Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-09-03 Bd Comm minutes3b(Ii� MINUTES APPROVED BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 10, 2013 — 5:15 PM CITY HALL, EMMA HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, Gene Chrischilles, Brock Grenis, Becky Soglin MEMBERS ABSENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Tim Hennes, Sarah Holecek OTHERS PRESENT: Mark McCallum, Pam Michaud, Steve Kohli, Doug Ferr, Randy Kurk RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: None. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM. ROLL CALL: A brief opening statement was read by Grenis outlining the role and purpose of the Board and the procedures that would be followed in the meeting. CONSIDERATION OF June 12. 2013 MEETING MINUTES Soglin moved to approve the minutes. Baker seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion carried 4 -0. SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS EXC13- 00010: Discussion of an application submitted by Mark McCallum for a special exception in the Low Density Multi- family Residential (RM -12) zone at 113 S. Johnson Street. Walz showed on a location map how this is a transitional zone, and that this property is zoned Low Density Multi- family Residential (RM -12), as are most of the properties surrounding the College Green Park. She said this is a historic property. She said there is a list of criteria you have to meet for this application, including it being owner - occupied housing and living as part of Board of Adjustment July 10, 2013 Page 2 of 14 the dwelling unit, meaning you don't have a separate kitchen. Walz said the applicant will be required to meet all of the building code requirements including the fire protection requirements. She explained the number of permits that will be required of the owner. Walz said for the owner to be allowed to rent up to five rooms as well as having his own space, he's required to have three parking spaces on the property for the bed and breakfast and one space for the owner occupant. She said he can provide that one space off the alley. She said he is proposing that he can provide the four other spaces in a driveway that he will extend toward the back of the yard. She said he could provide parking for five cars, but staff thought it important to preserve some of the green space. She said in addition, a public parking ramp is just one block away. She said staff is recommending approval of the application subject to the site plan that the applicant has provided. Soglin asked what would happen to a property like this if the owner doesn't or can't live in it. Walz said then it would then revert to single family home. Soglin asked if the permit limited the number of people per room. Walz said a family could stay in a room but they are limited in how long they can stay there. Mark McCallum, the applicant, said he is also the listing agent for the property and was the owner of the Brown Street Inn for seven years. He said they were initially trying to sell this property as a single family home, but there wasn't even enough parking or bathrooms for that use. He explained his plans for modifying the interior of the home. He said when he owned the Brown Street Inn, there were never more than two people in a room, and if a couple did want children in their room, it is for a limited stay. Baker asked about non - resident employees. Walz said he can have one non - resident employee. She said that is true for all in -home occupations and that regulation sets a threshold beyond which you don't have a fully commercial use operating out of a residential zone. Walz said the applicant would have to apply for the non - resident employee. She said in this case, that would be someone who would manage or run the business, not an employee like a cleaner or housekeeper. Baker asked if any signage would have to go through the Historic Preservation Committee, since the property is in an historic overlay zone. Walz said it would, as would any changes to the building's fagade. Soglin asked if the four parking spaces would be parallel parking. McCallum said those would be stacked spaces. He said most people will probably not even have cars since it's so close to downtown. He said it's also very close to a public parking ramp. Soglin said she would still like to hear more specifically what his plan is if there are four vehicles and someone needs to get out in the middle of the night or day. McCallum said he was thinking about using electronic communication or having the guests' telephone numbers posted on a board so everyone can be contacted if needed. Soglin said her concern is that the parking not be a disturbance to the people to the south or to adjoining buildings. McCallum said there is generally available parking on the street at night as well as the parking ramp. Chrischilles asked if any modifications that the applicant makes including bringing it up to code as far as fire protection have to occur before he is granted the permit to rent. Walz said that is correct. Board of Adjustment July 10, 2013 Page 3 of 14 Grenis opened public hearing. Pam Michaud of 109 S. Johnson St. said she would rather see a patio and landscaping in the back than more cement. She said there are two parking spaces on the alley that they have been using for decades. Walz said one of those spaces doesn't technically meet the standards, so someone could park there, but the City can't count it as meeting the standards required. Mlchaud said she would be happy to rent her parking spaces to the applicant so there wouldn't have to be more pavement. Holecek explained that the City would then consider that commercial use. Michaud said her concerns are the amount of pavement to be laid down for parking, and competing with another sign. She said there are two other bed and breakfasts in town that have been for sale for years, and she sees more of a need for a duplex in this neighborhood that's sustainable long -term rental than for a bed and breakfast. She said there are already a lot of extended stay facilities in the area. Baker asked if the signs for the applicant's and Michaud's property have the same requirements. Michaud said they do. Soglin asked Michaud to clarify who her clientele is. Michaud said her requirements are a one month minimum for a guest house. Walz said the bed and breakfast has a two week maximum. McCallum reasserted that he will be living on the property. He said all his projects over the past twenty years have been owner occupied. Grenis closed public hearing. Baker moved to approve EXC13 -00010 an application submitted by Mark McCallum for a special exception in the Low Density Multi- family Residential (RM -12) zone at 113 S. Johnson Street subject to substantial compliance with a submitted site plan and a building permit required in order to establish the use. Chrischilles seconded. Chrischilles said that he is fine with the arrangement of the four parking spaces. Soglin said she's not that happy about the parking but doesn't know if there's any real solution. She said she doesn't know if Staff can recommend permeable pavement during their final review. Baker said he found the overall proposal very compatible with the zone and the neighborhood and the development in the area. He said the applicant has a very good bed and breakfast record, so he's comfortable with what he's going to do in the future. Soglin said she largely agrees with it for short-term but has some concerns about the bed and breakfasts that have gone unsold. Walz explained how those were different from this property. Baker said that regarding EX13 -00010 he concurs with the findings set forth in the staff report of July 10, 2013 and concludes that the general and specific criteria are satisfied. Unless amended or opposed by another Board member he recommended that the Board adopt the findings in the staff report as their findings for the acceptance of this proposal. Board of Adjustment July 10, 2013 Page 4 of 14 Grenis and Chrischilles agreed. A vote was taken and the motion carried 4 -0. Grenis declared the motion for the special exception approved, noting that anyone wishing to appeal the decision to a court of record may do so within 30 days after the decision is filed with the City Clerk's Office. EXC13- 00011: Discussion of an application submitted by Faith Academy for a special exception to allow a General Education Facility on property located in the Community Commercial (CC -2) zone at 1030 Cross Park Avenue. Walz said there is an amendment to the Zoning Code that will go before Council soon. She said in the past the City hasn't allowed general education facilities in the CC -2 zone but looking at some areas that have CC -2 they can see where that might be an appropriate use. She showed the Board views of the property and the drop -off and parking areas. She said staff looks to see if schools in the CC -2 area aren't in conflict with the commercial area, and in this case the school is on the backside of the commercial area. She said that the site plan shows that the school can get the cars associated with teachers or with dropping off students in and out of the site with little conflict with the loading dock. Walz said this applicant has been operating as an after - school drop -off program and now wants to transition to a school encompassing Kindergarten through First Grade with 30 students. Walz said staff has limited it to 50 students, and at such time as they go over 50 students or need to increase the interior space beyond 500 square feet, they would have to come forward for a new special exception to see if a larger school would fit on this site. Chrischilles asked what business uses the loading dock and what times the deliveries are. Walz said it's Slumberland and they would probably be making deliveries during school times, but staff didn't find that in conflict because there are trucks that make deliveries to other schools. She said this is also a small school and the amount of pedestrian traffic would not be in conflict with the deliveries. Walz showed an aerial view of the property and pointed out the loading dock and the drive. Baker had questions about an adjacent business called The Spot. Steve Kohli of 3125 Dubuque Street said that The Spot is Faith Academy and that is the entrance to the academy. He said it's about 8,000 square feet inside. Baker asked if they owned the green space and if they are renting. Kohli said Southgate is the landlord and they are working with them on renovations. Baker asked if they have a guarantee that the green space will be theirs' to use for the length of their occupancy. Kohli said they are working on that right now. Baker asked staff what would make a higher number of students acceptable in the future. Walz said with any school, daycare or church staff usually sets an upward limit at which they would like to re- evaluate if it's working, if they need new safety precautions or additional parking. She said what they are saying is that a small school looks like it works here, but they are not sure about a larger school. Baker said it seems that for a larger school to work there would almost Board of Adjustment July 10, 2013 Page 5 of 14 mean that there would have to be a corresponding decrease in activity around the school if they are basing the current limit on the activity that's there now. Walz said staff wanted to set a threshold for re- evaluation, and if everything is going smoothly and there are no conflicts, the staff would be inclined to recommend it becoming larger. Baker said they are leading the applicant to believe they can expand in the future. Walz said they aren't saying that a larger school won't work, but they want the chance to re- evaluate in the future. Baker asked about bike parking standards. Walz said it's based on the square footage. Baker asked Walz to expand on the staff concerns about pedestrian access from the north due to the high traffic volume on Highway 6 and the fact that it could be an issue for students crossing the highway on foot or bike. Walz said that in this case, the population for this private school will come from the same side of the street that the school is on, not from across Highway 6. Baker said his concern is that statement sort of implies that the City has a monitoring role. Walz said that doesn't speak to what the school is intended for or the likelihood that children would be crossing Highway 6. Baker asked if the school reached the point of having 50 or more students and came back for re- evaluation, would one of the factors then be how many of the students come from across Highway 6. Walz said it would. Grenis opened public hearing. Soglin asked how many children are currently attending each day. Doug Ferr of 621 N. Johnson St. said the program varies from 30 -120. Soglin asked if they would continue some of that programming. Ferr said now its function is specifically as an outreach center so they do evening programming. Chrischilles asked if they plan to suspend the after - school program. Ferr said there will be an after - school component, and the school day will be from 8:00 a.m. — 3:30 p.m. and there will be an extended after - school program from 3:30 — 5:00 for the children who are enrolled in the school, and possibility of some who aren't enrolled in the school. Soglin asked about the timing of deliveries. Ferr said it's hard to predict. He said they have been in that space for eight years and there has never been an issue with traffic at the loading dock. Baker asked if there was any plan to have the walkway between the school and the grassy area buffered. Ferr said they have precast curbing. He said they plan to put five more feet of grass in between the parking and the sidewalk. Baker asked if it would be a school policy that children would not be unescorted from that door to the playground. Ferr said absolutely yes. Grenis closed public hearing. Soglin said she still had concerns about waiting to re- evaluate when the enrollment reaches 50. She asked the Board if they want to lower that number or consider adding some other qualification that if something manifested when they are at 40, an intervention could occur before it gets up to 50. She said she presumes that most of the children will come from different families, and she's concerned about the addition of more cars as the enrollment climbs. She wants to find a balance as these are such young children and this deals with personal safety. Board of Adjustment July 10, 2013 Page 6 of 14 Ferr explained that they have set a cap of 15 students per grade level, so what changing the number to 40 would do is keep them from adding that additional grade level next year. Walz said to the staff it doesn't matter how the enrollment is broken out. She said what they were concerned with was the overall number of children on the site. Grenis said 45 would seem like a reasonable number, because it gives them the ability to add another class. The other Board members agreed that this seemed like a good compromise. Soglin suggested making it a condition that the applicant would have to report any incidents in the parking lot when they next appeared for re- evaluation. Holecek said it would be in their best interests to do that for a number of reasons. Walz said at the point the applicant had something to report, they may be losing interest in the site as well. Baker asked if the City had talked to the adjacent commercial users. Walz said they gotten no feedback from the letters they sent out to them. Baker moved to approve EXC13- 00011, to allow a general education facility for up to 45 students in a Community Commercial (CC -2) zone on property located at 1030 Cross Park Avenue subject to the following conditions: 1. City Council approval of a zoning code amendment establishing a special exception to allow General Education Facilities in the CC -2 zone. 2. Enclosure of the outdoor recreation area by fencing of a minimum height of 4 feet to be approved by staff. 3. Establishment of pedestrian routes to school entrances and bicycle parking, the site plan to be approved by staff. 4. An enrollment of more than 45 students or an addition of more than 500 square feet of floor area will be considered an expansion of the use that requires a new special exception. Chrischilles seconded. Chrischilles said that regarding EX13 -00011 he concurs with the findings set forth in the staff report of July 10, 2013 and concludes that the general and specific criteria are satisfied. Unless amended or opposed by another Board member he recommended that the Board adopt the findings in the staff report as their findings for the acceptance of this proposal. Baker said he is comfortable with these findings as long as the number of allowable students is reduced to 45 based upon possible future growth and having a lower threshold for the City to start monitoring any possible problems or other expansion plans. Grenis said he agrees with what's been said and added that the treatments to the parking lot seem to be adequate for the safety of the children and this use should support the Comprehensive Plan being that it improves the neighborhood's diversity with the school and the human development component of that. Board of Adjustment July 10, 2013 Page 7 of 14 A vote was taken and the motion carried 4 -0. Grenis declared the motion for the special exception approved, noting that anyone wishing to appeal the decision to a court of record may do so within 30 days after the decision is filed with the City Clerk's Office. APPEAL ITEM APL13- 00002: Discussion of an application submitted by Sandy Beck appealing a decision made by Iowa City's Senior Building Inspector to deny a permit for 24 x 48 foot accessory building to be constructed at 2230 Russell Drive. Walz showed the Board an aerial view of the subject property, a picture of the house, and an elevation for the proposed building. She said the first version with overhead doors was denied in 2012. She explained that the back of the attached garage in the current proposal would be opened up to create a driveway to go to the back of the property where the larger structure would be built. Walz said that in reviewing this appeal, staff feels that it hinges on a subjective interpretation of the definition of accessory uses. She said the definition in the City Code reads $$accessory uses, buildings, or other structures customarily incidental to and commonly associated with a permitted use, provisional use or special exception ". Walz said in this case the permitted use is a residential, or the principle, use on the property, and the accessory use is also subordinate to that principle use and contributes to the comfort, convenience or necessity of the occupants. She said in this case the use, which is a storage use, is customarily incidental to properties. She said the question here is whether the size and scope of what's being proposed on the property would be incidental to. Chrischilles asked about a permitted use. Walz replied that garages and workshops are accessory uses in the residential zone, but the question is whether at the scale proposed it becomes such that it is not subordinate. Grenis' asked about the limit of accessory uses. Walz said the limit on the coverage of all accessory detached structures taken together can't take up more than 15% of a property. She said in this case, it would not. Baker asked what would happen if this were a smaller version of the same, exact building. Walz said the building official is saying that if it were a smaller version they would interpret it as both subordinate and customarily and incidental to. Baker asked if the only issue here is size. Hennes said that the size is the issue. He said they do not find that it is customarily and incidental to due to its size. Chrischilles asked what the size limit is. Hennes said they proposed to the applicant allowing a 24'x24' garage in the back yard. He said they got no response and there was no negotiation. Chrischilles asked if there was anything in the Code about a certain percentage of property or a certain size of building. Hennes said that more than 15% can't be covered by an accessory structure. He said where their interpretation of customarily and incidental comes -is that it's too large for the footprint of the house. He said the livable footprint of the house would be smaller than the proposed accessory building. He said if Board of Adjustment July 10, 2013 Page 8 of 14 you then add the attached accessory use of a garage and the new accessory structure, it was getting to be too large. Baker asked how an applicant knows what the limit is when they have something that doesn't cover 15% yet the official says that's still too big. Hennes says that's through the review process. Chrischilles said to him that sounds arbitrary. He said if it qualifies under the City's rules and yet it's being denied, that seems to be an arbitrary decision. Hennes said if you look at it at that level, he's right. Baker asked if there have been other comparable buildings that have been approved. Hennes said there had. Baker said there had been one that had been issued in error. Hennes said after further research, he determined that it was issued with consistency of other permits issued for accessory structures during that time period. Hennes said from 1984 to 2005 it was specific in the Code that one of the criteria for accessory use was that it was subordinate in area. He said in 2005 when the Code was amended that phrase was taken out so it allowed some discretion, because they were getting some small houses that wanted to put a garage on. He said in some cases, the garage on a small house will be larger than the house. He said in the subject neighborhood this is not customarily incidental to the size of the other garages in the area. He said he had been given some addresses to look at and out of the nine, five were prior to 1984, three were between 1984 and 2005, and one was after 2005. He said all of them were smaller in size based on the square footage that they were analyzing them with so that's why he's saying they aren't being arbitrary in their decision. He said they were consistent in comparing the size of the garage with the house size. He said there are some large detached garages on Muscatine Avenue but the house square footage is larger than the garage. Baker asked if the same building on a larger piece of property or a bigger house on the small property would be acceptable. Hennes showed a picture of 132 Dartmouth. He said he thought if that was reviewed today, they would be in front of this Board with the same question. He said in 2002 when it was reviewed for a building permit it met the criteria because the accessory building was smaller in size than the principle structure. Baker asked what size the Building Department had asked for in this case. Hennes said they asked for a 24'x24' structure because that's the typical size of a double car garage. Baker asked if they would be willing to split the difference on size and Hennes said they would be willing to do that. Baker said he is concerned that too much is being left to personal negotiation. Hennes said the ordinance was intentionally written that way. Baker asked why that hasn't been addressed before. Hennes said it's come up in reverse of its intention, which was to enable smaller houses to build garages. Baker said regardless of what they do in this case, the situation will come up again and both Hennes and the applicant will be both in an unfair subjective position. Hennes said that he thinks staff agrees after discussion of this this case that the ordinance could be improved. Walz said it is complicated and it is subjective and at a certain size, which would vary by property and its relation to the principle use, there becomes a question if the property is serving the house or the accessory use. She said there have been many instances of people storing so many cars or other things on the site that it becomes a question of what the property is serving. Board of Adjustment July 10, 2013 Page 9 of 14 She said it's difficult to write a zoning code that has a clear mark for when you have crossed the line. She said she thinks what the Building Department has tried to do is to say that everybody should be allowed to have a two car garage, and when it goes beyond that is when you have to look at size of property and relationship to the house. Baker said the bigger the accessory use, the more the potential for it turning into a home business. Hennes said the accessory building is one of the issues but over time they have found through nuisance enforcements that there's a potential for that use to migrate out into the concrete driveway, and the whole area then becomes an accessory use. Chrischilles said that would be even more likely to occur with a smaller building. He said the only concrete thing he's heard so far is 15% of the property and everything else is up to the discretion of the building inspector. Hennes said that's correct. Chrischilles said that until the 15% limit is changed, it seems logical that will be the point that the Board needs to operate from, and anything else is telling someone they don't have the right to use their property as they see fit and just because we think it's too big, it's not allowed. Hennes said he would like to support staff's decision that they are not being arbitrary or capricious because they did look at the law and the underlying facts of the case, and he referred to Sarah Holecek's memo where it states that a decision is also "arbitrary" or "capricious" when it involves an "abuse of discretion ". Hennes said they based their decision on the 1984 to 2013 history and enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance through size of principle structure when compared to the accessory structure. He added that in the charging language it says that the structures are customarily incidental to. He said it's not incidental in size. He said that it is incidental in use. Chrischilles said that is Hennes' opinion. Chrischilles asked if there had been any negative responses from the neighbors. Walz said she received three phone calls from neighbors who had questions. She said she doesn't report anything unless someone goes on record saying what their concern is. Chrischilles said if this building were to be allowed at the 24'x48' size, is there anything to prohibit the applicant from operating any sort of retail business. Walz said they are allowed whatever is allowed by zoning code. She said she thinks home occupations are allowable. Hennes said there are examples of when a business gets too big to be a home business and has to find another site for it. Chrischilles asked if that is based on complaints. Hennes replied that it was. Baker asked if the City had any control over design. Hennes said they do not. He said they do have control over the height, which is 15' high. Chrischilles asked if a 24'x48' swimming pool would be too big. Hennes said he would have to look at the Code. Walz said you do have to have a fence around it. Grenis asked Hennes to describe the process the building department used to come to this decision. Hennes said it was well discussed and thought -out throughout the Building and Board of Adjustment July 10, 2013 Page 10 of 14 Housing Office but ultimately the decision comes back to the director of the department, Doug Boothroy. Baker asked what the notification process is. Walz explained that the City sends letters to every property owner within 300 feet of the subject property and posts a sign in their yard. Grenis asked Holecek to explain the framework for how the Board will decide this case. Holecek said the first question to answer is whether they feel that the building official has exercised the powers and followed the regulations in the Zoning Code with regard to accessory uses and structures and then whether the action was patently arbitrary or capricious. She said just because a Board member may not agree with the decision, they can't supplant their disagree or agree but have to find one of those things to be true in order to overturn it and be able to articulate why they think it was an inappropriate decision. Grenis invited the applicant to speak. Randy Kurk of 2230 Russell Drive handed out some exhibits to the Board. He said when the building official told him and Sandy Beck that they would be allowed a 24'x24' building and that a 24'x48' structure could not be built, the applicants took that as non - negotiable. He said that all through the process, the applicants consulted with the Code Enforcement Assistant on the specifics of their structure and were assured that they were going by the Code — size, location and other specifics. Kurk showed pictures of single family properties in their neighborhood and at other locations where there are structures larger than the one they are proposing. He said he found many accessory buildings comparable to his proposed structure within single family neighborhoods and most of them also had an attached garage. He read sizes, locations and dates built from his short list of such properties. Kurk said the building he proposed is deemed to be not commonly associated with or customarily incidental to a single family dwelling. He said with the samples he just cited, it can't be said that it's uncommon. He said one of the explanations for denial from the building official was noise and disruption to the flow of the neighborhood. He said the building won't even be visible from the street, and they have always respected the noise ordinance control within their neighborhood. He said their structure was modeled after the one at 132 Dartmouth except theirs doesn't have a driveway going around their house. He said there are many examples in town of a single family house with an attached garage and an accessory building, and they are examples of the arbitrary ways in which the decisions are made by the building official and the department. He said there is no consistency when it comes to Code enforcement, explanation or permit allowance. Chrischilles asked what the applicant planned to use this building for. Kurk said a woodworking shop and a two car garage. Chrischilles asked if this will be an additional garage. The applicant said it would be. Chrischilles asked if the woodworking is a hobby. The applicant said it will be when he retires. Baker asked what happened in 2005 with the Code. Hennes said the City adopted a revised version of the Code which changed the accessory structure language and removed the words "subordinate in area ". Baker asked if Hennes would characterize the change in 2005 as a relaxing of the rules. Hennes said he would. Baker asked if Hennes was on City Staff in 2002. Hennes said he was. Baker asked if he was involved in the 1811 Muscatine Avenue project. Hennes said he agreed with Baker that the accessory structure is a monstrosity but that it was Board of Adjustment July 10, 2013 Page 11 of 14 approved based on the square footage of the house. Baker said the applicant stated that his interpretation of his discussion with the building department about the alternative proposal was a maximum that was not up for negotiation. Hennes said that wasn't personally his conversation. Baker asked what guidelines were used to decide that 24'x24' would be the acceptable size. Hennes said it was based on a standard double car garage. Soglin asked about the example built in 2012 that was 24 "x32' on a smaller lot. Hennes said it was a carry- over of the subordinate in area language in the ordinance. Hennes said he doesn't think that the initial applicant with the 24'x32' tripped anyone's thought process that this is getting too big, where the subject application has tripped that tipping point. Soglin said so it's possible that if this applicant had originally asked for 24'x32'... Hennes said in that case the Board might not be here deciding on this. Baker asked Hennes if they have denied any other accessory uses based on size. Hennes said not. Baker asked if there had been other applications. Hennes said he didn't know, but he thinks this one hits that size where it begs the question if it's too large for the neighborhood. Soglin asked if the Board upheld the denial of the application could the applicants go out tomorrow and submit a new application for a smaller structure. Holecek said they could submit a new building permit application. She said they could find that there was a different reason or different rationale that would support what the applicant wanted to do. Chrischilles said they can't do that because the only standard they have is 15 %. Walz said the Board can uphold the appeal, deny the appeal and grant the applicant the building he proposed on a different set of criteria or say that there is another size that is supported by the Zoning Code. Baker said he doesn't feel that the Board should be getting into negotiating sizes. He said the Code needs to be worked on, and that is not the Board's job. Chrischilles said the only thing that's in the Code that's concrete is 15% of the lot size. Baker said he came to this meeting fully expecting to support the staff, but in this case he supports the appeal. Grenis moved to take a five minute recess. Baker seconded. Grenis called the meeting back to order. Holecek explained the criteria for upholding this appeal to the applicant. Kurk asked why it was his building that flipped some kind of switch, instead of a 1200 sq. foot building from his list that was granted a permit. Grenis closed public hearing. Walz clarified to the Board that they should always make their motion in the affirmative and explained what a "yes" or a "no" vote would mean in terms of the appeal. Board of Adjustment July 10, 2013 Page 12 of 14 Baker moved to support APL13 -00002 requesting an overturning of the denial of a building permit for an accessory structure in the RS -5 zone at 2230 Russell Drive. Chrischilles seconded. Baker said that the nature of the Code sets building officials up for arbitrary decisions, which is unfair to them. He said there has to be a better way the Code can be written to achieve a reasonable goal of controlling accessory use size. He said he personally thinks this particular project is too big but that's an arbitrary decision because he can't point to anything that justifies his decision in law. He urged the Board to support this appeal and the staff to quickly reconsider how the Code can work for the benefit of the public and the staff because he doesn't want them put in this position again of coming before the Board to justify what seems to be an arbitrary decision. Chrischilles said he agrees 100% with what Baker said. He said 15% is the only standard that has been cited as a concrete standard, and this application satisfies that standard. He said there are no neighbor complaints other than one, who said she doesn't want it used for a business, and the owner says he's not planning on doing that, so you have to take him at his word. He said according to the decision Arora vs. Iowa Board of Medical Examiners abuse of discretion occurs when the action rests on grounds or reasons clearly untenable, unreasonable or lacking rationality in light of the actor's authority. He said that fits this situation. He said this decision screams arbitrariness from the fact that many other similar buildings have been granted and have been built in residential areas. He said the year that these buildings were built doesn't seem to be important because in 2005 the standard was actually lessened and no standard was created other than the 15% at that time, and that's really all the Board has to work from. Soglin said she agrees with much of what Chrischilles said. She said lot size seems to have something to do with a trend toward a different size of accessory structures, but there is nothing codified regarding that. She said perhaps future revision should include something about how footprint size is going to matter as much, not just the 15 %, but footprint relative to the square footage of the house. She said lot size seems to matter. Soglin said some size between 24'x24' and 24'x48' seems to be more reasonable but there's nothing for the Board to base that on. Grenis said he agrees with what's been said. He said in looking at the two criteria the Board decides on, the building official did exercise his powers and followed the regulations established in the Zoning Code, but there's that grey area that allowed this to be denied. He said, though, that in light of the second criteria, whether the building official's actions were patently arbitrary or capricious, in light of that he has to agree with the Board's decision to support the appeal. He said he thinks it's wise to let the building permit as presented go forward because it's not in the Board's capacity to try and set a size. Walz and Holecek agreed that the Board has said constitutes findings for this case. A vote was taken and the motion carried 4 -0. Walz said that vote upholds the appeal of the applicants. Board of Adjustment July 10, 2013 Page 13 of 14 OTHER: Baker said he would recommend changes to this ordinance such as access to the accessory use, design, size, neighborhood, screening, and sooner rather than later. Chrischilles said rather than have it based on something that's a moveable target, perhaps come up with the maximum size an accessory building can be no matter how big the lot or the house. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION: The Board discussed dates for the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT: Chrischilles moved to adjourn. Baker seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 4 -0 vote. H z W N m Q LL 0 Q m D w v W lz W Z Q 0 z W i f TL s y w O V- x x x i i x ti N x x x i i x co x x x x i x N O x x x x i x w x x x i x M x x o x i x N x x x x N a x x x x x i x x x x x ; r ox x o x o i C4 0 x x x x x x x x i CD v N a0 a0 W T T T T T r F W z W W z ~ Y J O V W J 0 � J 3 V W J m = W m z z W W J Y{N Y ww = z Z 0 0 O V 'O d E a� N ) � O CL < II II II II xoo w Y IOWA CITY �Irr�ll PUBLIC LIBRARY 123 S. Linn St. • Iowa City, IA 52240 owcs Suw C24 -w 31935652M-rss 314356 -5494• www3cpL*(q BOARD OF TRUSTEES Minutes of the Regular Meeting Julv 25, 2013 3 FINAL APPROVED Members Present: Diane Baker, Tom Dean, Mark Edwards, Tom Martin, Linzee McCray, Robin Paetzold, Meredith Rich - Chappell, Jay Semel. Members Absent: Janet Freeman. Staff Present:. Terri Byers, Maeve Clark, Susan Craig, Kara Logsden, Anne Mangano, Patty McCarthy, Elyse Miller, Brent Palmer, Vickie Pasicznyuk. Guests Present: None. Call Meeting to Order. President Rich - Chappell called the meeting to order at 5:03 pm. Trustees introduced themselves to new Board member, Diane Baker. Public Discussion. None. Approval of Minutes. The minutes of the regular meeting of the Library Board of Trustees on June 27, 2013 were reviewed. A motion to approve the minutes was made by Paetzold and seconded by Edwards. Motion carried 8/0. Unfinished Business. FY14 Board Annual Report. The report has been drafted by staff for Board approval. McCray suggested that more information about the Iowa City Book Festival be included. Paetzold asked if the Board of Supervisors should be included in Goal 8. Craig said the Board of Supervisors is a contracting body and already identified in the goal. Dean in at 5:05 pm. New Business. Strategic Plan Review. FY13 Final Report. Semel asked if things were left out of the plan because of finances. Craig stated things get dropped because they are unavailable (technology) or because there isn't enough staff time to do them. Semel clarified that some institutions painfully have to remove things from the plan. Rich - Chappell said that there are things like signage in Goal 1 A 2 that seem out of library's control in phase I. Craig said there have been some issues reusing the hanging signs on the first floor. She feels that having signage be one of the few "problems" is pretty good. FY14 Strategic Plan. Staff have been working with the plan that was approved in July 2012. It is used for the budget process in the fall and in the spring staff review and revise again. The FY14 update builds off of strategies we implemented in FY13. A motion to approve the strategic plan for FY14 was made by Dean and seconded by McCray. Motion carried 8/0. FY15 Strategic Plan. Craig said FY15 is the last year of the current strategic planning process. Some strategies drop off, like the building project, which will be completed. Craig stated there is room in FY15 for modest initiatives if they arise. A motion to approve the FY15 plan was made by McCray and seconded by Martin. Motion carried 8/0. Strategic Plan 16. Craig feels that the next planning cycle is potentially more important than any we've done before. Public libraries are changing; constituencies want different things. There are trends that are emerging and we need to provide the best possible value to our citizenry. Craig believes we need intensive and specialized data gathering in preparation for the FY16 new plan. Craig proposes a higher than usual budget for a consultant and data gathering and research, focus groups, providing context. The Des Moines Public Library just completed a planning process and Craig said she used it as a model to derive the cost she believes will be required for ICPL. Services we deliver and how we deliver them will be on the table for discussion for the Board. Semel asked about the value added by consultants and wondered how they assist. McCray said past library consultants have guided staff and not just presented a report. Craig said she has a healthy skepticism about consultancy and appreciates Semel's concern. She believes consultants can bring a broader perspective and experience that is very helpful in a planning process. Dean said that he felt that our previous consultant experience was skilled guidance. Martin believes we do not have a choice but to undertake this endeavor. Dean reiterated that this would be funded from NOBU funds. FY13 Public Relations Annual Report and FY14 Public Relations Plan. No comments. Logsden out at 5:37 pm. FY14 NOBU Budget. Craig said the NOBU balance is greater than what is reported in the Board packet because some funds she thought had been shifted to pay CIP expenses had not been at year's end. McCray thought the budget seemed higher than usual. Craig said it is similar to past years. Rich - Chappell asked about the Iowa City Book Festival. McCray asked if the Art Purchase Prize has other funding sources besides Board support. Other gifts do support this project. A motion to approve the NOBU budget as presented to Board was made by Dean and seconded by Semel. Motion carried 8/0. Staff Reports. Director's Report. See above. Departmental Reports: Adult Services. Clark said Adult Services staff members are enjoying the Summer Reading Program because they have more interaction with it than ever before. Family activities have been very popular and enthusiastically received by patrons. Rich - Chappell asked if we have numbers for how many registrants versus finishers of the SRP. The Library does have these statistics. Community & Access Services. There will be a Pop Up Tech Zone at Sycamore Mall tomorrow night. Development Office Report. McCarthy said that Sidewalk Sales Days went well this year and the Book End Book Sale brought in more than $1,200. She said that the free parking helped. McCarthy said the Sheraton Hotel is helping us with the Sushi in the Stacks event on 9/8/13. Online reservations begin on August 1. The building project will not be completed before the event which is a bit challenging. Miscellaneous. No comments. Spotlight on the Collection. No comments. President's Report. President Rich - Chappell asked about members' availability for the Annual Board Dinner. It will take place on August 22, 2013 after the Board meeting at a location to be determined. Announcements from Members. Dean will be a moderator at the Celebrate Writing @ MPL event on August 10 at the Marion Public Library. The Cedar Rapids Public Library is opening to the public on 8/24/13. Paetzold encouraged everyone to attend a free special Iowa City Book Festival program with two members of the Lacks family on Thursday, October 10, 2013 in MacBride Hall. "An Evening with the Lacks Family: The Story Behind The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks," is the opening program of the Festival. Clark said that there will be a related book discussion and a panel discussion about ethics at the Library. Byers out at 6:00 pm. Committee Reports. Foundation Members. None. Communications. None. Disbursements. The disbursements for June, 2013 were reviewed. A motion to approve the disbursements for June 2013 was made by Martin and seconded by Paetzold. Motion carried 8/0. Set Agenda Order for August Meeting. Annual report. Board photo. Adjournment. A motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Paetzold and seconded by Martin. Motion carried 8/0. Rich - Chappell adjourned the meeting at 6:04 pm. Respectfully submitted, Elyse Miller zo0X7�; m n n u y Z D a N O 0 m D h m . x Lo n c cD Q a� z Z as �z m �o m w � v w o°, CL O n O 3 0 3 n r W O or a 0 C FA A N L;'o K o K K o= m (D� n r° 3 23 Q s r+ a rD lD °' a) -n m cu (A IIi ��� a Iii o �ih6ih�h'�h� O N 0 w Q- =3 =' ° �Mill 61 61 Ol Ol dl W W W W W W W W W W W O O O F O O V O O V O 1=1 O \, O v v w cn v 9.0 cn ui w X Q X Q X X z X X X z ' O Oi� r 7 7 0o O W:r O X X X X X X X X Q� m II.. i�yVhlrl�'! X X X X Q X X X X 1 m dpi Ii, 1iI X X X X X X Q X X;ili'' i X X X X X 0 X X X m X X X X X X X X X X X X p X X p X p O O Q Q t RIT I - r g I ir` �I t SNr i a� z Z as �z m �o m w � v w o°, CL O n O 3 0 3 n r W O or a 0 C FA A N r ,-�, a; -4, CITY OF IOWA CITY 3b(3) MEMORANDUM Date: August 16, 2013 To: Mayor and City Council From: Tracy Hightshoe, Staff Member of Housing and Community Development Commission Re: Recommendation from Housing and Community Development Commission At their June 20, 2013 meeting the Housing and Community Development Commission made the following recommendation to the City Council: Motion to recommend to City Council the Aid to Agency guidelines for FYI and subsequent funding rounds as identified below. Motion passed 6 -0 -1 (Hart abstaining) 1. A letter will be sent to all previous recipients indicating that FY15 funding will not be based on the amounts received in prior years. Funds will be awarded based on how well the agency meets the needs prioritized in the City's Consolidated Plan (a.k.a. CITY STEPS). The Joint Funding Application Guide will also include this information for Iowa City applicants. 2. The City will give priority to applications that are innovative, collaborative, avoid duplicative services and /or support long term fiscal sustainability. 3. The minimum allocation awarded will be $5,000. 4. At least 80% of the total funding will go to applications that meet one or more of the CITY STEPS high priority needs as identified below. To be considered meeting a specific need, at least 50% of the agency budget or staff time must be dedicated to meeting this need. Staff may request additional information to support the agency's claim. Applicant can apply for a certain program within the agency; however funding will be based on the program's budget and impact in addressing the need identified. • Crime Prevention and Awareness • Child Care • Youth Services • Financial Literacy • Substance Abuse • Mental Health Services • Life Skills • Employment Training • Homeless Services - as it relates to housing (maintaining housing — includes emergency rehab. for accessibility, emergency rent/mortgage, security deposits, utility assistance and shelter) 5. Up to 20% of the total funding may go to applications that meet low or medium CITY STEPS needs. 6. Additional questions will be added to the Joint Application or an Iowa City funding supplement: • What other public entities has your organization sought funding from in the last year? • Who are your ongoing funding partners? August 27, 2013 Page 2 • How do you address the specific need(s) checked under the CITY STEPS priorities table? • Do you have a fee structure for services? Please explain. Additional action (check one) X No further action needed Board or Commission is requesting Council direction Agenda item will be prepared by staff for Council action S:RECform.doc MINUTES APPROVED HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION JUNE 20, 2013— 6:30 PM HELLING CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Michelle Bacon Curry, Andrew Chappell, Cheryll Clamon, Holly Jane Hart, Jim Jacobson, Christine Ralston, Rachel Zimmermann Smith MEMBERS ABSENT: Scott Dragoo, Charles Drum STAFF PRESENT: Tracy Hightshoe OTHERS PRESENT: None RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: Motion to recommend to City Council the Aid to Agency guidelines for FYI and subsequent funding rounds as identified below. Motion passed 6 -0 -1 (Hart abstaining) 1. A letter will be sent to all previous recipients indicating that FY15 funding will not be based on the amounts received in prior years. Funds will be awarded based on how well the agency meets the needs prioritized in the City's Consolidated Plan (a.k.a. CITY STEPS). The Joint Funding Application Guide will also include this information for Iowa City applicants. 2. The City will give priority to applications that are innovative, collaborative, avoid duplicative services and /or support long term fiscal sustainability. 3. The minimum allocation awarded will be $5,000. 4. At least 80% of the total funding will go to applications that meet one or more of the CITY STEPS high priority needs as identified below. To be considered meeting a specific need, at least 50% of the agency budget or staff time must be dedicated to meeting this need. Staff may request additional information to support the agency's claim. Applicant can apply for a certain program within the agency; however funding will be based on the program's budget and impact in addressing the need identified. • Crime Prevention and Awareness • Child Care • Youth Services • Financial Literacy • Substance Abuse • Mental Health Services • Life Skills • Employment Training • Homeless Services - as it relates emergency rehab. for accessibility, utility assistance and shelter) to housing (maintaining housing — includes emergency rent/mortgage, security deposits, 5. Up to 20% of the total funding may go to applications that meet low or medium CITY STEPS needs. 6. Additional questions will be added to the Joint Application or an Iowa City funding supplement: HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION JUNE 20, 2013 PAGE 2 of 8 • What other public entities has your organization sought funding from in the last year? • Who are your ongoing funding partners? • How do you address the specific need(s) checked under the CITY STEPS priorities table? • Do you have a fee structure for services? Please explain. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chair Andrew Chappell at 6:30 p.m. APPROVAL OF MAY 7. 2013 MINUTES: Clamon moved to approve with correction. Zimmerman Smith seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0 -1 with Hart abstaining. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: None received. STAFF /COMMISSION COMMENT: Chappell reminded those Commission members whose terms are drawing to a close what the date is for applying. DISCUSS NOTICE OF FUNDING AVAILABILITY AND FUNDING PARAMETERS DUE TO HOME PROGRAM INCOME AND RETURNED CDBG FUNDS Hightshoe explained that due to more than anticipated program income and projects that were unable to proceed, HCDC will have approximately $250,000 available to reallocate this summer. She said $100,000 came back from Isis Investments as they weren't able to purchase a third property; $30,000 came back from Habitat for Humanity who decided to purchase two instead of three properties, and we received about $100,000 in program income when The Housing Fellowship purchased Saratogs Springs, an affordable housing rental property previously assisted with HOME funds. In this funding round, there will be $110,000 in HOME funds and $140,000 in CDBG available. Due to this large amount, Hightshoe stated that the City is unable to wait until next year to allocate. She said the Commission's choices are to fund existing projects that didn't receive full funding, consider new proposals, or fund unfunded applications. She said staff prefers that the Commission fund two -three projects. Zimmermann Smith asked if they could return the money to HUD with the explanation that the Commission has funded the projects they want to fund, and they don't see anything pressing they wanted to do with the rest of the money. Hightshoe said the funds are returned funds from projects unable to proceed or program income from a previously assisted project and technically the City's funds to reallocate to eligible activities. HUD may frown on not utilizing the funds we have to address the needs identified in our Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends opening up the applications and funding those projects that make an impact and address the City's identified priorities. Jacobson asked if they could fund an underfunded project instead. Hightshoe said they could if an applicant submitted a new application or request for funds. As this is additional money not identified previously in the FY14 Action plan, it would require an Annual Action Plan amendment regardless if new projects or additional funding to existing projects. Several commissioners said they would rather look at new projects. Hart said considering that they had applicants they might have wanted to fund more, she thought perhaps they should limit HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION JUNE 20, 2013 PAGE 3 of 8 it to existing applicants. She stated she doesn't know how many new applicants they would get and whether it would be worth their time and the commissions, but she's not opposed to opening it up to new applicants. Zimmermann Smith said since they had talked about how limited resources were in the last couple funding rounds, it's irresponsible not to ask for new applications. Hart said she thought there were enough commissioners who felt that had they had more funds, they might have allocated more to some of the previously submitted projects. Chappell said he'd like to get new applications with existing applicants able to request additional funding. Clamon said she's fine with getting new applications, but she wants to make sure they fully consider the ones who didn't get funded before. She said she wants everyone to be considered equally. Member asked staff why only 2 -3 projects recommended for funding. Hightshoe stated they have limited funds and reviewing ways to make a greater impact with what we have while utilizing staff as efficiently as possible. Due to CDBG and HOME funding cuts over the past two -three years, the City has lost a full time equivalent position to administer these projects. Staff is no longer able to effectively administer 30+ projects annually. Staff is able to administer more than three; however wants to avoid funding 16 additional projects at $15,000 each with these funds. After discussion it was the Commission's consensus to indicate in the application both that the commission anticipates no more than two to three new projects will be funded and priority will be given to applications over $50,000. REVIEW ALLOCATION PROCESS — AID TO AGENCIES Subcommittee Update - Zimmermann Smith reported that both the Commission and the Council had some problems with the Aid to Agencies process and the Council requested that staff develop guidelines to assist the Commission allocate the funds. Staff is requesting HCDC input on the guidelines. She said the subcommittee is trying to develop a streamlined version of the process they follow for the allocation of these funds based on the CITY STEP priorities and putting the agencies on notice that the allocation they are used to getting every year may change. She said the subcommittee has developed a draft proposal for comment. Chappell said they are not suggesting another ranking system but are looking to have some priorities. He said that the consensus was that most of the money should be going to support the high priorities identified in CITY STEPS. He said the number they came up with was at least 80% to go to those agencies addressing high priority needs and then up to 20% to low and medium priorities. Hart asked about the minimum allocation being $5,000. Zimmermann Smith said that was a criticism from some Council members that it doesn't make sense to give an agency $1,000 which creates additional staff time to administer. Hightshoe said the issue to her seemed to be why the City is giving such small amounts and how much impact can that level of allocation make to the agency. What level of contribution makes the most impact to address the needs identified. Hart said she had a problem with using the word "innovation" in the guidelines and suggested instead that they say "priority will be given to sustainable projects that make a beneficial impact," which she thinks covers innovative new things but would also ensure quality. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION JUNE 20, 2013 PAGE 4 of 8 Zimmermann Smith said that part of the criticism was that it was a closed process and the same agencies were getting the funding and previously it was in the hands of one to two persons. She said she believes the City Council wants a more open process that seems fair to everybody, and that was part of them asking to do this system overhaul. She says whether you call it innovation or something else, it encourages new people on a smaller scale because the percentage is limited, and it will perhaps encourage agencies to collaborate and do something new together. Hart said her concern is spending 20% of that money for something that's not critical, and a better term that she would strongly suggest that they use is "sustainable impact or beneficial impact ", which is going to be an open incentive to new ideas but will also promote the idea of not just fly by night entrepreneur attitudes. She said they have also talked about if they fund something how likely is it to be able to continue on its own or without consistent funding. She would like to incorporate that term into the process rather than the word "innovation ". Zimmermann Smith said she thinks the assumption is that Aid to Agencies will have an impact and they don't have to write that into their guidelines. Jacobson said he thinks this encourages collaboration. He suggested also getting a recommendation from an existing agency when a new agency applies based on what they've seen. He said none of these get prioritized above anything else. Hart said she would like the word "priority" removed. Bacon Curry said what if it said they would "invite innovation ". Zimmermann Smith said she thought perhaps that innovation should be included as a priority for all of the money. Hart suggested wording like "would like to invite or consider innovative projects that will lend to sustainability." Zimmermann Smith said you want to welcome people who are new agencies because it's intimidating to come into a city where the same agencies get the same money, and that was the idea behind inviting people who might not otherwise think of new things to come and apply for funding. Hart asked if the idea of the 20% was to allow new agencies to apply. Zimmermann Smith said it was to allow a little flexibility if not a high priority. She said a new agency that would be a great project should still feel comfortable applying for funding, so that is why the sub - committee decided on "up to 20W. Chappell said he still likes the idea of a list of things they will look for and give priority to. Hart asked if 20% is not a huge chunk of money. Chappell said it's about $60,000 - $70,000. He said when you look at the group that applied last year, the vast majority fit under the group that would be eligible for at least 80 %. Zimmermann Smith said she thought that funding some medium priority needs might keep people from ending up in critical needs situations. Jacobson says he thinks this serves as a non - profit incubator for new ideas. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION JUNE 20, 2013 PAGE 5 of 8 Chappell asked if the Commission was comfortable with the 80/20% numbers. Hart said her sticking point was still the word "prioritize ". The rest of the Commission said it was fine with them, especially if they added the word "or" to read "consideration given to innovation or collaboration, avoiding duplicate services ". Chappell said from a conversation he had with a City Council member there is a distinct concern about what are we doing to prioritize. He said he thinks this is a good start to doing that, and this is perhaps a sign that doing what's been done repeatedly in the past is not what the Council is looking for. Hart stated she still had concerns with the language. Jacobson asked if the priority statement applied to all the funds, not just 80% set -aside for high priority needs. After discussion about the language in these items, Chappell asked if there was a consensus to say that the first sentence of paragraph #5 will be applied to all applicants - "innovation, collaboration, avoiding duplicative services, and long -term sustainability of the organization." A majority of six Commission members agreed to this. Hart was in disagreement. Hart said she doesn't have a problem with prioritizing but with what terms the Commission is using to prioritize and with what they are prioritizing. She says she keeps hearing language creeping in and hears an agenda. Hart expressed the concern that she feels members may feel some agencies aren't working well or aren't spending money well. Many members stated they don't feel that way about any of the agencies who received funding. Chappell said his agenda is trying to come up with some priority to guide the allocation process. Zimmermann Smith all the Commissioners were uncomfortable with the process of Aid to Agencies. Hart said the Commissioners might have differences of opinions as to what kind of agencies or what kinds of needs the City has, and if that's the case, that ought to be reflected in the minutes of the meeting. She said she doesn't have a problem with prioritizing but with what terms the Commission is using to prioritize and if there's a difference of opinion, it should be out there. The Commission discussed how to verify if the agency addresses the need they identify on the application. The subcommittee used 50% of staff time or payroll dedicated to an identified need in order to check it on the application. Chappell said they wanted to give the staff the ability to make sure they could categorize the need. Chappell said they are saying that either 50% of the applicant's mission address the identified need or one of their programs focuses on the identified need. The Commission decided to ask applicants about their fees for services. There was more discussion about wording of the application. Chappell said if the City Council doesn't want priorities, they probably don't need the Commission. It was up the Commission to draft prioritizes that the City Council can adopt or amend based on their preference. Zimmermann Smith moved to recommend to City Council the Aid to Agency guidelines for FY15 and subsequent funding rounds as identified below. 1. A letter will be sent to all previous recipients indicating that FY15 funding will not be based on the amounts received in prior years. Funds will be awarded based on how well the agency meets the needs prioritized in the City's Consolidated Plan (a.k.a. CITY STEPS). The Joint Funding Application Guide will also include this information for Iowa City applicants. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION JUNE 20, 2013 PAGE 6 of 8 2. The City will give priority to applications that are innovative, collaborative, avoid duplicative services and /or support long term fiscal sustainability. 3. The minimum allocation awarded will be $5,000. 4. At least 80% of the total funding will go to applications that meet one or more of the CITY STEPS high priority needs as identified below. To be considered meeting a specific need, at least 50% of the agency budget or staff time must be dedicated to meeting this need. Staff may request additional information to support the agency's claim. Applicant can apply for a certain program within the agency; however funding will be based on the program's budget and impact in addressing the need identified. • Crime Prevention and Awareness • Child Care • Youth Services • Financial Literacy • Substance Abuse • Mental Health Services • Life Skills • Employment Training • Homeless Services - as it relates emergency rehab. for accessibility, utility assistance and shelter) to housing (maintaining housing — includes emergency rent/mortgage, security deposits, 5. Up to 20% of the total funding may go to applications that meet low or medium CITY STEPS needs. 6. Additional questions will be added to the Joint Application or an Iowa City funding supplement: • What other public entities has your organization sought funding from in the last year? • Who are your ongoing funding partners? • How do you address the specific need(s) checked under the CITY STEPS priorities table? • Do you have a fee structure for services? Please explain. Ralston seconded. Motion carried 6-0 -1 with Hart abstaining. DISCUSSION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CELEBRATION Due to the absence of the intern who would be responsible for planning the celebration, it has been postponed until the fall. MONITORING REPORTS FY13 Economic Development Fund (Hightshoe) Trumpet Blossom Cafe, Baroncini and Molly's Cupcakes were all approved at the end of FY12 but spent their funds this year. They are all open and reportedly doing well. She said Economic Development funds also went to the Building Change program for fagade renovations in the downtown urban renewal area. Bo James, Quentins, Active Endeavors and Atlas were funded for exterior improvements. Most of the buildings were originally built in the late 1800s. Active Endeavor was built in the early 1970s. She said they will have about $60,000 left in the fund for Economic Development loans. She said she is reviewing two applications now. She said as of July 15` they will get another $89,000 in that fund. FY13 Housing Rehab — Rental Rehab (Hightshoe) HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION JUNE 20, 2013 PAGE 7 of 8 She said as of May 31, Rehab. spent $191,000 for 25 CDBG funded projects with the average median income for those households being 39% of median income. Staff completed HOME rehab projects and home renovations through the GRIP program. GRIP is funded with general obligation loans that the homeowner repays over a 20 -year period. They also continue to work on the UniverCity program. They work with various city departments and non - profit housing organizations for lead inspections and lead safe work practices. Rehab. completes a FY13 year -end summary for City Council in July /August. A copy will be routed to HCDC for review. ADJOURNMENT: Zimmermann Smith moved to adjourn. Jacobson seconded. Motion carried 7 -0. G It O 0 W OC W 0 L) N Z N r D N z W �i r z O U) g O U I- z W m a O J W w D D O U � M Q0Go U' NO z_°ao W W =�a N x x x O 0 = x x x x 0 x x x x 0 x x x M X X x X X X X j x x X X X X 0 X X X x X X 0 0 X X X 0 X X X 0 X X X X 0 o� o X X X 0 X 0 X X{ X r N X x X x X x x 0 X o� �D x x x o x x o x uj o ti x X X x 0 x X X 0 X O O O X X x X X IL W, v LO v M r M LO ch e- � V- LO T- LO r N T- N V- N N T- N T- N N N N e— W H m 0) CD rn O) W J J W V W J W H _ z W ui O z ' g U O N J N V w W Z O = V -� O = O (0) z O 2 W-J � V Q O � H � O U J �V Z M V V D O C7 2 Z NoG .D W 0 c C a¢az° II II II II w , YXOO ' Minutes Human Rights Commission July 16, 2013 — 6 P.M. Helling Conference Room APPROVED M7 3'.. ■�i�ii Members Present: Harry Olmstead, Orville Townsend Sr., Diane Finnerty, Kim Hanrahan, Jewell Amos. Staff Present: Stefanie Bowers, Mike Moran, Chad Dyson. Recommendations to Council: No. Call to Order: Chair Townsend called the meeting to order at 18:02. Consideration of the Minutes of the (Revised) May 21, 2013 & June 18, 2013: Townsend noted that he was misquoted in the minutes of May 21, 2013. Townsend stated: the minutes incorrectly reported that he said he was dissatisfied with the City Council decision to go along with an officer in a school and that was incorrect, what he said was " the City Manager attended most of the Ad Hoc Committee meetings and I was surprised that he allowed that to move forward, considering the fact that our committee was definitely not in favor of it." Olmstead moved to approve minutes, seconded by Hanrahan. 3 in favor, 2 abstained (Finnerty & Amos). Motion passed 3 -0. Public Comment of Items Not on the Aeenda: None. New Business: ID System for Facility Access Recreational Centers The Recreation Centers started a new software system in December 2012, as a part of this system the Centers are able to track usage. The new id system, which had a soft opening at Mercer in June, does not require a picture to be taken to be issued. There is also no cost for an id to be issued. Over six hundred id's have been issued. There is a $2 replacement fee if an id is lost. Organizations, like The Arc or Mayor's Youth Empowerment Program would just be issued one id for use with group outings. Id's are not required for rentals, special events or if just walking through the facility. There is no documentation of any kind required for a person to be issued an id. Moran and Dyson will contact Finnerty to set up future focus groups to further explore the new id system. In addition, Moran will share quarterly reports with Bowers to share with the Commission for future follow up if necessary. Coalition for Racial Justice's Racial Equality Report The Coalition will be releasing a report on Tuesday, July 23. The report contains information concerning a lot of disparity data. Olmstead moved and Hanranhan seconded to allow Finnerty to speak on behalf of the Commission, given the stated parameters, not in support of the report but in support of the focus on the racial equity outcomes as a way to build diverse and inclusive communities. Motion passed 5 -0. Annual Report (Draft) FY 13 Report should include more on the Youth Awards and that there were no Youth Ally nominations submitted in 2013. Scope & Priorities of the Human Rights Commission Commissioners discussed following up with initiatives, clarification on their roles and will continue to look at other models. Human Rights Breakfast The event will have a multimedia presentation and not a keynote this year. More information is forthcoming at the next meeting. Suggestion to change the Community Award to the Bill Reagan Community Award will be discussed at the next meeting. Olmstead moved and Amos seconded to forgo a keynote speaker for the 2013 Breakfast and instead have a multimedia presentation. Motion passed 5 -0. Fall Conference on Racial Justice & Disproportionate Minority Incarceration Bowers will follow up with Disproportionate Minority Contact Chair LaTasha Massey to see if there can be a collaboration on an upcoming program the DMC Committee will be hosting in October. Proclamations The Commission plans to do a proclamation for Hispanic Heritage Month. Uadates & ReDorts: Juneteenth Townsend thoroughly enjoyed the event and recommends the inside location (Mercer Park) again for the future. SEATS Olmstead reported that City staff will be coming up with recommendations concerning SEATS. Education Subcommittee Finnerty anticipates hearing from the ICCSD within the next month or so. Immigrant Subcommittee No Report. Ad Hoc Diversity Committee No Report. This item will be removed from future agendas. Building Communities A meeting will be set up in the near future. University of Iowa Center for Human Rights Bowers will write a letter to President Mason thanking her and the University community for keeping the Center open. Provost Butler will be cc in the correspondence. Commission Finnerty updated on Cultural Diversity Day, this will be an agenda item for the next meeting. Staff No report. Adjournment: Motion to adjourn at 19:28. 2 Next Regular Meeting — August 20, 2013 at 18:00. Human Rights Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2012/2013 (Meeting Date) NAME TERM EXP. 8/21/ 12 9/18 /12 10/16/ 12 11/20/ 12 12/18/ 12 1/15/ 13 1/28 113 2/19/ 13 3/19/ 13 4/16 /13 5/21 113 6/18/ 13 7/16/ 13 Diane Finnerty 1/14/14 X O/E O/E X X O/E X X X O/E X X X Orville Townsend, Sr. 1/1/14 X X X X X X X X x X X X X Dan Tallon 1/1/14 X X X O/E X X X X O/E X X X O/E Kim Hanrahan 111115 O/E X X X X X X X X O/E X X X Shams Ghoneim 111115 X X O/E X X O/E O/E X X X O/E X O/E Jessie Harper 111115 X O/E X O/E X X X X X R R R R Jewell Amos 111115 - - - - - - - - - - - - X Katie Anthony 1/1/16 - - - - - X X X X X R R R Joe D. Coulter 1/1/16 - - - - - X X X X X X X O/E Harry Olmstead 1/1/16 X X X X X X X X X X X X X Connie Goeb 1/1/13 X X X X X - - - - - - - - Howard Cowen 1/1/13 X O/E X O/E O/E - - - - - - - - David B. Brown 1/1/14 R R R R R R R R R R R R R Henri Harper 1/1/14 R R R R R R R R R R R R R KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting -- = No longer a member R = Resignation r ,-,0-,f0:.� t CITY OF IOWA CITY 3b(5) MEMORANDUM Date: August 19, 2013 To: Mayor and City Council From: Staff Member of Police Citizens Review Board Re: Recommendation from Police Citizens Review Board At their July 8, 2013 meeting the Police Citizens Review Board made the following recommendation to the City Council: Accept PCRB Report on Complaint #13 -01 Additional action (check one) X No further action needed Board or Commission is requesting Council direction Agenda item will be prepared by staff for Council action S:RECform.doc FINAL/APPROVED POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD MINUTES — July 8, 2013 CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chair Melissa Jensen called the meeting to order at 5:36 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kingsley Botchway and Donald King MEMBERS ABSENT: Royceann Porter and Joseph Treloar STAFF PRESENT: Staff Kellie Tuttle and Catherine Pugh STAFF ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: Marian Karr, City Clerk; Adam Sullivan, IC Press Citizen RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL 1) Accept PCRB Report on Complaint #13 -01 CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by King, seconded by Botchway to adopt the consent calendar as presented or amended. Minutes of the meeting on 06/24/13 Motion carried, 3/0, Treloar and Porter absent. NEW BUSINESS Council Resolution #13 -217 regarding Ad -Hoc Diversity Committee Recommendations (PCRB pages 11 -16) —Marian Karr, City Clerk, presented the Ad -Hoc Diversity Committee recommendations that were accepted by City Council and went through the implementation process of those recommendations with the Board. OLD BUSINESS None. BOARD INFORMATION None. STAFF INFORMATION Pugh informed the Board that her e-mail address had changed and she was no longer working at United Action for Youth. Tuttle stated that she would have a draft of the annual report ready for the Board's review in the August meeting packet. PUBLIC DISCUSSION None. PCRB July 8, 2013 Page 2 EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion by King, seconded by Botchway to adjourn into Executive Session based on Section 21.5(1)(a) of the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records which are required or authorized by state or federal law to be kept confidential or to be kept confidential as a condition for that government body's possession or continued receipt of federal funds, and 22.7(11) personal information in confidential personnel records of public bodies including but not limited to cities, boards of supervisors and school districts, and 22 -7(5) police officer investigative reports, except where disclosure is authorized elsewhere in the Code; and 22.7(18) Communications not required by law, rule or procedure that are made to a government body or to any of its employees by identified persons outside of government, to the extent that the government body receiving those communications from such persons outside of government could reasonably believe that those persons would be discouraged from making them to that government body if they were available for general public examination. Motion carried, 3/0, Treloar and Porter absent. Open session adjourned at 6:28 P.M. REGULAR SESSION Returned to open session at 7:05 P.M. Motion by King, seconded by Botchway to forward the Public Report as amended for PCRB Complaint #13 -01 to City Council. Motion carried, 3/0, Treloar and Porter absent. TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subject to change) • August 13, 2013, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm (meeting date TBD) • September 10, 2013, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm • October 8, 2013, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm • November 12, 2013, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm Due to scheduling conflicts, the August 13th meeting will be moved to another date. Staff is checking on meeting room availability for August 12th or the preceding week. ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by King, seconded by Botchway. Motion carried, 3/0, Treloar and Porter absent. Meeting adjourned at 7:07 P.M. 4 y QtQ y a eD d A b 0 Irl A yn �CrJ y ZGN N � N O W O bd yC ld V .1 CD �x h y .0 O � I~I QQ A C7 Hr �o �o �C x x >C n, O z z z z z N C C N yC DC [i7 [s7 ~ 00 yC O � X yC �C yC DC yC yC O >C yC yC a A D'C DC 9'C iC >C i W yC �C >C yC yC N eD d A b 0 Irl A yn �CrJ y ZGN N � N O W O POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City IA 52240 -1826 (319)356 -5041 From: Police Citizen's Review Board Re: Investigation of PCRB Complaint #13 -01 This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board's (the "Board ") review of the investigation of Complaint PCRB #13 -01 (the "Complaint "). BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, Section 8 -8 -713 (2), the Board's job is to review the Police Chief's Report ( "Report") of his investigation of a complaint. The City Code requires the Board to apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review to the Report and to "give deference" to the Report "because of the Police Chiefs professional expertise ", Section 8 -8 -7 B (2). While the City Code directs the Board to make "Findings of Fact ", it also requires that the Board recommend that the Police Chief reverse or modify his findings only if these findings are "unsupported by substantial evidence', are "unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious" or are "contrary to a Police Department policy or practice, or any Federal, State or local law ", Section 8 -8 -7 B (2) a, b, c. BOARD'S PROCEDURE The Complaint was initiated by the Complainant on March 21, 2013. As required by Section 8- 8-5 (B) of the City Code, the Complaint was referred to the Chief of Police for investigation. The Chief's Report was filed with the City Clerk on June 19, 2013. The Board voted to review the Chiefs Report in accordance with Section 8 -8 -7 (B)(1)(d), Request additional investigation by the Police Chief or City Manager, or request police assistance in the Board's own investigation. The Board met to consider the Report on June 24, 2013 and July 8, 2013. N D July 8, 2013 fit? c -=tt� To: City Council :Cm -� Complainant 6;0 City Manager Sam Hargadine, Chief of Police �* Officer(s) involved in complaint From: Police Citizen's Review Board Re: Investigation of PCRB Complaint #13 -01 This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board's (the "Board ") review of the investigation of Complaint PCRB #13 -01 (the "Complaint "). BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, Section 8 -8 -713 (2), the Board's job is to review the Police Chief's Report ( "Report") of his investigation of a complaint. The City Code requires the Board to apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review to the Report and to "give deference" to the Report "because of the Police Chiefs professional expertise ", Section 8 -8 -7 B (2). While the City Code directs the Board to make "Findings of Fact ", it also requires that the Board recommend that the Police Chief reverse or modify his findings only if these findings are "unsupported by substantial evidence', are "unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious" or are "contrary to a Police Department policy or practice, or any Federal, State or local law ", Section 8 -8 -7 B (2) a, b, c. BOARD'S PROCEDURE The Complaint was initiated by the Complainant on March 21, 2013. As required by Section 8- 8-5 (B) of the City Code, the Complaint was referred to the Chief of Police for investigation. The Chief's Report was filed with the City Clerk on June 19, 2013. The Board voted to review the Chiefs Report in accordance with Section 8 -8 -7 (B)(1)(d), Request additional investigation by the Police Chief or City Manager, or request police assistance in the Board's own investigation. The Board met to consider the Report on June 24, 2013 and July 8, 2013. FINDINGS OF FACT The Complainant alleged that he was being bothered and harassed for "no reai5n at er by Officer A. r=, in The Complainant alleged that Officer A followed him to the Police Department v-4en thibffic 7 found out that he was going to make a complaint against him. "<M -o M The Complainant alleged that Officer A said he was going to stop him again ansk h1i questions every time he saw him. ca 0 The Complainant alleged that Officer A discriminated against him because he was black. In Chief Hargadine's investigation he reports that the Complainant was asked by Officer A to leave the Post Office located on Clinton Street in Iowa City. This followed a complaint from security personnel at the Post Office reporting the Complainant and other transients were sleeping in the lobby area of the Post Office and requesting that they be asked to leave. Officer A arrived at the Post Office at 5:34 a.m. in response to the complaint. Officer A completed the call and returned to service at 5:51 a.m. Chief Hargadine reported that he spoke with both Officer A and Officer B about this incident. They reported that at least two of the individuals asked to leave the Post Office were African Americans and the others were Caucasian. Chief Hargadine reported that he met with the Complainant on 3/21/13 when the Complainant went to the Iowa City Police Department to file a complaint and attempted to explain that the officer was responding to a complaint from the Post Office requesting that the Complainant and the other subjects at the Post Office move on. The Complainant insisted on filing a complaint. The Complainant was left voice mail messages on 3/28/13 and 3/29/13 and was mailed a letter on 4/2/13 but did not respond until 4/10/13 when he called the Police Department to file a second complaint on Officer A. The Complainant was upset that Officer A again asked him to leave the Post Office. The Police log does verify that an officer was dispatched to the Post Office on 04/10/13 from 4:31 a.m. until 4:51 a.m. The Complainant made arrangements to meet with supervisors on 4/11/13 at 11:30 p.m. and would call if he could not make it. The Complainant was a no call, no show for this appointment. The Complainant reported being asked to leave the Post Office by Officer A. Officer A was responding to a call from the Post Office where the Post Office requested that the group people in the building, which the Complainant was among, be asked to leave to building. This was in line with Officer A's duties and does not constitute harassment on the officer's part. The Complainant did allege that Officer A told him "... every time that I see you that I am gonna stop you again and ask you question." The Officer's statement referred to each time he met the Complainant sleeping in the Post Office he would be asked to leave. The Complainant alleged that Officer A followed him to the Police Department. It is not clear if this occurred, or not, by the reports and no further evidence was provided by the Complainant. The Complainant alleged that Officer A requested to see his identification. Such an action on the part of Officer A would be in line with the regular duties of a police officer and would not constitute harassment on the part of Officer A. The Complainant did not report any actions or statements that were made by Officer A which would indicate that the officer acted in a racist manner. The Police Citizen's Review Board requested and viewed the video of the incident provided to them by Chief Hargadine and found it to contain no inappropriate actions which would support the Complainant's allegations against Officer A. ALLEGATION #1 — Harassment. Not Sustained ALLEGATION #2 — Racist behavior. Not Sustained COMMENTS None. N 0 E5 w C= own icy � rn CA) 0