, to get to know them better, but that currently they
do not have that positive interaction with the ICPD.
The discussion turned to transportation issues, and what comments were heard regarding how the
system is working. Members noted that students agreed that some routes were `noisy and loud'
and that they had seen fights break out before. Roberts shared past experience with how Transit
handled problem routes using supervisors and drivers targeting specific routes. She stated that
the hope is to not get the police involved, that the issues have to do with acceptable behavior on a
public facility. Coulter noted how the use of video in many situations can clarify exactly what
took place.
The discussion turned to transportation and how individual bus drivers implement the guidelines
of the Transit Department. Roberts noted that some drivers do a very good job of this, and some
do not. Attorney Dilkes noted that the drivers' primary rule is to drive the bus and keep the
vehicle on the road for the passengers' safety. She added that they cannot also be the
disciplinarian. Roberts suggested that the Transit department periodically examine the bus video
tapes to see how drivers are handling situations. Members continued to look at transit issues,
agreeing that they should have Transportation Services Dir. Chris O'Brien back to respond to
some of their questions. Issues like Sunday service and service later in the day, particularly on
Friday and Saturday nights, were also heard by many at the forums. In addition to these,
however, was the issue of routes themselves. Many feel that they are limited when using transit
if they work an early shift, or are at the edge of town. Townsend also spoke to the issue of
Kirkwood students needing to be able to get to the Cedar Rapids' campus. He suggested that the
school should work with the communities between here and there to get grants needed to provide
such a service.
Massey also spoke to transportation issues. She noted such issues as being able to take a family
downtown for an evening event and how the bus service ends too early to stay at such an event,
and also service on Sundays, as ones she heard at the forums. Vanden Berg added that students
like having the bus come every half hour, as it keeps the wait from being so long. Coulter then
spoke to the environment at some of the bus stops in town. Some are full of garbage; others have
no place to sit. He believes the `environment' of the stops needs to be looked at, as well.
Townsend stated that this makes him think of `education' and `consequences.' He believes that
once they have a plan in place they need to get into the schools and educate the students on what
the expectations are, and also what the consequences will be for not following these
Ad Hoc Diversity Committee, January 14, 2013 Page 4
expectations. Members then spoke to the best way to educate students on bus behavior — best
time of the year, best way to get the word out. They also addressed the issue of more
collaboration between Coralville and North Liberty's systems with Iowa City's transit system.
Transit schedules were touched on next, with comments being heard at the school forums on how
late they can be when buses get off schedule.
Vanden Berg took the discussion back to law enforcement, questioning the culture of law
enforcement in light of the recruitment video seen recently. Townsend shared that he had looked
at a couple of other recruitment videos, one for New Jersey, and the other for Pittsburg. He
stated that their approach was totally different than Iowa City's. It was informational and warm,
where Iowa City's appears much tougher and rougher, more military in style. Roberts asked
how long this video has been around and Members briefly discussed this issue. Townsend asked
if they could get this video in for the whole group to see. Karr stated that she had it available for
two other meetings earlier in the Committee process but was not viewed, she can bring it back
for the next meeting and schedule as an agenda item.
Townsend stated that he believes they need some `know your rights' sessions that can be held in
the minority communities here in Iowa City. Members continued to speak about the video,
questioning what the message is there for recruits. Roberts then asked if others had information
to share from their forum experiences. Coulter stated that there were very few participants at the
HyVee session, and that supposedly a Press - Citizen reporter was there and a story written. Karr
stated that she can include this article in the next packet. Townsend added that Channel #9 News
had a camera at one of his sessions.
DISCUSSION OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND TIMELINE:
Karr noted that after this evening's discussions, she has amended the recommendations list to
include some of the categories and /or issues mentioned. Coulter stated the recommendations
need to be "cleaned up" and put into full sentences. She agreed that they do need to discuss how
they want to pull this together and whether or not they want to have either Transportation
Services Dir. O'Brien and/or Police Chief Hargadine back to meet with them again. City Atty.
Dilkes and City Clerk Karr stated subcommittees could be utilized between meetings to
formulate recommendations. Coulter recommended they do this after they have had time to
review all of this information. He suggested they start pulling the recommendations together and
vetting them with others to make sure they haven't overlooked anything. Townsend suggested
that as they start putting the recommendations together that they keep track of areas they need
more info in and once done they can go back and review those questions and concerns. At that
time the staff resources could come back to revisit things with them.
TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE:
Members then discussed the meeting schedule. March 10 is the Committee's deadline. Coulter
shared that he is a bit concerned that they have not heard much from the University community.
Massey shared that she heard a couple of comments at The Spot from students about law
enforcement and the bar scene in downtown. Members briefly discussed some of these issues,
noting that there is often a fine line between what is appropriate in such situations.
Ad Hoc Diversity Committee, January 14, 2013 Page 5
Karr reiterated that she will have the recruitment video at the next meeting. Members talked
about the dates scheduled currently, noting specific absences by Members. Dilkes spoke briefly
to Members about how they might proceed in crafting their recommendations. She suggested
having subcommittees to bring these recommendations together — perhaps one for law
enforcement and one for transportation.
Members then talked about the actual meeting schedule, with Roberts asking if a different day
would work for others. After some discussion, Members agreed that they could meet on
Thursday, January 31, at 4:00 P.M. The meetings of January 24 and 28 will be cancelled.
Vanden Berg stated that she has some information to share with Members that she will get to
Karr for the next packet. Karr will attempt to get the packet out earlier so Members have more
time to review the data. Members continued to discuss a second meeting, settling on Monday,
February 11 at 4:00 P.M.
PUBLIC INPUT:
Royceanne Porter noted that on January 24th there is an event at The Spot. She asked if the Ad
Hoc Committee wanted to set up a table, noting that several agencies will have tables there for
the "What's Happening Now" event. Individual Members expressed interest.
ADJOURNMENT:
Vanden Berg moved to adjourn the meeting at 5:35 P.M.
Massey seconded the motion.
The motion carried 5 -0; Botchway and Bakhit absent.
a)
c� bA
P-4
M
O
N
ti
0
U
A
U
O
x
Q
m
O
OW
V � T
.'_�'' W N
Z
yN
L Z
T
G Z N
ow
-a
Q
c
U E
X
W
C "J
co N N Q
d Q Q Z
u u
W
YXOOZ
02/04/13
01/28/13
01/24/13
01/14/13
z
X
O
O
X
X
X
01/03/13
z
X
X
X
X
X
X
12/17/12
Z
X
O
X
X
X
12/10/12
Z
X
X
O
X
X
X
O
12/3/12
z
O
X
X
X
X
X
X
11/19/12
Z
O
O
X
X
X
X
X
11/15/12
z
X
X
X
X
X
X
O
11/13/12
z
X
X
X
X
X
X
O
10/29/12
z
O
O
X
X
X
X
X
10/22/12
Z
X
X
X
O
X
X
X
10/15/12
z
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
10/8/12
Z
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
09/24/12
Z
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
09/17/12
Z
X
X
X
X
X
X
Z
09/10/12
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
z
08/29/12
00
z
X
X
X
X
X
X
0
0
0
0
0
0
W �C
H W
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
b�A
z
ax
�a
►��
raaaa°a
off
°u
a
c
U E
X
W
C "J
co N N Q
d Q Q Z
u u
W
YXOOZ
Ad Hoc Diversity Committee, January 31, 2013
MINUTES FINAL
AD HOC DIVERSITY COMMITTEE
JANUARY 31, 2013
HARVAT HALL IN CITY HALL, 4:00 P.M.
Members Present: Cindy Roberts, Joe Dan Coulter, Orville Townsend, Sr.,
Joan Vanden Berg (4:12), LaTasha Massey, Kingsley Botchway II
Members Absent: Bakhit Bakhit
Staff Present: Bentley (left 4:32), Dilkes, Karr, Markus (arrived 4:32)
Others Present: Charlie Eastham
Page 1 MTF-"I-TM
5b(2)
REVIEW MEETING MINUTES:
Chairperson Botchway began the meeting with the January 14, 2013, meeting minutes, asking if
there were any changes or amendments to be made.
Roberts moved to approve the January 14, 2013, meeting minutes as presented.
Massey seconded the motion.
The motion carried 5 -0; Vanden Berg and Bakhit absent.
VIEW POLICE RECRUITMENT VIDEO:
Due to some technical problems, Karr suggested the Committee move to the next agenda item
and return to view the video later in the meeting.
DISCUSSION OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND TIMELINE:
Botchway asked if Members had a chance to review the recommendations list to date. He asked
how they would like to review them, either line by line or however they feel it would work best.
Karr noted that this is an ongoing list and items added but not removed along the way.
Therefore, Members might see duplications or ideas that have evolved into other areas.
Starting with the PCRB, Botchway reviewed the recommendations with Members. After reading
through the list of ideas, Members began to discuss how they would like to craft these
recommendations. Townsend spoke to the advocacy role of the Human Rights department, as
well as the PCRB's role. He also noted that having the City Manager involved in the interviews
will be critical. The discussion continued, with Karr noting what the PCRB's recommendations
to Council have been and that the Council is awaiting this Committee's recommendations before
considering changes to the ordinance. Vanden Berg asked if the Human Rights department
could also be involved in a `pre - complaint' process, such as being a safe place for someone to
talk so they can decide if they want to proceed with a formal complaint process. Coulter agreed
that this would be an important part of the process, as did other Members. Botchway continued
Ad Hoc Diversity Committee, January 31, 2013 Page 2
to lay out the recommendations for PCRB. Karr and Dilkes helped to clarify issues for Members
along the way.
Botchway brought Members back to how they should lay out the PCRB recommendations,
noting that the first heading should be `education & awareness,' with the next being `policy &
procedure.' He further explained what would be under each heading, with Members weighing in
and asking for clarification along the way. One major factor that all Members agreed with is the
need for a process that will actually be carried out once the recommendations are made. The
conversation continued, with Members reviewing the outreach aspects and education aspects of
getting the needed information out to the community. Roberts spoke to having a speaker at a
neighborhood association meeting, for example, to speak to these issues and share information
with the public so that people know what help is available for them. Vanden Berg noted how
important this type of relationship building is, with others agreeing. Massey noted that even
having a video with some of this crucial information on it can be just as effective as an actual
speaker, and is typically better than a written pamphlet in getting information out to the public.
The discussion then turned more to process and procedures for a complaint. Townsend stated
that one of his concerns, after having been at the Pheasant Ridge meeting, was that most people
were not even aware there was a Police Citizens Review Board. Coulter spoke to the need to
articulate these recommendations in writing within the subcommittees, and then have it reviewed
with the entire Committee before finalizing their recommendations. Others agreed that with this
framework to work with, they should be able to craft the necessary language for these
recommendations.
Vanden Berg asked Karr what the PCRB wants to rename itself. She referred to page 9 of the
meeting packet, and that it is for `Citizens Police Review Board.' Karr shared some of the other
recommendations that have been forwarded to Council, awaiting this Committee's
recommendations. Members asked for some history on these recommendations, to which Karr
responded. The issue of timeframe was discussed at some length, with Members noting how
time - intensive the complaint process can be and the interest to the 45 day reporting period. Karr
explained the PCRB's timeframes and how they request time extensions through the City
Council when needed.
VIEW POLICE RECRUITMENT VIDEO WONT.):
Members then watched the ICPD recruitment video. Immediately following the video they
began to give their opinions on the content. Roberts noted that she does not like the message
being conveyed in the video. Botchway agreed, noting that it is definitely a tough message.
Vanden Berg shared that in her visits in the schools, students say they just want officers to smile,
to know their names, and just say `hi' when they see them. The `protect and serve' motto is not
seen in this video. Members also noted how militaristic the video appears. The discussion
continued with how other cities have handled their police department recruitment videos.
Coulter suggested the ICPD develop a community service approach, but he questioned how to
form that into a recommendation. Roberts followed up by saying they need a video that displays
the message that any police department should have — to protect and serve. Coulter stated that he
believes it is up to the City Manager and the Police Department to develop community policing,
but that this Committee can help by showing what the expectations would be. Townsend noted
Ad Hoc Diversity Committee, January 31, 2013 Page 3
that there is a need to have a video that shows the positive side of Iowa City, not a negative view.
Roberts noted that she would like to actually ask the Chief what was behind the making of this
particular video. Other Members agreed, asking who would have had final approval of this
video and what type of process this goes through. Townsend stated that he believes this is one
area they need to look into further, especially since the `perception' of the ICPD is one of the
issues here. He added that putting some procedures in place now could help to alleviate
problems like this in the future.
Karr stated that one possible idea is to have the subcommittee meet with the Chief as they are
formulating their recommendations. This could help them in coming up with final
recommendations to bring back to the Committee as a whole. Markus then spoke to Members
about `ranger' type programs, or cadet programs, where youth recruiting can be done, to help
further the relationship between youth and City police and fire, and the community. Coulter then
distributed a recommendation that he believes incorporates some of the things they've been
discussing. Botchway suggested this type of information go to the subcommittees as they form
the actual recommendations.
Botchway then spoke to having clear, set policies within their recommendations. Such as why
multiple police cars are being sent on minor incidents, when in fact communication problems
requiring an interpreter are often the determining factor in such situations. Townsend noted that
consistency is a concern, as well as having clear, set policies. When officers respond to
situations, they should respond consistently, and not show a preference. Massey spoke to the
community outreach meetings previously noted by the ICPD and how these are all committees
with supervisors attending and not public meetings with participants. She stated that having the
ICPD come to information fairs and that type of thing is more of a community outreach. She
added that she recently made such a request and was denied. To her that spoke more to their lack
of community outreach. Botchway suggested they put `improved customer service' under
`improve community relations' as they really address the same issues. Vanden Berg added that
she would like to see them keep the simple ideas or the simplistic way of approaching some of
these issues, and to not lose the point of why they were suggested in the first place. Townsend
stated that he believes they should gravitate to the `protect and serve' philosophy approach as he
believes it will improve many of the negative areas they are dealing with.
Members continued to discuss a `community policing approach,' and how the subcommittee can
bring together the various parts of these recommendations. Coulter added that what he sees is a
need for the City to monitor and report on the progress that they make once they have adopted
such recommendations. Letting the Committee know if the recommendations are truly working
would be good to know, according to Coulter. Massey agreed, stating that she agrees that they
need to hear the positive things, in addition to the negative things or those things not working, in
order to better evaluate such processes. Townsend added that they need to emphasize this
upfront. Members agreed that building relationships between the police and the public is the
critical issue here.
Moving on to Communications section of the proposed recommendation list, Botchway spoke to
putting items here under both Police and Transportation. The subcommittees can then review
these as they work on the recommendations.
Ad Hoc Diversity Committee, January 31, 2013 Page 4
Under Transportation, Botchway quickly reviewed the recommendations thus far, with Members
asking for clarification. Coulter brought up the fact that they had suggested communication
between Coralville and the University of Iowa, as well as the public school transportation, to
look at collaboration and coordination. He stated that he believes there needs to be some type of
coordination recommendation made here. Vanden Berg brought up the issue of the survey that
Transit was going to be doing and where they are with that survey. Massey noted that she
followed up on this and that this effort fell through, and that Transit is now working on a survey.
The discussion continued on transit issues, with Sunday service and extended routes being
looked at. Dilkes and Markus provided some background history for the Members as they
reviewed their draft recommendations.
Members agreed that they need to take the information that they have gathered from their various
public input sessions and formulate this into clear, concise recommendations for the City Council
to review. They continued to discuss transit issues and the need to collaborate with other transit
systems, such as Coralville and Cambus, to alleviate duplication and to help with problem routes.
At this point Members broke into subcommittees:
Law enforcement - Vanden Berg, Townsend, and Coulter
Transportation - Roberts, Massey, and Bakhit
Botchway being the alternate for both subcommittees. City Atty. Dilkes reminded members that
no subcommittee should be made up of more than three Committee members. Coulter suggested
these subcommittees meet and then everyone meet back up again soon to bring this together for
finalization March 10.
TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE:
The next meetings will be for subcommittees and they will plan those themselves. The next full
committee meeting is scheduled for Monday, February 11, 2013, at 4:00 P.M. at City Hall. Karr
noted that she can help set up meeting places for subcommittees if need be. Botchway
questioned if they want to have one more public session where their proposed recommendations
could be unveiled for input. Karr suggested a press release or an advertisement in the local
paper, asking for public comments. The public could also be encouraged to attend a Committee
meeting to share their input, as well.
Botchway stated in this section of the meeting that the question is whether or not police should
track data of arrests and supply that information directly to the public. Coulter added that this is
in his recommendation, as well. Massey agreed that the information needs to be broken down
for better clarification, as well. Townsend suggested a semi - annual report, rather than an annual
one. Botchway also brought up the topic of a potluck or community party where the police and
the community come together to help build relationships.
ADJOURNMENT:
Townsend moved to adjourn the meeting at 5:55 P.M.
Vanden Berg seconded the motion.
The motion carried 6 -0; Bakhit absent.
T
0
to
Cd
P-4
M
O
N
M
ti
0
U
A
U
0
x
b
d
O
oW
v�V-
.*_�'WN
N V N
i Z
T
Q N
Z
o H
�a
Q
a�
U
W N
N N Ca
.Q
CL < ..
w
Axo0z
02/11/13
01/31/13
z
X
X
O
X
X
X
X
01/14/13
z
X
X
O
O
X
X
X
01/03/13
z
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
12/17/12
z
X
X
O
X
X
X
X
12/10/12
z
X
x
Ow
X
X
X
Ow
12/3/12
z
X
O w
X
X
X
X
X
11/19/12
z
X
X
Ow
ow
X
X
X
11/15/12
z
X
X
X
X
X
X
O w
11/13/12
z
X
X
X
X
X
X
Ow
10/29/12
z ix
O w
X
O w
X
X
X
10/22/12
z
X
X
X
Ow
X
X
X
10/15/12
z
X Ix
X
X
X
X Ix
10/8/12
z
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
09/24/12
z
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
09/17/12
z
X
X
X
X
X
X
z
09/10/12
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
z
08/29/12
00
X
X
X
X
X
X
z
Few
O.M-i
O.M-
Oro
r"
z
Ax
Ua'
CCU
ti�
�
�ml,
O
off
tiU 0
O�
4
a�
U
W N
N N Ca
.Q
CL < ..
w
Axo0z
5b(3)
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVED
DECEMBER 17, 2012 — 5:15 PM — INFORMAL
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Stewart Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Anne Freerks, Phoebe
Martin, John Thomas, Tim Weitzel
MEMBERS ABSENT: Paula Swygard.
STAFF PRESENT: Karen Howard, Sarah Greenwood Hektoen
OTHERS PRESENT: None
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
None.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There was none.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEM
Consider setting a public hearing for January 3. 2013 to amend the Comprehensive Plan to
change the land use designation on the Central District Plan Map from Office Commercial to
High Density Multi - Family Residential for property located at 821 E. Jefferson Street.
Howard explained that this is the same property that the Commission denied rezoning for last
year. She said there is now another rezoning application for that property, and it will need a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change it from Commercial Office (CO -1) to Multifamily.
She said staff had asked the applicant to defer the rezoning request to the next meeting, as it
looked like they weren't quite ready, but the Commission can set the public hearing for the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment so they can both be heard at the same meeting.
Martin asked if it would be appropriate for her to see the previous application from last year.
Howard explained that it is a former medical office building that is proposed for redevelopment.
She said if it is going to be used for something besides a commercial office building, the
Comprehensive Plan has to be changed. She said all the Commission would be doing is setting
the public hearing at the next meeting.
Weitzel said the last application was before the change in number of bedrooms allowed.
Howard reiterated that there will be no discussion about those kinds of factors, and all the
Commission will be doing is deciding whether or not to set public hearing.
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 17, 2012 - Informal
Page 2 of 4
Eastham asked about the different zonings the property could be designated as. Howard
explained that when the Commission has the rezoning case before them, that can be part of the
discussion.
REZONING ITEM
REZ12- 00016: An application submitted by City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Multifamily
(R36) zone to High Density Single Family Residential (RS -12) zone for approximately .47 acres
of property located north of 906 N. Dodge Street.
REZONING ITEM
REZ12- 00018: An application submitted by City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Commercial
Office (CO -1) zone to High Density Single Family Residential (RS -12) zone for approximately
1. 15 acres of property located at 911 N. Governor Street.
REZONING ITEM
REZ12- 00019: An application submitted by City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Multifamily
(R36) zone to Medium Density Multi - Family Residential (RM -20) zone for approximately 1.78
acres of property located at 902 & 906 N. Dodge Street.
Eastham said he would have to recuse himself from discussions of all three of these items.
Howard said the Commission previously recommended approval of a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment for this area to comply with the Central District Plan. She said the current proposed
action would be a rezoning to bring the zoning on the property into compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan and the Central District Plan. She explained how the subject properties
are now being used and what the proposed rezoning designations are for the three properties.
Howard said they did a study of this area and found that approximately 80% of the dwelling
units within this area are rentals. One of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan is to try to find a
healthier balance between renters and owners and long -term versus short-term rentals. She
said that obviously apartment buildings, duplexes, and townhouses can either be rental or
owner occupied, and the idea is that certain types of units might be more likely to have long-
term residents that would bring stability to the neighborhood, regardless of whether they are
renters or owners.
Freeks asked if there were legal issues concerning these properties that would be addressed at
some time.
Greenwood Hektoen said the Commission has the right to rezone the properties despite a
complicated history and potential for litigation.
Howard said they are continuing conversations with the owners, and one of the reasons that
staff decided to go forward with this is because they haven't seen anything that the owners have
proposed that they think really complies with the Comprehensive Plan. She said what the
Commission has to consider is the Comprehensive Plan and what has occurred and what the
goals are here and whether the zoning proposed complies with the Comprehensive Plan.
Freerks said she thought those considerations should be stated at the next meeting so the
public would understand what the Commission is there to talk about.
Thomas asked if the intent is that the staff tries to find a zoning that is most comparable to the
existing density. Howard replied that the idea with the RM -20 is that staff wanted to
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 17, 2012 - Informal
Page 3 of 4
acknowledge what is on the subject property now and not make it non - conforming. She said the
RM -20 for that middle piece is the closest density designation for the density that is currently on
the property. Howard said they have to have zoning boundaries follow the lot lines. Thomas said
the density of 902 Dodge Street is slightly more than the RM -20 zoning would allow, and the
building to the north is 15 units per acre, which is less than what the RM -20 zone allows. He
asked if there is an equivalent to the 15 units per acre in terms of a current zone. He said he
suspects that the community would not want to see higher densities result from any rezoning.
Howard said that the proposed RM -20 zoning acknowledges the density that has already been
built for these two properties and that's what was suggested in the Central District Plan.
Howard talked about how the owner of the properties would continue to have the right to
request a subsequent rezoning or planned development as long as it was in compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Thomas said that his recollection of community comment was that given that the adjacent
properties and Dewey Street are zoned RS -8, that RS -8 was their expectation for the rezoning.
Howard stated that staff was proposing a middle ground where the dwelling units would be
single family as called for in the Comprehensive Plan, but that enough density would be allowed
to make redevelopment financially feasible for a property that has a number of site constraints
and an existing office building that would have to be demolished before anything new could be
constructed.
Greenwood - Hektoen said that a taking claim is defensible with what's proposed because they
still have economically viable uses of the property when the land is rezoned, and there are
some site constraints that limit development. Thomas asked what would be allowed if it was
rezoned to RS -8. Howard replied that if it was rezoned to RS -8, it would only allow a few
detached single family home lots. Thomas asked whether they could do townhouses with an
RS -8 zoning. Howard replied that townhouses would not be allowed in the RS -8 Zone, unless
the property was developed as a planned development where the units could be clustered on
one lot rather than subdivided into separate individual tax lots. However, even with a planned
development, the number of units could not exceed the density allowed in the underlying zone.
She also noted that a planned development would involve a separate rezoning process.
OTHER
None.
ADJOURNMENT:
Weitzel moved to adjourn.
Martin seconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 5 -0 vote.
z
O
�O
00 z
W LLLL
Z V C4 � LL
ZZo_
N a N
D
ZLL
Za
z
CL
N
x
X
X
I
o
x
X
X
�XXXIXXXX
X
x
X
i
x
X
x
x
w
°XXXIxXxx
co
oXXXIXX6x
!
XXX0
o
X
X
X
I
X
X
X
X
oXxxlxxxo
O
xW
O
i
x
w
O
o)
°Xxxlxxxo
cc
CD
Ixxx
oxxlxoxo
;
x0x0
w
w
C)xxx
I
xxxx
I
�W
O
XX
i
XXww
OO
I N
x
x
x
I
X
X
X
w
QXXXiXXXX
n
I =XxxIxxxx
X
X
0
1
x
X
x
x
i ti
�xxxIxxxx
MXXX�iXXX
1
M
Q
O
x
x
i
x
x
x
x
Ln
Q
X
X
O
x
I
x
x
x
N
M
X
X
X
M
X
x
x
o
I
X
x
X
N
IOXXXXIXXX
M
CO
Cfl
M
N
I�
In
M
WX00000000
X
X
X
X
i
X
X
X
N
N
N
X
X
X
X
I
X
X
X
J
w
J
z
X
X
X
X
i
X
X
x
ao
�
��=
COCOMNI���M
V
X
m
W
Z
Q
Q
W
w a
E.xo0o00000
����LOLOLO�
LO
U')
Un
LO
LO
LO
Lf)
w
cn
=w
zaw1iY2coI
>-
ci
Q
„ •
a
-�
C)
�vi00ao
Q
Y
V)
Ct
N
Qw
J
w�F
XWLIU
-
LLJCL
tN
�wmwaW
ZG
W1LLYgU)
F
3
4
LL
Z
NXXX
X
--XX
M
N
X
x
X
i
x
X
x
x
r
oOXX
!
XXX0
�W
O
xW
O
i
x
w
O
�
�xxxexxxo
CD
Ixxx
;
x0x0
w
w
I
�W
O
XX
i
XXww
OO
c
I
QXXXiXXXX
i
X
X
0
1
x
X
x
x
MXXX�iXXX
ti
Nxxxx
Ixxx
N
M
X
x
x
x
I
x
x
x
N
y
W
CO
Cfl
M
N
I�
In
M
WX00000000
W
w_
J
w
J
z
J
0U<
2
x
w
a
g
ao
�
QN
V
X
m
W
Z
Q
Q
W
WacPLuaF
-
U
mwwa�
4
cn
=w
zaw1iY2coI
>-
oR0Q
-�
E
O
7
-00
N O
�Z
L) ,
X
� 11
.. c a)
aci-C:v°�iE
0 N � O
CL Q ,QI z
n n w ::>
x000z
W
Y
N
r
O
N
cu
a
()
v
c
a)
E
a
a
Y
5_
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVED
JANUARY 14 — 5:15 PM — INFORMAL
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Charlie Eastham, Anne Freerks, Phoebe Martin, Paula Swygard,
John Thomas, Tim Weitzel
MEMBERS ABSENT: Carolyn Stewart Dyer
STAFF PRESENT: Karen Howard, Sarah Walz, Sarah Greenwood Hektoen
OTHERS PRESENT: None
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
None.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There was none.
Rezoning Items
REZ12- 00016: Discussion of an application submitted by City of Iowa City for a rezoning from
Multifamily (R36) zone to High Density Single Family Residential (RS -12) zone for
approximately .47 acres of property located north of 906 N. Dodge Street.
REZ12- 00018: Discussion of an application submitted by City of Iowa City for a rezoning from
Commercial Office (CO -1) zone to High Density Single Family Residential (RS -12) zone for
approximately 1. 15 acres of property located at 911 N. Governor Street.
REZ12- 00019: Discussion of an application submitted by City of Iowa City for a rezoning from
Multifamily (R313) zone to Medium Density Multi - Family Residential (RM -20) zone for
approximately 1.78 acres of property located at 902 & 906 N. Dodge Street.
Eastham recused himself from discussions due to a conflict of interest.
Howard explained that these rezoning items had already been previewed at the December 17`h
informal meeting, so she would not go into detail unless the Commission had questions that
they would like answered for the formal meeting on Thursday. She explained that these
rezonings were originally scheduled for a formal meeting in December, which was cancelled
due to inclement weather. Now these items are back on the Commission's agenda for the
January 17 formal meeting. She summarized that this is a City- initiated rezoning to bring the
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 14, 2013 - Informal
Page 2 of 5
zoning into compliance with the recently amended Comprehensive Plan. She stated that
rezoning the properties at this time to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan would
establish new base zones. It would not prevent the owners from proposing a planned
development in the future, where the dwelling units could be clustered, but any such plan would
need to comply with the underlying base zone and the Comprehensive Plan.
Development Item
SUB12- 00015: Discussion of an application submitted by Advantage Custom Builders for a
preliminary plat for Mackinaw Village Part 5, a 8 -lot, 3.95 acre residential subdivision located on
Mackinaw Drive.
Howard said this is a preliminary plat that has now expired, and the applicants would like to redo
the plat and add one lot. She showed the Commission on a map where the subdivision is
located. She said staff is suggesting that the applicants plant a tree buffer in the 150 -foot space
between the interstate and any new home sites. Staff also is recommending that the trees be
planted closer to the proposed homes rather than right next to the Interstate. Due to the fact
that the Interstate is at a higher elevation than the home sites, planting the trees nearer to the
homes would provide more screening than if they were located further away.
Eastham asked for clarification about setbacks from interstate right of ways. Howard said this
whole area was platted before the new subdivision code was adopted, which requires a 300 foot
setback along the interstate. She said that while this proposed plat would not comply with the
new standard, staffs opinion is that since this is part of an existing subdivision and this is one of
the final pieces within that larger subdivision and since much of the infrastructure has already
been constructed that the City should give some allowance for this area to be platted as
originally proposed.
Freerks noted they had made this type of allowance in the past.
Comprehensive Plan
Public hearing on an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to adopt an update to Iowa City's
Comprehensive Plan: "Iowa City 2030." (This public hearing will be deferred to the
February 7th meeting)
Walz said this is the first rough draft of the plan, and staff wanted to put it before the Board to
make sure that they are all comfortable with it. She said funding came through the Smart
Growth Iowa program and paid for all the planning that went into this and the Riverfront
Crossings District as well. She said the purpose was to go back and look at the City's
Comprehensive Plan and to revisit it with sustainability in mind. She said simultaneously with
this, there's another process going on in the city that is more focused on measures for making
Iowa City sustainable which will eventually be used alongside this plan. She said last winter the
City held two large workshops where they invited people to revisit the Comprehensive Plan and
then respond to its content and talk about things they liked about the city, things that need
improvement, and if they saw the need for changes in the Plan.
Walz said they also got input from people through the Good Ideas campaign. She said they also
looked at the last two district plans that were adopted, the Southeast District Plan and the
Central District Plan because they were the ones that dealt with the most recent issues. She
said they looked at the information they gathered from the Riverfront Crossings Plan and also
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 14, 2013 - Informal
Page 3 of 5
tried to encompass public comment about the controversy with the demolition of the Red
Avocado. She said things that had been put forward before in the Comprehensive and District
Plan have been accomplished but they need to revisit the Plan because there are new
challenges ahead, such as the increasing cost of energy and a changing housing market. She
said that they view sustainability as not just environmental issues but as social issues, questions
of access, of what we value culturally about our community and how those things interrelate
with the economy. She said they really tried to capture the consensus of what people want Iowa
City to be.
Swygard said she thought the language on page 13 "other challenges remain" was too strong.
She said she particularly had a problem with the word "pirating." She had offered some
alternative suggestions to Robert Miklo. Howard explained that three City Managers from the
metro area are working on an anti - piracy policy, so the term is out there. Swygard said if it could
be explained better with a footnote, she would feel better about the use of the word. Howard
said in all the meetings they had, piracy came up in all of them as a Top Five issue in regards to
competition with Coralville.
Freerks said she's okay with the language if it is well explained.
Walz said on pages 18 and 19 they go into principles for sustaining healthy neighborhoods, and
those principles are consistent with what they've had in almost all the district plans, but they
added two new principles – infill development and neighborhood schools.
Thomas asked about the issue of measurable sustainability. Walz said that Brenda Nations,
Sustainability Coordinator for the City is looking at a range of things in a data driven form, and
assigning numbers and values. Thomas said he thought that was an important thing to apply to
the Comprehensive Plan as a whole. Walz said it will become part of the Comprehensive Plan
and will help the city measure progress in a more concrete way. Thomas said by identifying
what the measures are, there is a better idea of what will be identified as the problem or core
issue and then they can look at it and see what happens over time.
Freerks asked when Nations might have put together her program. Walz said Nations thought
her sustainability assessment would be done by the end of spring. Walz said it is part of an
organization called ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability which is the world's leading
association of cities and local governments dedicated to sustainable development that promotes
local action for global sustainability and supports cities to become sustainable.
Eastham asked if the sustainability goals are addressed in the land use section. Walz replied
that it appeared that the "neighborhood principles" support sustainability —the efficient use of
land, transportation, etc. Eastham asked how this plan relates to the proposed measures in the
sustainability assessment that Branda Nations is working on. Walz said there is a good amount
of overlay— things like connectivity, transit, efficient land use, and preserving environmental
features – many things that Iowa City is already doing. She said that Iowa City is ahead of most
communities when it comes to land use.
OTHER
Martin asked about any restrictions that might be placed on the Bowery Street historic building
that is now being sold by the man who bought it. Howard said staff will keep their eyes on it.
ADJOURNMENT:
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 14, 2013 - Informal
Page 4 of 5
Weitzel moved to adjourn.
Swygard seconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 5 -0 vote.
Z
_0
On
c)
CG
G
/0
V
Z
0
N
06
(D
_Z
Z
Z
5
CL
0
V
W
W
cl
Z
Q
D
Z
W
Q
v eY e
N a
C
u
N
O
r
O>
T
a
T
0
a
T
T
N
T
n
O
1
T
T
n
T
O
T
M
O
O
T
Y9
O
O>
h
T
O
X
X
X
X
X
X
!-
O
co
co
T
W
i N
W
QZW
Z
j
J
o0Q
=
=ao�
Q
=
o
R
/-
i O
0<0
2
w
-
LU
a
>-
w
W
z
0
Lu
LL
U)
� N
O
O
T
CD
O
T
N
M
n
0
M
a
n
n
T
T
XX
X
x
X
X
a W CD
CO
M
n
N LO
M
wX
o
0 0 0
0
0
0
W
CU
Q Y
a�
Z
w
W
a'1=-
W
F-
Q
Q
W fA
W
O
H
W
ZGLu0LLQ
V)aF=-
E
O
0d
N O
�Z
X
LLJ
N
y c y E
N N O
�Q
a 11
< 11
n n W
XOOz
W
Y
r
!
r
's
I
O
X
X
X
X
X
X
!-
MLUCDcDm�LoLnM
�X0000000
W
W
QZW
Z
J
o0Q
=
=ao�
Q
=
R
/-
0<0
2
w
-
LU
a
>-
w
W
z
0
Lu
LL
U)
E
O
0d
N O
�Z
X
LLJ
N
y c y E
N N O
�Q
a 11
< 11
n n W
XOOz
W
Y
5b(5)
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVED
JANUARY 17, 2013 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Stewart Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Anne Freerks, Phoebe
Martin, Paula Swygard, John Thomas, Tim Weitzel
MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
STAFF PRESENT: Karen Howard, Sara Greenwood Hektoen
OTHERS PRESENT: Tracy Barkalow, Chris Reynolds, Mark Shields, Todd Bowers,
Michelle Higley, Lindsey Boorman, Ray Anderson, Jennifer Baum,
Shirley Lindell, Sally Bowers, Linda Yanney, Cindy Kuba, Mike
Wright, Chuck Meardon
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
The Commission voted 5 -1 (Thomas opposed, Eastham recused) to recommend approval
of REZ12- 00018, an application submitted by City of Iowa City for a rezoning from
Commercial Office (CO -1) zone to High Density Single Family Residential (RS -12) zone
for approximately 1.15 acres of property located at 911 North Governor Street.
The Commission voted 6 -0 (Eastham recused) to recommend approval of REZ12- 00016,
an application submitted by City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Multi- family (R3B) zone
to High Density Single Family Residential (RS -12) zone for approximately .47 acres of
property located north of 906 Dodge Street.
The Commission voted 5 -1 (Thomas opposed, Eastham recused) to recommend approval
of REZ12- 00019, an application submitted by City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Multi-
family (R3B) zone to Medium Density Multi- Family Residential (RM -20) zone for
approximately 1.78 acres of property located at 902 and 906 North Dodge Street.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There was none.
Rezoning Items
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 17, 2013 - Formal
Page 2 of 11
REZ12- 00016: Discussion of an application submitted by City of Iowa City for a rezoning from
Multi- family (R3B) zone to High Density Single Family Residential (RS -12) zone for
approximately .47 acres of property located north of 906 N. Dodge Street.
REZ12- 00018: Discussion of an application submitted by City of Iowa City for a rezoning from
Commercial Office (CO -1) zone to High Density Single Family Residential (RS -12) zone for
approximately 1.15 acres of property located at 911 N. Governor Street.
REZ12- 00019: Discussion of an application submitted by City of Iowa City for a rezoning from
Multi- family (R3B) zone to Medium Density Multi- Family Residential (RM -20) zone for
approximately 1.78 acres of property located at 902 & 906 N. Dodge Street.
Eastham recused himself due to a conflict of interest.
Howard presented the staff report. In a Powerpoint presentation she pointed out the location of
the various properties proposed for rezoning and a number of photographs of the properties.
She explained that the intent of the proposed rezonings is to bring the zoning into compliance
with the Comprehensive Plan, and more specifically the Central District Plan. She noted that the
Central District Plan indicates that properties at 902 and 906 Dodge Street are appropriate for
low to medium density multi - family development. Howard read a passage from the Central
District Plan that outlined the need to eliminate the obsolete R313 zoning designation from the
zoning map by rezoning the property to a valid designation such as RM -20.
Howard explained that as a result of a recent amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, the
properties at 911 N. Governor Street and the vacant property north of 906 N. Dodge Street are
now designated for single family and duplex development. The proposed rezoning of these
properties to Single Family (RS -12) would bring these properties into compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan and provide a transition or buffer between the higher density of the multi-
family zoning and the lower density single family character of the surrounding neighborhood.
Howard noted that the application for the proposed rezoning of these properties was filed back
in August of 2012. However, City staff agreed to defer sending the application to the
Commission so that the property owner would have time to work out a development plan that
would be more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. However, after nearly 6 months,
the property owner had not submitted a proposal that, in staff's opinion, would comply with the
Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, staff felt that it was unlikely they could reach an agreement
with the property owner on an acceptable alternative to the rezoning proposed by staff. She
noted that rezoning the properties as recommended by staff would not prevent the property
owner or any subsequent owner from requesting another rezoning in the future.
Howard stated that the Comprehensive Plan outlines that portions of the Central Planning
District located to the north and east of Downtown contain older neighborhoods where issues of
neighborhood integrity are a concern. Where existing zoning allows development at a higher
density, the City Council has indicated that measures should be taken to assure that new
structures are designed to be compatible with the adjacent neighborhood. Rezoning the
properties will help achieve that goal since the current zoning code contains design provisions
to ensure that new buildings are designed to fit into the character of the neighborhood. In
summary, Howard stated that the City's Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives and the
City's zoning practices have fundamentally changed since the 1970's, when the R36
designation was valid. Evidence of the evolution of the City's approach to land use for the area
can be found in current policies promoting the stabilization of older neighborhoods set forth in
the Central District Plan and the City Council's Strategic Plan. The proposed rezonings will
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 17, 2013 - Formal
Page 3 of 11
provide for development that is more compatible with the adjacent properties and with the
character of the surrounding neighborhood and will further the goal of encouraging a healthier
balance between housing for short-term and long -term residents.
Hektoen informed the Commission that despite the litigation that resulted from a 1978 rezoning
of this land, the Commission and City Council could consider the current rezoning. The Court
acknowledged that zoning is subject to change with changing community needs and conditions.
The comprehensive plan has changed since 1978 and the needs of the community have
changed.
Hektoen further advised the Commission that Council intends to consider setting a public
hearing on this rezoning at its meeting next Tuesday, but that the Commission should feel free
to either make a recommendation on the proposed rezonings tonight or defer consideration until
its next meeting. She also noted that a site plan for a new multi - family building has been
submitted for this land, which would be contrary to the proposed rezoning. Once Council sets
the public hearing, it will establish a moratorium on the issuance of a building permit for the
proposed site plan, because it would be counter to the proposed rezoning. Staff has provided
the applicant with their initial comments, noting that the application is incomplete. This should
not affect the Commission's consideration of the rezonings.
Freerks opened public hearing.
Tracy Barkalow, owner of the subject property, said the site plan that they submitted is just one
building. He brought a copy of that plan to distribute to the Commission as well as the notes
from his meeting today with City staff. He said he has had meetings with Bob Miklo, Karen
Howard and other staff regarding what to do with the site and how to get it developed per the
Multi- family (R3B) zoning that's currently on the property. He said he was told by staff when
they were discussing the Comprehensive Plan as well as the zoning that they would hold off on
rezoning the property and give the owners time to work with them to come to a compromise. He
said that his site plan was submitted the week before last but wasn't mentioned at the Monday
night informal Commission meeting. He said the site plan he is submitting is a 30 unit complex,
consisting of six 3- bedroom units and 24 two bedroom units. He said his goal for the area is
somewhere in the 60 unit total development area. He said it is his understanding that the R3B
zoning would allow up to 200 4 and 5- bedroom units to be built at that location if they challenge
it and go to court. He said he doesn't want to go to court, but if the zoning is put into place, that
will be the only option to preserve his rights. He said if he does that, he will sell the property to a
larger developer because he can't financially develop the 200 units. He said he said he has
three out -of -town developers who would like to purchase the property if he goes that route. He
said he would prefer to just build the 60 units he thinks they can fit comfortably on the site.
Barkalow said he thinks this is a good plan. He said it's a very well thought out building for the
area and is much better than the plan submitted in 1988 when that owner was building the 906
North Dodge building and that site plan was approved. He passed around a copy of the 1988
site plan to show how it was all concrete, had more units, and took out the sensitive slopes. He
said it is not his intention to do that. He said a court order supersedes everyone's authority from
this Commission on up to City Council and the Comprehensive Plan. He said great credence
should be given to that court order stating this property is R3B. He said eighty percent of the
neighborhood is rental. He said as an eighteen year realtor, he doesn't see building townhomes
or single family homes on this property and being able to sell them as owner occupied with the
way the land is laid out. He said they do have long -term renters in his buildings. He asked that
the Commission defer rezoning of the property, that staff give them more time to reach a
compromise.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 17, 2013 - Formal
Page 4 of 11
Chris Reynolds of 619 Brown Street said she doesn't want to create an adversarial relationship
with Barkalow. She said she knows he's a developer and investor but she said it's also
important to note that everyone who showed up at this meeting is also an investor in the
neighborhood. She said what happens at 911 Governor Street will affect their quality of life and
their property values. She said implementing any other zoning than Medium Density Single
Family (RS -8) which would not support the City's Comprehensive Plan, nor would it add to or
benefit the neighborhood. She said it would add to the traffic, street parking, and the noise level.
She said in general construction of 3- bedroom apartments is destined to be college housing for
short-term renters with little connection or concern for the neighborhood. She said with late night
pedestrians and people making noise as they street park, you have the recipe for long -term
renters and home owners moving out. She said she believes that plans can be developed to
financially benefit the developer, promote long -term renters and allow the home owners to feel
good about investing in their residences. She asked the Commission to apply zoning that is
consistent with the current zoning in the area and also supports neighborhood stabilization.
Mark Shields of 913 Dewey Street said he and his family have rented in the neighborhood for
seven years. He said in keeping with the spirit of neighborhood stabilization rezoning from
commercial office (CO -1) to Medium Density Single Family Residential is most in line with
creating, promoting and maintaining livable neighborhood. He said by rezoning to the RS -8
designation there is still plenty of opportunity for any responsible developer to utilize these
regulations while keeping a balance with the established shape and life of surrounding
properties in the neighborhood and keeping in line with the Comprehensive Plan.
Todd Bowers of 931 North Summit Street said what he understands is that the City thinks
neighborhoods here that are integral with the character of existing neighborhoods need to be
preserved. He said he thinks the reason the City directed the zoning change was because of
development that was proposed to occur on this property to begin with. He asked if this were
just a zoning question and not a question about a proposed plan for the property wouldn't it
make sense that this historical artifact that everyone agrees doesn't belong here - wouldn't RS -8
make sense? He said maybe the reason those two apartment buildings are there is why there
aren't many owner - occupied houses in the block around the apartments. He said he doesn't like
the idea of trying to scare the Planning and Zoning Commission to accept a proposal from a
developer based on the threat of an out of state developer building 400 units.
Michelle Higley, owner of 414 North Gilbert Street, said she didn't see how given the confines of
this area, you could support 200 units with parking and the flow of the traffic on the two one -way
streets and how you could sustain neighborhood stabilization and continue to see the Northside
Marketplace flourish and keep traffic flowing and free with Barkalow's claim of 200 more units in
that small area. She said she supports RS -8 zoning.
Lindsey Boorman of 813 Dewey Street said she and her children have been living there since
October and she specifically sought out that neighborhood because it has the character of Iowa
City, not the transient student housing. She said she supports neighborhood stabilization and
she would like to see that area rezoned as RS -8 and the integrity of her neighborhood stay
intact.
Ray Anderson of 812 Dewey Street said he has lived there 35 years and is very concerned
about the change in the neighborhood because of the traffic problems and the steep slope on
Dodge Street as well the parking issue and the spill over parking. He said the only place for that
overflow parking will be on Dewey Street, a very narrow street with limited parking. He said the
Commission owes it to the residents to try to keep this community the way it is. He said it looks
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 17, 2013 - Formal
Page 5 of 11
like the city plan is just some sort of compromise between Barkalow's originally outrageous plan
and what should be there. He said if you have to buffer that high occupancy zone, buffer it down
RS -8 on the Governor Street side.
Jennifer Baum of 814 Dewey Street said she strongly encourages the Commission to rezone
the CO -1 into RS -8. She said she thinks doing anything else would dramatically change the
nature of the neighborhood. She said if it was zoned RS -12 it would disrupt the surrounding
neighborhoods, decrease the livability and deteriorate the stability of these neighborhoods. She
said rezoning 911 North Governor Street would simply bring that property into alignment with
the rest of that block and the nearby blocks. She said this issue has come up before because of
the Comprehensive Plan and this Commission recommended that it be rezoned RS -8. She said
the neighborhood deeply cares about this issue as witnessed by everyone who showed up to
speak. She invited Barkalow to work with the neighborhood to get to an acceptable
level of residency on these properties. She doesn't see how the zoning could work to the
stabilization of neighborhoods being anything but RS -8.
Freerks asked Greenwood Hektoen what was recommended last time to Council. Greenwood
Hektoen said RM -12 was the last rezoning application that Planning and Zoning approved that
Council denied.
Howard clarified that anything with RS zoning is a single family zone so the RS -12 zone allows
only single family dwelling or one duplex on each lot. The difference is that the RS -12 Zone
allows more lots per acre than the RS -8 Zone. She said regardless of whether it is RS -8 or RS-
12, in order to develop more than one house on the property, the developer would have to
subdivide the property into individual home lots. Unless the developer were to rezone the
property using a planned development process, there could only be one dwelling unit per lot or
in the case of a duplex, two units per lot. She clarified that the RS -12 zone does allow attached
single family or what many people call townhouses, but each townhouse unit still would have to
sit on its own tax lot.
Shirley Lindell of 804 Dewey Street said she and the other speakers are there to plead with the
Commission to maintain the RS -8 designation to maintain their neighborhood stabilization. She
said she understands that one of the definitions for the RS -8 is to create, maintain and promote
livable neighborhoods. She said the RS -12 does not state anything like that. She said they
would like to keep the traffic minimal and the speed down due to all the children in the area.
Sally Bowers of 931 North Summit Street said that because of the one -way nature of Governor
Street, North Summit and Dewey Street become the natural shortcut for anyone coming from
the north. She said apartment buildings of any size would increase the traffic and she is very
much against it.
Linda Yanney of 320 North Lucas Street said she has been looking for some time to buy a
house in "Deweyville" or the near North Side. She said she has been looking for modest single
family homes in that area for two years and there doesn't appear to be a lot of turn -over in sales
and availability of single family and small residences, whether it be duplexes or small apartment
buildings. She disagrees with Mr. Barkalow when he claims that there is no market for that kind
of housing.
Cindy Kuba of 819 Dewey Street said their neighborhood is already in transition because in the
time they have lived there, the dairy has left and Hy -Vee will build a new store and possibly
create more traffic. She said they need to work hard to maintain their sense of community and
neighborhood. She said she doesn't see the people in the apartments on Dodge Street getting
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 17, 2013 - Formal
Page 6 of 11
to know each other and caring in the same way as they do with both renter and owner
neighbors. She asked whether with the new plan people will be coming across from Dodge to
Governor through that parking lot and creating mid - street cut - across.
Mike Wright of 225 North Lucas Street said the current zoning and the development proposals
that he's seen really jeopardize the character of the neighborhood, threatening to weaken and
destroy a good chunk of the character of the neighborhood. He said he agrees with Jeff
Davidson, the Director of Planning and Community Development, who said at the November
13th City Council meeting that RS -8 is a zone that makes sense here. He said with a few
exceptions there's a consensus that this land has been badly zoned for years. He urged the
Commission to correct a long- standing mistake.
Chuck Meardon, who is a lawyer, gave the Commission a packet of information containing a
map, the two court rulings and the supplemental order. He said he hoped the Commission
would read them before they decided on rezoning. He said on one of the biggest chunks of
R3B, which is being proposed to be rezoned to RM -20, the density of RM -20 would be
consumed by the existing improvements and Barkalow would be left not able to do anything if
this area is rezoned RM -20. He asked is Howard could confirm whether or not his calculations
were correct. Meardon confessed that his father filed the first lawsuit in 1977, but the issues
haven't changed since then. He said what prompted the lawsuit then and now are concerns
about the density to which the property can be developed. He said while the goals of
development in the City may have changed over the last few years, physically this property
hasn't. He asked the Commission to bear that in mind when it makes its decision. He said he
would ask the Commission to defer this now and consider the court rulings.
Jennifer Baum said she thought that the most the R3B should be rezoned at should be RS -8,
because even if it's RS -12, you are increasing the number and destabilizing the neighborhood.
Freerks closed public hearing.
Freerks invited discussion.
Howard asked Freerks if she could clarify by answering Meardon's previous question. She said
that Meardon is correct that rezoning the R3B parcels to RM -20 as proposed would basically
acknowledge what's already been built, but would not allow more than a couple new units to be
built on those particular parcels. She said the rezoning of the other small parcel north of 906 N.
Dodge, which is recommended for RS -12 zoning would allow some additional development, but
it would have to be duplex or single family. She said the staff recommendation for the CO -1
piece is RS -12, which is also single family zoning designation.
Freerks said that City Council is planning to discuss this next week. She said the Commission
often gives two readings if they feel there is information they need.
After discussion among the Commission, they decided to discuss the three items separately
Weitzel moved to recommend approval of all three items.
There was no second.
The motion failed.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 17, 2013 - Formal
Page 7 of 11
Thomas moved to recommend approval REZ12- 00018, an application submitted by City
of Iowa City for a rezoning from Commercial Office (CO -1) zone to High Density Single
Family Residential (RS -12) zone for approximately 1.15 acres of property located at 911
North Governor Street.
Swygard seconded.
Weitzel said CO -1 has always been an odd zoning designation for this site. He said it's almost a
spot zone and probably never should have been that way. He said he thinks RS -12 as a single
family zone would be neighborhood stabilization, and he's in favor of that.
Martin said she also supports the single family zoning of that parcel. She said she feels that
maybe it should be RS -8 because the other side is the transition as well. However, she said as
long as RS -12 is single family or duplex, she's comfortable with that, but she's not comfortable
with any more than that. She said that the nature of the traffic, of what is surrounding it and the
purpose of that neighborhood is important to maintain. She said she'd agree with RS -12 but
would be even happier with RS -8.
Thomas said the issues with this project are that of neighborhood stability, particularly at
Council level, and compatibility in the surrounding context. He said this is essentially an RS -8
area with a pocket of higher density apartments, which are primarily the CO -1 and the R36 with
some adjustment of the properties north and south of the R313 to RS -12. He said there is no RS-
12 on Governor Street. He said he thinks that RS -8 is the baseline zone in this neighborhood.
He said there is a question of density here, and he is in support of providing higher density in
RS -5, RS -8 and RS -12 neighborhoods. He said the concept brought up last January at Council
was pocket neighborhoods, which is a way in an existing single family residential area to
introduce housing which would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. He said they
are single family, you can achieve them at higher densities than are typically allowed in the base
zone because the dwellings are smaller, so you can achieve higher unit density while retaining
the same intensity of use. Thomas said he would urge the City planning staff to consider the
idea of pocket neighborhoods because it would address some of the issues heard tonight and
that have been mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan of providing housing opportunities that
acknowledge that household size is decreasing.
Howard said a pocket neighborhood would be allowed at this site under the Planned
Development rezoning process, but because this is a City initiated rezoning, the City is not
planning on developing the property, so it would have to be an owner or developer initiated
rezoning application. She said the base zoning that is recommended with the action tonight and
with the City Council's ruling would then set the base zoning density for any pocket
neighborhood proposal that would come forward in the future. She explained that density would
not be allowed to exceed this baseline designation. She said this would also apply to pocket
neighborhoods.
Thomas said his understanding of the pocket housing ordinance is that it allows higher unit
densities than the baseline because the units are smaller. He said it's similar to how they
changed the multi - family zones to incentivize the one and two bedrooms. Howard said the same
thing would be achieved through the Planned Development process. She said if the
Commission would like to consider smaller units on smaller lots or clustered cottage units, the
RS -12 zoning might be useful here.
Thomas said his concern with zoning and RS -12 is that there's no guarantee that a pocket
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 17, 2013 - Formal
Page 8 of 11
neighborhood would be the outcome. Greenwood Hektoen said that would require a separate
planned development rezoning process.
Howard said what would be guaranteed is that it would only be developed with duplex lots or
single family lots, which may be difficult on this site due to its configuration, without going
through the Planned Development process. Thomas asked if it was true that whatever zone
they elect, it will require a planned overlay because of the access. Howard agreed that the lot
configuration may only allow a few single home lots if the developer were to use the regular
subdivision process. However, one may not be able to maximize the number of units unless the
developer were to use the Planned Development process.
Freerks said she thinks it's important to bring this into what's current in the Comprehensive Plan
and the Central District Plan, which calls for neighborhood stabilization. She doesn't think the
area is right for CO -1 designation. She said RS -8 might be nice, as it would match the other
zonings, but there's a chance to do something nice there with RS -12 that would blend in with
the neighborhood. She said the terrain and entry are difficult, and it will take some work to come
up with something that works well there. She said the bottom line is that CO -1 is not appropriate
for this piece of land and the Comprehensive Plan, so she's in favor of changing it to RS -12.
A vote was taken and the motion carried by a vote of 5 -1 with Thomas voting no and
Eastham recused.
Martin moved to recommend approval of REZ12- 00016, an application submitted by City
of Iowa City for a rezoning from Multi- family (R313) zone to High Density Single Family
Residential (RS -12) zone for approximately .47 acres of property located north of 906
Dodge Street.
Weitzel seconded.
Weitzel said as a transition zone, RS -12 makes the most sense.
Martin agreed with Weitzel's statement.
Freerks said R313 is an obsolete zone in the Code, and it should be brought into compliance in
some way. She said RS -12 seems to be a transition that would allow for something to be done
there and would transition somewhat from the RS -8 zoning that is further to the north. She said
the rezoning would bring it into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Central
District Plan.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6 -0 with Eastham recused.
Thomas moved to recommend approval of REZ12- 00019, an application submitted by the
City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Multi- family (R313) zone to Medium Density Multi -
Family Residential (RM -20) zone for approximately 1.78 acres of property located at 902
and 906 North Dodge Street.
Swygard seconded.
Thomas said that the Commission has discussed the rezoning of the Governor Street side but
not the Dodge Street side. He said that a year ago when RM -12 was proposed on 911 Governor
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 17, 2013 - Formal
Page 9 of 11
Street, Council opposed it, so that reflects that on Council's part, RM -12 on Governor Street is
not considered appropriate. He said it appears that the same considerations that were applied
to 911 North Governor Street apply to the R3B properties on both streets. He said medium
density multi - family in that neighborhood seems to be inconsistent with the single family
residential character of the neighborhood. He said he would not be in favor of an RM zone on
Dodge Street.
Weitzel said he feels it's an appropriate zoning designation because it acknowledges what is
already built there. He said it doesn't seem with the terrain that anything additional can be
added to these lots and there is a certain base level zone that they have to acknowledge is
there right now with what is already built.
Swygard said she thinks it acknowledges the existing density that is already established. She
said R3B designation is no longer used by the City, and they need to bring it up to current
zoning code.
Dyer said she agrees for the same reasons that Swygard stated.
Freerks said these properties are already developed with multi - family buildings, and the RM -20
keeps the property in compliance, but gets rid of the obsolete zoning designation. She said to
create something that makes for an area that isn't accurate with what is there may create more
problems and issues.
Thomas said his view is the long -term vision for this neighborhood. He said the apartment will
remain, but in the long -term is that kind of density appropriate for this neighborhood. He said he
feels it is not.
Freerks asked Greenwood Hektoen to talk about what would happen if this were to be
downzoned further and there was a tornado, what would be allowed.
Greenwood - Hektoen said it would take a Comprehensive Plan amendment to zone this RS -12
because the Plan acknowledges that it should be rezoned to acknowledge the existing use. She
said if it were destroyed completely they would have to come into compliance with whatever the
current zoning of the property is. Howard clarified that unless the building were destroyed more
than seventy -five percent of its value, they would have grandfather rights to rebuild at the
current density.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 5 -1 with Thomas voting no and Eastham
recused.
Freerks called for a five minute break.
Freerks called the meeting to order.
Development Item
SUB12- 00015: Discussion of an application submitted by Advantage Custom Builders for a
preliminary plat for Mackinaw Village Part 5, an 8 -lot, 3.95 acre residential subdivision located
on Mackinaw Drive.
Howard said an engineering issue arose with the storm water drainage that they haven't been
cn
able to resolve yet, so the applicant has asked to defer this item to the meeting of February 7
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 17, 2013 - Formal
Page 10 of 11
2013 so they can work with the City Engineer to resolve the issue.
Freerks opened public hearing.
Freerks closed public hearing.
Weitzel moved to defer this item to the February 7th, 2013 meeting of the Commission.
Martin seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7 -0.
Comprehensive Plan
Public hearing on an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to adopt an update to Iowa City's
Comprehensive Plan: "Iowa City 2030."
Eastham moved to defer this item to the February 7th , 2013 meeting of the Commission.
Weitzel seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7 -0.
OTHER:
Consideration of Meeting Minutes: December 6, 2012 and January 3, 2013
Weitzel moved to adopt with a minor correction.
Eastham seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7 -0.
ADJOURNMENT:
Thomas moved to adjourn.
Eastham seconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 7 -0 vote.
z
O
U)
C)
CGC
/G
V
z_
Z
O
N
ad
z
z
z
5
a
6i
O
W
W
z
Q
D
z
W
f"
H
Q
0
N a
C
u
N
O
O>
a
T
O
O
a
T
T
N
r
T
A
O
r
T
T
O
T
M
O
O
T
U9
O
O>
UY
T
0(om
0
0
0
-
0
LnLoM
0
0
0
WOCF-
Q
zGWLL.
J
=VQ
VQYZ<
_W
J
2
2�—
Q
Z
W�ozIN
W
W
M:)
W
=(Lo
Q=
J
a
U)
2
Q
Lu
—
W
O
O
T
n
I o
r N
co
I c
m
40
T
1 N
0
W)
co
T
v
0
T
N
M
O
M
N
a
n
a
T
x
x
x
x
x
M
c
T
xx
x
x
x
x
��
co
m
m
HX
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
W
V
Q
Y
2
Q
W
111
F
W
Q
H
O
W
z0Lu(iU.Q�U)lcP
�l-
E
0
_
0
�0
=z
U p�
X
LLJ
0
CD E
N0�0
-aQz
a Q n n
n u w
x0Oz
W
Y
1
I
I
I
i
;oxxxxxx
r
�W
WMOLnLnLnOOO
x(
W
0(om
0
0
0
-
0
LnLoM
0
0
0
WOCF-
Q
zGWLL.
J
=VQ
VQYZ<
_W
J
2
2�—
Q
Z
W�ozIN
W
W
M:)
W
=(Lo
Q=
J
a
U)
2
Q
Lu
—
W
E
0
_
0
�0
=z
U p�
X
LLJ
0
CD E
N0�0
-aQz
a Q n n
n u w
x0Oz
W
Y
CALL TO ORDER:
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
STAFF ABSENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
FINAL /APPROVED
5b(6)
POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD
MINUTES — January 8, 2013
Vice Chair Melissa Jensen called the meeting to order at 5:34 P.M.
Donald King and Kingsley Botchway
Royceann Porter and Joseph Treloar
Staff Catherine Pugh and Kellie Tuttle
None
Captain Jim Steffen of the ICPD.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
None
CONSENT
CALENDAR Motion by King and seconded by Botchway to adopt the consent calendar as presented
or amended.
• Minutes of the meeting on 12/11/12
• Minutes of the meeting on 12/18/12
• ICPD Department Memo #12 -51 (July- August -Sept 2012 Use of Force Review)
• ICPD Use of Force Report — July 2012
• ICPD Use of Force Report — August 2012
• ICPD Use of Force Report — September 2012
Motion carried, 3/0, Porter and Treloar absent.
OLD BUSINESS Additional Board Recommendations — The Board decided to table this item until the next
meeting when all members could be present for discussion.
BOARD
INFORMATION None.
STAFF
INFORMATION None.
PUBLIC
DISCUSSION None.
PCRB
January 8, 2013
Page 2
TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subject to change)
• February 6, 2013, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm
• February 12, 2013, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm (Moved to February 6th)
• March 6, 2013, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm
• March 12, 2013, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm (Moved to March 6th)
• April 9, 2013, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm
• May 14, 2013, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm
Staff reported that Treloar had requested meetings be moved to Wednesdays for the
next two months.
Motion by King, seconded by Botchway to move the February and March meetings to
Wednesday, February 6th and Wednesday, March 6th
Motion carried, 3/0, Porter and Treloar absent.
EXECUTIVE
SESSION Not held, lack of quorum due to abstentions.
ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by King, seconded by Botchway.
Motion carried, 3/0, Porter and Treloar absent.
Meeting adjourned at 5:44 P.M.
0 0
a
c�
eD
e�
d
b
O
r
�n
H �
H f�
H
NrrJ�
O � c
W
n �
O�
O
QQ
W
O�
W
CII
01
c�
eD
e�
d
b
O
r
�n
H �
H f�
H
NrrJ�
O � c
W
n �
O�
O
02=isi3
b
5■. ��■I
RULES COMMITTEE MEETING
MINUTES
February 8, 2013
Harvat Hall
10:00 AM
Committee Members Present: Champion, Dickens
Staff Members Present: Karr
Board of Adjustment Procedural Rules
City Clerk Karr noted the request for changes as outlined in Procedural Rules distributed;
and reported the Board of Adjustment had recommended approval at their December 12,
2012 meeting.
The Rules Committee recommended the Procedural Rules be approved as presented.
Meeting adjourned 10:10 AM
PROCEDURAL RULES
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
December 12, 2012
ARTICLE I. AUTHORITY
The Iowa City Board of Adjustment shall have that authority which is conferred by
Chapter 414 of the Code of Iowa, City Code Title 14,Chapter_7, entitle d_ "Administration, Formatted: Font color: Auto
Article A, entitled "Board of Adjustment," and through the adoption of these procedural
rules stated herein.
ARTICLE II. MEMBERSHIP:
Section 1. Qualifications. The Board of Adjustment shall consist of five (5) members
appointed by the City Council. All members of the Board shall be qualified electors of the
city of Iowa City, Iowa. A majority of the members of the Board shall be persons
representing the public at large; and shall not be involved in the
business of purchasing or selling real estate.
Section 2. Compensation. Members shall serve without compensation, but may be
reimbursed for expenses incurred for travel outside the city on designated Board
business. Such expenses must be submitted to the City Manager.
Section 3. Orientation for New Members. Prior to the first regular meeting following
their appointment, a new member shall be provided with a copy of the City Zoning
Chapter, the Comprehensive Plan, the Board's procedural rules, and other information
that would be useful to Board members in carrying out their duties. Each new member
shall be given an orientation briefing by City staff.
Section 4. Absences. Three consecutive unexplained absences of a Board member
from regular Board meetings may result in a recommendation to the City Council from
the Board to discharge said member and appoint a new Board member. Members shall
be removable for cause by the City Council upon written charges after a public hearing.
Section 5. Vacancies. Any vacancy on the Board because of death, resignation, long-
term illness, disqualification, or removal shall be filled for the unexpired term by the City
Council after at least thirty (30) calendar days of public notice of the vacancy.
Section 6. Terms. Members shall be appointed for terms of five years. No members
shall be appointed to succeed themselves. However, a member appointed to fill an
unexpired term with one year or less remaining may also be appointed concurrently for
one full five (5) year term.
Section 7. Resignations. Resignation should be submitted in writing to the Board
Secretary, who will transmit the resignation to the Mayor with copies to the City
Manager, the Director of Planning and Community Development, and the Board
Chairperson, preferably at least sixty (60) days prior to the date of intended departure.
ARTICLE III. OFFICERS:
Section 1. Number. The officers of the Board shall be a Chairperson and a Vice -
Chairperson, each of whom shall be elected by a majority vote of the members of the
Board. The Board Secretary shall be a staff person, who is appointed by the Director of
Planning and Community Development.
Section 2. Election and Term of Office. The Chairperson and Vice - Chairperson shall
be elected annually at the first regular meeting of the Board each year.
Section 3. Vacancies. A vacancy in the office of Chairperson or Vice - Chairperson
because of death, resignation, removal, disqualification, or other cause shall be filled by
election from the members of the Board for the unexpired portion of the term.
Section 4. Chairperson. The Chairperson shall, when present, preside at all meetings,
call special meetings, and in general perform all duties incident to the office of a
Chairperson, and such other duties as may be prescribed by the members from time to
time. Such Chairperson may administer oaths and compel the attendance of witnesses.
Section 5. Vice - Chairperson. When the Chairperson is absent or abstaining, the Vice -
Chairperson shall perform the duties of the Chairperson and shall have all the powers of
and be subject to all the restrictions upon the Chairperson.
Section 6. Acting Chairperson. In the absence and /or due to the abstention of both the
Chairperson and Vice - Chairperson, the remaining three - member Board may elect a
member to serve as Acting Chairperson. The Acting Chairperson shall perform the
duties of the Chairperson and when so acting shall have all the powers of and be subject
to all the restrictions upon the Chairperson.
Section 7. Secretary. The appointed staff person, who serves as the Board's Secretary,
shall be responsible for maintaining the office of the Board, receiving and filing Board
decisions and orders, posting and publishing notices as required by law, and for
maintaining minutes and other records of the Board's proceedings.
ARTICLE IV. APPLICATIONS:
Section 1. Application Forms. Any application for a request or appeal to the Board of
Adjustment shall be filed with the City Clerk on forms provided by the Secretary of the
Board. The Secretary's office is located in the Department of Planning and Community
Development. Forms are also available in the office of the City Clerk. In the appropriate
cases, the Building Inspector shall transmit to the Secretary all documents constituting a
record, upon which the Board shall act.
Section 2. Application Submittal. Applications or appeals to the Board shall be filed
with the City Clerk within a reasonable time period, not to exceed 30 calendar days after
the action appealed from, and shall specify the grounds for such appeal. An appeal of a
decision by the Building Inspector to issue a building permit must be filed within ten (10)
business days after construction work pursuant to such permit is observable from
adjacent properties or from the public right -of -way 9F ten (10) business days afteF an
Applicants may appeal a
approval or denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Historic Preservation
Commission within a conservation districtJbi filing a letter with the City_Clerk with-in-ten ------------
__ -- - -- Comment [sEH11: Historic districts go directly
(10) business days after a Resolution of Denial is filed by the Commission.
to CC; only conservation dist issues go to BOA
Section 3. Application Filing Fee. The applicant shall complete the required forms,
providing all information requested on the form, and any additional information as
requested by the Secretary of the Board. A filing fee shall be paid upon presentation of
the application. Application fees are established by resolution by the City Council.
Section 4. Party of Interest. Requests for a variance or special exception must be filed
on behalf of the real party in interest, such as the owner or contract purchaser.
Section 5. Case Number. An application filed according to the above procedure shall be
given a case number within five (5) business days of the filing date. Case numbers will
be assigned according to the order in which applications are received.
ARTICLE V. NOTICE:
Section 1. Notice Letters. No less than seven (7) business days prior to the public
hearing, the Secretary of the Board shall send notice by mail to all property owners of
record within 2300 feet of the subject property. Such notice shall include a description of
the action requested along with the time and location of the meeting. The applicant shall
be formally notified of the time and place of the hearing, in writing, by the Secretary of
the Board.
Section 2. Newspaper Notice. Notice of the time and place of public hearings shall be
published in a newspaper of general circulation not more than twenty (20) calendar day
nor less than seven (7) business days prior to the hearing It shall contain the street
address or location of the property and a brief dscription of the nature of the application
or appeal. In aeGardanne with the law, the SeGretary ef the BeaFd shall publish R9t;Ge Of
days prioF to the meeting date-.
Section 3. Notice Sign. Not less than seven (7) business days prior to the public
hearing the Applicant shall post a sign on or near the property upon which the
application is being made and shall remove the sign immediately following the public
hearing on the application -The sign will be provided to the applicant(s) by the Board
Secretary. A sign shall be posted on OF near the subjeGt property no less than seven (7)
b-i-isiness days prior to the PUbl'G heaFiRg. The-SeGFeta4y to the Board shall have the sign
ARTICLE VI. HEARING:
Section 1. Regular Hearings. Hearings will be held as needed at a regular time and
place to be set by the members of the Board.
Section 2. Special Hearings. Special hearings or meetings of the Board may be called
by the Chairperson and shall be called by the Chairperson or Vice - Chairperson at the
request of three (3) or more members of the Board.
Comment (SEH2]: Made it the way it currently
stands; do not want City to supervise posting and
removal or otherwise have due process argument
against it; providing sign is sufficient
Section 3. Place of Hearings. All hearings and meetings of the Board shall be open to
the public and shall be in a place accessible to people with disabilities.
Section 4. Quorum. Three members of the Board shall constitute a quorum.
Section 5. Applicant Representation. The applicant may, at the time of the public
hearing, appear on their own behalf and be represented by agent and /or counsel. The
applicant or their representative may present oral argument and testimony; witnesses,
including experts; and may submit written evidence and exhibits in the form of
statements, photos, charts, or other relevant evidence. In the absence of the applicant or
their representative(s), the Board may proceed to act on the matter based on the
information provided.
Section 6. Briefs. The Board may request written briefs for legal argument. Applicants
may submit written briefs if they so choose.
Section 7. Conduct of Hearing. Order and decorum shall be maintained at the hearing
by the Chairperson of the Board of Adjustment, so as to allow an orderly presentation of
evidence wherever possible. The Chair may swear witnesses and direct order of
testimony. The Chair shall avoid testimony that is overly redundant. The Chair may
provide for recesses during the deliberation, as appropriate.
Section 8. Hearing Order. The order of hearing shall be as follows:
1. Staff presentation of the facts of the case and recommendation to the board.
2. Statement by proponents of the application.
3. Statement by opponents of the application.
4. Rebuttal by proponents and then by opponents.
5. General discussion by the Board.
Section 9. Board Deliberation. After all parties have been heard, the public hearing will
be declared closed so that the Board may deliberate the case. The Board must state
findings of fact and conclusions of law. These facts and legal conclusions must be set
forth in writing as required by Iowa Law. The Board may request additional comments
from the participants. An application may be deferred or withdrawn at the request of the
applicant at any time before a decision is made by the Board.
Section 10. Board Motions. Motions may be made and seconded by any member of the
Board other than the Chair. Motions are always made in the affirmative, approving the
requested action.
Section 11. Board Voting. After a motion and discussion, the Board shall be polled for
votes. The concurring vote of three (3) members of the Board shall be nesessafy
required to uphold an appeal, to decide in favor of a special exception, or to grant a
variance.
Voting on Board decisions will be by roll call and will be recorded by yeas and nays.
Every member of the Board, including the Chairperson, shall cast a vote on each motion.
Proxy votes are not allowed. A Board member may abstain if he or she believes there is
a conflict of interest. Any member that elects to abstain from voting shall state the
reason for the abstention at the time of voting. Prior to the discussion of the matter under
consideration, a member who plans to abstain from voting should inform the Board, and
refrain from discussion and deliberation on a case where a conflict of interest exists for
that Board member. An abstaining Board member may choose to leave the meeting
room for the duration of the proceedings for that application.
Section 12. Legal Advisor. The City Attorney or a designated representative shall act as
legal counsel to the Board.
Section 13. Conduct of Meetings. Except as otherwise provided herein, Roberts Rules
of Order Newly Revised shall be used to conduct Board hearings and meetings.
ARTICLE VII. RECORDS:
Section 1. Record of Hearings. Audio recordings shall be made for all hearings and
such recordings shall be kept for a period of no less than six (6) weeks. Minutes shall be
,produced from such recordingskept by a minute takeF, and forwarded to the City Council
after approval by the Board or the Secretary of the Board. All minutes shall be
maintained by the Secretary of the Board, and shall also be on file at the City Clerk's
office. The applicant may request a court reporter at the applicant's own expense.
Section 2. Case Files. The Secretary of the Board shall keep a file of all cases, including
forms and additional information. Said file shall be a public record and available for
public inspection during business hours. Copies may be made available upon request, at
cost.
Section 3. Transcript. Upon request, a transcript of the audio recording of the Board's
deliberation will be made, at cost.
ARTICLE Vlll. DECISIONS:
Section 1. Whenever possible, decisions by the Board shall be made at the same
hearing wherein the testimony and presentation of evidence are considered.
Section 2. Formal decisions shall be made in writing, setting forth findings of fact and
conclusions of law as required by Iowa law.
Section 3. Each decision shall be filed with the City Clerk within a reasonable time after
the Board hearing, and shall be stamped by the Clerk to indicate the date and time of
filing. The Clerk will forward the decision to the Johnson County Recorder's Office, for
recording at the city's expense.
Section 4. A copy of said decision shall be forwarded by the Secretary of the Board to
the applicant, the Building Inspector, the City Attorney's Office, and the AmAttorney of
Record within a reasonable time after filing with the City Clerk.
Section 5- Reconsideration. Upon written request, the Board may reconsider a decision - - -- Formatted: Font: Bold
on a special exception or variance application A request for reconsideration must be
made within ten (10) business days of the meeting at which a vote on the application
was originally taken and shall articulate and be based on evidence that was not
presented or was unavailable at the time of the original hearing. A motion to reconsider
must be made at the subsequent meeting by a member of the Board who voted on the
prevailing_ side If a motion to reconsider is approved the application will be placed on
the agenda of the next meeting in order to satisfy the requirement for public notice and
hearing No decision may be reconsidered more than once Appeals to the Board may
not be reconsidered.
ARTICLE IX. AMENDMENTS TO THE PROCECURAL RULES.
Section 1. A concurring vote of three (3) of the members of the Board shall be necessary
to amend these procedural rules. Such proposed amendments shall be presented in
writing at any regular meeting or at any special meeting called for that purpose.
Amendments shall gto into effect upon approval by the City Council.