HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-09-04 Info Packet1 Oh � CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET
CITY OF IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org September 4, 2014
IN Council Tentative Meeting Schedule
MISCELLANEOUS
IP2 Letter from Mediacom: Rate adjustments
IP3 Annual Human Rights Commission 31St Awards Breakfast
IP4 Lunch and Learn — Court is in session: Why Courts Matter for LGBT Rights
IP5 Civil Service Entrance Examination — Senior Maintenance Worker Water Distribution
DRAFT MINUTES
IP6 Charter Review Commission: August 26
IP7 Planning and Zoning Commission: August 21 (Formal)
City Council Tentative Meeting Schedule IP1
Subject to change September 4, 2014
CITY OF IOWA CITY
Date Time Meeting Location
Tuesday, September 16, 2014 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM Formal Meeting
Tuesday, October 7, 2014 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM Formal Meeting
Tuesday, October 21, 2014 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM Formal Meeting
Monday, October 27, 2014 4:30 PM Joint Meeting /Work Session North Liberty
Tuesday, November 4, 2014 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, November 18, 2014
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, December 2, 2014
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, December 16 2014
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
yILr f ► h
August 28, 2014
Dear Ms. Karr
j
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that, on or about October 1, 2014, Mediacom
will be implementing the following rate adjustments:10
Product:
Old Rate:
New Rate:
Net Change:
Regional Sports
N/A
$1.83
$1.83
Ms. Marian Karr
City of Iowa City
410 E. Washington St.
r"
Iowa City, Iowa 52240 -1826
$1.00
Dear Ms. Karr
j
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that, on or about October 1, 2014, Mediacom
will be implementing the following rate adjustments:10
Product:
Old Rate:
New Rate:
Net Change:
Regional Sports
N/A
$1.83
$1.83
Surcharge
Late Fee
$7.50
$8.50
$1.00
Standard Installation,
Varied Separate
$49.99
N/A
Repair, or
Charges
Reactivation Fee
College and professional sports play an important role in the lives of many
Americans. At Mediacom, we strive to bring our customers the most popular games
from the most popular teams in the areas we serve. Years ago, the biggest games
were primarily shown on local broadcast television. In more recent years, however,
professional teams and college conferences are raking in huge amounts of money by
selling off their TV rights to regional sports networks ( "RSNs ") like FSN, Comcast
SportsNet, the Big Ten Network and the newly launched SEC Network.
As the games get spread out over more channels, the cost of delivering sports content
has risen. Up to now, Mediacom has absorbed many of these costs. Unfortunately, we
are now forced to make some pricing changes. As noted above, on or about October
1st, Mediacom will institute a Regional Sports Surcharge equal to the increases that
RSNs in your market have demanded we pay to them since the start of 2011 and that
we have not previously included in customer bills.
10 Depending on the terms of their offer, some customers currently on promotional rates may not receive this rate change
until the expiration of their respective promotional period.
IP2
z
The Regional Sports Surcharge we are instituting varies by market based on the total
number RSNs carried in the Family TV tier and the wholesale rate charged by each
RSN. The Regional Sports Surcharge does not apply to customers that only subscribe
to the Local Plus TV tier, as there are no RSNs carried in that level of service.
Similar to the Local Broadcast Station Surcharge that Mediacom instituted in 2012, we
hope the Regional Sports Surcharge will bring more transparency to our bills and help
consumers identify some of the primary causes behind rising cable and satellite rates.
Greater transparency is only part of the solution, though. Recognizing that many
consumers are frustrated by the current state of affairs in the video marketplace,
Mediacom filed a petition on July 21, 2014, asking the Federal Communications
Commission to adopt new rules that would allow expensive channels to be sold a la
carte, create options to purchase channels on an unbundled basis, ensure consumers
have access to free online video content, and prevent unjustified wholesale price
discrimination (see https:Hmediacomcable.com /site /about news 25 07 2014 html).
In response to the petition, the FCC opened rule making proceeding No. 11728 to seek
comment from interested parties on the issues raised by Mediacom. Comments are
due September 29, 2014, and we would invite you community to submit comments to
the FCC on behalf of your residents.
Despite the increasing wholesale cost pressures faced by our business, Mediacom
appreciates the opportunity to continue to serve your community's telecommunications
needs. If you have any questions, please contact me directly at (319) 395 -9699
ext. 3461 or e -mail me at Igrassley(a mediacomcc.com .
Yours sincerely,
O�
Lee Grassley
Senior Manager, Government Relations
Mediacom Communications Corporation
6300 Council St. NE • Cedar Rapids, IA 52402 •
319 - 395 -7801 • Fax 319- 393 -7017
Mediac` m
#*ro
August 29, 2014
Ms. Marian Karr
City of Iowa City
410 E. Washington St.
Iowa City, Iowa 52240 -1826
Dear Ms. Karr:
In addition to the sports tier surcharge referred to in the previous letter, on or about
October 1, 2014 Mediacom will be increasing the digital tuner charge from $3.50 to
$6.50. This change in your area is being made in order to standardize equipment
charges throughout the company
If you have any questions, please contact me directly at (319) 395 -9699
ext. 3461 or e-mail me at Igrassley(a),mediacomcc.com .
Yours sincerely,
0�t 4 wt
Lee Grassley
Senior Manager, Government Relations
<.
v_
o
(D <
n
m
C
C
�c'
fD m
Cr
6�
C-)
m
CD
o
CD
CD
W
Z
a
U
Z
N
W
°
CD
m
a
°
o
N
0
y
�
O
D
(.0
°
a
CD
cD
W
c
CD
W
n
o cD
O
y
C
C7
O
O
N
O
3
3
ml
C
n
°
°
V)
N
O
rt
O
a
T7
m
' 0
_O
c.0
O
O
O
�
C
N
D
o
CD
3
D
o
i
�<
�
3
3
V
G�
CD
'o
N
O
o
o.
Ul
sv
ca
CD
n
r'
D
CL
o
o0
�3
7C
N*
Ln
O
zv
0
Lo
W
°
v
CDC
oo
/OMyu
W
D
(n
3
r
n
�
O
T
m
N�
o
z
O
a
n
C(D
(n
`D
o
D
v
�
m
3
Q
O
n
v
cr
6
a
T
3 p
p
CD
O
S1
N
CD CD
w
`.�
w
n
CD n v
.
*
=;,
O
-�i.
v
Q
n CD =
_ N Cp
CU
S
C7
N
N
Cr 04
(.O
CO
O
N
CD CIi
C3.
p
:3
i
n
O
°
O
97 6) N
^
Ui
CO
l<
O
CD
a
O n CD
pj L ^7 CD
61 Q N
=
D
n
q
(= W 3 = S 0
_��i (SD;CD C�
ID 7 N C
N O
G t4 -Os COO ID CD
° N . o � m N
o�ao��C
N
O N O W Q T CD
N n
m a
CD v im
N s CD -. !D
m w c
o CD 0
r
CD N
n c 3 C D C S O
c CD � CD
O _. N = o a
n <
w
O 7 v CD
,rt w. LO 7 CD C
7r N w�- N r
(D N CD C7
:3 N 3 2 CD
O N O O
D
m
L,4
D
N
N
m
D
prsm
TI
D
U)
r-+
z
C
Z
O
3
C/1
N
Z
FT-1
F-
r-T-1
D
m
C
D
z
V /
Bring your lunch and enjoy your br(
as Keenan Crow of One Iowa presen
lives of gay and tronsgender Americans, ofte
serving as the last resort in protecting LGBT '*
rights. Who sits on these courts matters, an
current vacancies must be filled with judges
who understand that the Constitution provides
LGBT evervan
EVERYONE IS WELCOME?
IP5
i
CITY OF IOWA CITY
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa S2240-1826
(3 19) 356 -5000
(319) 356 -5009 FAX
www.icgoy.org
September 3, 2014
TO: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council
RE: Civil Service Entrance Examination — Senior Maintenance Worker — Water
Distribution
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 Senior Maintenance
Worker — Water Distribution.
Michael Willis
IOWA CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
Lyra \,&/. Dickerson, Chair
Charter Review Commission IP6
August 26, 2014
Page 1
MINUTES DRAFT
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
AUGUST 26, 2014 — 7:30 A.M.
HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
Members Present: Steve Atkins, Andy Chappell, Karrie Craig, Karen Kubby, Mark Schantz,
Melvin Shaw, Anna Moyers Stone, Adam Sullivan, Dee Vanderhoef
Staff Present: Marian Karr, Eleanor Dilkes (arrived 7:45)
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council
action):
None
CONSIDER MOTION ADOPTING CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED:
a. Minutes of the Meeting on 08/12/14 — Kubby noted that she had one comment
regarding the minutes. On page 2 it says 'this evening' and it was actually
'morning.' Regarding Mr. Carsner's correspondence, Chappell stated that some
of this has already been discussed — the election of the mayor. He added that
they can discuss this if the Commission would like. Schantz noted that doing it
the way Carsner suggests would do away with the city manager position. Kubby
stated that she has no interest in switching this form of government. She
believes that if they directly elect the mayor they will have a stronger'weak'
mayor, which she believes would be a good thing. Sullivan stated that he
believes they should wait and see what they hear about this issue during the
public forums. Sullivan added that if they were to change the form of
government, he believes that other parts of the City would have to undergo
changes, as well. The issue of 'eligible' versus `qualified' voter was briefly
touched on, with Members asking Karr for some background on when this
change occurred.
b. Correspondence — (1) Tom Carsner
Kubby moved to accept the Consent Calendar as amended, seconded by Vanderhoef.
Motion carried 9 -0.
REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF:
Vanderhoef noted that a member of the public told her he had some comments to make and
she invited him to this morning's meeting, but that 7:30 was a bit early for him. Chappell noted
that he had an email exchange with Linda Schreiber regarding a potential date for a meeting
with the League of Women Voters.
REVIEW CHARTER:
a. Specific Sections to be Addressed:
* Additional Commission discussion of Preamble through Article VI —
Chappell asked if Schantz had anything to add to the packet of information he
has already prepared for the Commission. Schantz noted that Carsner's letter
Charter Review Commission
August 26, 2014
Page 2
did raise some issues for further discussion, such as 'full -time' versus 'two- thirds'
time, salary expectations, etc. Kubby asked if there are examples of a 'strong'
mayor with a city manager. Atkins stated that Coralville's arrangement is close to
this. He added that he is unsure if the mayor has veto power or not, but that you
could shape this position however you chose. Kubby asked how Cedar Rapids'
government works, as far as the mayor's position. Sullivan noted that part of the
strength of the mayor is in the culture of the city, and that a mayor with a certain
personality could make him or herself a strong or a weak mayor. Atkins noted
that Cedar Rapids recently changes to a City Manager form of government from
a Commission form. Schantz noted that around the country most larger cities
elect the mayor, which is typically seen as a position of power in those
communities. Shaw asked what constitutes 'strong' when referring to the
mayoral position. Chappell responded that to him when you say a `strong' mayor
it means one that is doing what the city manager would otherwise do. The
position would be seen as having 'power' beyond what Iowa City's current
mayoral position holds. Sullivan added that in his opinion, there are two ways to
strengthen the mayor, by either adding responsibilities or take away from the
things that council members and the mayor shouldn't do. He believes there is
some room between going to a full and strong mayor, to beefing up the role of
the mayor a bit, within the current infrastructure.
Schantz responded that you can think of the private sector where there is a
board of directors and a chair, and in some organizations the chair has a lot of
power and in others not so much. He added that to him the election is a
somewhat separate issue, from how strong the mayor is that's being elected.
Atkins stated that he believes it's important that they're able to identify the
political issues, which need to be a part of the ongoing debate, as well.
* Article VII — Initiative and Referendum -
The discussion began with Section 7.01(C). Chappell asked Schantz to read this
aloud for Members. Chappell then asked Dilkes if she could briefly summarize
what the importance is of these particular provisions. She responded that first of
all it is to be construed broadly, and added that 2 and 3 are confusing to her, as
well. She explained that a referendum is something that repeals an existing
measure, and there are time periods in which this has to be done. An initiative,
in its broadest sense, is proposing something new. She explained some current
issues and whether they are referendums or initiatives due to deadlines being
missed. Dilkes then responded to Member questions. Kubby asked if a group
can come to the City Attorney with a possible initiative, along with their potential
wording ready, would she give them an opinion on whether it would fly. Dilkes
responded that she will have a general conversation with such a group, but as far
as a formal opinion, she would ask the group to first file their intent to commerce
affidavit with the city clerk. Once the group is given an opinion, they can refile
something different if so desired. Shaw asked for an example of what subject
matter would be excluded, and Dilkes noted that this is under 'Limitation,' under
7.01(6)(1).
Atkins stated that he found the statement "Scope Of Power" (Cl) to be one of the
more profound things about the Charter. He believes it states intention to confer
Charter Review Commission
August 26, 2014
Page 3
broadly — here's who we are; here's how we want to do business. Chappell
asked if there was any further discussion about these three subsections. Atkins
noted that one of the things he noticed in his contacts is that people don't
understand the difference between initiative and referendum. He believes there
needs to be some way of clarifying that. Sullivan stated that 7.01(A) lays it out
fairly clearly. Members continued to discuss this issue, with Vanderhoef
suggesting this be added to the "Definitions" section, as well as Article VII. Karr
stated that it was helpful to have the definition in the section when people inquire
as to the procedure. Dilkes agreed, stating that putting this in the general
"Definition" section would not make sense, as those are terms used throughout
the Charter. Kubby suggested making a reference to Article VII in the
"Definitions" section. Shaw asked if `qualified electorate' needs to be defined
again in this section, even though it is in the "Definitions" section of the Charter.
Chappell stated that typically this would be done only if it were somehow different
in this section than in the other sections. Dilkes agreed, stating that this would
only cause confusion. Discussion continued about the difference between a
referendum and an initiative, with Chappell stating that they can revisit this in
further detail later. Kubby suggested they look at the Citizens Guide, as well, to
review the timelines shown there — the idea being to make things as easy to
understand as possible without outside interpretation. Dilkes noted that some
petitioners are just not disciplined enough to follow the timelines, where others do
so with no problem. Karr stated that once it is known whether they have an
initiative or a referendum, staff sits down and recreates the timeline for that
individual request. This basically gives the petitioner a custom timeline to follow.
Kubby noted that in subsection (D), 'qualified electors' is very appropriate.
Continuing their discussion of Subsection 7.01(C), Members asked for
clarification from Dilkes about how existing contracts would be affected by the
language in "E ". Dilkes reported that most City contracts contain language on
cancellation and termination notification. Chappell then asked if 7.01(C) is ready
for tentative approval at this point, and Members agreed it was.
Moving on to 7.02, Craig read this aloud. Dilkes clarified that she has not seen a
challenge to this being unconstitutional in the same way that the other section is.
It is very focused on the circulation process and would not automatically apply to
this. Stone asked if Karr and Dilkes could briefly explain the process when
someone wants to start a petition. Karr outlined the process of how an individual
could initiate the process, and noted that typically they are given Section 7.01 to
read first, and then there is a one -page Affidavit that is completed and filed in the
in the Clerk's office to initiate the process. At this time there is typically a third
appointment set up, where the Clerk's office and the City Attorney's office will
review the documents and then prepare the individualized timeline for the
petitioner. Dilkes added that once the Affidavit is filed, this starts the time period
for when signatures must be obtained. Karr noted that it appears to be a
cumbersome and time - consuming process but once laid out it is pretty
straightforward. Karr added that if it would be helpful to the Commission, she
can bring in the forms that are used in the process. The conversation continued,
with Chappell then asking if there was a consensus to tentatively approve
Section 7.02. Members agreed. Chappell then asked what other cities use
initiative and referendum. Dilkes stated that they could look into this and see
Charter Review Commission
August 26, 2014
Page 4
what data is available on this. Chappell asked if anyone thinks the initiative and
referendum options are a bad idea and that the City should not use them.
Vanderhoef stated that citizens need to recognize that this is a special privilege,
that it's not a given everywhere. This is why she believes it needs to be a
'qualified electorate.' Atkins stated that he is uncomfortable with the word
'privilege,' that perhaps 'opportunity' is better. Sullivan stated that the fact it's a
privilege and comes from the Council is backwards to him. He believes that the
ability to govern ourselves and decide what kind of ordinance to live under is a
right and it should not come from the Council. It comes from the Charter. He
added that having a Charter may be unique to Iowa City, but it should not be
seen as a privilege. Dilkes stated that the philosophical debate is between
representative democracy and direct democracy. Chappell reiterated that it is
unique to Iowa City to have initiative and referendum. Schantz stated that it
doesn't fit in every situation, but that it appears to fit in Iowa City's culture.
b. Commission Discussion of Other Sections (if time allows): None
DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT:
Chappell asked that they move on to this section, as he wanted to address a few points. The
public forum has been set for September 23 at 7:00 P.M. The Commission has one more
meeting scheduled before the public forum. Chappell stated that he would like to go over what
everyone's expectations are for this forum, and what type of interaction they want to have with
those who speak. He added that it may actually depend on how many people show up to
speak. If there are very few, they can engage in more back and forth. If 40 people show up,
they would want to keep things timed so there's enough time for everyone to speak, thus limiting
how much interactions may take place. He stated that he thinks the Council's five - minute rule
would work here. They can always allow people to come back a second time, depending on
turnout, time, etc. Shaw responded that he would find it very awkward if as a citizen he
addressed the Commission and then received no response from them. Kubby stated that she
would find it cold and unresponsive for there to be no interaction with speakers. Vanderhoef
suggested the Chair try to perhaps group the comments around specific topics and begin the
conversation that way. Chappell stated that he would have some concern doing it this way, that
people might be dissuaded from joining in. He added that he thinks they need some interaction,
and until .they see the questions they really won't know what that is going to be. Shaw asked if
they shouldn't let the public know what happens after this Commission's review, what they can
expect from this process. Chappell noted that they can touch on that in his remarks, and Kubby
stated that doing so in an introduction could show what the process has been, how the next
public forum may be more interactive, what the Commission's timeline is, and what the process
will be with recommendations to Council.
Schantz stated that he believes it would be a good idea if at the next meeting they identified four
or five items where they have indicated some concerns and want to have further discussion.
This would let the public know of some specific issues that they might become interested
enough in to attend the meeting. Shaw asked where else the group might advertise to get the
word out about this forum. Kubby stated that she sent out the notice that they received from
Karr to people she knows that have an interest in government, and suggested that others do the
same with people they know. Atkins noted that Chappell, as Chair, will most likely give a brief
presentation at the frontend of the forum, explaining where the Commission is in this process.
He also stated that most likely it would be a good idea to give some rules of conduct at the
Charter Review Commission
August 26, 2014
Page 5
beginning, as well. Chappell agreed, adding that if someone feels the need to comment or ask
a question of a speaker, they should be able to do so. The goal is to hear from as many people
on as many issues as they can. Schantz stated that he would like to hear from people in the
community, what they like about Iowa City's government, and what they think the problems are,
if any. Kubby stated that the conversation is about the Charter, not the government in general,
although they are related. Chappell stated that they will have to wait and see what type of
comments they receive and deal with it accordingly. Karr stated that going back to Shaw's
question, she identified in her memo some of the things they've done in the past to publicize the
forums. She added that how the forums are run, however, is entirely up to the Commission.
Karr stated that she will have copies of the Charter available for the public's review the evening
of the forum. She asked if Members wish to have a 7:30 A.M. meeting that day, as well.
Chappell asked if Members would like to set a meeting shortly after the public forum in order to
review what they hear. After some discussion, Chappell asked if the meeting on September 9
could go until 9:30 to give them more time for discussion. Kubby stated that she would need to
leave by 9:15 on September 9. Chappell suggested they try to complete their discussion on
Section 7.03 so that they can finish up the discussion of initiative and referendum, prior to their
September 23 forum. September 30 was suggested as a follow -up meeting to September 23's
evening forum; and the morning meeting on September 23 will not be held.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
None.
TENTATIVE THREE -MONTH MEETING SCHEDULE (Second & fourth Tuesday of each
month — 7:30 AW
September 9 —
September 23 — evening public forum 7:00 P.M.
September 30 — tentative special meeting
October 14
October 28
November 11 (City holiday)
November 25
ADJOURNMENT:
Sullivan moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 A.M., seconded by Shaw. Motion carried
9 -0.
Charter Review Commission
August 26, 2014
Page 6
Charter Review Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2014
r.Wy.
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
- -- = Not a Member at this time
TERM
cao��
coo)
o�°o
o�°o
co\fl
NAME
EXP.
46
46
4b
411115
X
X
O/
X
X
Steve
E
7—X
Atkins
Andy
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Chappell
Karrie
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Craig
Karen
4/1115
O
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Kubby
Mark
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/
X
Schantz
E
Melvin
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Shaw
Anna
411115
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/
X
Moyer
E
Stone
Adam
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Sullivan
Dee
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Vanderhoef
r.Wy.
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
- -- = Not a Member at this time
09-04-14
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PRELIMINARY
AUGUST 21 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, John Thomas, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks,
Paula Swygard, Phoebe Martin, Jodie Theobald
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: John Yapp, Bob Miklo, Karen Howard, Sara Hektoen
OTHERS PRESENT: Ron Amelon, Bruce McDonald (855 Cypress Ct.), Jennifer
McDonald (855 Cypress Ct.), Jeff Clark (908 N. Gilbert St.)
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
The Commission voted 7 -0 to recommend approval of REZ14- 00011, an application
submitted by XJ -23 LLC for a rezoning of approximately .54 -acre of property from
Intensive Commercial (CI -1) zone to Riverfront Crossings — Central Crossings (RFC -CX)
zone at 201 E. Benton Street, 912 -914 S. Dubuque Street and designation of 914 S.
Dubuque Street as a Historic Landmark.
The Commission voted 7 -0 to recommend approval of REZ14- 00013, an application
submitted by City of Iowa City for a rezoning of approximately 25.8 -acres of property
from Central Business Service (CB -2), Central Business Support (CB -5) and Planned
High Density Multifamily (PRM) zones to Riverfront Crossings — South Downtown (RFC -
SD) zone and Riverfront Crossings — Central Crossings (RFC -CX) zone located south of
Burlington Street in the South Downtown and a portion of the Central Crossings
subdistricts of the Riverfront Crossings District.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There was none.
Development Item
SUB14 -00015
Discussion of an application submitted by Allen Homes for a preliminary plat of Evan
Heights, a 10 -lot, 3.59 -acre residential subdivision located at the NE corner of First
Avenue and Hickory Trail.
Yapp showed the preliminary plat and location maps from an aerial view. He explained that the
commission had received a planned development proposal for this a few months ago for 11
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 21, 2014 - Formal
Page 2 of 8
multi - family units. He stated that after consultation with the Commission and City Council the
application was withdrawn and the applicant then submitted the current preliminary plat. Yapp
explained that the current proposed plat is largely a single - family subdivision and is 3.59 acres
and contains a stream corridor and linear wetlands along the east side of the property. He noted
that 10 lots are proposed with eight detached single - family structures and the corner lot for zero -
lot line or attached two -unit structure with each structure on its own lot. Yapp stated that this is
permitted in the RS -5 zone. No new public streets or utilities are proposed.
Yapp stated that stormwater management is accounted for in the regional stormwater facility in
Hickory Hill Park. He also stated that the applicant submitted a request to be exempted from the
requirements in the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. The ordinance exempts grading, clearing and
development activities for single - family and two - family structures in situations where there are
no common facilities or infrastructure proposed and the applicant demonstrates there is no
encroachment into a jurisdictional wetland, designated conservation tract or a sensitive area.
Yapp said that access management standards state that when land is being subdivided into lots
intended for single - family or two - family uses, individual lot access to arterial streets is
discouraged. Yapp noted that due to topography it would not be recommended to construct
shared driveways, because each dwelling unit would be at a different elevation and require
additional grading. Staff does not recommend the requirement for shared driveways. Yapp also
stated that the other access management issue is that along arterial streets there should be 150
feet between an intersection and a driveway. This rule would affect the structure on lot 3 in
which the applicant would either need to apply for a minor modification or construct a shared
driveway off Hickory Trail to serve both lots 2 and 3.
Yapp explained that staff finds that this subdivision meets the requirements of the subdivision
code and recommends approval.
Freerks stated that she had a couple questions. She stated that she has never known anyone to
be exempt from the requirements of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, and she stated that she
was unsure as to why this was the route. Yapp responded and stated that this one is unusual
because it is already zoned RS -5 and there are no public infrastructure improvements
proposed. Freerks asked why this subdivision is different from any others and she asked for an
explanation as to why this is different.
Yapp said that the ordinance states that if there is less than 20,000 square feet of development
the subdivision is exempt. Eastham said he believe that the ordnance says 20,000 square feet
on a tract of land. Hektoen stated that the application shows that there would be less than
20,000 square feet of disturbed soil and therefor the application can be exempt.
Freerks asked about the requirement for a 100 foot buffer from the wetlands. Hektoen stated
that the buffer is required if the Sensitive Areas Ordinance applies. She continued that based on
the language in the code the application qualifies for an exemption. Eastham then asked to go
over the code which discusses the exemption. He stated that there is clearly development
activity for more than 20,000 square feet in this subdivision. Hektoen explained that the
exemption is for single family lots and when a lot is developed, and there is not disruption to
20,000 square feet of land, and there are no encroachments into the protected sensitive
features, then the subdivision is exempt because there are no shared features between lots.
Freerks asked what the difference is between other single family subdivisions, because the
commission has never approved this before. Hektoen stated that this was the City Attorney's
interpretation of the ordinance as it applies to this particular subdivision. She also stated that
Doug Boothroy also allowed the exemption because the public infrastructure is already in place
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 21, 2014 - Formal
Page 3 of 8
and there will not be a disturbance of sensitive features for the development of this subdivision.
Freerks then referred back to a staff report from December and read a description of the
Sensitive Areas Ordinance and then stated that based on the description she does not
understand the difference. Hektoen stated that this is a different subdivision and the code states
that unless otherwise exempt a subdivision needs to comply with the ordinance. She stated that
based on the code the applicant has satisfied the requirements for exemption. Freerks stated
that she is concerned that standards would not be applied uniformly between subdivisions.
Eastham stated that he is also confused and echoes Freerks' concerns. He asked for
clarifications on the wetland delineation. Yapp stated that a wetland has been delineated.
Eastham then stated that the ordinance, as he understands it, would then require a 100 foot
buffer. Hektoen stated that the buffer does not apply on this property because it is exempt from
the ordinance.
Yapp stated that this subdivision is different because no new infrastructure is needed. Typically
new infrastructure is needed and therefor more than 20,000 square feet is disturbed and would
not be qualified for an exemption. Eastham asked if staff has calculated the exact amount which
would be disturbed as a result of this development. Yapp replied that staff had not because the
applicant satisfied the requirements for exemption. Freerks stated that she fears that a
precedent will be set that they will not want to follow. Freerks said if this is a loophole in the
sensitive areas ordinance, then we should go back and correct this.
Thomas asked if actual speed was known for First Avenue. Yapp stated that posted speed is 25
miles per hour. Yapp stated that he would need to look it up, but thought that downhill it was low
to mid 30's and uphill it's in the high 20's. Thomas asked the roadway width. Yapp stated that it
is a two -lane 31 -foot wide street.
Dyer asked if there is room on Lot 1 100 feet from the stream to build a house. Yapp said there
was not. She then asked if Lot 1 would be liable to flood. Yapp stated that it is not in the stream
corridor itself and that he did not believe it was liable to flood.
Freerks opened public discussion.
Ron Amelon of MMS Consultants introduced himself on behalf of the developer. He addressed
the flooding issue and stated that based on their requirements for structure elevation, the
subdivision would not flood. The lowest openings on the structure are set at one foot above
flood elevation. He stated that in relation to the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, the reason this
subdivision is exempt is because no public infrastructure improvements are being installed. He
said the exemption says anything less than 20,000 and that is the amount of two lots.
Freerks asked if he was breaking down the disturbance down to individual lots. Amelon agreed.
Thomas asked what flood level Amelon was referring to. Amelon said they would calculate that.
Freerks ask if he could address why they won't have shared driveways. Amelon responded that
there would be about 8 feet of elevation difference between the homes as you go down the
street so it would be difficult to share driveways. There would need to be retaining walls.
Bruce McDonald introduced himself as a resident at 855 Cypress Ct. which is located on the
northwest corner of this plat. He stated that he is pretty happy with the proposed subdivision but
he would like to see the types of homes that would be constructed. He stated that he would
prefer shared driveways. He also stated that in regards to flooding, he did not believe that a
house constructed on Lot 1 would flood, but if there is a full basement that could be problematic.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 21, 2014 - Formal
Page 4 of 8
He stated that during heavy rain events the neighboring creek can flood. He did think that
flooding should be taken into consideration.
Jennifer McDonald introduced herself as a resident at 855 Cypress Ct. and she stated that she
heard at their neighborhood meeting that the single - family homes were not feasible and so she
was confused when single - families are now proposed. She stated her concerns about flooding
on Lot 1 during heavy rain events.
Freerks closed public discussion.
Thomas moved to recommend approval of REZ14- 00015, an application submitted by
Allen Homes for a preliminary plat of Evans Heights, a 10 -lot subdivision located east of
First Ave and north of Hickory Trail. Martin seconded the motion.
Eastham stated that he would like to review the discussion of the wetland buffer. He asked if there
were a 100 foot buffer, would that affect the ability to build on Lot 1. Yapp stated that if it were
required the buffer would make it difficult to develop Lot 1. Eastham said that wetland buffers have
been reduced in the past. Yapp stated that reduction in the buffer is not permitted where a
wetland is located within a stream corridor. Eastham then asked staff to review why a buffer is
required in most cases. Yapp stated that in most cases a buffer is required to prevent paving and
structures close to the wetland and also to allow for wetland and prairie vegetation which would
typically be planted in the buffer, which helps protect the wetland. Eastham said the buffer would
also apply to the eastside where a lot of the vegetation has already been removed. Yapp said the
area to the east was developed prior to the adoption of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance.
Freerks stated that she has concerns about this and that she would prefer to defer this and come
up with other solutions regarding the buffer. She said that applying the buffer would eliminate Lot
1, still allowing significant development. She also is concerned about the number of driveways
onto First Avenue.
Martin said she preferred the previous proposal that clustered development away from the
wetlands. She does not like this proposal, but the masses have spoken and they prefer this
amount of paving so she would vote for this.
Theobald said her first home was situated similar to this (Lot 1), and the first time it rained the
area flooded. She would support deferral.
Thomas stated that he would like to see staff come back with more information in regards to how
this subdivision complies. He would not support changing the rules if this is found to be exempt.
Hektoen said she would provide more information, but it is unlikely that the City Attorney's opinion
will change.
Eastham said he would like to see this deferred. He did not recall any case when the 20,000 was
considered on a per lot basis. He wanted to understand how the exemption clause interpretation
was arrived at. He asked if Thomas would withdraw his motion.
Thomas withdrew his motion to approve. Martin seconded.
Eastham moved that REZ14 -00015 be deferred to the September 4, 2014 meeting.
Theobald seconded the motion.
Freerks said she was concerned about flooding on Lot land would encourage that it be
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 21, 2014 - Formal
Page 5 of 8
removed from the subdivision.
Eastham said he would not rule out approving a plan that includes Lot 1.
Dyer said she was concerned about Lot 1 in relation to the buffer and stream. She would prefer
that it be eliminated and the area be added to the back of lots 2 and 3.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7 -0.
Rezoning Item
REZ14 -00011
Discussion of an application submitted by XJ -23 LLC for a rezoning of approximately .54-
acre of property from Intensive Commercial (CI -1) zone to Riverfront Crossings — Central
Crossings (RFC -CX) zone at 201 E. Benton Street, 912 -914 S. Dubuque Street and
designation of 914 S. Dubuque Street as a Historic Landmark.
Miklo stated that as noted there are three individual lots involved in this application. There is
currently an office building which is in the process of being dismantled on the corner lot, the
center lot is vacant, and the southern lot includes the Tate Arms building at 914 South Dubuque
Street. Miklo showed the office building and the Tate Arms from an aerial view. Miklo then
showed the commission photos of the Tate Arms.
Miklo explained that there are two parts to this application. The first part is to rezone the area to
Riverfront Crossing — Central Crossings, which allows mixed -use development. He stated that
the second aspect is to designate the Tate Arms as a Historic Landmark. If approved that would
require Historic Preservation Commission approval for any changes to the exterior. It also
provides some zoning incentives, which would allow transfer of development rights to the
remainder of the property and consideration of reduction in parking requirements. The property
is in the 500 year floodplain so any development would have to comply with the floodplain
regulations.
Miklo stated that the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the application last week. The
Commission deemed the property to be worthy of Historic Landmark status. The designation is
not so much a result of the architecture but instead of the history of the building. Miklo stated
that the building functioned as a rooming house for African American students from the 1930's
to the 1960's. He said a detailed report on the significance of the building was included in the
meeting packet.
Miklo stated that staff recommends approval for the both the zone change to the Riverfront
Crossings zone and the designation as a Historic Landmark.
Martin asked if landmark status would require upkeep to the interior of the house. Miklo stated
that the historic preservation regulations only apply to the exterior of the property.
Freerks opened public discussion.
Jeff Clark stated that he is representing the owner XJ -23. He stated that he has been working
with staff. He also stated that the intention is to turn the Tate Arms into a duplex and construct
multifamily dwelling units on the vacant lot. He stated that the multifamily building will be 30 to
40 feet away from Tate Arms and between four and five stories. He also stated that the multi-
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 21, 2014 - Formal
Page 6 of 8
family structure will be designed to go well with the Tate Arms.
Martin asked staff if there would be further review by the commission. Miklo stated that there
would not be.
Freerks closed public discussion.
Eastham moved to recommend approval REZ14 -00011 a request by XJ -23 LLC for a
rezoning from Intensive Commercial (CI -1) zone to Riverfront Crossings (RFC -CX) zone
at 201 E. Benton Street, 912 -914 S. Dubuque Street and designation of 914 S. Dubuque
Street as a Historic Landmark.
Martin seconded the motion.
Eastham stated that he thought that the Tate Arms is an important part or Iowa City History and
Freerks agreed. Dyer stated that she is excited to see Riverfront Crossings development
beginning south of Benton Street.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7 -0.
Rezoning Item
REZ14 -00013
Discussion of an application submitted by City of Iowa City for a rezoning of
approximately 25.8 -acres of property from Central Business Service (CB -2), Central
Business Support (CB -5) and Planned High Density Multifamily (PRM) zones to Riverfront
Crossings — South Downtown (RFC -SD) zone and Riverfront Crossings — Central
Crossings (RFC -CX) zone located south of Burlington Street in the South Downtown and
a portion of the Central Crossings subdistricts of the Riverfront Crossings District.
Howard stated that this was a little bit different situation than other rezonings. This time the City,
under the direction of the City Council, is initiating this rezoning to help facilitate redevelopment
according to the Riverfront Crossings Plan. She stated that in this particular area there is a lot of
redevelopment pressure and there is no need for additional infrastructure to be built. Howard
showed the property from an aerial view.
She also noted that the RM -44 property is the one piece in the South Downtown plan that is in
need of additional right -of -way. She noted that the Riverfront Crossings Plan is to reestablish
the street grid by reconnecting Capitol Street. She stated that there are a number of publicly
owned properties, which would not, be included in this rezoning.
Freerks asked when Capitol Street was removed. Howard thought it was in the 1970's during
Urban Renewal activities.
Freerks opened public discussion.
Seeing none Freerks closed public discussion.
Eastham moved to recommend approval REZ14 -00013 a proposal to rezone
approximately 25.8 acres from Central Business Service (CB -2), Central Business
Support (CB -5) and Planned High Density Multifamily (PRM) zones to Riverfront
Crossings — South Downtown (RFC -SD) zone and Riverfront Crossings — Central
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 21, 2014 - Formal
Page 7 of 8
Crossings (RFC -CX) zone located south of Burlington Street in the South Downtown and
a portion of the Central Crossings subdistricts of the Riverfront Crossings District as
illustrated in the attached location map included in this packet.
Swygard seconded the motion.
Eastham asked Howard if there were any results from the Riverfront Crossings meeting that the
City hosted on July 22 "d. Howard stated that the meeting attendance was pretty low and that
she took that to mean that property owners were satisfied with the rezoning.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7 -0.
Consideration of Meeting Minutes: August 7, 2014
Dyer moved to approve the minutes.
Eastham seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7 -0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION
Miklo stated that the design of arterial streets informal meeting could be scheduled for
September 18 at 6:00 pm.
Howard stated that the planning for the Riverfront Park is starting and they are anticipating a
meeting in late October or early November. She stated that the commission would be on the
mailing list.
OTHER
Freerks asked about mailbox placement on South Dodge Street. She said they are being placed
very close to the sidewalk. She asked staff to look into whether the City could influence there
location. She would like to see if there is a better solution.
ADJOURNMENT:
Thomas moved to adjourn.
Swygard seconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 7 -0 vote.
z
O
0
0
z_
z
N
ad
0
z
E
z
J
CL
0
0
v
w
w
w
0
z
O
z
W
H
Q
r
0
N
M
r
0
N
0
z
W
W
0
LL
z
CD
Nxxxxxxx
r
N
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
N
x
x
x
xxxxxxx
x
x
x
Zxxxoxxx
;xxxxxxx
r
Nxxxxxxx
�xx0xxxx
xxxxxxx
Nxxxxxxx
Z
Z
z
—
LowLo
Z
Z
—
WMLOLOLOLnLO
Wxxxxxxx
LOLO
W
ti
;xxxxxxx
w
W
z
w
4xxxxxx0
J
Q
0va0a�0
0
Nxxxxxxx
O
a.
z
C)Q�CZamQ
w
Nxxxxxxx
-W�00�
Q�
=i
N
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
0
LL
LU
;—
XXXXXx
T
Nxxxxxxx
o)
Nxxxxxxx
N
x
x
x
LU
O
x
x
x
r
N
�w(0wmrl-
)W
LO
�Xo000o00
w
W
W
z
ce
J
0
o
OvQOCL
d
0J
U
Q
Y
Z
Q
m
Q
zCwa
UU.
U)
0
z
W
W
0
LL
z
CD
Nxxxxxxx
N
N
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Zxxxoxxx
r
Nxxxxxxx
xxxxxxx
N
�wCOCOMI-
5
Z
Z
z
—
LowLo
Z
Z
—
WMLOLOLOLnLO
LOLO
W
w
W
z
w
J
Q
0va0a�0
a.
J
C)Q�CZamQ
wCEF--
awao
-W�00�
Q�
=i
CO) 4)
C
U E co
W N N
:�:, 2 cn
C C C N Y
N � 0 O
a-<<Z
n u n n n
xOw
O
w
Y