Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-10-10 Info Packet `♦' ...arranut CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET CITY OF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org October 10, 2013 IP1 Council Tentative Meeting Schedule OCTOBER 15 WORK SESSION IP2 Work Session Agenda IP3 Memo from Housing & Inspection Services Dir. and Housing Administer: Selling Public Housing units (under the Iowa City Housing Authority's (ICHA) Section 5(h) Homeownership agreement) along with public/private partnerships to develop new low- income housing opportunities IP4 Memo from Community Development Coordinator: Affordable Housing Discussion October 15, 2013 City Council Work Session IP5 Pending Work Session Topics IP6 Memo from the City Clerk: KXIC Radio Show IP7 Memo from the City Clerk: Proposed Meeting Schedule January-March MISCELLANEOUS IP8 Memo from City Attorney: Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District IP9 Memo from Asst. to the City Manager: The '21 Ordinance' and Related Public Safety Information IP10 Memo from Planning Dir.: Parking requirements for 820 S. Riverside Drive (Staples) IP11 Police Department Bar Check Report—September 2013 IP12 Response from City Manager to letter from iJAG: Request for funding IP13 Civil Service Entrance Examination: Maintenance Worker II —Wastewater Treatment IP14 Civil Service Entrance Examination: Water Engineer IP15 Memo from the City Clerk: Human Right Breakfast IP16 Invitation: "I Have A Dream" for Iowa City - Celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the Iowa City Humans Rights Commission IP17 Invitation: Conference on Racial Justice & Disproportionate Minority incarceration Press Release: City again receives national Distinguished Budget Presentation Award [Distributed to Council on 10/15/13] ' •� CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET CITY OF IOWA CITY www.ic,ov.org October 10, 2013 IP1 Council entative Meeting Schedule I OCTOBER 15 WORK S 'SSION IP2 Work Session Age •a IP3 Memo from Housing & I .pection Services D' . and Housing Administer: Selling Public Housing units (under th- owa City Hou- ng Authority's (ICHA) Section 5(h) Homeownership agreeme along wi public/private partnerships to develop new low- income housing opportuniti IP4 Memo from Community Developm-' Coordinator: Affordable Housing Discussion October 15, 2013 City Council • k Session IP5 Pending Work Session Topi - 1P6 Memo from the City Clerk: IC Radio S •w IP7 Memo from the City Cler'. Proposed Meetin• Schedule January-March MISCELLAN • US IP8 Memo from City At •rney: Koontz v. St. Johns River ater Management District IP9 Memo from As- . to the City Manager: The '21 Ordin- ce' and Related Public Safety Information IP10 Memo from anning Dir.: Parking requirements for 820 S. Ri erside Drive (Staples) 1P11 Police De artment Bar Check Report—September 2013 1P12 Respon-- from City Manager to letter from iJAG: Request for fundin• 1P13 Civil S-rvice Entrance Examination: Maintenance Worker II —Wastewa er Treatment 1P14 Civil ervice Entrance Examination: Water Engineer IP15 M mo from the City Clerk: Human Right Breakfast IP16 vitation: "I Have A Dream" for Iowa City - Celebrate the 50th Anniversary if the Iowa ity Humans Rights Commission IP17 Invitation: Conference on Racial Justice & Disproportionate Minority incarcerat •n October 10, 2013 Information Packet (continued) 2 DRAFT MINUTES IP18 Board of Adjustment: September 18 IP19 Human Rights Commission: September 17 IP20 Citizens Police Review Board: October 7 1 � CITY OF IOWA CITY Date Tuesday, October 15, 2013 Monday, October 28, 2013 Tuesday, November 12, 2013 City Council Tentative Meeting Schedule IP1 Subject to change October 10, 2013 Time Meeting 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting 7:00 PM Formal Meeting 4:30 PM Joint Meeting /Work Session 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting 7:00 PM Special Formal Meeting Location Emma J. Harvat Hall Emma J. Harvat Hall IC Public Library Emma J. Harvat Hall Emma J. Harvat Hall Monday, November 25 1:00 -7:00 Ph Strategic Planning /Work Session a + N Lodge, Trueblood Rec. 4 Tuesday, December 3, 2013 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, December 17, 2013 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall CITY OF IOWA CITY 4 10 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 -1926 (319) 3S6 -5000 (319) 356 -SO09 FAX www.icgov.org City Council Work Session Agenda October 15, 2013 5:00 PM Emma J. Harvat Hall - City Hall 410 E. Washington Street • Questions from Council re Agenda Items • Staff's proposed strategy for the sale or dispersion of public housing units [IP # 3 of 10/10 Info Packet] • Continue discussion on regional affordable housing strategies [IP # 4 of 10/10 Info Packet] • Discussion of joint agenda items [IP # 4 of 10/3 Info Packet] • Information Packet Discussion [October 3, 10] • Council Time ■ Pending Work Session Topics [IP # 5 of 10/10 Info Packet] ■ Meeting Schedule [IP # 6 and #7 of 10/10 Info Packet] ■ Upcoming Community Events /Council Invitations Date: October 9, 2013 CITY OF IOWA CITY IP3 MEMORANDUM To: Tom Markus, City From: Douglas Boothroy, Administrator ZIK-- 1% Services and Steven J. :kis, Housing Re: Selling Public Housing units (un *r the Iowa Cit Housing Authority's (ICHA) Section 5(h) Homeownership agreement) alo g with public /private partnerships to develop new low - income housing opportunities. Since our last discussion regarding the sale of Public Housing, the "Fiscal Cliff', the Federal Debt Ceiling; and "Sequestration" have reduced the amount of funding the ICHA receives from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) (administrative fees for the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program were reduced by 30 %, Public Housing Operating Subsidy by 18 %, and Housing Assistance Payments by 6 %). Obviously these reductions negatively impact the Housing Authority's budget. The likelihood of Congress restoring the funding in 2014 is bleak, as it appears Congress will pass continuing resolutions keeping the "Sequestration" cuts in place. Prior to "Sequestration ", the Public Housing units were generating positive income for the ICHA through the receipt of an Operating Subsidy from HUD and the rents collected from the tenants. Given the uncertainty of future federal funding, selling any Public Housing that reduces the total number of units further jeopardizes the financial condition of the ICHA. Background: Staff has discussed with HUD multiple scenarios for selling existing Public Housing units. HUD has determined our scenarios for selling Public Housing units cannot meet their criteria for approval. The ICHA units are scattered sites, rated as high quality in HUD inspections, and are located in good neighborhoods. HUD has informed the ICHA that the only Public Housing units the ICHA can sell are the units identified in the existing HUD approved Section 5(h) Homeownership Agreement (see attached May 10, 2012 memorandum). The ICHA's accounting firm, Blosky and Associates(HUD accountants), has updated their analysis of the number of units that the ICHA can sell without creating a negative financial impact on the ICHA and causing a cost burden on the City that could result in providing some financial assistance to the ICHA. Prior to "Sequestration ", their spring 2012 analysis showed a financial breakeven point at keeping 72 out of 81 Public Housing units. Based on their most recent analysis, the ICHA financial breakeven point is now above the existing 81 units (see attached memorandum). Recommendations: Staff recommends the following Public Housing Disbursement Plan that would redistribute and reduce the number of Public Housing units in certain neighborhoods without reducing the number of Public Housing units below 81 units: October 9, 2013 Page 2 a. Develop new Public Housing units with scattered site units located in other parts of Iowa City either by new construction or rehabilitation targeting elderly and disabled low- income families. The ICHA would seek public /private development opportunities to develop new Public Housing units, units that can accept vouchers, and/or homes for homeownership. The new affordable housing units would be developed before any existing Public Housing units are sold for homeownership. This may result in an initial increase in Public Housing units; however, this increase would be offset with the units sold. b. Sell for low income homeownership (Section 5(h) Homeownership Agreement) at least six (6) 3- bedroom units located in the Whispering Meadow Neighborhood. The ICHA cannot remove existing families to sell the units. The units must be vacant and sold to an income eligible family (80% median income) with sufficient resources to successfully purchase and maintain the home, therefore, the timeframe for completing the disposition process may be measured in years, not months. c. Do not sell for low income homeownership any 4- bedroom units. These units are in short supply and therefore a valuable commodity in Iowa City affordable housing market. There are 17,000 rental properties in the City of Iowa City and only 35 (<I%) of these units are affordable 4- bedroom units: Pheasant Ridge has 18 units; ICHA has 13 units; and, The Housing Fellowship has 4 units. In conclusion, these recommendations provide the opportunity to relocate public housing units, create new affordable housing for elderly /disabled families, expand affordable housing through public /private partnerships while not negatively impacting the financial health of the ICHA. NOTE: On September 26, 2013, all Public Housing Tenants residing in units in the Whispering Meadow Neighborhood were notified, in writing, that their unit was included in the Housing Authority's Homeownership program. The letter specifically stated "Please know the Housing Authority cannot evict or ask families to vacate their Public Housing unit for the purpose of selling the units for homeownership ". . I I ®..4 Date: May 10, 2012 To: From: Re: CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Tom Markus, City Manager Doug Boothroy, Director, Housing and Inspection Services; Steven J. Rackis, Housing Administrator Selling Public Housing This memorandum addresses multiple questions related to the sale of Public Housing units; the allowable use of proceeds from these sales; the size of the Public Housing inventory. Can the City of Iowa City sell all 81 Public Housing units? Answer: No. The City of Iowa City does not meet the Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) criteria for Demo I ition/D isposition and Replacement. Can the City of Iowa City sell any of the 81 Public Housing units? Answer: Yes, the City of Iowa City can sell the 43 single family units remaining in the existing HUD approved Section 5(h) Homeownership Agreement. The other 38 Public Housing units are multi- family. The Iowa City Housing Authority has sold twenty -six (26) Public Housing units through this agreement. Qualified buyers are low- income families (80% of the median income which for a family of 4 = $64,250) who can secure at least 75% of the sales price from private lenders, can meet the financial obligations of homeownership, and demonstrate a reasonable expectation that homeownership will be successful. Can the City of Iowa City use the sales proceeds to supplement CDBG and HOME funds and aid other Iowa City agencies and non - profits? Answer: No. What can the City of Iowa City do with the sales proceeds? Answer: Sales proceeds must be retained by the Iowa City Housing Authority and used for housing assistance to low- income families (24 CFR 906.15). Permissible uses are: The Section 5(h) Homeownership Agreement allows for new construction, rehabilitation of additional units for sale, 2nd mortgages, Housing Authority repurchase, repair and resale of homes in the event of default; Acquire additional Public Housing units and /or use the proceeds for the maintenance and modernization of Public Housing units, augmentation of operating reserves, and resident services; Other types of Federal, State, or local homeownership programs for low- income families. How have the Section 5(h) sales proceeds been used? Answer: The sales proceeds have been used to develop and assist homeownership programs for low- income families: 1. The Iowa City Housing Authority used the sales proceeds to create the Affordable Dream Home Ownership Program ( ADHOP). Through the ADHOP program, the Housing Authority built sixteen (16) homes (10 "Universal Design" homes) that were sold to eligible families. This includes the home built in the Longfellow neighborhood. 2. The Iowa City Housing Authority provides 2nd mortgages to homeowners purchasing previously sold Public Housing units and ADHOP homes available for resale; 3. The Iowa City Housing Authority provided the UniverCity program with $100,000 for down payment assistance; 4. Provided a 2 n mortgage to the "Green Home" built under the Iowa Area Association of Realtors (ICAAR) "Homes For Our Future" program; 5. Purchased a lot on Davenport Street (home destroyed by fire); 6. Will provide a 2nd mortgage to the family purchasing a home on Prairie Du Chien. The City of Iowa City bought the nuisance property and sold it to Habitat for Humanity who will complete the rehabilitation and sell the home in 2012. The family is already identified and will convert their Housing Choice Voucher rental assistance to homeownership; 7. To maintain a viable program and to prevent or lessen the risk of losing homes sold under the TOP / ADHOP program from the stock of affordable housing in the City of Iowa City, the Housing Authority will retain contingency funds of at least 50% of the total sales proceeds. Does Public Housing benefit the community? Answer: Yes. 1. It provides permanent affordable housing and contributes to the affordable housing goals outlined in City Steps: Iowa City's Consolidated Plan for Housing, Jobs, and Services for Low- Income Residents; 2. The management and maintenance is 100% federally funded by HUD. Unlike other programs, no General funds, CDBG, or HOME funds are used; 3. It contributes to Neighborhood Stabilization: a. The Iowa City Housing Authority is the only landlord in the community that can and does conduct a National Criminal Background check through the Iowa Department of Investigation (DCI) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI); b. To ensure program integrity, the Housing Authority communicates and shares information with all law enforcement agencies. Our communication with the Iowa City Police Department occurs virtually on a daily basis; c. The Iowa City Housing Authority has a zero (0) tolerance policy for drug related and violent criminal activity. The Housing Authority enforces leases to the greatest extent provided under Iowa and Federal Law; d. HUD pays for the maintenance and repair of the units; therefore, the Housing Authority adheres to strict maintenance schedule and does not defer maintenance as Operating Subsidy and Capital Funds offset low and lost rental income; 4. The existing Public Housing units generate approximately $400,000 is federal revenue annually. For FYI I, the Housing Authority paid $334,009 to local small businesses for upgrades, maintenance and repair. 5. The existing Public Housing units allow the Housing Authority to transfer $43,000 /year to the General Fund to support Housing and Inspection Services, Legal, and Accounting. 2 (C(Dpr How many Public Housing units should the City of Iowa City retain? Answer: 80 Public Housing units. HUD provides the Housing Authority with two (2) formula based funding steams: Operating Subsidy and Capital Improvement funds. The formulas are based on # of units and # of units occupied during the Fiscal year. Staff economic analysis indicates the per unit month revenue generated by 80 units covers the yearly Public Housing expenses (e.g., repair and maintenance, transfer to the General fund, staff, etc.). 80 units represent the "break -even point" which ensures the Housing Authority receives adequate funds from HUD to manage and maintain the quality of the public housing units and the financial viability of the Public Housing program. Will a reduction in Public Housing units lead to a reduction of expenses? Answer: To a certain extent yes; however, staff analysis shows 80 units are a "break- even" or the balancing point between revenues and expenses. HUD is already and will continue to reduce revenue, while operational costs continue to rise. Maintaining at least 80 units ensures that the Housing Authority receives a sufficient amount of funds from HUD to manage and maintain the quality of the Public Housing units and the financial viability of the Public Housing program. Recommendation: 1. Maintain at least 80 Public Housing units to ensure well maintained and well managed permanent low - income housing; 2. Reduce the Housing Authority's Public Housing presence on Indigo Court by selling the existing 8 units. HUD does not require replacement, but there is a significant fiscal reason to replace these units to keep the inventory at 80 Public Housing units. 3. Replace the 8 Public Housing units sold on Indigo Court with scattered site Public Housing units in other parts of Iowa City either by new construction or rehabilitation; 4. Continue to make funds available to the UniverCity program for down payment assistance and provide funds to rehabilitate homes to a maximum of 50% of the balance of funds in the TOP /ADHOP account (families must be at 80% or below the median income). 3 osxY SSOCIATES September 26, 2013 Steven Rackis, Executive Director 410 E Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Re: Breakeven Dear Mr. Rackis, C(OFDY We had previously prepared an analysis in June 2012 of the number of units that the Iowa City Housing Authority can sell without changing the level of services or causing a cost burden on the City of Iowa City to provide financial assistance to the Housing Authority. Based on our analysis at that time, the Housing Authority's unit breakeven point was 72 units at 100% HUD funding. The current HUD funding proration percentage of 18% increases that breakeven point back to over 81 units, the total number of public housing units available. Any reductions to public housing units at this time would result in the Housing Authority funding operating expenses from prior year earned reserves or reducing services provided to residents. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me. Prepared By; Sean Barrera, Vice - President Blosky & Associates, LLC 370 High Street - Souderton, PA 18964 - Phone: 610- 937 -0326 - www.bloskyassociates.com r CITY OF IOWA.CITY MEMORANDUM Date: October 9, 2013 To: Tom Markus, City Manager From: Steve Long, Community Development Coordinator Re: Affordable Housing Discussion October 15, 2013 City Council Work Session go Introduction At your August 20, 2013 Council Work Session, staff was directed to review the City's affordable housing opportunities and to discuss options for a regional approach to affordable housing. History /Background In 2007 the City commissioned an affordable housing market analysis for the Iowa City metro area. Mullin & Lonergan Associates, Inc. completed the analysis in December of 2007. The primary goal of the study was to determine whether there is an adequate supply of owner and rental homes to meet the needs of households with incomes up to 80% of the area's median income. Based on this study, there was an unmet need of 2,739 homes throughout our metro area. The study identified several regional public policy recommendations and many of the conditions and recommendations in this report remain valid today. The Affordable Housing Market Analysis can be found at www.icgov.or-q/affordablehousinq. In 2009, the Johnson County Affordable Housing Task Force report was completed that included a number of recommendations to be forwarded to the MPOJC Board. The Affordable Housing Task Force was made up of representatives from the Cities of Iowa City, Coralville, North Liberty, Tiffin, University Heights and representatives from Johnson County, the University of Iowa and the Iowa City Community School District. The report can be found at www.icgov.org /affordablehousinq Over the past 5 years, the City of Iowa City has assisted with the construction, acquisition or rehabilitation of over 160 rental homes with Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, HOME funds, Low - Income Housing Tax Credits and General Obligation Bond funds. In addition, the City has assisted with the creation of nearly 200 affordable owner - occupied homes through the Single - Family New Homes program, the UniverCity Neighborhood Partnership program and Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity. The City's Housing Rehabilitation program works with homeowners and rehabilitates 20 -25 owner - occupied homes per year as a way to maintain affordable housing. The City also partners with the Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County to provide funding for affordable housing countywide and operates the Iowa City Housing Authority to provide housing vouchers and public housing. Despite our best efforts, the need for affordable housing exceeds how much the City can assist on its own. There continues to be a deficit of affordable housing in the metro area. A regional approach would maximize resources and scatter affordable housing throughout the region so that households have a better chance of finding an affordable home where they choose to live. Discussion of Solutions At your August 20, 2013 Council Work Session, staff was directed to look at amending MPOJC scoring criteria for transportation project funding to include a criterion related to affordable housing. The existing criteria include factors such as: • project type (new or reconstruction) • local match percentage • vehicle delay and vehicle miles traveled (to ascertain impact on vehicle emissions) October 9, 2013 Page 2 • safety improvement • how multi -modal the project is (improvement to transit operations, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, on- street bicycle improvements) • regional collaboration (projects including multiple jurisdictions) • Access to schools, multi - family residential, and commercial development If an affordable housing criterion were added to the scoring system, staff believes it would be appropriate to tie a transportation project to improving access to and from a lower income census tract, improve access to an affordable housing project, or to improve access between a lower income neighborhood and an employment area. It is important the criterion be measurable in terms of using census block group data for median income and /or median housing costs. It is important to keep in mind MPO road funds may only be utilized on defined federal -aid routes (typically the arterial street system and major collector streets) and may not be used to fund housing directly. Land Use and Zoning There has been past discussion of land use and zoning initiatives as a means of encouraging more affordable housing. Techniques such as inclusionary zoning (when a residential development may be required or incented to include a percentage of affordable units), pre- zoning land for multi - family development, reducing minimum lot sizes to encourage smaller lots and homes, and reducing parking and infrastructure standards to reduce development costs have all been discussed. There are pros and cons to each of these approaches. By state code, land use and zoning decisions are made by individual City Councils and Boards of Supervisors, after receiving recommendations by Planning and Zoning Commissions. Unless there is a clear consensus amongst the units of local government to adopt consistent land use and zoning standards, staff does not believe a regional approach in terms of zoning standards is a viable long term solution. By their nature, land use and zoning decisions are local, as opposed to regional. Existing Regional Organization Currently, the cities of Iowa City, Coralville, North Liberty and Johnson County annually contribute a combined total of $55,000 for operational funding of the Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County ( HTFJC). They also have representatives on the Board of Directors. Since 2006, the HTFJC has allocated nearly $2.7 million for affordable housing projects throughout Johnson County. The majority of the funding is from the State Housing Trust Fund which is administered by the Iowa Finance Authority and is allocated annually to HTFJC. City staff recommends a regional approach led by the HTFJC to foster discussions and action throughout Johnson County to increase affordable housing opportunities on a regional basis. As an existing, regional organization the HTFJC is well situated to address regional housing needs, particularly in the area of affordable rental housing (the area of greatest need). Recommendation Staff recommends that the MPOJC approach the Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County to request that they coordinate, formalize and adopt a housing strategy amongst Johnson County stakeholders that increases and maintains affordable housing throughout the County. Local governments could also support the HTFJC by assisting with matching grant funds, providing land for projects, helping navigate the zoning process and by increasing direct financial contributions in order to make a viable regional approach. Staff also recommends that the MPOJC Board discuss revising their transportation project scoring criteria to include affordable housing criteria. IP5 � r L! 0 00 04 011 T-1c CITY OF IOWA CITY PENDING CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION TOPICS October 9, 2013 November 12, 2013 1. Continue the discussion on the Gateway Project design parameters 2. Discussion of 2014 legislative priorities Pending Topics to be Scheduled 1. Discuss community business attraction and anti- piracy compact 2. Discuss Gilbert/Highland /Kirkwood neighborhood concerns 3. Review the National League of Cities Institute for Youth, Education and Families report entitled, "City Leadership to Promote Black Male Achievement" (originally distributed in the 5/16/2013 Information Packet) 4. Discuss sidewalk repair program 5. Discuss recycling opportunities for multi - family housing (UISG letter in 10/1/2013 packet) 1 CITY OF IOWA CITY Mayor and City Council MEMORANDUM Marian K. Karr, City Clerk Re: KXIC Radio Show Date: October 9, 2013 To: Mayor and City Council From: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk Re: KXIC Radio Show KXIC offers a City show at 9:00 AM every Wednesday morning. In the past Council has volunteered for dates, and staff filled in as necessary. Please take a look at your calendars and come prepared to help fill in the schedule at your work session on October 15: October 16 — Mims October 23 — October 30 - November 6 - November 13 - Future commitments: November 27 - Dobyns January 29 - Dobyns March 19 - Dobyns April 30 - Dobyns June 18 - Dobyns U:radioshowasking.doc IP6 CITY OF IOWA CITY IP7 MEMORANDUM Date: October 10, 2013 To: Mayor and City Council From: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk Re: Proposed Meeting & Budget Schedule First Quarter 2014 The proposed schedule is being presented for discussion at your October 15 work session. Please review your calendars and come prepared to discuss this proposal at that time. January 4, 8:OOAM- 5:OOPM, Saturday- Special Formal (organizational meeting) Special Budget Work Session January 6, 1:OOPM- 7:OOPM, Monday- Special Budget Work Session January 7, 5:OOPM, Tuesday 7:OOPM January 14, 5:OOPM, Tuesday January 21, 5:OOPM, Tuesday 7:OOPM February 4, 5:OOPM, Tuesday 7:OOPM February 18, 5:OOPM, Tuesday 7:OOPM March 4, 5:OOPM, Tuesday 7:OOPM March 25, 5:OOPM, Tuesday 7:OOPM U:budgetschedule2014.doc - Regular Work Session (routine business) - Formal (routine business) - Special Budget Work Session - Regular Work Session (routine business) - Formal (routine business) - Regular Work Session - Regular Formal - Regular Work Session - Regular Formal (routine business; set budget hearing) - Regular Work Session - Regular Formal (routine; budget hearing & adoption) - Special Work Session - Special Formal City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: September 17, 2013 To: Iowa City Council From: Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attorney Re: Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District In June of this year some Council members and City staff received an email from Larry Baker regarding the United States Supreme Court's recent decision in Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, 133 S.Ct. 2586 (2013). The email included an article regarding the Koontz decision entitled "A Legal Blow to Sustainable Development." A copy of Mr. Baker's email is attached. At Council's request, this memo will provide a brief summary of the case. The Koontz case involved the denial of a permit to develop wetlands by the St. Johns River Water Management District (District), which, consistent with Florida law, requires permit applicants wishing to build on wetlands to offset the resulting environmental damage. Koontz offered to mitigate the environmental effects of his development proposal by deeding to the District a conservation easement on nearly three quarters of his property. The District rejected Koontz's proposal and informed him that it would approve construction only if he either reduced the size of his development and increased the conservation easement or paid for off -site mitigation. Believing the District's demands to be excessive in light of the environmental effects his proposal would have caused, Koontz filed suit for money damages alleging the District had taken his property without just compensation. The issues in the case were whether the Nollan and Dolan requirements are applicable when a permit is denied as opposed to being granted with conditions and whether they are applicable when the government's demand is for money as opposed to an interest in property. The Nollan and Dolan requirements arose from two earlier U.S. Supreme Court decisions which held that the government may not condition the approval of a land use permit on the owner's relinquishment of a portion of his property unless there is nexus and rough proportionality between the government's demand and the effects of the proposed land use. See Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n, 483 U. S. 825 (1987), and Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U. S. 374 (1994). In a 5 -4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held: 1) The government's demand for property from a land -use permit applicant must satisfy the NollanlDolan requirements even when the permit is denied as to hold otherwise would allow the government to evade the Nollan /Dolan requirements simply by phrasing its demands for property as conditions precedent; and, 2) The government's demand for property from a land -use permit applicant must satisfy the Nollan /Dolan requirements when the demand for money burdens the ownership of a particular parcel of land. The Court dismissed the Florida Supreme Court's determination that the Takings Clause could not be violated when no property was actually taken by reasoning that extortionate demands for property or money in the land -use permitting context run afoul of the Takings Clause not because they take property but because they September 17, 2013 Page 2 impermissibly burden the right not to have property taken or money exacted without just compensation. There is a vigorous dissent in the case which criticizes the majority, in part, for providing no guidance in distinguishing impermissible land -use exactions from property taxes and user fees and argues that the majority's decision heightens the concern of some observers that Nollan and Dolan may incline some local governments to simply deny applications outright, rather than negotiate agreements that could work to both sides' advantage. There has been various commentary since the Supreme Court's decision with some opining that this case constitutes "a legal blow to sustainable development" by restricting the ability of a regulatory body to require mitigation payments from developers and broadening property owners' right to sue. While the Koontz decision broadens those governmental decisions that will be subject to scrutiny under the federal constitution's Takings Clause as "per se" takings, it will have a negligible effect on the City's approach to land use regulation. Regardless of the nature of the decision and what is being exacted, as City staff addresses development applications, the "nexus" and "rough proportionality" standards are always kept in mind and openly discussed, i.e. is there is a "nexus" between the exaction and the societal need(s) created by the development (Nolan standard) and does the exaction bear a "rough proportionality" to the impacts created (Dolan standard). With respect to user fees, permit fees and other monetary exactions, Iowa cities do not have the power to impose a tax unless authorized by the State. Therefore, in addition to the takings analysis the City must always analyze its fees to ensure that they are reasonably related to the cost of providing the service or the benefit to, or burden imposed by, the development. See Koontz, id. at 2602 (noting that numerous State Courts already apply Nolan and Dolan type standards to monetary exactions) Please give me a call if you have questions. cc: Tom Markus, City Manager Geoff Fruin, Ass't to City Manager Marian Karr, City Clerk Jeff Davidson, PCD Director Eleanor M. Dilkes Subject: FW: did you hear about this SCOTUS land -use decision From: Larry Baker [mailto:flamingo @avalon.net] Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 2:19 PM To: Richard Dobyns; Michelle Payne; Matthew J. Hayek; James Throgmorton; Sarah Walz; Julie Tallman Subject: did you hear about this SCOTUS land -use decision Op -Ed Contributor A Legal Blow to Sustainable Development By JOHN A ECHEVERRIA STRAFFORD, Vt. — LOST amid the Supreme Court's high - profile decisions on affirmative action, voting rights and same -sex marriage was another ruling that may turn out to have a profound impact on American society. The court handed down a decision on Tuesday that, in the words of Justice Elena Kagan, will "work a revolution in land -use law." While that may sound obscure, the decision in Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District will result in long- lasting harm to America's communities. That's because the ruling creates a perverse incentive for municipal governments to reject applications from developers rather than attempt to negotiate project designs that might advance both public and private goals — and it makes it hard for communities to get property owners to pay to mitigate any environmental damage they may cause. The court's 5 -to -4 decision, with Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. writing for the majority, arose from an order issued by a Florida water management district denying an application by Coy A. Koontz Sr. to fill more than three acres of wetlands in order to build a small shopping center. The district made clear that it was willing to grant the permit if Mr. Koontz agreed to reduce the size of the development or spend money on any of a variety of wetlands- restoration projects designed to offset the project's environmental effects. Because Mr. Koontz declined to pursue any of these options, the district denied the permit. Mr. Koontz, who is now deceased, went to court and claimed that the permit denial constituted a "taking" under two Supreme Court precedents, Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard. These cases established that when the government approved a development subject to certain conditions, like a requirement that a developer dedicate an easement to the public, the conditions would be deemed an appropriation of private property unless the government could show a logical relationship and a "rough proportionality" between the conditions imposed and the projected effects of the development. The Florida Supreme Court rejected Mr. Koontz's takings argument on two grounds. First, it interpreted Nollan and Dolan as being limited to cases in which the government has issued a permit subject to a condition — not in those in which a permit has been denied. Second, it ruled that Nollan and Dolan applied only when the government's condition took an interest in some tangible property (like demanding an easement, for example), not when a government imposed a generalized requirement on someone to spend money. 1 In what can fairly be described as a blockbuster decision, the Supreme Court has reversed the Florida court on both points. Leaving the majority's legal reasoning aside, the Supreme Court's ruling is likely to do some serious real -world damage. As Justice Kagan correctly explains in her dissent, the decision will very likely encourage local government officials to avoid any discussion with developers related to permit conditions that, in the end, might have let both sides find common ground on building projects that are good for the community and environmentally sound. Rather than risk a lawsuit through an attempt at compromise, many municipalities will simply reject development applications outright — or, worse, accept development plans they shouldn't. "Nothing in the Takings Clause requires that folly," Justice Kagan said. But arguably it does now. As for the second part of the majority's ruling, that Nollan and Dolan apply to permit conditions requiring the general expenditure of money, that will also have unfortunate consequences. Cities and towns across America routinely attach fees and other payment obligations to permits, for example, to support wetlands mitigation banks, to finance roads, to pay for new schools or to build affordable housing. While, to be sure, such mandates must be reasonable under the Constitution, the revolutionary and destructive step taken by the court in Koontz is to cast the burden on the government to justify the mandates according to the heightened Nollan -Dolan standard. This is contrary to the traditional court approach of according deference to elected officials and technical experts on issues of regulatory policy. Moreover, this heightened standard will result in a huge number of costly legal challenges to local regulations. Consider the challenges of waste disposal. Many communities impose development- impact fees on developers if a proposed project would require expanding waste - disposal sites or building new ones. Before Koontz, a developer could raise a constitutional challenge if the charges were unreasonable, but judges typically deferred to local governments in such cases. After Koontz, developers have a potent new legal tool to challenge such charges because now the legal burden of demonstrating their validity is on the communities themselves. In the wake of this under - the -radar ruling, the cost of protecting a community from a harmful building project now lies not with the developer but with the local residents and taxpayers. It's hard to fathom that the framers of the Constitution would call this either fairness or justice. ��� CITY OF IOWA CITY ��� -� MEMORANDUM IP9 - --- Date: October 8, 2013 To: Tom Markus, City Manager From: Geoff Fruin, Assistant to the City Manager Re: The '21 Ordinance' and Related Public Safety Information On November 5th, 2013 Iowa City voters will decide whether or not to repeal Ordinance No. 10- 4388, which amended the bar entry age from nineteen (19) years of age to the "legal age ", which is currently twenty -one (21) years. It is common for cities to provide relevant information to voters prior to such a ballot issue. In this case, staff felt it was important to share public safety trends that our Police and Fire Department have experienced in the time immediately before and after the implementation of the ordinance in question. In order to provide the most meaningful data, staff used a timeframe that looks at data from three years prior to implementation of the ordinance, as well as three years after the new law took effect. It is important to note that this timeframe is not typically used for reporting purposes and thus some of the numbers may vary from previously reported statistics that were based on calendar years or fiscal years. Similarly, the type of data (calls for service vs. arrests) and the geography at which the data is reported (University Impact Area vs. police beats) will impact the numbers relative to those that have been previously reported. I I CITY OF IOWA CITY 21 Ordinance; Public Safety Trends On April 6, 2010 the City Council passed an ordinance (Ord. # 10 -4388 a /k /a "21 ordinance ") prohibiting a person under the legal drinking age of 21 from being on the premises of any Iowa City establishment holding a liquor control license, or a wine or beer permit, which allows on premises consumption, between the hours of 10:00 p.m. to closing. Prior to the passage of the 21 ordinance only persons under the age of 19 were prohibited from being in such establishments. The 21 ordinance took effect on June 1, 2010. Exceptions to the ordinance include: 1. The person is accompanied by a parent, guardian, spouse or domestic partner registered as such under City Code Section 2 -6 -3 who is the legal age or older; 2. The person is an employee of the establishment or performing a contracted service with respect to the establishment and is on premises during his or her scheduled work hours; 3. The establishment has demonstrated that its primary purpose is not the sale of alcohol and has received and posted an exception certificate; and 4. The establishment has demonstrated that it is an "entertainment venue" as defined by the City Code and has received and posted an exception certificate. A referendum petition was filed pursuant to Article VII of the Iowa City Home Rule Charter seeking to repeal Ord. # 10 -4388 and amend the bar entry age to 19 after 10:00 p.m. The petition was certified sufficient by the City Clerk on June 29, 2013. The Charter requires Council "act" on the referendum petition by either repealing the Ordinance or submitting the question to the voters. On August 6th the City Council endorsed the current ordinance and forwarded the question to the Johnson County Auditor for the city election on November 5, 2013. Therefore, in addition to voting for three Council seats on November 5 the ballot will contain the following question: Shall the following public measure be adopted? Yes No Be it resolved that Ordinance No. 10 -4388, which amended the bar entry age from nineteen (19) years of age to the "legal age ", which is currently twenty -one (21) years of age be repealed. A vote "Yes" would change the current law to allow persons who are 19 and 20 to be in an establishment whose primary purpose is the sale and consumption of alcohol after 10:00 p.m. A vote "No" would retain present law prohibiting a person under the legal drinking age of 21 from being in an establishment whose primary purpose is the sale and consumption of alcohol after 10:00 p.m. October 9, 2013 Page 2 The City of Iowa City releases the following public safety information highlighting changes in trends associated with the time period before and after the passage of the 21 ordinance. The data includes trends related to police calls for service and medical responses by the Iowa City Fire Department. Chart A Chart A highlights city -wide police calls for service often associated with alcohol. The time period presented in this table is three years prior to the effective date of the 21- ordinance and three years following the effective date of the ordinance. Calls for service include requests from the general public as well as police officer initiated responses; it does not necessarily indicate a citation was issued. Chart B Chart B highlights the University Impact Area police calls for service often associated with alcohol. The University Impact Area is a defined boundary which includes Downtown Iowa City (see map below). The time period presented in this table is three years prior to the effective date of the ordinance and three years following the effective date of the ordinance. Calls for service include requests from the general public as well as police officer initiated responses; it does not necessarily indicate a citation was issued. ' � r L- •rf� - � r ' „ r. a ' UNIVERSITY IMPACT AREA Chart C Chart C highlights the Iowa City Fire Department's medical response history to the downtown, off campus, and citywide areas between the hours of 10pm -3am. The time period presented in this table is three years prior to the effective date of the ordinance and three years following the effective date of the ordinance. If there are any questions about the data, please contact the City Manager's Office at 319 - 356 -5010. A City -Wide Police Department Calls For Service Before /After 21 -Only Ordinance (June 1, 2007 -May 31, 2010 vs. June 1, 2010 -May 31, 2013) Sexual Assault or Rape - Sexual Assault /Rape 4% -2 Burglary -5% -66 Burglary Assault -30% -268 Intoxicated Ped /Sub /Dri. -22% -239 Assault Criminal Mischief -17% -305 Theft +5% +144 Intoxicated driver /ped /subject Fight in Progress -13% -254 Disturbance /Loud Party -8% -393 Criminal Mischief TOTAL -9% -1,38 Theft Fight In Progress • Before Noise /Loud Party • After 0 2000 4000 6000 Calls for Service University Impact Area (see map pg. 5) Police Department Calls For Service Before /After 21 -Only Ordinance B (June 1, 2007 -May 31, 2010 vs. June 1, 2010 -May 31, 2013) Sexual Assault or Rape Impact Sexual Assault /Rape -42% -11 Burglary Burglary -19% -125 Assault -42% -178 Assault Intoxicated Ped /Sub /Dri. -36% -229 Criminal Mischief -32% -261 Intoxicated driver /ped /subject Theft +1% +8 Fight in Progress -39% -413 Disturbance /Loud Party -7% -195 Criminal Mischief TOTAL -19% -1,4( Theft Fight In Progress • Before Noise /Loud Party • After 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Calls for Service C0 Iowa City Fire Department Emergency Medical Response 10pm -3am Before /After 21 -Only Ordinance (June 1, 2007 -May 31, 2010 vs. June 1, 2010 -May 31, 2013) SoLirce Iowa City Fire Department- Locations RMZ21 (downtown), RMZ 11, and RMZ 16 (Off - campus) Location Incidents Percentage Change Downtown- Before July '07-June '08 106 DOWNTOWN July '08 -June '09 134 July '09-June '10 121 AVERAGE 127 23.6% Decrease Downtown -After July '10-June '11 92 July '11-June '12 102 July '12-June '13 102 AVERAGE 97 Off Campus - Before July '07-June '08 82 OFF - CAMPUS July '08-June '09 85 July '09-June '10 101 AVERAGE 93 1.1% Increase Off Campus -After July '10-June '11 90 July '11-June '12 99 July '12-June '13 102 AVERAGE 94 Citywide- Before July '07-June '08 463 CITY -WIDE July '08-June' 09 468 July '09-June '10 448 AVERAGE 459 9.3% Increase Citywide -After July '10-June '11 462 July '11-June '12 508 July '12-June '13 537 AVERAGE 502 SoLirce Iowa City Fire Department- Locations RMZ21 (downtown), RMZ 11, and RMZ 16 (Off - campus) J 15 S RIVE N o R\vERb" K - -> _'T� z; °Lza z z _Vo ITI- - -� cl r © v h M • i 7 V i — - 3nV Z Q -. M '- a O - ,I ...,�. 3AVVb_ EA J — l >U ¢ 5 iN w 1 I OP 1S 3P n O S I_�J9 O U 3d - _dSI -._ I �15 3a0VWOASIE r SUNSET ST 0 - a �, ° w I w w > al 0 o o- F r - -- - - � �`� l -__ ° w SWMM�IT ST -- 'Z� SJ� ° a 1S?JONa3AOO N -- _ 1S SV00lS� T 1S HI1H03.y '� 0Q%r HORN diJb `OO_� O r nw 30000 'u � W w 0001 oil n � NHOf w - Q o = L � O ¢ J 15 S a x 6 co RIVE SIDE DR R\vERb" K Q r © v h M p NS DR '- O - W LN- SUNSET ST s` p O HORN Q L - N D � I i �015153M J U N N N > E, 0 OW 18 H3a1 NOW -I v � -Up c m v U W N3a1 NO r r N 2 a x 6 co !&ts � CITY OF IOWA CITY iP1p ,:.� MEMORANDUM Date: October 9, 2013 To: Tom Markus, City Manager From: Jeff Davidson, Director of Planning Re: Parking requirements for 820 S. Riverside Drive (Staples) At the October 1, City Council meeting a concern was raised about the amount of parking and thus paving in front of the Staples store at 820 S. Riverside Drive. The zoning code requires 1 parking space per 300 square feet of floor area for retail uses. For the Staples property 78 parking spaces are required. The developer chose to install an additional 31 parking space (40% more parking than required by code) for a total of 109 parking spaces. INN 2 C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Business Name Occupancy (occupancy loads last updated Oct 2008) = University of Iowa Monthlv Totals Bar Checks Under2l PAULA Prev 12 Month Totals Bar Checks Under2l PAULA Under2l PAULA Ratio Ratio (Prev 12 Mo) (Prev 12 Moll 2 Dogs Pub 120 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 Airliner 223 5 0 0 101 7 14 0.0693069 0.1386139 Airliner 223 3 0 0 101 7 14 0.0693069 0.1386139 American Legion 140 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 Atlas World Grill 165 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Baroncini- 0 0 0 Basta 176 2 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 Blackstone- 297 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 Blue Moose- 436 3 0 0 162 22 4 0.1358025 0.0246914 Bluebird Diner 82 0 0 0 Bob's Your Uncle *� 260 0 0 0 Bo -James 200 1 0 0 127 8 0 0.0629921 0 Bo -James 200 4 2 0 127 8 0 0.0629921 0 Bread Garden Market & Bakery ^ 0 0 0 Brix 0 0 0 Brothers Bar & Grill, [It's] 556 9 6 2 391 75 56 0.1918159 0.1432225 Brothers Bar & Grill, [It's] 556 10 0 4 391 75 56 0.1918159 0.1432225 Brown Bottle, [The]- 289 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Buffalo Wild Wings Grill & Bar- 189 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 Cactus Mexican Grill 0 0 0 Caliente Night Club 498 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 Carl & Ernie's Pub & Grill 92 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 Carlos O'Kelly's- 299 0 0 0 Chili Yummy Yummy Chili 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 Chipotle Mexican Grill 119 0 0 0 Clarion Highlander Hotel 0 0 0 Tuesday, October 08, 2013 Page 1 of 5 W E C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C E C C C C C Business Name Occupancy (occupancy loads last updated Oct 2008) = University of Iowa Monthly Totals Bar Checks Under2l PAULA Prev 12 Month Totals Bar Checks Under2l PAULA Under2l PAULA Ratio Ratio (Prev 12 Mo) (Prev 12 Mo) Clinton St Social Club 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 Club Car, [The] 56 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 Coach's Corner 160 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 Colonial Lanes- 502 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Dave's Foxhead Tavern 87 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 DC's 120 4 2 0 326 90 18 0.2760736 0.0552147 DC's 120 10 3 1 326 90 18 0.2760736 0.0552147 Deadwood, [The] 218 0 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 Devotay- 45 0 0 0 Donnelly's Pub 49 0 0 0 33 0 0 0 0 Dublin Underground, [The] 57 1 0 0 42 0 0 0 0 Eagle's, [Fraternal Order of] 315 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 El Banditos 25 0 0 0 El Cactus Mexican Cuisine 0 0 0 El Dorado Mexican Restaurant 104 0 0 0 El Ranchero Mexican Restaurant 161 0 0 0 Elks #590, [BPO] 205 0 0 0 Englert Theatre- 838 0 0 0 Fieldhouse 178 6 2 0 251 54 6 0.2151394 0.0239044 Fieldhouse 178 4 1 0 251 54 6 0.2151394 0.0239044 First Avenue Club- 280 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 Formosa Asian Cuisine- 149 0 0 0 Gabes- 261 1 0 0 36 2 0 0.0555556 0 George's Buffet 75 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 Givanni's- 158 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 (Godfather's Pizza- 170 0 0 0 Tuesday, October 08, 2013 Page 2 of 5 P C C C C C C C C C C C E E E E C C C E C C C E E C C Business Name Occupancy (occupancy loads last updated Oct 2008) = University of Iowa Monthlv Totals Bar Checks Under2l PAULA Prev 12 Month Totals Bar Checks Under2l PAULA Under2l PAULA Ratio Ratio (Prev 12 Mo) (Prev 12 Mo) Graze— 49 0 0 0 Grizzly's South Side Pub 265 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 Hilltop Lounge, [The] 90 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Howling Dogs Bistro 0 0 0 IC Ugly's 72 1 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 India Cafe 100 0 0 0 Iron Hawk— 0 0 0 50 2 12 0.04 0.24 Jimmy Jack's Rib Shack 71 0 0 0 Jobsite 120 0 0 0 13 1 0 0.0769231 0 Joe's Place 281 3 0 0 164 4 2 0.0243902 0.0121951 Joe's Place 281 1 0 0 164 4 2 0.0243902 0.0121951 Joseph's Steak House— 226 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Linn Street Cafe 80 0 0 0 I Los Portales 161 0 0 0 Martini's 200 3 0 0 237 32 5 0.1350211 0.0210970 Martini's 200 6 2 0 237 32 5 0.1350211 0.0210970 Masala 46 0 0 0 Mekong Restaurant— 89 0 0 0 Micky's— 98 0 0 0 121 0 2 0 0.0165289 (Mill Restaurant, [The]- 325 1 0 0 12 2 0 0.1666667 0 Moose, [Loyal Order of] 476 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Motley Cow Cafe 82 0 0 0 Noodles & Company— 0 0 0 Okoboji Grill— 222 0 0 0 Old Capitol Brew Works 294 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 10ne- Twenty -Six 105 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 Tuesday, October 08, 2013 Page 3 of 5 Business Name Occupancy (occupancy loads last updated Oct 2008) F.Z�= University of Iowa Monthlv Totals Bar Checks Under2l PAULA Prev 12 Month Totals Bar Checks Under2l PAULA F-1 Orchard Green Restaurant- 200 0 0 0 0.2857143 0 0 ❑Oyama Sushi Japanese Restaurant 87 0 0 0 0 0 0 ❑ Pagliai's Pizza- 113 0 0 0 0.0867769 0.2272727 0.0867769 ❑ Panchero's (Clinton St)- 62 0 0 0 8 0 0 ❑ Panchero's Grill (Riverside Dr)- 95 0 0 0 ❑V- Pints 180 4 0 0 218 17 8 ❑ Pints 180 9 0 1 218 17 8 ❑ Pit Smokehouse- 40 0 0 0 F-1 Pizza Hut- 116 0 0 0 ❑Players 114 2 9 2 7 19 2 ❑Quinton's Bar & Deli 149 0 0 0 19 0 0 ❑ Rice Village 0 0 0 ❑Ridge Pub 0 0 0 ❑ Riverside Theatre- 118 0 0 0 ❑Saloon 120 0 0 0 16 0 0 ❑Sam's Pizza- 174 0 0 0 7 0 4 ❑Sanctuary Restaurant, [The] 132 0 0 0 1 0 0 ❑Shakespeare's 90 0 0 0 4 0 0 ❑ Sheraton 0 0 0 ❑Short's Burger & Shine- 56 0 0 0 23 0 0 El Short's Burger Eastside 0 0 0 ❑Sports Column 400 4 0 2 242 55 21 ❑I Sports Column 400 3 0 2 242 55 21 ❑Studio 13 206 2 0 0 140 6 0 OStudio 13 206 5 0 0 140 6 0 ❑Summit. [The] 736 2 0 0 226 33 31 Under2l PAULA Ratio Ratio (Prev 12 Mo) I (Prev 12 Mo) 0 0 0.0779817 0.0366972 0.0779817 0.0366972 2.7142857 0.2857143 0 0 0 0 0 0.5714286 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2272727 0.0867769 0.2272727 0.0867769 0.0428571 0 0.0428571 0 0.1460177 I 0.1371681 Tuesday, October 08, 2013 Page 4 of 5 * includes outdoor seating area exception to 21 ordinance Tuesday, October 08, 2013 Page 5 of 5 ry H t�1 i T, IOWA Business Name Occupancy Monthly Totals Prev 12 Month Totals Under2l PAULA (occupancy loads last updated Oct 2008) FV] = University of Iowa Bar Checks Under2l PAULA Bar Checks Under2l PAULA Ratio Ratio (Prev 12 Mo) (Prev 12 Mo) W, Summit. [The] 736 7 0 0 226 33 31 0.1460177 0.1371681 []Sushi Popo 84 0 0 0 ❑Szechuan House 0 0 0 ❑Takanami Restaurant— 148 0 0 0 ❑Taqueria Acapulco 0 0 0 ❑- T C B 250 1 0 0 111 5 0 0.0450450 0 ❑Thai Flavors 60 0 0 0 ❑Thai Spice 91 0 0 0 ❑Times Club @ Prairie Lights 60 0 0 0 ❑Trumpet Blossom Cafe 94 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 ❑Union Bar 854 10 0 19 262 58 53 0.2213740 0.2022901 F-/1 Union Bar 854 6 3 0 262 58 53 0.2213740 0.2022901 ❑ VFW Post #3949 197 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 ❑Vine Tavern, [The] 170 2 0 0 66 10 11 0.1515152 0.1666667 VIVine Tavern, [The] 170 3 0 2 66 10 11 0.1515152 0.1666667 ❑ Wig & Pen Pizza Pub- 154 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 ❑/ Yacht Club, [Iowa City]— 206 2 0 0 66 4 0 0.0606061 0 El Yen Ching 0 0 0 ❑Z'Mariks Noodle House 47 0 0 0 140 30 35 6447 955 475 0.1481309 0.0736777 Totals Off Premise 0 0 44 0 0 263 0 0 Grand Totals 79 738 * includes outdoor seating area exception to 21 ordinance Tuesday, October 08, 2013 Page 5 of 5 Board Chair Lynn Graves cuP rie Phelan Honorary Board Member Lt Governor Kim Reynolds Board Members Elizabeth Baustian Allen Bean Beth Canuteson Sue Cheek Senator Bill Dotzler Debi Durham Beverly Flores Jason Glass Jeri Le Henry Jerald Keene Greg Kopp Gail Kotval Cathy Krieger Tracy Lewis Representative Pat Murphy Deon Pitsor Dr. Ralph Plagman Michael Sadler Joel Schmidt Kirk Tyler Dee Vanderhoef Jay Venenga Teresa Wahlert Senator Brad Zaun UAG 400 E 14`h St Des Moines, IA 50319 Office: 515-242-5617 Fax: 515-242-5618 www.liag.org IP12 September 12, 2013 Tom Marcus, City Manager City of Iowa City, Iowa 410 E Washington St Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Tom, Thank you for considering a request for $10,000 to support the implementation of UAG, Iowa's number one Dropout Prevention and Workforce Development Program. With your support UAG will help increase graduation rates and assure struggling students continue their education beyond high school and /or enter the workforce in meaningful employment. City High will have the first UAG program in Iowa City, however more programs are under consideration and will require additional community support. UAG is working with the Iowa City School District to establish UAG 9 -12 grade programs overtime at each of the high schools and potentially drop into the middle school. Your consideration of supporting the programs growth at the $10,000 level per new site start-up in the district would be greatly appreciated. For the 2013 -14 school year, thank you for your thoughtful review of this $10,000 request. We would like to host you in the UAG classroom later this school year and provide you an opportunity to visit directly with students regarding the value of the program. Thank you again. If there are any questions, please contact Dee Vanderhoff at 319.351.6872 or me at 515.201.6111. Sincerely, L urie Phelan UAG President /CEO cc Wendy Ford, Iowa City Economic Development Coordinator October 3, 2013 IJAG Attention: Laurie Phelan, CEO 400 E. 14th Street Des Moines, IA 50319 Re: Aid to Agencies -IJAG Dear Ms. Phelan, Thank you for your letter dated September 12, 2013 regarding IJAG's request for funding from the City of Iowa City. Also, thank you for meeting with me personally when we last met in Iowa City (July ?). What you presented regarding IJAG appears to have made an impact in surrounding communities and has strong potential to help the Iowa City community. As suggested from our meeting, the City provides funding to organizations through the City of Iowa City's Aid to Agency process. This process ensures that organizations receive fair consideration during the course of the fiscal year. As I understand it, after our meeting, you briefly met with Tracy Hightshoe, the City's representative for the Aid to Agencies process. It appears, in light of that meeting, there may have been some confusion regarding the applicability of funds for your program and thus you did not submit an application to receive funds. While the application process is closed and will not reopen until next summer for the following year, I highly encourage you to contact Ms. Hightshoe to clarify any misunderstanding that may exist. Tracey can be reached at 319 - 356 -5244 or via email at traceyhightshoe .iowa- city.org. I or someone from my office would be happy to participate in that conversation. The only other funding source available to IJAG would be through the City Council's General Fund. As the City's fiscal year begins July 1, the Council's fiscal year budget is already adopted. We will share your information with our Finance Director so that you may be considered for the fiscal year budget starting July 1, 2014. The City of Iowa City is proud to be an investor in the many non - profit organizations throughout the community and we. are excited to continue our strong commitment in that area. Very Sincerely, Tom Markus City Manager City of Iowa City CC: Tracey Hightshoe, Planner Dennis Bockenstedt, Finance Director City Council CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 -1826 (3 19) 356 -5000 (319) 356 -5009 FAX www, icgov. org October 3, 2013 TO: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council RE: Civil Service Entrance Examination — Maintenance Worker II — Wastewater Treatment Under the authority of the Civil Service Commission of Iowa City, Iowa, I do hereby certify the following named person(s) as eligible for the position of Maintenance Worker II — Wastewater Treatment. Ethan Krob IOWA CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION Lyra W. Dickerson, Chair IP14 � r j �a.arle._ CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 -1826 (319) 356 -5000 (3 19) 356 -5009 FAX www. icgov. org October 4, 2013 TO: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council RE: Civil Service Entrance Examination — Water Engineer Under the authority of the Civil Service Commission of Iowa City, Iowa, I do hereby certify the following named person(s) as eligible for the position of Water Engineer. Chris Parizek IOWA CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION Lyra . Dickerson, Chair CITY OF IOWA CITY IP15 -� MEMORANDUM Date: October 7, 2013 To: Mayor and City Council From: Marian K Karr, City Clerk Re: Human Rights Breakfast Please let me know if you are interested in attending the breakfast on October 24th at the Sheraton. Submit the name of a person, organization /business or both, who has made a significant impact in this community or abroad to human rights. Nomination forms are available at: www.icgov.org /humanrights Nominations due by October 14th at 4:30 pm! T O O N O p O G w 3 P. m s o v � Z v 6 Oo 3 ^ m z m m d - a= v � .. v m ma u a W b N 3 W - � A 3 a v n rD rD 0- oa) N (D �: M. rD :3 N ao o o�7 lu rD M 0� 0 a o 3 rD c r* �o ZT r ZTn N r+ rD 3 'Y C rD � fD O � o S < N �D O o 3 N N N O 7 4 VIII M"Tr?r;r� IP17 CONFERENCE ON RACIALJUSTICE 5 DISPROPORTIONATE MINORITY INCARCERATION OCTOBER 179 2113 1 OAM 3PM LINDQUIST CENTER JONES COMMON ROOM zoo SOUTH MADISON, UNIVERSITY OF IOWA CAMPUS SPEAKERS INCLUDEN ADRIEN WING, University of Iowa College of Law Bessie Dutton Murray Professor & Executive Director of the University of Iowa Center for Human Rights BEN STONE, Executive Director American Civil Liberties Union -Iowa WAYNE FORD, Former State Legislator and Current Chair of Iowa Juvenile Justice Advisory Council's Disproportionate Minority Contact Committee This event is free and open to the public please register by emailing humanrights @iowa - city.org Sponsored by: City of Iowa City Human Rights Commission, University of Iowa Center for Human Rights, Johnson County Disproportionate Minority Contact Committee, Consultation of Religious Communities, Teacher Leader Center - University of Iowa, Coalition for Racial Justice and ACLU -Iowa Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to attend all University of Iowa sponsored events. If you are a person with a disability who requires an accommodation in order to participate in this program please call 335 -0463 in advance. l Marian Karr From: City of Iowa City <webmaster©iowa-city.org> Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 11:06 AM To: Marian Karr Subject: City again receives national Distinguished Budget Presentation Award Iowa City, Iowa Media Release Contact: Dennis Bockenstedt Contact Phone: (319) 356-5053 City again receives national Distinguished Budget Presentation Award Issued by: Communications Office Mailing List(s):General City News Originally Posted 10/15/2013 11:05:59 AM City of Iowa City Finance Director Dennis Bockenstedt has been notified that for the second consecutive year, the City's Finance Department has been awarded the national Distinguished Budget Presentation Award by the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA). The award, which is the highest form of recognition in governmental budgeting, recognizes the City's 2013-14 budget, which took effect July 1, 2013. The City also won the award in 2012, after a nearly 20-year hiatus in which a budget document was not submitted for consideration. The GFOA notes that this award represents significant achievement and a commitment to meeting the highest principles of governmental budgeting. To receive the budget award, the City had to satisfy nationally recognized guidelines for effective budget presentation which assessed the budget's effectiveness in four categories: as a policy document, financial plan, operations guide, and communications device. As part of the review, budget documents must be rated highly in all four of these categories, as well as the 14 mandatory criteria within those categories. The City's budget was scored by three different reviewers, and in each area of consideration received one of the two highest rankings: "outstanding" or"proficient." The Government Finance Officers Association is a nonprofit professional association serving over 17,500 government finance professionals throughout North America. For the last fiscal period, 1,340 entities were expected to receive the Distinguished Budget Presentation award. To view a copy of the City's 2013-14 budget, visit www.icgov.org/budget. For more information, contact Dennis Bockenstedt at 319/356-5053 or e-mail dennis-bockenstedt @iowa-city.orq. View this article on the ICGov Web Site: http://www.icgov.orq/apps/news/?newslD=9147 This media release was sent to:marian-karr(o)iowa-city.orq Do not reply directly to this e-mail! It is produced from an automated system, and is not monitored for replies. If you have a question or comment about this information,please contact the individual(s)listed in the release. • Unsubscribe or edit your subscription details. • Visit our lobs page for employment opportunities. • View more news from the City of Iowa City. 1 10-10-13 IP18 MINUTES PRELIMINARY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 18, 2013 — 5:15 PM CITY HALL, EMMA HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, Gene Chrischilles, Connie Goeb, Brock Grenis, Becky Soglin MEMBERS ABSENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Julie Tallman, Sarah Holecek, Bailee McClellan OTHERS PRESENT: Gerry Denning, Jim Affeldt, Jennifer Baum, Mike Hartley, Adam Brantman, Mike Manville 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 AUGUST 21, 2013 MEETING MINUTES Chrischilles moved to approve. Soglin seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion carried 5 -0. SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS APL13- 00001: Discussion of an application submitted by TSB Holdings LLC appealing a decision made by City of Iowa City's Development and Regulations Specialist for denial of a site plan at 902 & 906 N. Dodge Street & 911 N. Governor Street. Walz reminded the Board that at their last meeting, they had voted to have outside counsel to assist them with this agenda item, and Mr. Denning was in attendance to serve as counsel. She said during the last meeting there was an error where it was stated "denial of a building permit" when it was actually meant to be "denial of a site plan. She said she sent to all the Board members a series of email exchanges between her and the appellant at his request. Board of Adjustment September 18, 2013 Page 2 of 13 Gerry Denning introduced himself as an attorney primarily practicing in Muscatine County. He said he received a call from the City of Iowa City's Attorneys' office to serve on this case. He said he listened to the recording of the Board's last meeting and looked at the minutes as well as researched as much as he could of the history of this case. He said he prepared a legal overview of the questions the Board had at their last meeting. He said he wants to provide legal advice and guidance but not to try to steer the Board in any particular direction. Walz said there were two issues for the Board to consider. She said in the first staff report it said that Mr. Barkalow's appeal was not filed in a timely manner, so the Board needs to render a decision about timeliness. Secondly, the appellant is arguing that he's entitled to the R3 -13 zoning. She explained the site plan process and said that the first site plan is rarely accepted because an applicant would be permanently altering the land, so everything has to be legal and that the applicant has to abide by all the zoning regulations and any other requirements. She said the staff has twenty -one days to review and deny, review and approve, or review and approve it with some changes. Chrischilles asked when the clock starts regarding an ability to appeal the staff's decision. Walz said if a site plan is denied, the applicant has thirty days from the point that site plan is denied to file an appeal based on the reason for denial. She said bringing in a new site plan restarts the appeal clock unless the plan is unchanged. Otherwise an applicant could just continually reset the clock by submitting a plan with same error. Walz said in the information she provided to the Board it explains that once a moratorium is issued, in this case on January 22, 2013, everything comes to a stop, unless something is in the ground and already being built. She said in this case the City Council rezoned the subject property, so anything that was in review or anything not in the ground would then have to abide by the proposed rezoning. Walz said the appellant had submitted two site plans prior to the moratorium that didn't meet with all requirements. She said all staff is required to abide by City Council's decision so Julie Tallman reviewed the subsequent plans based on the RS -12 zoning and rejected them because multifamily buildings are not allowed in the RS -12 zone or in the, at that time, CO -1 zone. She said it is incumbent upon the appellant to show that Tallman's decision was in error. Baker said he wants to make sure he understands the process of denial in regard to those earlier applications submitted under the R313 zone. He asked Tallman if the conditions are a negotiable part of the process. Tallman said they aren't except in the case of very old utilities that have been abandoned. Baker asked how often she denies initial site plans. Tallman said in the seventeen years that she's been looking at site plans, she has approved one on first submittal. Baker asked how many of the site plans not approved on the first submittal have been appealed. Tallman said this is the only time she's been involved in an appeal. Baker asked her about the plans submitted in January and the fact that they were denied because no required information was provided yet many of the boxes on the check list were checked. Tallman said the check list was completed by the applicant, and it may have been that there was a north arrow on the plan, but she recalls the rest of the submittal being very sketchy, and it was not enough to review. Board of Adjustment September 18, 2013 Page 3 of 13 Chrischilles asked if the applicant is appealing that the property should be zoned R3 -13 right now. Walz said he did indicate that any error made in issues such as information required, among other things. She said he believes the R3 -13 zoning is still valid. Baker said the Board's confusion at the last meeting came when they found out about these January applications when the R3 -B zoning was still in effect. Chrischilles said what they didn't know at their last meeting was that the two earlier submittals were denied. Soglin said the decision the applicant is appealing is the one made by Tallman on April 29, 2013. She said the remedy he desires is that the site plan he submitted on April 181h and dated April 19th be revisited. She said as she sees it, the January cases are not material to the Board's decision. She said she thinks the Board's decision is whether the April 18th plan was materially identical to the earlier plan. She said the Board makes that judgment and based on that, they don't render any decision if the 30 day deadline is missed or they decide if Tallman made an error in denying. Soglin asked Denning if she is correct in this thinking. Denning responded that Soglin is essentially right, but that there are bigger legal issues that surround this situation. He said he has identified four major issues. He said the first is the rezoning and the site plan. He said the rezoning is in District Court and asked if that removes the Board's jurisdiction completely. He said his inclination is to say that it doesn't because the site plan application is still ongoing. He said he gathers that one of the concerns of the appellant is exhaustion of administrative remedies, and how will he be able to do that if the Board says that they have no power. Denning said that even though the rezoning is in District Court, the site plan is still in front of the Board. Denning said the second issue is, with the site plan is :front of the Board, where are their powers defined? He read from a relevant portion of the Iowa Code Chapter 414.12 which says that this Board can decide administrative appeals. He said Tallman did make an administrative decision on the April application, and it was appealed. Chrischilles said the way he reads that is after the appellant's initial appeal application he didn't appeal it on the basis of timeliness but rather on the basis of the Iowa Supreme Court decision, and that Court's decision was only valid until the moratorium went into play. Denning said he would like to come back later to the timeliness argument. Denning said if the Board can go past the timeliness argument then they have reached the merits of the case, i.e., is the site plan denial correct or not? He said to him the salient point on that is effective March 28, 2013, the City Council rezoned this area to RS -12. He said the presumption of legality is the important thing here. He said the City Council rezoned this, and the Board must presume they were correct until a court says otherwise. He said if the Board can "reach the merits ", the question they have is if the site plan, which calls for approximately sixty units, possibly be permitted given RS -12. Denning said he believes that Barkalow wants to say that the Board is in effect like a district court in dealing with the precedent set by the Supreme Court, and it's not. Denning said the timeliness issue may never let the Board get to the merits. Goeb asked how the timeliness issue related to the moratorium. Denning said two of the January site plans were before the moratorium started on January 22, 2013. He said because those plans were never appealed, those plans are done. He said the January 23`d and April 18th Board of Adjustment September 18, 2013 Page 4 of 13 site plan submissions both had far too many units for what is allowed in the RS -12. He said the appellant will argue that the Supreme Court decision governs the Board. He said he disagrees because he feels that question is not for this Board but for the district court. Baker said that after the last meeting the Board wasn't sure what the issue was to be decided or if they were the ones to decide it. Denning said if the Board can get past timeliness and reach the merits, one issue the Board needs to keep in mind is presumption that the City Council did the legal thing. Baker asked if the January applications are irrelevant to this decision. Denning said he thinks the first two are. Grenis invited the applicant to speak. Jim Affeldt said he is here representing Mr. Barkalow: He said they are not asking the Board to void the City ordinance or void anything City Council has done. He said they are here tonight about the denial of the site plan. He gave the Board a history of the property and the legal decisions rendered. He said what the Supreme Court said was that this property was to be retained at R3 -B, and the City is enjoined from doing anything to prohibit that. He said they are asking the Board to look at the City ordinance and the Supreme Court decision together and determine whether the City staff made a correct decision in rezoning the property. Affeldt said the City has a remedy in that they can try and get the injunction lifted. Chrischilles asked what would happen if they did that. Affeldt said it would dissolve the injunction. Chrischilles asked if it would change the zoning back to what it was. Affeldt said it would still be zoned R3 -B and lift the restriction on the City where the decision said it can't limit Barkalow's use of the property in a manner other than what would have been allowed under R3 -B. Baker asked if it's true that Barkalow bought the property in March of 2012 and was notified in August of 2012 that the City intended to rezone in the future. He asked if Barkalow requested that his January applications be reviewed under the R3 -B standards. Walz said he did on at least one of them. Baker said the application was still denied because regardless of the zoning there are still rules that have to be complied with. Baker asked Affeldt what specific thing City staff did that they are asking to be overturned. Affeldt said the denial of the April site plan. Baker said when the April site plan was denied was it Affeldt's understanding that no appeal was filed within thirty days of that. Affeldt said it was his understanding that it was filed within thirty days. He said the application was filed on the 18th, it was denied on the 29th and the appeal was filed on May 24th. Baker asked if that appeal was based on the presumption that it be evaluated on the R3 -B zone. Affeldt said that was correct. Affeldt said the City's right to rezone the property is not inconsistent with what the Supreme Court said. He said what the Supreme Court enjoined them from was doing something that would in any way affect adversely Barkalow's use of the property in a manner other than what would have been allowed under R3 -B. Baker asked if the Board were to agree with the applicant, is it Affeldt's understanding that they would be making a decision based on the underlying zoning, not the administrative process. Affeldt said he would disagree with that and said he doesn't believe the City ever had the right to do what they did. Baker asked if Affeldt wants the Board to make a decision saying that the City did not have the power to make that zoning change. Affeldt said they are appealing the administrative decision, not the rezoning. Baker asked if Affeldt agrees that this Board has no power to change a zoning decision: that's not the administrative decision the Board has some review over. Affeldt said he agreed that this Board does not have the right to change the zoning. Baker said but Affeldt wants the Board to Board of Adjustment September 18, 2013 Page 5 of 13 make the administrative change based upon the zoning. Affeldt said they don't challenge the Council's right to change the zoning, but they do challenge the City's right to limit the way Barkalow uses the property. Chrischilles said they did have the right to rezone the property that had been improved or had something built on it, which were two of the five lots. He said what they didn't have the right to do was rezone the three remaining ones. Affeldt said they had the right to rezone it, but they didn't have the right to restrict Barkalow's use of that property. Chrischilles argued that by rezoning it, they are restricting it, because it sets up new standards of what can be built on those three properties, and he doesn't think the Board has the power to nullify that. Chrischilles said he doesn't think this is a matter for the district court simply because the critical point is if the City had the right to rezone that property, and in his mind, everything beyond that is a moot point. Walz said the City clearly disagrees with Barkalow's attorney. She said she thinks what the Board is being asked is what a reasonable interpretation is — did Tallman make a reasonable interpretation that when City Council did this, it was her requirement as a City Administrator to follow the legislative process. Walz showed a map of the subject properties. She said prior to the RS -12 rezoning, the property on Governor Street was zoned CO -1 and had been for many years. The appellant had purchased the property after another property owner had failed in his attempts to change the property from CO -1 to a multi - family zone. She said that the failed rezoning of that property had prompted the City Council to undertake the larger study of the area. She indicated another parcel to the south of the established apartment complex was already RS -12. She said that the appellant was asking to go back beyond zoning that's been in place on these properties for more than ten years to get back to the R3 -B. She questioned whether staff could be reasonably expected to take such an action administratively. She said the history of these properties is complicated. She said when City Council went ahead with full knowledge of Barkalow's objections and chose to rezone the property, it was perfectly reasonable for Ms. Tallman to comply with the moratorium and the rezoning to RS -12. She said staff's view is that the rest is for the court to decide. Chrischilles said that's just where they started at the last meeting. Baker said what is being appealed is Tallman's authority to make that decision. He told Affeldt he's not sure what he wants the Board to do administratively in terms of that decision. Affeldt asked any lawyer present to disagree that an order once entered by the Supreme Court and then implemented by the district court have a time limit as to the enforceability of that order. He said he would also ask if once an injunction is ordered to be issued by the Supreme Court and by the district court does that go away or is it in place. He said he doesn't think that Tallman had the authority to make a decision, as it had already been made by the Supreme Court. Chrischilles said he doesn't agree with that. Baker said he's having a hard time seeing the Board making a decision based on the guidelines they have and the parameters they have to work within. He said he thinks that administratively, Tallman did what she was supposed to do as far as the merits of the application based upon the RS -12 zone. He said Affeldt might be right about the zoning issues in the long run, but he doesn't think the Board is in the position to legitimize that position here. Board of Adjustment September 18, 2013 Page 6 of 13 Denning said in his opinion, once the property was rezoned, Tallman had to follow that rezoning. He said Affeldt's argument that there's this over - riding injunction does not comport with the limited power of this Board to do that. He said this Board does not have the power to over -rule the rezoning by the City Council. Baker asked if they are obligated to have a formal decision. Denning said he thinks they have the power to rule on the appeal if they consider it timely. He said the Board must presume the Council was correct in the rezoning, and if they do that and it goes against Barkalow, and if he wishes to appeal whatever the Board decides, it will go to the district court and it's likely that the rezoning and this issue would all be joined together and be before a district judge and then that judge is going to pay much attention to the precedent issue. Baker said then it's better for the Board to vote yes or no to clean up one area of this process. Denning said it's somewhat helpful to Barkalow because he gets a decision that can be argued in court. He said they could just this once skip past the timeliness issue and go straight to the merits. Soglin asked how they could dismiss the timeliness issue and not set themselves up for a problem in future cases. Denning said the Board could make this one -time exception. He told the Board they could decide on timeliness or on merits. Chrischilles asked if the Board could refuse to make any ruling on this appeal. Denning said because the jurisdiction doesn't cut them off, he thinks they have an obligation to make a ruling on either timeliness or the merits. Chrischilles asked how to handle it if they decide this is a matter for district court and not for the Board. Denning said if the Board decided to waive the timeliness question and get to the merits, they would have to look at Tallman's decision of April 29th and they are required by the presumption of legality to assume that the March 28th rezoning is correct. Sarah Holecek from the City Attorney's office said she was speaking on behalf of staff. She said it's clear that City Staff does not have the authority to ignore the legislation that was correctly passed by City Council. She said if the Board's issue is that Tallman made an error in denying site plan based on RS -12 zoning, they need to remember that she didn't have the discretion not to do that. She said Affeldt is arguing that the site plan should go back to the court order, so the appellant had to follow the court order rather than the legislation of the Council. She said that's what's in district court, as to whether there was authority or not. She said Soglin was correct in not wanting to set a precedent by skipping the timeliness and going to the merits. She said the Board could say that for this particular issue the Board will suspend the rules and vote to do that. Denning said he leans toward the notion of the Board saying they are going to disregard timeliness in the circumstances of this case. Holecek said staff does want a decision on this. Chrischilles asked for clarification on the timeliness issue. Walz said she raised that issue because staff felt that if you have two site plans set apart by time that are being rejected for the very same thing, the appeal should have been raised with the first site plan. Soglin asked if Holecek's opinion is that it would be acceptable to suspend the timeliness issue and make the decision on the merits using some very distinct wording. Holecek said a decision on timeliness would be valuable for guiding future appeals. Board of Adjustment September 18, 2013 Page 7 of 13 Grenis opened public hearing. Jennifer Baum of 814 Dewey Street said she guesses that she's opposed to the appeal, but that she really doesn't understand anymore. She thanked the Board for their time and work. Affeldt said he thinks if they decide it on the timeliness issue they may be opening new areas they don't want to, as the word "materially" is not defined in the City Ordinance, and there's no provision in the Ordinance that restricts the refiling. Grenis closed public hearing. The Board was divided on what issue they should decide on. Baker moved that in the matter of APL13 -00001 to overturn the decision made by the City of Iowa City's Development and Regulations Specialist for denial of a site plan at 902 and 906 N. Dodge Street and 911 N. Governor Street, the appeal filed by TSB Holdings LLC. Chrischilles seconded. Baker said he suggests that they set aside the issue of timeliness as not being relevant to this particular case, and base this decision on the merits of the decision that the site plans do not conform to the regulations of RS -12 in place at the time. Grenis said he would agree that he would not vote to overturn it based on the merits that Tallman was making a decision based on the authority of City Council. Goeb asked if they didn't think the timeliness issue was the simplest way to exit this. Baker said he thinks timeliness would be the harder issue to defend for the reasons the applicant's attorney stated, but they are very clearly correct on the merits of the denial based upon the zoning that was in place at the time. Soglin said she thinks it's appropriate to put aside the timeliness issue based on the extremely complex history of the property, and the Board needs to focus on the administrative and legislative issues here, and by disregarding the timeliness issue in this particular situation, they can do that. A vote was taken and the motion was denied 0 -5. Grenis declared the motion for the appeal denied, 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. The Board took a short break. Grenis called the meeting to order. Board of Adjustment September 18, 2013 Page 8 of 13 EXC13- 00013: Discussion of an application submitted by Mike Hartley for a special exception to allow a dental laboratory, a non - conforming use, that has been destroyed to be rebuilt in the Medium Density Single Family (RS -8) zone at 1515 Jackson Avenue. McClellan said there was an amendment to the Zoning Code that states that nonconforming uses that have been in establishment for over twenty -five years that were damaged by more than 75% could be rebuilt if they meet certain conditions and get a special exception. McClellan said staff is recommending approval with the conditions. Baker asked why the City is requiring that the applicant provide a plan showing that the interior of the building could be converted to a residential use. Walz said staff didn't want to create a situation in which if the business went away that there would be a great impediment to coming into full compliance with the residential zoning. For example, a situation in which the property owner would incur a great loss in value in converting from a business to residential use. Walz said that, over time, if the use goes away it will have more opportunities for conforming uses if it is set up to be converted. Baker asked why not re- establish the accessory apartment. Walz replied that the idea of the amendment is to bring back a building that is more in compliance with the neighborhood. She said an accessory apartment is legal in this neighborhood only in owner - occupied property. Baker asked if the applicant would be living there. Walz said he would not, and this will be operated as a commercial use. Soglin asked Walz to clarify where the garage will be. Walz showed the garage to the rear of the house. Grenis asked if this is the first time this type of exception has been used. Walz said it is. Grenis invited the applicant to speak. Mike Hartley, the applicant, said he doesn't care if there's an apartment on the new building. He said he's anxious to get back into production. He said they have no arguments or disappointments with what is planned and appealed to the Board —he just wants to make it happen. Baker asked about production waste in the form of plaster. Hartley explained that the plaster goes into a 35 gallon trash can underneath the work benches, and is then taken to the landfill. Goeb asked if the mature trees will be affected by his building. Hartley said one is on his property, but the new building will be far enough from the property line that it won't affect the tree. Grenis asked if there will be signage. Hartley said there would not, because they do not wish for customers to come to the facility. Their work is done through dental offices. Grenis opened public hearing. Grenis closed public hearing. Chrischilles said it sounds like a good project. Board of Adjustment September 18, 2013 Page 9 of 13 Chrischilles moved to approve EXC13 -00013 for the property located at 1515 Jackson Avenue currently zoned for Medium Density Single Family (RS -8) with an overlay conservation district to allow for the restoration of a non - conforming use of a dental lab subject to the following conditions: • Substantial compliance with the site plan submitted. • A Certificate of Appropriateness from Historic Preservation. • The applicant will provide a floor planning showing how the interior of the building could be converted to a single family residence. • The building floor area will not exceed the floor are of the dental lab that previously existed on the property. • The use will provide all required off - street parking in a garage or paved are to be located to the rear of the building. Four spaces are to be located in the garage and on the paved drive. • The property will meet all dimensional and residential site design standards in the Zoning Code and all building code standards. • Change from the specific use of light manufacturing of dental components with no on -site sales will require a special exception otherwise the building must convert to a conforming use for the RS -8 zone. • Normal hours of operation will be limited to 8:00 am to 6:00 pm. Baker seconded. Baker presented his statement of findings. He said that regarding item EXC13 -00013 he concurs with the findings set forth in the staff report of September 18, 2013, and concludes that the general and specific criteria are satisfied. Unless amended or opposed by another Board member he recommends that the Board adopt the findings in the staff report for the approval of this proposal and in particular, he feels that this is a plan that will facilitate the eventual long- term conversion back to residential. Grenis said he would agree and thinks that it's good for the neighborhood in that the use is low in intensity and compatible with the surrounding homes. It complies with the Comprehensive Plan, and adds some diversity to the area. Soglin said she supports that and agrees that the applicant has done a good job working with neighbors and the City processes to develop this project in a way that is compatible with the neighborhood. A vote was taken and the motion carried 5 -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- 00014: Discussion of an application submitted by Prime Ventures Construction LLC for a special exception to allow reduction in minimum rear set back requirement for Board of Adjustment September 18, 2013 Page 10 of 13 a principal building in the Low Density Single Family (RS -5) zone to accommodate screened in porch at 838 Sugar Loaf Circle. Walz showed the location map. She said that a porch,, given that it has a roof, becomes part of the principal structure and is subject to the setback standards for the house, while a deck is an accessory use, and is allowed to project into the rear setback. She said she thinks that the Board was uncomfortable with a similar item that came before them recently from this same development where they built the house first and then came in to ask forgiveness, rather than, as in this case, coming to the Board before they build. She said what's relevant here is that a number of these lots are smaller than normal, which was approved through the Planned Overlay Development process. Walz explained that for this subdivision the developer set aside a lot of land as permanent open space in order to preserve woodlands and slopes. In exchange the development was allowed to have lots that are a bit smaller than the minimum required in the RS -5 zone. Walz said there are a number of reasons for setbacks. She said one is to maintain light, air, and separation, for fire protection and access for firefighting. She indicated that the request is to reduce the setback from the rear property line. In this case, the reduction will not result in the house being located any closer adjacent homes, moreover the land on the other side of the rear property line is permanent open space. She said given the sloped typography, the backyard is not very useable, and the porch would allow the residents more opportunity to enjoy the private rear yard space. Other houses have constructed screened porches in order to have the same enjoyment of their property. She said a setback should promote a reasonable physical relationship between residences, and in this case the setback will not reducing space between buildings. Walz said the developers have provided examples of the property disclosures assuring that the future homeowner understands that this must be maintained as a screened porch, not an enclosed one. Soglin said the specific standards say the situation is peculiar to the property. She said it was also peculiar to the previous property in this development that came before the Board. She appreciates the fact that these properties are a little smaller because the land was set aside for open space, but she is also wondering why they aren't designing these homes in a way that fits the lot. She noted that there are several other empty lots and wondered if the Board is expected to continue making exceptions. Holecek said in staff's view it's peculiar because of the small size of the lot and the fact that you don't have any disruption to neighbors by reducing the setback due to the preserved open space. Walz said Soglin is asking if the peculiarity is true to a portion of the neighborhood, does that make it peculiar to the property. Soglin said if every lot in the neighborhood is like that, then the house should be designed to fit the lot or the developer should build this house in a different neighborhood. Chrischilles said as long as there is property behind the houses that is never going to be developed, and you're not impinging on any other house so it doesn't really matter. He said probably the other four houses will want it too. Board of Adjustment September 18, 2013 Page 11 of 13 Grenis asked if that's something they could change at the OPD level. Walz said the developer could request a change at the OPD level to reduce the setbacks. They had been advised of this, but it is a lengthier process, although it would address all lots in one process. Grenis invited the applicant to speak. Adam Brantman of Prime Ventures said they agree to the conditions that were stated in the staff report. He said if all the lots in the neighborhood were requesting a special exception then maybe they aren't peculiar, but it's possible for lots 96, 97 and 95 to be peculiar although they are all similar when compared to the other lots in the neighborhood. Grenis asked if the subject house was presold. Brantman said it was not. Baker asked if the developer is making the decision that the porch will make the house more attractive for sale. Brantman agreed. Baker asked if they could expect a lot more of these requests for adjacent properties. Mike Manville of Prime Ventures said the only other opportunity they will have to ask for a special exception will be on Lot 95, and they haven't decided on a design plan yet. He said he doesn't think it's necessarily true that all the remaining lots that abut the permanent open space will be seeking to reduce their setbacks. Most have the space needed to provide a porch within the required setback. Goeb asked if these are two story porches. Walz said the previous one asked for a screened porch at the upper level and an open deck below. She said this one will be screened porch at the upper level. Grenis closed public hearing. Baker moved to approve EXC13- 00014, a special exception to reduce the rear principal building setback from twenty feet to twelve feet in order to allow a 12'x12' screened in porch for the property located at 838 Sugar Loaf Circle subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must secure a building permit for the 12 x 12 -foot screened porch. 2. The porch must be un- enclosed. The installation of windows or solid walls would constitute an extension of the principal structure, which would not be permitted. 3. The applicant must disclose the restrictions on enclosing the porch in materials provided to the homebuyer. Goeb seconded. Soglin said regarding EXC13 -00014 she concurs with the findings set forth in the staff report of September 18th, 2013, and concludes that the general and specific criteria are satisfied. Unless amended or opposed by another Board member she recommends that the Board adopt the findings in the staff report for approval of this proposal. She said she finds that the situation is indeed peculiar to this to this home, and it does add a function for the home - owners who would not otherwise be able to enjoy their backyard space, and the purpose of the setback regulations will not be compromised. Board of Adjustment September 18, 2013 Page 12 of 13 The other Board members concurred with Soglin's findings. A vote was taken and the motion carried 5 -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. OTHER: The Board briefly discussed a recent Court decision upholding a Board decision regarding a wet batch concrete plant in the 11 zone. ADJOURNMENT: Baker moved to adjourn. Chrischilles seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 5 -0 vote. H Z W U) D Q LL O Q m O V LL! ce W Z a Z W H H a CO) O N N O N ao X X X X X o> r N X X X X 00 0 X X X X N X X X X co X X X X X 0 X X X X X Mp X X X X ao w0 X X X X N CD X X X X N N X X X X X r X X X X X CD o X X p X o a r- LO m v LO co 00 w o 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 N N N N N 2 N N W .- 1-- W Z W W Z W V d J Y z O 3 J a Z m J V m J O C ZZ— V N V Z Z x Z W a a O W vi 0 z m a U L) V)i v m W CL < Z u u n n XOwI O } w Y IP19 Minutes Human Rights Commission September 17, 2013 — 6 P.M. Helling Conference Room Preliminary Members Present: Harry Olmstead, Orville Townsend Sr., Diane Finnerty, Kim Hanrahan, Jewell Amos, Joe Coulter, Shams Ghoneim, Andrea Cohen. Staff Present: Stefanie Bowers. Recommendations to Council: Yes. Call to Order: Chair Townsend called the meeting to order at 18:03. Consideration of the Minutes of the Aueust 20, 2013: Olmstead updated and corrected that half fares for SEATS users will not be eliminated effective January 1, 2014. Half -fares will continue until the end of June, 2014, at which time they will be increased to 75 %. The 75% fares will remain in effect until Jan 1, 2015, at which time they are scheduled to be eliminated. Olmstead moved to approve minutes, seconded by Hanrahan. Motion passed with 5 votes 2 abstained (Finnerty & Cohen) (Coulter not present for vote). Public Comment of Items Not on the Agenda: No. Business: Proposed Amendment Personal Property in the Downtown Members discussed the Throgmorton amendment. Finnerty moved that the Iowa City Human Rights Commission supports Council Member Throgmorton's recommendations, the amendments that he is recommending to the new ordinance, and also partnership with the Johnson County Local Homeless Coordinating Council to develop a more comprehensive, better coordination, and better staffed approach to the problem of homelessness and associated challenges in our city. Motion by Finnerty, seconded by Olmstead. Motion passed with 5 votes 2 abstained (Cohen & Ghoneim) (Coulter not present for vote). Human Rights Breakfast The planning subcommittee is working on "I Have a Dream for Iowa City." Olmstead, Amos, Cohen and Townsend volunteered to select winners for the awards breakfast. (Coulter present at meeting 18:50) Cultural Diversity Day Bowers confirmed volunteer schedules and location for the event and discussed getting materials /supplies for the table. Iowa Women's Music Festival Bowers confirmed that a monetary donation had been agreed on at the last meeting rather than Commission members having a booth. Proclamations Amos will accept the proclamation on behalf of the Commission. Updates & Reports: Conference on Racial Justice & Disproportionate Minority Incarceration Ghoneim reports that the planning is almost complete for the event being held on October 17`h from 10 am – 3 pm in the Jones Commons Room in the Lindquist Center. Education Subcommittee Coulter moved that the education subcommittee accept the invitation of the School Board to attend and participate in their meetings, and that the subcommittee will have at least one member at the Policy and Engagement Committee meetings. Minutes of those meetings should be provided to the Commission. Finnerty removed herself from the subcommittee and Cohen joined. Coulter moved to approve, seconded by Amos. Motion passed with 7 votes 1 abstained (Finnerty) Immigrant Subcommittee Hanrahan discussed the history of the subcommittee. Coulter recommended phasing out the subcommittee and placing these issues on the agenda for meetings regularly, so that all the members can get the information equally. Building Communities Subcommittee Townsend and Bowers met with Steve Rackis of the Housing Authority to learn more about how the family choice voucher (Section 8) is administered. Townsend will follow up with the subcommittee and Steve Rackis. University of Iowa Center for Human Rights Olmstead and Ghoneim will both serve on the advisory board. The first meeting is in October. Commission Finnerty gave kudos to the Iowa Soul Festival. Olmstead suggested sending a thank you note. Finnerty also reported that Professor Elias and a few of her students at the College of Law are helping with research and recommendations to the City regarding the municipal ID project. She expects to be absent from next month's meeting. Coulter reports the Ad -Hoc Diversity Committee made a recommendation to reorganize the Citizen's Police Review Board and have the City Manager sit in on the interviews with officers. These changes to the ordinance are up for consideration at the city council meeting. Coulter wishes to keep track of the annual equity report. Ghoneim reports the ACLU —Iowa has hired a staff person to address litigation issues at the state level concerning immigration. Staff No report. Adjournment: Motion to adjourn at 19:53. 2 Next Regular Meeting — October 15, 2013 at 18:00. Human Rights Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2012/2013 (Meetinu Date) NAME TERM EXP. 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 8/20/ 13 9/17/ 13 Diane Finnerty 1/14/14 O/E X X O/E X X X O/E X X 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 O/E X X X X O/E X X X O/E R R Kim Hanrahan 111115 X X X X X X X O/E X X X X X Shams Ghoneim 111115 O/E X X O/E O/E X X X O/E X O/E X X Jessie Harper 111115 X O/E X X X X X R R R R R R Jewell Amos 111115 - - - - - - - - - - X X X Katie Anthony 1 /1 /16 - - - X X X X X R R R R R Joe D. Coulter 1/1/16 - - - X X X X X X X O/E X X Harry Olmstead 1/1/16 X X X X X X X X X X X X X Andrea Cohen 1/1/16 - - - - - - - - - - - O/E X Connie Goeb 1/1/13 X X X - - - - - - - - - - Howard Cowen 1/1/13 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 DRAFT IP20 CITIZENS POLICE REVIEW BOARD MINUTES — October 7, 2013 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Joseph Treloar called the meeting to order at 5:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Melissa Jensen, Donald King, Mazahir Salih MEMBERS ABSENT: Royceann Porter STAFF PRESENT: Staff Catherine Pugh and Kellie Tuttle STAFF ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: Jim Steffen of the ICPD Introduction of new member — Mazahir Salih RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL None REPORT FROM NOMINATING COMMITTEE None — no September meeting held. CONSIDER MOTION TO FIX METHOD OF VOTING Motion by King, seconded by Jensen to prescribe the method of voting by a voice vote and use majority vote for the basis for decision. Motion carried, 4/0, Porter absent. NOMINATIONS FOR OFFICE OF CHAIRPERSON Motion by King to nominate Jensen for Chair. Jensen stated with her other commitments she respectfully declined the nomination for Chair. Motion by Jensen to nominate Treloar for Chair. There were no other nominations. Motion by King, seconded by Jensen to close nominations. Motion carried, 4/0, Porter absent. NOMINATIONS FOR OFFICE OF VICE - CHAIRPERSON Motion by King to nominate Jensen for Vice Chair. There were no other nominations. Motion by King, seconded by Jensen to close nominations. Motion carried, 4/0, Porter absent. CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by King and seconded by Jensen to adopt the consent calendar as presented or amended. • Minutes of the meeting on 08/12/13 • ICPD Memorandum #13 -17 (2nd Quarter 2013 Use of Force Review) • ICPD Use of Force Report —April 2013 • ICPD Use of Force Report — May 2013 • ICPD Use of Force Report — June 2013 Motion carried, 4/0, Porter absent. CPRB October 7, 2013 Page 2 NEW BUSINESS Brochure /Forms Update — The Board reviewed the draft of the brochure, information sheet, and complaint form. Additional changes were made and staff will update and include drafts in the next meeting packet. The Board had questions regarding the addition of the Human Rights Commission Complaint form section of the information sheet and asked if the Human Rights Coordinator, Stefanie Bowers, would be available to attend the next meeting and explain the process and answer questions. Staff will check into her availability. Video — A memorandum was included in the meeting packet. Staff will keep the Board informed as the project progresses. PUBLIC DISCUSSION None. BOARD INFORMATION The Board gave some background information about themselves for the new member. STAFF INFORMATION Tuttle stated that if there were any updates to the Board member contact sheet to please let her know. TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subject to change) • November 12, 2013, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm • December 10, 2013, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm • January 14, 2014, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm • February 11, 2014, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by King, seconded by Jensen. Motion carried, 4/0, Porter absent. Meeting adjourned at 6:21 P.M. unuun 0 0 ►s e� 1 CD 5 d � y ��o b tiiMom 0 O A'+ N fro fD C3 ro cro w W LA ON ' x X Ci7 C�7 � A o 00 CN uj 4, W EAN DC DC D'C iC �C N N yC � O yC' DC DC 1 CD 5 d � y ��o b tiiMom 0 O A'+