Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-10-21 Bd Comm minutesAd Hoc Senior Services Committee October 1, 2014 Page 1 MINUTES FINAL AD HOC SENIOR SERVICES COMMITTEE OCTOBER 1, 2014 — 3:30 P.M. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL Members Present: Joe Younker (Chair), Jay Honohan, Rick Dobyns, Jane Dohrmann (arrived 4:00 P.M.), Mercedes Bern -Klug, Hiram Rick Webber Members Absent: Ellen Cannon Staff Present: Geoff Fruin, Marian Karr, Michelle Buhman RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action): None. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Younker called the meeting to order at 3:35 P.M. CONSIDER MOTION ADOPTING CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED: a. Minutes of the Meeting on 09/24/14 — b. Memo to Asst. City Mgr. — Funding information from other Iowa communities. Honohan moved to adopt the Consent Calendar as presented. Webber seconded the motion. Motion carried 5 -0, Cannon and Dohrmann absent. RECEIVE REFORMATTED SENIOR CENTER EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT: 4 4_b i� Younker noted that everyone received a reformatted evaluation from Honohan. As he was asked to do at the last meeting, Honohan provided some background information and reformatted a summary of the Senior Center Evaluation, which will also be part of the final report to Council. Younker stated that he believes they should accept the report at this time, as they need to move forward in discussing some of the more substantive portions of their charge. Dobyns moved to receive the reformatted Senior Center Evaluation Subcommittee Report as presented. Honohan seconded the motion. Motion carried 5 -0, Cannon and Dohrmann absent. Honohan stated that Members may want to study this before they take any further action on it or make any changes. Younker agreed. REPORTS FROM CONTACT MEMBERS RE: LOCAL AGENCIES / CONSORTIA: Elder Services — None. HAAA — None. JC Livable Communities — None. Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee October 1, 2014 Page 2 Shelter House — None. Pathways — None. Consultation of Religious Communities — None. Free Medical Clinic — None. MECCA — None. JC Mental Health — None. VNA — None. Compeer — None. Hospice — None. SEATS — None. Hispanic Community follow -up — None. DISCUSSION OF CHARGE TWO — RECOMMENDATIONS ON CURRENT FINANCIAL AND PHYSICAL RESOURCES: Younker began by stating that he proposes they start with a discussion of the future use of City tax revenue. He noted that one thing that has struck him during their Committee discussions is that the Senior Center is a tremendous resource. The programming appears to be exceptional, with many people from the community sharing their experiences. He added that the staff of the Center should be commended on the level of services they provide and the excellence that they have helped achieve for the Senior Center. Younker stated that one of the questions should be how can the Center maintain its level of excellence during, and in the midst of, some of the looming budget issues. He suggested they begin their discussion with the future use of City tax revenue. Dobyns asked Younker to explain how this might be applied to some of the programs in Parks and Rec, as Younker used this as an example of City tax revenue and what departments are doing to meet the challenge of lower budgets. Younker noted that a goal for Parks and Recreation is that 50% of the budget be recovered through revenue. So on the recreation side of this department, that would be accomplished through fees associated with participating in the various programs. The goal does not relate to the Parks portion of the budget. Fruin noted that every City department is unique in their ability to raise funds in this manner. Some departments may use fundraising, others may apply for grants, but there is no blanket cost - recovery model that is applied throughout City departments. Fruin shared what some of the other departments have been able to do as far as cost recovery, noting that Transit is able to do a 30 to 35% recovery from the fares that they take in. In Housing Inspections, there is 100% cost recovery through their fees. Younker stated that a discussion about cost recovery will be important for several reasons. One is that it is known that through property tax legislation, the City will be seeing much lower Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee October 1, 2014 Page 3 revenues from property taxes, putting further strain on the budget. He believes they need to look at ways to help the Senior Center maintain the excellence it has achieved, and yet recover some of the costs associated with running the Center. Younker stated that if they do not discuss some of these issues, and if their recommendation is to maintain the status quo, he is concerned about what might happen a few years down the road, after everyone else has been employing cost - recovery models and the Center has not. Honohan noted that when he first joined the Commission in 1998, Johnson County funded 20% of the Center's budget. In 2003, the County decided to no longer fund the Senior Center, instead putting them on `grant status.' This means that every year the Center has to approach Johnson County about funding. As a result of this drop in funding, the Commission initiated participant fees. Honohan noted that one of the recommendations in his draft report is for the Senior Center Commission to review fees and other ways to increase revenue. He added that the current grant from the County is around $59,000. The Community Foundation has an endowment fund that the Center is part of, garnering them around 20% of the budget when you add in participant fees. Fruin noted that it is actually a bit more than that, that the Center probably brings in about 27% of the budget through this. Honohan noted that he would not like to put the Senior Center on a cost benefit idea. Not only for the Center, but he would not want this for SEATS or Transit either. Honohan added that a lot hinges on the sales tax issue that will be decided on the November ballot. Younker noted that there are definitely details of cost recovery that would be better left to City staff and Council to deal with. Webber stated that what stands out for him is what would happen if the Senior Center were to stop serving the needs of the citizens of Iowa City. He asked if they are going to count the amount of money recovered from charging for services, or are they going to count the population addition from other parts of the world and the nation. He stated that he says this because they have heard about people moving from both the west coast and the east coast to Iowa City, just because there is a Senior Center of this quality. Webber added that he is all for keeping the Center the way it is, but with an eye on the future to make sure they can expand and continue to provide the necessary services and programs for larger populations of people. Webber shared something he recently witnessed at the Center — a group of young women in their 20s entering the Center together for an event. He added that to him this is proof that more and more people of differing demographics are coming together at the Center. Bern -Klug asked for some clarification on the issue of `cost recovery.' She asked if this means that the Center would find other ways to raise revenue to pay for part of its operating costs. Younker responded that it does, and clarified that it would need to be something that is phased in over time. Bern -Klug asked if the Center isn't already doing this, with something like $200,000 a year being offset. Fruin noted that about 25% of the Center's expenditures are recovered from non -tax revenue — membership fees, grants, etc. Younker replied that the idea would be that there is a goal, for example Parks and Rec is around 50% and Transportation is around 30 %, that would be set, and that City staff would work with the Senior Center to find out when it would be realistic to achieve that goal. The idea would be that funding that no longer comes from the City comes from another revenue source. Fruin added that Center staff undoubtedly already has some of these cost recovery goals in place, as they have had to do this when working through the budget process. Bern -Klug spoke to the issue of whether the Senior Center charges other groups to use space there, such as Elder Services. She stated that she believes they need to be very careful about Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee October 1, 2014 Page 4 asking for recovery in a quick way, as there could be unintended consequences for other agencies in the area. She reiterated that the Center is already recovering 25% of their costs, and that part of that cost is upkeep of an old building. Bern -Klug stated that cost recovery sounds like a good idea in general; however, the Center is already doing this. She questioned if Younker is suggesting the Center pay a higher percentage of its operating costs. He replied that a recommendation that he would suggest to Council is that a dialogue be started with the Senior Center to talk about a reasonable cost recovery goal, a percentage, that can be implemented over a reasonable period of time. He agreed that implementing this goal too fast could definitely have unintended consequences on other agencies. He added that he does not believe that this Committee is in a position to come up with a timeline or a percent, but more a recommendation that the City look into the issue further. Honohan stated that he could answer some of the questions posed on this issue. The VNA and the Elder Services dining program do not pay for the use of the Center's space, as well as some other groups such as SHIP. He stated that a previous Councilor was always upset that the Center did not charge Elder Services or Heritage for the use of the assembly room and kitchen, especially due to the fact that maintenance and upkeep have been expensive. Honohan added that at the time, though, Heritage had stated that if the Center were to charge them a fee, they would just leave the Center. Due to this, the Center has not charged for the use of their space. Honohan stated that he believes this would be a bad policy to start charging groups such as the VNA. Bern -Klug stated that she is not suggesting this, merely noting that they need to tread lightly in this process. (Dohrmann arrived at the meeting.) Bern -Klug asked Fruin if there is any information regarding the cost recovery percentage for the Library. He replied that he does not recall if they have a set goal or not. Fruin noted that the Library's financial oversight includes the Library Board, which has more explicit powers than the Senior Center Commission, for example. He added that he would look into this. Honohan stated that the Library Board comes under a special statute, which allows them a lot of authority. Bern -Klug stated that she really just doesn't like the idea of 'cost recovery,' especially in this type of situation. Dohrmann noted that another way to look at this is 'in kind' or an acknowledgement of collaboration. Basically how much does the space cost per foot, and then recognize that this is a contribution as a collaboration. She believes this may be more beneficial in terms of a different framework, rather than 'cost recovery.' Bern -Klug agreed, stating that the budget includes money that changes hands, but if they also included other things, such as 'in- kind,' then the actual cost is higher but is not being charged to the City. Fruin stated how staff would approach this issue if Council gave the directive to come up with a percentage. Staff would look at it from what the consequences could be if membership fees were increased, for example. What impact would this have on total membership would have to be analyzed. What impact would this have on other agencies who use space at the Center would also have to be analyzed. Another thing to look at is what parts of the budget make sense to recognize as expenses. For example, building improvements would not be included in a cost - recovery sort of analysis. Younker asked what resources would be tapped in order for staff to perform this analysis. Fruin stated that in this case the Senior Center staff would most likely put together a proposal for a specific goal and then discuss it with the Senior Center Commission and the City Manager's office. These three groups could then come together to present a proposal to the Council. Bern -Klug stated that to her it appears the Center already has a goal of 25 %, which they are meeting, and until there is an actual budget cut, she wonders what the purpose is of cutting Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee October 1, 2014 Page 5 them before that. She added that if the Council decides not to fund the Center at the current rate, the Senior Center is just going to have to adapt to this new level of funding. She asked if others agree that the current 25% is fine as it is. Younker replied that a concern he has is that compared to other departments, this 25% is rather low. He asked if they shouldn't have a discussion with the Senior Center now and see what an appropriate cost recovery goal is for them. He fears that if this Committee suggests to stay with the status quo, that if there is a problem, the Senior Center won't be in as good of a position to make the necessary changes. Younker reiterated that his personal recommendation at this point would not be to dictate any specific percent, but rather a recommendation that City staff work with Senior Center staff to begin discussions on what an appropriate cost recovery percent would be, and over what period of time it should be implemented. Bern -Klug asked if they could get the information of what the percentage of total costs is paid by other groups. Fruin stated that there would be parts of City operations that pay 0 %, as they don't have the ability to recover funds, but he will put together some sort of list for the Committee to review. Dobyns noted that the next part of the conversation will be federal funding. These funds are those used in City STEPS, for example, and have been used to fund programs that provide needed services to Iowa City seniors. Dobyns stated these funds are expected to drop markedly over the next few years. He added that he hopes this Committee would be enthusiastic about raising the preference towards senior services that is used for its City STEPS rating. Dobyns stated that he believes the 25% is, therefore, quite generous. He added that having to increase fees to other services could be an unintended consequence. Younker agreed that a lot of analysis would need to be done first before a percentage is agreed on, as well as what the appropriate timeframe would be. Bern -Klug stated that she rejects the assumption that because the federal government is going to reduce its funds to other senior agencies that it automatically means the money comes from the Senior Center. She believes these things are completely separate, and she for one will not agree to this kind of justification. Continuing, she stated that they are two different pots of money, and that to assume the Senior Center is only serving seniors, and that other groups using the Center are only serving seniors, is wrong. Bern -Klug stated that she believes the Council needs to look very broadly at how to make up this amount of money, and not just pick from the `senior' pot of money. She added that this is just too simplistic. Bern -Klug stated that basically the Council needs to decide if they want an excellent Senior Center or not. If they want to do it a lot cheaper, they can, at a cost. Younker stated that he agrees with Bern -Klug to a degree, that money that comes through the CDBG money or Aid to Agencies is separate; however, the other part of this is the property tax component. This issue has the biggest impact on the budget and is really what is driving the cost recovery discussion. Fruin responded to questions regarding the State's change to property taxes, noting that the loss of revenue could be upwards of $50 million over 10 years. He further explained how the phase -in of this plan is supposed to work, noting that the State is to backfill some of these lost funds but that their track record in doing so is not too good. Growth and the addition of taxable value is the only way to make up for the lost property tax revenue, according to Fruin. Webber spoke to the articles he has read in the papers, where it states people want to live in Iowa City and are moving here to retire, for example. He noted that this is growth, which brings an increase in the tax base. He asked if there are any projections as to how many more people might move here in the next 10 years. Fruin responded, noting that the City is typically growing at a percent or two per year, and he doubts that this would change, unless the University would aggressively pursue an enrollment boost. He added that they have discussed doing this, but that he really doesn't see the growth rate changing much from where it has been. Bern -Klug asked for some specifics on just how much of the City's Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee October 1, 2014 Page 6 budget the decrease in multi - family would bring in lost revenue. Fruin stated that he would have to look into this further, but that multi - family is nearly half of the housing stock in Iowa City. He will put some numbers together and try to answer Bern - Klug's questions on this issue. It was noted that this information was in Bockenstedt's memo from the July 30, 2014, meeting. Discussion continued, with Bern -Klug asking what their motivation is — that they think it's unfair how much the Senior Center is getting compared to other groups, or is the Committee helping to prepare for a $50 million shortfall. She added that these are two completely different drivers. Dobyns responded that he believes they are the same, that these are the realities — the City is losing funds and decisions need to be made on how they should respond to it over the next few years in a more controlled way. Continuing, Dobyns asked how the City can react equitably when it comes to senior services and overall resource reduction. Dobyns used the example of Elder Services, and how the preference of senior services was moved down in rank, resulting in them receiving less money. He reiterated that he hopes this Committee will recommend to the Council that senior services be moved up in rank, in order to keep it at a higher level of funding. Fruin stated that he wanted to clarify that when they talk about the Senior Center funding, they are supported with City general funds. The 75% of their operating budget comes from property tax dollars. The Aid to Agency program is funded through a combination of those same property tax dollars, and the federal CDBG dollars. Fruin continued, noting that when you combine the local funds with the federal funds, the whole pot of money comes under the federal rules. He added that right now they have around $275,000 for the Aid to Agencies program. These are distributed based on the federal City STEPS plan. The bulk of the CDBG funds are used to support capital -type projects, such as purchasing homes for affordable housing, building a playground at a neighborhood center, or doing building renovations for Hospice or some other such entity. Younker stated that he sees their charge as an instruction to provide some guidance to Council, and to frame the conversation. His concern is that if they don't address issues, such as cost recovery, that places like the Senior Center could be in trouble. He believes these issues need to be addressed, and he would like to see the Committee draft recommendations that provide some guidance, and include the Senior Center in these discussions now. On the other hand they could say to maintain the `status quo' the Center, but then they are not giving any guidance to a problem that is real and needs to be addressed, sooner rather than later. Honohan spoke up at this point, stating that he believes they are doing two things here. The Senior Center is entirely separate, in his opinion, as to what they have to recommend, as opposed to the other agencies. He stated that he looks at Elder Services' information, for example, and their revenue is approximately 75 to 80% of their budget. Fruin then further clarified the Aid to Agency funds and where the majority of these come from. Bern -Klug stated that she wanted to take the discussion a different direction at this point, stating that perhaps they need to think outside the box somewhat. Rather than moving the money around, she suggested they recommend that the Council fund some kind of a major event to help the Senior Center, and these non - profits, learn how to fundraise or how to develop more of their own self- sufficiency. By investing in the overall senior services, the City could help them help themselves so that everyone can learn how to achieve the funding they need. Younker responded that the idea is to find ways to replace money that may no longer be available. He stated that there will be a significant drop in funds coming from the general fund and from the federal government, this is a known fact. Basically the City needs to communicate this to agencies who in the past received money from the City and may no longer receive them. Bern - Klug reiterated that she believes they should recommend that the Council put some funds into Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee October 1, 2014 Page 7 spurring fundraising among the non - profits and the Senior Center so that they can increase their ability to raise money. Going back to the $50 million loss over 10 years, Bern -Klug stated that she still needs to understand this more clearly. She asked if this means the City will be receiving 10% less in revenues from property taxes per year, or 80% less. She stated that the money is important and the percent is important, and that until they have both of these figures, she believes they're just grasping at coming up with a goal for what the loss might be. Until she knows these numbers, Bern -Klug stated that it would be very difficult for her to agree to any cutbacks for any of the senior services. Dohrmann stated that perhaps in terms of moving forward they need to acknowledge to all of the groups involved that there is going to be a decrease in funds, and that a recommendation needs to be made that they look at alternative resources for funding, in order to be prepared for these upcoming cuts. Speaking to Bern - Klug's concern with needing to know more specific information, she agreed that being able to let these entities know what types of cuts they are talking about would be very helpful and would give them a better understanding of what the City faces. Dohrmann also spoke to the issue of moving senior services up in preference when it comes to the City STEPS funding. Dobyns agreed that there needs to be some type of 'alert' to all services within the City, whether they get funding from property tax revenues or routed through the City from federal, that reductions are going to be occurring over the next few years. He also agreed that senior services needs to be restored in preference when the City is administering federal funds. Bern -Klug added that although she would like to see the senior services preference higher, she questioned who would be moved down in preference to make up for this change. Younker added that they can certainly recommend that senior services receive a certain priority level, but he questioned if they can know what impact this might have on other categories. Dobyns asked Fruin how the City staff committee that reviews City STEPS recommendations to Council views the Alzheimer's Association — if it is mental health or senior in nature. Fruin stated that it is basically subjective, based on what the agency is applying for. He explained that some organizations may have specific programs that fit in a category. He used MECCA for an example, stating that a program targeting specifically seniors would be under senior services instead of substance abuse programming. Honohan stated he thinks they need to look at the target population of these agencies when it comes time to make their final recommendations. Shelter House, for example, is probably one program that he believes they don't need to address. He stated that he estimates 80 to 90% of the participants are non - seniors. MECCA is the same way, for the most part, according to Honohan. Hospice is another population that Honohan believes they should not add to their list, as they can charge for a lot of their services. The VNA is another program that receives a lot of funding, mostly through Medicare and Medicaid. Honohan added that this may help reduce their concerns about how much money they have to go around. Younker stated that at this point he would entertain a motion that a recommendation be made that the Committee believes it is important to communicate in some way to agencies who provide senior services that the funding will decrease over the next few years. Bern -Klug stated that she would move that they say that the tax dollars coming into the City is estimated to be decreased. She believes the fair thing to say is that because of the state law, there is going to be less tax revenue coming to the City starting on such - and -such date, for up to 10 years, and that they don't know yet how this is going to shake out. Younker suggested that if the Committee can agree on the issue of communicating the budget issue to the agencies, he and Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee October 1, 2014 Page 8 Dohrmann can work with City staff to draft an appropriate recommendation that the Committee could review at the next meeting. Honohan stated that he does not believe they are ready to do this yet. He believes this is interwoven with whatever they talk about with the agencies. Honohan is still perplexed as to what they are to really do with their second charge. He added that he does not believe he is in a position to say that senior services deserves more funds and someone else deserves less. Dobyns noted that Younkers' suggestion is that they don't over- emphasize any agency. All agencies are just alerted to this issue. Dohrmann stated that she believes they have a responsibility to the other organizations in light of their long -term planning. Dohrmann moved that they should alert organizations that receive current funding that their funding may be decreased due to decreased property tax revenues, local, state, and federal funding. Dobyns seconded the motion. Motion carried 5 -1, Honohan in the negative and Cannon absent. Younker stated that he and Dohrmann will work with City staff on the proposed recommendation and will bring this to the next meeting. Younker stated that he thinks they are trying to talk about two separate issues here — the agencies that they have been discussing, and then issues specific to the Senior Center. He added that he would like to talk about the Senior Center first, even though some of the issues may overlap. He spoke to the issue of a proposal that the Senior Center take steps to recover more costs or pay a higher share of its costs. Younker believes this is a recommendation they need to include in their report. Honohan stated that in the draft that they tabled, on page 3 of his notes, 'Opportunities for Improvement,' it states, "The fees for participants in the Center are reasonable, but considering future budget constraints, a review of fees and other ways to assist in the funding of the Center should be considered by the Senior Center Commission and Steering Committee. Scholarships for low incomes should be continued and encouraged." Younker stated that this is part of what they are talking about, but that paying more of their share may go beyond just this. Bern -Klug stated that she is uncomfortable with this, that other departments don't do this at all. She believes that saying the Senior Center isn't paying enough is not right. Younker stated that City staff would work with the Senior Center staff to see what would be appropriate for this department, confirming that each department is different. He is just concerned that if they have a report without this recommendation, it fails to acknowledge something that definitely needs to be discussed and that it would be a disservice to the Senior Center. Fruin responded to Bern - Klug's concerns about the Senior Center's budget and why up until this point their budget was acceptable. She reiterated that she believes their goal is already there — that they are recovering 25% of their costs. Fruin explained how such a recommendation would be handled by City staff, noting that he would be working with the Center's staff, asking them if they believe the recommendation is feasible and possible, and what the impacts would be if implemented. He added that in this case there is an extra layer as it would also go to the Senior Center Commission for review. At some point the City staff and the Senior Center Commission would need to respond to Council and explain whatever it is they have come up with — whether it's 50% over 10 years or whether it's to stay at the 25 %. Younker asked Fruin if this process is a bit different from the annual budget process. Fruin responded that on an annual basis each department prepares their budget, putting in their requests, etc. They then come to the City Manager's office for review, and ultimately the City Manager and Finance Director's offices decide what the final recommendation to Council will be. Dobyns stated that he would make a motion that City staff, prior to the next meeting, draft language consistent with what Fruin said — making the Senior Center responsible for a higher percentage of its total costs. He noted that he is not saying they are voting on this. He is just Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee October 1, 2014 Page 9 making the motion that staff draft the language for this motion should they really vote on it. Younker asked Fruin if this is something that staff could put together. Fruin responded that he could put some language, but that this is not enough time to actually develop a goal in terms of what this percentage may be. Bern -Klug stated that she does not believe they should come up with any specific percentages, as they have no basis by which to do this. Fruin agreed, stating that he would not be able to just give them a percentage, and that staff would need time to develop it. Dobyns explained that he is just trying to get something in front of them to work with, that they can then wordsmith it as they continue to discuss this. Bern -Klug reiterated that she will not agree to anything that says it's a given that there will be a cut to the Senior Center funding. She has not been convinced that this is the way to go; and wants to see what the amount of money is that the City is not going to be getting, not just in terms of dollars but also in terms of percentages. Also, she wants to have an understanding of whether everything that is funded by the City is also going to lose money or just the non - profits. Fruin pulled up Bockenstedt's memo to the Committee from their July meeting, noting that they can repost this to the next packet for the Members' review. Looking at FY16, he noted that the estimated loss in property tax dollars is $2 million, out of roughly $50 million, so about 4 %. Every year this will ratchet up, according to Fruin. Jumping to fiscal year 2024, Fruin noted that the total loss of property tax is over $9 million. He continued to further explain the expected outcomes from this, noting that there is the possibility of 15% of the City's budget being lost in that 10 -year period. As to how these cuts will be distributed, Fruin noted that it really isn't prudent to say there will be an across - the -board cut of a certain percent. Typically the values of the community sort of dictate where the cuts will take place. Fruin reminded the Committee that roughly 80% of the budget is for personnel expenses. Bern -Klug asked Fruin if the amount that goes to the Senior Center, for example, increases gradually over the years or if it is stagnant. Fruin replied that typically they have seen a 3 to 5% growth in most departments, that the City has been fairly strict about this in recent years. Bern -Klug suggested that their recommendation be on the dollar amount given to the Senior Center, that they say it would be unlikely that there will be an increase to this amount. Younker stated that they need to back up a bit here, that they really should watch recommending any dollar amounts or percentages at this point. He then asked Karr to restate the motion as he got a bit distracted. She read the motion again: Dobyns moved that City staff develop language re: making the Senior Center responsible for higher percentage of costs. Members continued to discuss said motion, with Fruin stating that what staff would do is put together language describing a process that the Committee would recommend to the Council. This process would basically say that City staff would work with Senior Center staff to develop or determine what the appropriate cost recovery is for the future of the Senior Center. This recommendation would then be vetted with the Senior Center Commission and then presented to the Council at a subsequent date for their consideration. Younker asked for a second to Dobyns' motion at this point, but none was heard. Dohrmann stated that she would like to make a comment. She believes they need to consider the growth of the senior population in Iowa City, and how this group is going to continue to grow. She added that this is a real challenge for them in terms of prioritization. Dohrmann stated that she believes they need to acknowledge in their report the increased need for senior services as this population continues to increase. Webber stated that those who come to Iowa City will be bringing their dollars with them, that this is an older population who has saved their money and have chosen to move here. This adds to the Iowa City tax base. Dobyns agreed that in the final document to Council, this information should definitely be included. He reiterated what his motion is getting at — that they get something on paper from City staff, and the language that they can then react to at the next Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee October 1, 2014 Page 10 meeting. He added that they may not even support it as a majority, but that at least it will get the conversation moving. Bern -Klug disagreed, stating that this is done every year in the budget process and that she does not see a need to second this motion. Younker then seconded Dobyns' motion. At this point Honohan stated that he will never support any document that talks about cost recovery, as he does not think this is appropriate. He believes this gets into cost benefit, which he believes they cannot judge in this situation. He also believes you cannot judge this in the case of the Police or Fire departments, or even the Library. Honohan added that he will not support this particular motion, nor will he ever support anything that mentions cost recovery in their final recommendation. He believes they can encourage change, as he pointed out earlier on page 3 of his notes, but that he guarantees the Senior Center Commission and the Steering Council have been concerned with this issue for some time now. Dobyns tried to explain that this motion is not `voting' on anything, that it is voting to have staff put some language together and that the Committee can then react to at the next meeting. Bern -Klug stated that she believes there are other ways to move the work of this Committee forward, and she called for a vote. Dohrmann asked if Karr could repeat the motion being voted on. Karr read the motion again: Dobyns moved that City staff develop language re: making the Senior Center responsible for higher percentage of costs. Younker seconded the motion. Fruin stated that it would be to outline a process to the Commission on how the City would establish a cost recovery goal with the Senior Center staff. Motion failed 2 -3; Younker and Dobyns in the positive; Honohan, Bern -Klug, and Webber voting in the negative, and Dohrmann abstaining. Cannon absent. Bern -Klug then moved that the Senior Center staff meet with City staff to develop a contingency plan in the event that the City revenues decrease as expected, and show what this would mean if the same percent decrease was assumed by the Senior Center. She added that she is not comfortable saying there is a percentage that should be coming back. It was suggested that instead of `cost recovery' they use 'revenue sources.' Dohrmann noted that the idea of fundraising, the idea of utilizing space more efficiently and renting out space are things that would be revenue sources. Increasing fees based on a sliding scale is another source of revenue. Honohan again reiterated that this is what his draft report says — other ways to assist in the funding of the Center should be considered by the Senior Center Commission and Steering Committee. He asked if this isn't what they are saying here. Members continued to discuss this issue, with Honohan noting that the Center's staff would indeed be involved in this process. Younker stated that he believes that in addition to the recommendation for the Center, there are the overall recommendations regarding financial resources. Bern -Klug stated that she would like to work on her previous motion. Dohrmann stated that she would be comfortable in changing the previous motion from "cost recovery" to "revenue streams." Younker suggested that he work to prepare a recommendation that he believes covers this evening's discussion, and then the Committee can vote it up or down at the next meeting. PUBLIC DISCUSSION (ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA): Kathy Mitchell stated that she has a question regarding revenue streams. She asked how successful the alcohol policy has been. She noted that the Library has an alcohol policy, as does the Recreation Department. She stated that the Senior Center Commission has set forth a policy for the Senior Center that is currently in the Legal Department for review. Mitchell's question is in regard to how well the policy is doing financially in terms of revenue streams. Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee October 1, 2014 Page 11 Fruin stated that regardless of which operation you look at, it's negligible at this point. He added that they are not going out trying to make big money off of this. Mary Gravitt stated that she would like to make people aware of Proposition 13 and what it did to California. She referred to an article entitled "Chose a College Town for Your Retirement," by author Joseph W. Lubow. Continuing, Gravitt read from the article, sharing some of the author's words about college towns and noting how Iowa City stacks up against other communities. Gravitt then played the video of the February 18, 2014, Council meeting where the Mayor read the State of the City address. She highlighted his comments about safety and quality of life in Iowa City. Larry Rogers stated that he lives in Ecumenical Towers. He added that he gave the Members a packet of information that include some articles from the internet, the Gazette, and from the 25th Anniversary of the Senior Center. Rogers then spoke to the information in his packet regarding Elder Services, noting that they describe themselves as 'the premiere regional resource specializing in services for elders and their caregivers.' He stated that one thing he doesn't understand with them regarding meals is when you go to pay for the meal ticket, it says `Heritage Agency' on it. He asked who is actually preparing the meals and delivering them — Elder Services or Heritage Agency, which is an eight- county agency that covers a huge array of services. He stated that this committee should find out who Elder Services actually is and who is being funded when they give them money. Secondly, Rogers spoke to an article about Cedar Rapids needing a quality Senior Center. The article is written by a retired Rockwell Collins' engineer who has visited senior centers in several other locations. In the article, it states that Iowa City's Senior Center is one of the best in the country. Rogers then spoke about the 25th anniversary of the Senior Center and how the City purchased the old Post Office — now a premiere Senior Center in Iowa City. Rogers then asked what it is exactly that this Committee is talking about. He asked how much money they are actually talking about — just here in Iowa City or eight counties that are covered by Elder Services. Shirley Lindell stated that she has a question regarding Fruin's comment that 80% of the money being spent is for staff. Fruin stated that this is more or less correct. She asked how much value is being put on the 25% that the Senior Center provides for its budget — such as the volunteers at the Center. How much value do the volunteer contributions get? Jeneva Ford stated that she finds it really interesting to see all of the interaction and considerations being given to the concerns here. She stated that she grew up a long time ago in another state, in a farming area, at a one -room schoolhouse, and at that time it was unusual for anyone to have a college education. She added that this has changed over the years though. Ford continued, stating that some things in life do not have a monetary value, or should not be considered only with a monetary value attached. She believes the Senior Center falls under this idea — there should be no monetary value attached here. She believes it's an intangible value, and that it is very important in many people's lives. Ford stated that she read in the Center's annual report that there are 600 -plus volunteers involved there, and how valuable this is to the Center. Feather Lacy spoke to the Committee asking where on the web page she can find the wording for the second charge. Younker responded that there is a resolution that the City Council passed that includes the charge, and that it is on the web site. Karr added that there are several ways to find it — under "Boards and Commissions" select the Ad Hoc Senior Services Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee October 1, 2014 Page 12 and the establishment of the resolution is there. It is also contained in the meeting folder documents. TENTATIVE THREE -MONTH MEETING SCHEDULE: Younker stated that he wanted to get a sense of where they are on the timeline and with their schedule so they can see what they need to get done before December 1St. After reviewing the meeting schedule, Younker stated that he would like to have a draft report ready by either the October 22 or November 12 meeting that would then be ready for public comment. This would then leave them two meetings in which to revise the report and get it ready for the final form. Honohan stated that based upon today's discussions, he believes October 22 might be too ambitious. He then volunteered to work on the draft for the second part of the report, adding that he has already done some of this, and that he could then present this at the next meeting. Younker stated that he doesn't know that they're ready to put a draft together on part two quite yet, that they still have some significant parts to discuss yet. Honohan reiterated that he would be glad to work on a rough draft of part two, that having something in front of them might help to spur the discussions. Younker thanked Honohan for his offer, but stated that he and Dohrmann would work together to put a draft together for part two, specifically the part dealing with the agency reports. He believes they need to have further discussions before they complete this draft. After a brief discussion of timelines for packets, Honohan asked if they could have the packet on the Friday before the October 15 meeting. He added that this would give them all more time to digest what is going to be discussed at the next week's meeting. Karr stated that if Members would like to have the packet on Friday, October 10, she needs to have all packet materials by noon on that Friday. TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE October 15 October 22 November 12 November 24 Special meetings if needed ADJOURNMENT: Honohan moved to adjourn the meeting at 5:45 P.M., seconded by Dohrmann. Motion carried 5 -0, Cannon absent and Bern -Klug left meeting at 5:43 P.M. Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee October 1, 2014 Page 13 Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee ATTENDANCE RECORD 2014 Key. X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting - -- = Not a Member at this time TERM o t!1 0 �7f 0 01 0 W 0 �I 0 �I 0 V 0 00 0 tC 0 �C O O NAME EXP. O O N O N W o —1 a go O w N O j Cn .1h. ,P A Ah P A A 1211114 X X X X X X X X X X X Joe Younker Jay 1211114 X X X X X X X X X X X Honohan Mercedes 1211114 X X X X X X X X X X X Bern -Klug Hiram 12/1/14 X X X X X X X X X X X Richard Webber Ellen 1211/14 X X X X X X X X X O/ O/ Cannon E E Jane 12/1/14 X X X X X X X X X O/ X Dohrmann E Rick 12/1/14 X X X X X X X X X X X Dobyns Key. X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting - -- = Not a Member at this time 4b(2) MINUTES APPROVED BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 10, 2014 DJUSTMENT CITY HALL, EMMA HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, Gene Chrischilles, Connie Goeb, Brock Grenis, Becky Soglin MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Susan Dulek OTHERS PRESENT: 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 during the meeting. CONSIDERATION OF THE MAY 14. 2014 MEETING MINUTES Soglin moved to approve the minutes Baker seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion carried 5 -0 SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEM EXC14- 00009: Discussion of an application submitted by Our Redeemer Lutheran church for a special exemption to allow an accessory storage building associated with a Religious Assembly Use located in the Low Density Single- Family (RS -5) zone at 2301 East Court Street. Walz gave a brief presentation of the background of this application. Our Redeemer Lutheran Church is proposing to build an 864 square foot utility shed in the southeast corner of the lot at 2301 E. Court Street. As a religious institution in a Low Density Single Family Residential (RS- 5) zone, an expansion beyond 500 square foot requires a special exception from the Board of Board of Adjustment September 10, 2014 Page 2 of 4 Adjustment to assure the design and placement of the structure fit the area. Walz showed the aerial view of the property and the area in the back south end of the lot where they will build the new structure. Currently there is a moveable garden shed structure there that will be moved away and replaced with the new structure. Walz explained that there are specific criteria for Religious Group Assembly Uses in the RS -5 zone; how a parking lot will be used, the minimum setbacks. The criterion that does pertain to this application is that the proposed use will be designed to be compatible with adjacent uses. Since this is a residential area, a garage is not unusual. It fits most of the general standards. There is a sewer easement that runs along the east side of the property, so the building must be set back and cannot be within that easement. The building will need to be moved over 12 ft. but it will still fit in the area they wish to build it. Walz explained that there is plenty of landscaping screening, and the structure will be setback and the area is heavily screened by vegetation and trees. Walz stated that the staff is recommending approval of the application by Our Redeemer Lutheran Church to build a 24' x 36' utility shed on the southeast corner of their property in the Low Density Single Family Residential (RS -5) zone located at 2301 E. Court Street, subject to the following conditions: 1. The structure should be located in the south end of the parking area but outside the sanitary sewer easement; 2. Landscape screening in the area should be preserved; 3. Substantial compliance with the elevations submitted. Soglin questioned if the structure could be used as a garage, and Walz confirmed that yes a vehicle would fit in the structure, but the church has indicated that main purpose is for storage of equipment. A garage would be treated the same way under the zoning code. Michael Applenarth spoke on behalf of the Our Redeemer Lutheran Church. He confirmed that the building will be used to store lawnmowers and snow blowers. The larger door on west end will allow them to place a 24' trailer in there for parade float building. Grenis opened the public hearing. No one from the public addressed the Board. The public hearing was closed. Soglin moved to approve item EXC14 -00009 an application by Our Redeemer Lutheran Church to build a 24' x 36' utility shed on the southeast corner of their property in the Low Density Single Family Residential (RS -5) zone located at 2301 E. Court Street, subject to the following conditions: 1. The structure should be located in the south end of the parking area but outside the sanitary sewer easement; 2. Landscape screening in the area should be preserved; and 3. Substantial compliance with the elevations submitted. Baker seconded the motion. Grenis said that regarding EXC14 -00009 he concurs with the findings set forth in the staff report of September 10, 2014, and concludes that the general and specific criteria are satisfied. Board of Adjustment September 10, 2014 Page 3 of 4 Unless amended or opposed by another Board member he recommends that the Board adopt the findings in the staff report as their findings for the acceptance of this proposal. He noted that no neighbors had objected to the special exception. 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: Introduced Becky Scott as the new minute taker for Board of Adjustment meetings. Walz informed the board of the South District Plan and there is a planning workshop on Monday, October 6. All residents of that area will be invited and the Board is also invited to attend. Additionally there will be a bike tour of the area on September 20 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION: ADJOURNMENT: Chrischilles moved to adjourn. The meeting was adjourned on a 5 -0 vote. Next meeting October 8. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ATTENDANCE RECORD 2013-2014 NAME TERM EXP. 7/10 8/21 9/10 11/7 12/11 1/8 3/12 4/9 5/14 9/10 BAKER, LARRY 1/1/2017 X X X X X X X X X X GOEB, CONNIE 1/1/2015 - -- - -- X X X X X X X X GRENIS, BROCK 1/1/2016 X X X X X X X X X X CHRISCHILLES, T. GENE 1/1/2019 X X X X X X X X X X SOGLIN, BECKY 1/1/2018 X X X X X X X X X X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused - -- = Not a Member Charter Review Commission September 30, 2014 4b(3) Page 1 MINUTES FINAL CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 30, 2014 — 7:30 A.M. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL Members Present: Steve Atkins, Andy Chappell, Karrie Craig, Karen Kubby, Melvin Shaw, Anna Moyers Stone, Adam Sullivan, Dee Vanderhoef Members Absent: Mark Schantz Staff Present: Marian Karr, Eleanor Dilkes RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action): CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Chappell called the meeting to order at 7:30 A.M. CONSIDER MOTION ADOPTING CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED: a. Minutes of the Meetings on 09/09/14 and 9/23/14 — b. Correspondence — (1) Chris Piker; (2) Sonia Ettinger; (3) Paul Kelly (late handout) Karr noted that they received a late handout today, a letter from Paul Kelly. She added that they can amend the Consent Calendar to adopt this, if the Commission is okay with that. Sullivan moved to accept the Consent Calendar as amended. Kubby seconded the motion. Motion carried 8 -0, Schantz absent. REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF: a. City Clerk Memo — future playbacks for Community Input Forum — Karr noted that her memo reiterates what was stated at the end of the public forum, which are the playback days /times for the Commission's recent forum. b. Chappell reported on his visit with the Board for the League of Women Voters. He shared what the Commission had been doing thus far, and he asked them to think about what type of interaction they are looking for. The correspondence he received back shows that they want to have a forum on the Charter, both informative and to have a discussion on some of the bigger issues. Chappell said the League forum is being scheduled for November 19th at 7:00 P.M., and the League would like some of the Commission Members to attend. Karr reminded Members that if five or more attend it would need to be posted as a meeting. Karr will add this to agenda items so the Commission can discuss it further at the next meeting. Shaw stated that he is going to be meeting with a Council Member regarding his work on this Commission, and he asked if this is okay. Chappell stated that this is no problem and that whatever information Shaw would like to share with the Commission is okay, as well. Charter Review Commission September 30, 2014 Page 2 REVIEW PUBLIC FORUM INPUT OF SEPTEMBER 23: Correspondence received and accepted: * Judy Pfohl * Harry Olmstead * Carol deProsse * Martha Norbeck * Chris Piker Chappell stated that there is a relatively light agenda today, as it is mainly to review the public forum input, including correspondence received thus far. He asked Members how they would like to start their review this evening, noting that there were some clear issues coming out of the forum. Chappell stated that he thought the forum went well, with about 24 in attendance. Kubby noted an interesting observation — three of the four people who said, `It's working great; don't do anything,' were former elected officials. Kubby stated that one thing that was brought up, but that the Commission hadn't yet discussed, was to have four districts and three at- large. She stated that she understands the motivation behind this thinking, but that she is unsure if it would function very well. She questioned if those four districts could then become the majority players when issues arise. Vanderhoef stated that she would be concerned if the districts became more than the at- large, as those representatives could 'forget the big picture' and think only of their district. She added that you have to look at the overall picture of the city as a whole. Sullivan asked how often the district maps are redrawn. Karr responded that they are done after the new Census information is provided every 10 years. She briefly explained how state and federal mandates play into this, as well. Chappell asked if it occurs very often that a councilor will go from an at -large to a district, or vice versa, either by redrawing boundaries or individual choices. Karr noted that it does not happen very often, but that it has happened recently with Terry Dickens switching from At -large to district. Sullivan spoke to the last election, noting that the 'quasi- districts' can be confusing. There were six candidates running for three seats, but in two separate races. Vanderhoef asked Sullivan for some clarification. He stated that to him it is superfluous to have this other race, as one seat is at -large and the other is a district seat. Members agreed, after further discussion, that the theory of the current Charter is that everyone on the Council will represent everyone in the community. Chappell stated that he would question what is gained by adding another district, if the ultimate result would be achieved. Sullivan responded to Chappell's observation about districts, stating that he doesn't believe district size and ratio of representation is a concern. Craig agreed, stating that the city really is small enough that with three districts, mixed with the four at- large, the representation appears to be very fair to her. She sees no reason to change how this works. Discussion continued, with Members weighing in on the issue of fair representation throughout the community. Vanderhoef noted that in her experience the people who are satisfied with how things are going do not come to the meetings to say reiterate this. Instead it is the people who are wanting change that more frequently come and voice their objections or ideas. She added that this is a good thing as it gives the Council new ideas to consider. Kubby then asked how keeping or changing the Charter around districts help people feel more heard, even if their ideas are not agreed to. Vanderhoef stated that she herself is not interested in changing the number of districts at this point. She believes the system works as well as it can right now. Chappell Charter Review Commission September 30, 2014 Page 3 stated that if a change were to be made, he would never support having the majority be districts. He believes the majority of the Councilors must have the best interest of the entire city in mind. Shaw spoke to the issue of how citizens can feel more connected. He asked if a change to the process in elections, such as what Sullivan was talking about earlier, would make a difference. Getting rid of the primary elections, he suggested, might make things clearer for voters. Kubby stated that she believes people will feel more engaged and heard when they have their district person on the Council. She believes this could bring about greater participation. Members continued to discuss the issue — district versus at- large. Vanderhoef asked if there has ever been an at -large candidate from the west side of the river. She added that without a district, she wonders about the growth on the west side and whether this could become an entire district. Karr shared some history with the Commission, noting a couple of the previous Councilors who lived west of the river. Chappell noted that at the next public forum, this should be one of the issues they put forth for discussion. Another issue that has been heard several times is the selection of the mayor and whether this should be done through a direct election by the citizens. The issue of a 'stronger mayor' was heard at the public forum, as well. Chappell stated that he himself has no interest in the 'strong mayor' approach. He believes this would mean a change in the form of government they currently have. Sullivan stated that he believes there is a way to go this direction without having to make major changes. He believes the election of the mayor, however, is independent of the 'strong mayor' issue. Vanderhoef asked if there would be interest in something like what Coralville has — the mayor is non - voting, unless there is a tie. Craig stated that she believes the mayor is currently elected by the citizens. They voted the Councilor in, and then the entire Council — all directly elected — chooses the mayor. Shaw asked how many times a newly elected Councilor has been elected mayor by their peers. No one recalled any newly elected members serving as Mayor. He asked if the Councilors decide who would best lead them, or if it is the campaigning or theater for it that gets the selection made. Kubby responded that sometimes it is the least offensive person, not necessarily the person who will best lead the group or lead the city. Chappell asked if any of the group are interested in changing to the 'strong mayor' form of government. With no interest shown, he stated that the real issue for their discussion is the current system of the Council selecting the mayor versus direct election by the citizens. Members discussed these issues, with Dilkes suggesting the group take a look at cities that do have direct election of a 'non - strong mayor' and see how this form works. Cedar Rapids, Sioux City, and others were given as examples. The discussion continued, with Members noting their opinions on the mayor issue. Citing other cities and how their forms of government appear to be working, examples were given of how an elected mayor could benefit the city. Chappell agreed with Kubby that he would like to see more transparency regarding how the mayor is currently elected. He questioned if this would increase confidence in their current form of government or not. Shaw asked how long the actual process takes, if one of the Councilors states that they want to be mayor or just what happens. Kubby stated that typically immediately after the election the talking begins. Shaw asked if that process could be incorporated into a Council meeting or two, one where the public is in attendance. He added that an announcement could be made as to when the `campaigning' process for mayor begins, when the process ends, and how it is going to take place, which he believes should be in a public forum. Sullivan suggested making nominations for mayor to be made at a previous meeting than the meeting where the vote takes place. This would give at Charter Review Commission September 30, 2014 Page 4 least two weeks for the public to respond. In response to questions, Dilkes stated that you could always make the first deadline very soon after the election. This way if someone has an interest in being mayor, they must declare by that specific day after the election. Karr responded to questions by stating that the swearing in of new Councilors occurs right after the election canvas is final; and typically new members are sworn in way ahead of taking office January 1. Members continued to discuss this issue, with Vanderhoef noting that one of Iowa City's previous mayors told her that he did not know he was going to be mayor until he was walking into Council chambers that day. This was because two others on the Council really wanted to be mayor, and this individual was chosen instead, even though he had not stated his interest. Shaw noted that broadly speaking, the process of how a mayor is elected in Iowa City is not transparent, and by having a declaration of some sort regarding this process, the public could be better informed. The discussion continued, with Members discussing what the mayoral position does in general and what influences they may have overall. Kubby noted that this position should have more responsibility than a regular Councilor. Chappell stated that for him, not every Councilor would make a good mayor. They may make a good Councilor, for example, but he doesn't believe everyone has what it takes to be the mayor. Dilkes stated that there is not much in the current Charter regarding the mayor's duties. It states that the mayor is a voting member of the Council, an official representative of the city, and presiding officer of the Council and its policy spokesperson. She added that currently the Council has to have at least three Councilors agree to an issue in order to put it on the work session agenda. Members agreed that this is a 'practice' issue of how the Council handles business, not a Charter issue. Kubby stated that not everyone can facilitate meetings well and keep a group, such as the Council, on task. Chappell stated that he has some concerns when it comes to directly elected mayors, and that they may end up with longer - serving mayors. He noted that in the last decade, mayors have tended to serve two to four years. He questioned if someone in this position wouldn't become more entrenched in the position. Atkins asked if there shouldn't be term limits of sorts, such as you can serve no more than four consecutive years. He added that reasonable duties and responsibilities would need to be spelled out and available to all of those interested in being mayor. Kubby stated that even if they kept the process the same, they could still do this. It would make Councilors consider whether they believe they are qualified to fulfill these duties. Karr stated that she wanted to follow up with an observation that Craig made, in regards to having all seven Councilors declaring their desire to be mayor. You could also end up with four of the seven expressing interest, and then a few weeks later end up with nobody interested in the position and withdrawing. Shaw stated that his take on this is with the exception of clearly distinguishing the duties of the mayor, the mayoral position is not given any further 'power' than currently exists in the Charter. The issue of transparency and the citizens understanding the process of how the mayor is selected is what is important. Vanderhoef stated that she would like to have more discussions about how many terms a mayor can have. She believes it feeds into some of what Kubby has said, that some people could be prone to stay on Council longer in order to push their own agenda. She believes no more than two consecutive terms would be appropriate, but that there needs to be others in the position in order to keep things fresh. Members briefly discussed a couple of mayors with extended terms. Dilkes noted that she pulled up the Cedar Rapids' Charter and that their mayor, who is directly elected, has significantly more responsibilities than the Iowa City Charter shows for its mayor, Charter Review Commission September 30, 2014 Page 5 including representing the city in inter - governmental relationships, appoint with the advice and consent of the Council members of citizen advisory boards, present an annual message, appoint the members and officers of Council committees, and serve as an ex officio member thereof, assign Council agenda items subject to consent of Council, coordinate economic development activities of the city, and then perform various ceremonial tasks. Karr noted that the mayor's proclamations are the only thing that are directly from the mayor himself. Atkins noted that the current Charter states that a mayoral appointment will be made 'immediately,' so the framework is already established in regards to this issue. REVIEW CHARTER: Chappell stated that as far as moving forward with their review, they can either go back through the Charter and further discuss those issues that arose. Or they can go through the Charter, topic specific, and have further discussions on those. Sullivan stated that he would trust Chappell and Karr to come up with those items that have arisen through the Commission's review and to bring those back for further review. Shaw stated that the majority of their time should be spent discussing the bigger issues that have arisen, as this will take several meetings. He believes this will get them further along, versus a slow read through the entire Charter again. Kubby stated that today's conversation, for example, was fruitful as they focused on one or two major issues. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. TENTATIVE THREE -MONTH MEETING SCHEDULE (7:30 AM unless specified): Karr suggested a review of the schedule for the remainder of the year. Vanderhoef noted that she may be unable to attend the October 14 meeting; she is still awaiting further word on a possible conflict. Craig stated that she is waiting to hear about the same event. Karr noted that November 11th was dropped as it is Veterans Day (City holiday). Shaw noted that he wanted to speak to the starting times of the meetings. He wanted to know if they could start a bit later — 7:45 or 8:00. Chappell suggested they come to the October 14th meeting with calendars and have these conversations at that time. This way they will have a better idea of where they are and where they need to be. Karr noted that the sooner they know when the next forum will be, the better, as they need to reserve a room. Next meetings: October 14 October 28 November 25 December 9 December 23 (Commission work completed no later than April 1, 2015) ADJOURNMENT: Kubby moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 A.M., seconded by Sullivan. Motion carried 8 -0, Schantz absent. Charter Review Commission September 30, 2014 Page 6 Charter Review Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD 2014 Key. X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting - -- = Not a Member at this time TERM o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � 0 0 0 a) -4 0 ao cc cc m NAME EXP. 0 w -4 o � N N 0 m w o 4/1/15 X X O/ X X X X X X X X Steve E Atkins Andy 4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X Chappell Karrie 4/1115 X X X X X X X X X X X Craig Karen 4/1/15 O X X X X X X X X X X Kubby Mark 4/1/15 X X X X X X O/ X X X O/ Schantz E E Melvin 4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X Shaw Anna 4/1/15 X X X X X X O/ X X X X Moyers E Stone Adam 4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X Sullivan Dee 4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X Vanderhoef Key. X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting - -- = Not a Member at this time FINAL /APPROVED CITIZENS POLICE REVIEW BOARD MINUTES — SEPTEMBER 15, 2014 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Joseph Treloar called the meeting to order at 5:37 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Melissa Jensen, Mazahir Salih MEMBERS ABSENT: Royceann Porter STAFF PRESENT: Staff Kellie Tuttle and Patrick Ford STAFF ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: Captain Doug Hart of the ICPD; Marian Karr, City Clerk RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL None CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by Jensen, seconded by Salih, to adopt the consent calendar as presented or amended. • Minutes of the meeting on 08/26/14 • ICPD Department Memo #14 -17 (July 2014 Use of Force Review) • ICPD Use of Force Report - July 2014 Motion carried, 3/0, Porter absent. OLD BUSINESS ..10..21-14 4b(4) Charter Review Update — At their August 26th meeting Tuttle had reminded the Board of past discussions by Board members regarding the language for the purpose of the forum, and the concerns that the forum focused on police policies, practices, and procedures without requiring police representation. It has become a practice of the Police department not to be a participant since it is a Board forum and not a Police forum. Tuttle reported she reviewed past minutes for more detailed discussion. She was unable to find any more detailed information but some Board members Treloar and Jensen did recall the discussions. Suggestions were made on the language and Tuttle will draft and include them in the next meeting packet. Video — Karr presented a draft of the CPRB educational video minus addressing the final question "why the Board can't do more ". After discussion, it was agreed that they would cite the Code of Iowa as to why they were not able to do more, but then also wanted to end the video with what they "can" do. Jensen will draft segments for each Board member, to be reviewed by Legal Counsel, and filming would occur at the next meeting. CPRB September 15, 2014 Page 2 Video Review Process — Tuttle stated that another option had been made available and referred to the memo included in the meeting packet which stated that if members were not able to make an appointment during business hours, they could set up an appointment to view videos in the Police Department 24/7. (Karr left meeting 6:13 P.M.) NEW BUSINESS Select Nominating Committee — Treloar nominated Jensen and Salih to be on the nominating committee. They agreed and will report back to the Board with recommendations at the next meeting. PUBLIC DISCUSSION None. BOARD INFORMATION None. STAFF INFORMATION Tuttle informed the Board that Maxime Tremblay had resigned from the Board due to a family illness and that the vacancy would be announced at the September 16th City Council meeting. EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion by Jensen, seconded by Salih to adjourn into Executive Session based on Section 21.5(1)(a) of the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records which are required or authorized by state or federal law to be kept confidential or to be kept confidential as a condition for that government body's possession or continued receipt of federal funds, and 22.7(11) personal information in confidential personnel records of public bodies including but not limited to cities, boards of supervisors and school districts, and 22 -7(5) police officer investigative reports, except where disclosure is authorized elsewhere in the Code; and 22.7(18) Communications not required by law, rule or procedure that are made to a government body or to any of its employees by identified persons outside of government, to the extent that the government body receiving those communications from such persons outside of government could reasonably believe that those persons would be discouraged from making them to that government body if they were available for general public examination. Motion carried, 3/0, Porter absent. Open session adjourned at 6:16 P.M. REGULAR SESSION Returned to open session at 6:23 P.M. Motion by Jensen, seconded by Salih to set the level of review for CPRB Complaint #14 -02 and #14 -03 to 8 -8 -7 (13)(1)(a), On the record with no additional investigation. Motion carried, 3/0, Porter absent. CPRB September 15, 2014 Page 3 /E MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (su • October 14, 2014, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm (Moved to October 13 • November 11, 2014, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm • December 9, 2014, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm Motion by Jensen, seconded by Salih to move the October 14th meeting to Monday, October 13th at 5:30 P.M. due to scheduling conflicts. Motion carried, 3/0, Porter absent. ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Salih, seconded by Jensen. Motion carried, 3/0, Porter absent. Meeting adjourned at 6:26 P.M. s. � o IW�I � r rl W �Uc C�zw H � U A 0 I bA � w��zz xooz ; Dt 5C >t O 5C a x ; N 5C yC >C O � DC et N 00 r, x O >C 0 yC O yC yC O o yC �C DC O yC N i i X O O i N 5C yC x yC N yC DC yC DC' DC t O a W ti A tiH as xaar�F bA � w��zz xooz ; 10-21-14 4b(5) MINUTES APPROVED HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 11, 2014 EMMA HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Ackerson, Thomas Agran, Esther Baker, Gosia Clore, Kate Corcoran, Frank Durham, Andrew Litton, Pam Michaud, Ben Sandell, Frank Wagner MEMBERS ABSENT: Ginalie Swaim STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo OTHERS PRESENT: Karen Leigh RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action) None. CALL TO ORDER: Litton called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS: 809 East Bloomington Street. Miklo said this property is in the recently established Goosetown /Horace Mann Conservation District and is on the south side of Bloomington Street in the Goosetown portion of the neighborhood. He showed a photograph of the house Miklo said the house was restored and renovated a number of years ago. He added that at one time it was covered in asbestos /slate type siding. Miklo said the current owner did a lot of work to bring the house back, in terms of restoring the siding, windows, and porch and also by adding some details, which although not necessarily original to the house, are in keeping with the spirit of the house. Miklo said the proposal is to build a two -car garage in the back yard with a studio space above it. He said there was a garage there previously that was removed prior to creation of the district. Miklo showed a photograph of the house, which is going through some repair work, to give an idea of the relationship of the house to the space where the garage would be. Miklo said the proposal shows generally a gambrel -style building with some details that normally would not be found on a gambrel -style building. He said Cheryl Peterson, the Commission's consulting architect, took the original drawing and has made some suggestions as to how it might be detailed to fit the character of the building but also try to accomplish the goals of the homeowner in terms of reflecting some of the spirit of the back of the house. Miklo referred to a couple of alternative designs. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION September 11, 2014 Page 2 of 9 Miklo referred to the guidelines listed on page one of the staff report for this item. He said the first guideline is to locate new outbuildings or garages to the rear of the property, which is accomplished in this case. Miklo said the second guideline is to design the outbuilding to be clearly subordinate in size and ornamentation to the primary building, and this is clearly subordinate in size and generally conforms in terms of the details of the design. Miklo said the next guideline is to design the outbuilding to reflect the style of the primary building or historic outbuildings in the neighborhood. He said staff feels this generally meets that guideline. Miklo said that although gambrel -style roofs are not very common in Goosetown, they are seen on some houses and some newer outbuildings. He said it is not the sort of roof one would typically see on a barn or garage in Goosetown, but staff did find at least one historic example and therefore feels this generally meets that requirement. Miklo said the next guideline is to select a garage door that is either a plain panel or a carriage - style door. He said that staff has discussed this with the applicant, who would like the option of doing either. Miklo stated that the next guideline is to select windows that are relatively small and rectangular. He said that Peterson has made some suggestions for that but also notes in the report that, given the folk Victorian character of the house, perhaps some leeway with that guideline is in order. Miklo said that at this point, going through the guidelines, it was Peterson's finding that the proposal generally meets the guidelines and the requirements. Miklo said staff recommends approval subject to some of the details being worked out prior to the final issuance of a permit. He said the drawing seen in the application was not fully detailed, and those are the details that staff would recommend be completed, working with the applicant, the chair, and staff. Leigh, the owner of the house, said she has been a resident of the North Side Neighborhood for 36 years. She said that she intends to retire in the near future and hopes to spend much of her retirement in a studio pursuing interests she has not had time or space for before. Leigh said her neighbors have told her that there used to be a little barn in the back of this property. She said that structure was lost to a fire. It may have had a gambrel -roof style. Leigh said that ever since her neighbors told her about that, she has been dreaming about restoring the little barn and having a studio above it in a barn -like or carriage house -like structure. She said she hopes there can be agreement on style, because she finds no charm whatsoever in the change to the gambrel roof from the original one that she had. Leigh said the slope is more so so that it cuts in both to the garage space on the first floor, and the studio space up above. Leigh said the little detail in the first roofline is called a chine. She said she has pictures of nine other gambrel roofs within a two -block radius of her house that do not have chines. Leigh said she has asked for an address of something in her neighborhood or even in the community that has a roofline like this but has not yet received an address. She said a friend had told her this is the roofline of the house in The Amityville Horror, and she would rather not have that in her back yard. Leigh said there has been some discussion about the degree or ornamentation on this. She said she is certainly willing to make some concessions, but if she makes concessions to the point where the structure is no longer her dream, then she would need to back off of the project. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION September 11, 2014 Page 3 of 9 Michaud asked about the chine. Leigh pointed out that it is the one on the top roofline. She referred to one of the photographs and said she would like to have a little steeper pitch on the bottom roofline and no chine. Leigh said she is amenable to different garage doors and whatever the window and service door recommendations are. Michaud asked if the upper windows are two options or the front and the back. Leigh responded that is just the side facing into the yard. Michaud asked about the palladian window. Leigh said that idea is no longer in play — that it was discarded long ago. Leigh said her lot is only 43 feet wide and 150 feet deep. She said that if one stands in the middle, from the edge of the deck to the edge of the porch of this structure, should it be built, there would be 44 feet. Leigh said if one stands in the yard, 22 feet over there are turned spindles. She said she would like to have turned spindles 22 feet in this direction. Leigh said that 22 in one direction she has that window system, which she would like to see duplicated 22 feet in the other direction but on a larger scale. Leigh said that 22 feet in one direction she has some fish -scale shingles, and she would like to see them duplicated also. She said she would like the two buildings to relate to each other very much. Michaud asked if the shakes are the second choice. Leigh replied that they were never her choice. She said that shakes were never her choice but were put on the plan by an architect in some preliminary drawings. Miklo said this is not an important detail. He said Peterson just based this off drawings from an architectural book that showed barns. Miklo said the one concern Peterson had is that fish scales are not something that would typically be seen on a gambrel roof or a barn. Miklo said that Peterson was comfortable with everything else that Leigh has asked for. Leigh referred to the more symmetrical version and said that it is the one she likes. She said that Peterson drew it. Leigh said she was unsure of what to do with the lower story windows but thinks the ones proposed by Peterson are lovely, and she would be very happy with them. Leigh said she loves the combination of the upper story windows. Leigh said that in looking at the picture of the front of her house, she wants the porch to be very similar to that porch, with both the little galley rail above and the little railing below the roofline. She said she does not intend to have a handrail down below but would like the option to play with the porch post ideas. Leigh said she was hoping to find materials that are a little less maintenance than the wood on the front of her house. Miklo said this is a conservation district, so there is more leeway in terms of material choices. Ackerson said there are other houses that have fish scale siding on them. Miklo agreed. He said that it is not unheard of on a house, but on an outbuilding it would be pretty unusual. Miklo said it might be found on a more elaborate, Victorian carriage house, but it would be a rarity in Goosetown, where things tend to be simpler. He added that the issue with fish scales is the gambrel roof, the more agricultural roof, is where one would not see fish scales. Leigh referred to the spindle that is used both above and below the porch roof on the front of her house. She said that if she cannot find something similar in scale and design, then this example for the house is what she will be using. Michaud said this sounds like a great project. She asked if there were originally fish scales on the house. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION September 11, 2014 Page 4 of 9 Leigh said she did not know. She said that so much has been taken off of the house to make the slate siding lay flat. Leigh said the ornamentation in the gable on the front was chiseled off, as was the drip cap all around the bottom of the house. She said she replaced all of that. Michaud said that this is a conservation district, and the owner has put a lot of spindles on the back of the house with those stairways. She said the whole house is up a notch now from the average house in that neighborhood. Michaud said that because a lot of ornate upgrades have been done on the primary house and this is in a conservation district, she thinks this looks like one of those ornate little cottages in an East Coast area. She said that if that is the way this is leaning, it doesn't seem too much of a jump to do the carriage house in this style. Michaud said that just because the main house is smaller, it is still going to be like a carriage house, even though it has a gambrel roof, because it is very detailed and finished. She said she does not have any problem with fish scales. Ackerson said he agrees. He said the flavor of the north side of the addition and the south side of the house are consistent, and it makes for a well conceived, well executed building. Leigh stated that she is equally concerned about the roofline. She said the roofline of her original design accommodates her garage needs and her studio needs, and she finds it much more appealing than the alternative. Leigh said it is a big concern for her. Wagner asked about the pitch. He said that one plan shows a five:twelve and asked about the other plan. Miklo said it is slightly less steep, although he did not think Peterson had labeled it. Agran said he is a little bit confused, because he is looking at the two drawings and can hardly see a pitch change at all. Leigh said the less of a pitch moves in two feet so that everything has to shift about two feet to the inside of the building, and then it encroaches on headroom, where she has the staircase placed. She said if she moves the staircase, then it is more toward the middle of the garage. Leigh said it puts the stairwell in the studio two feet further in to the studio. Agran said, to clarify, that the change of the roofline was not a major concern of Peterson's. Miklo replied that the roofline that Peterson drew was based more on historic proportions. He said the other, wider roofline would be seen commonly, for example, if one went to Menard's and bought a pre - packaged garage or storage shed. Miklo said that Peterson related to him that her biggest concern was not having too many siding materials and the mix and match. He said if the Commission is comfortable with this roofline, it is not too big of an issue. Agran said he thinks that since the loft is not going to store hay, and there are modern, reasonable concerns about having the second floor be useful, he thinks this is a pretty subtle change given the whole scope of the project. He said it makes sense for the building to be useful and has no problem with the roofline. Wagner added that it is an outbuilding at the back of the house. Leigh said this fagade will not be visible to the street. She said the lot is so narrow, and the building is very close to the back of her house. Clore asked if there is a question about the materials to be used. Regarding the use of the fish scales, Miklo said Peterson had some concerns about this agricultural -type building having fish scales on it and the fact that there were several siding materials on the same building. Miklo said that would not normally be seen, unless this was more of a Victorian design. Agran said that of all of the different things that are proposed, the fact that this is on the rear of the house and is not street - facing and the fact that an agricultural building probably wouldn't have had HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION September 11, 2014 Page 5 of 9 all those windows and balustrade and balcony, to hold it specifically to this one standard while allowing all of those other things seems picky. He said that of course this is not an agricultural building. Agran said that doesn't mean that it shouldn't fit in, but everything about this and everything about the intent of the homeowner is that this project really fits in with what has been done to the house. He said that what has been done to the house generally in this neighborhood has been really nice, so he has no problem with the fish scales. Corcoran said the packet shows a black and white view of the house from the back. She asked if there are fish scales there on the back of the house. Miklo answered that it is staff's understanding that those fish scales were added when the building was repaired in the 1990s. He said the roofline had a roof return, and the original siding was all either removed or covered with asbestos. Miklo said that Leigh added this when it was remodeled and the patio /French doors were added. Leigh said she took off all of the asbestos siding. She showed the side where there had been so much water damage below the upper window. Leigh said it was the only siding on the entire house that is now not original to the house. She said it had to be replaced, and she had a great deal of difficulty finding materials to replace it with. Leigh said that at the time there was a cottage behind the QuikTrip at Burlington and Gilbert that had a similar design between the upper and lower story windows that gave her the solution to use fish scales on the back of the house. Leigh said she does not think anyone is more concerned about the heritage of this community than she is. She said she has very strong ties to the community, and both sets of her grandparents lived here. MOTION: Wagner moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for construction of a new outbuilding at 809 East Bloomington Street as presented in the application, with the following conditions: 1) service door to be smooth finish fiberglass; garage door to be smooth finish fiberglass or steel; 2) windows to have permanently adhered muntins; 3) all wood substitute materials to have smooth finish; and 4) provide final design for review and approval by chair and staff. The roofline may remain as proposed by the applicant, and use and placement of fish scales is to be worked out between the applicant and staff but with the note that the Commission is generally not opposed to the use of fish scales. Corcoran seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 10 -0 (Swaim absent). REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF: Miklo said there were a number of these items that were reported in a handout. He said he could answer any questions about these. DISCUSS UPDATING GUIDELINES TO INCLUDE HISTORIC REVIEW OF ROOFING PROJECTS: Miklo stated that the guidelines currently contain language regarding roofs and metal roofs. He said the guidelines encourage the preservation of historic, metal roofs, although they do allow their replacement with asphalt shingles where appropriate. Miklo said the Commission has approved several roofs where shingles have replaced metal. He said there have also been metal roofs replaced with metal or repaired. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION September 11, 2014 Page 6 of 9 Miklo said one of the things staff has noticed lately is that roofs that were originally shingles are now getting metal roofing but of a style that is not similar to the historic standing seam metal roofs. He said what was happening in the past, because metal was more expensive to repair, was that people were choosing to take it off. Miklo said that now there are these newer metal roofs that are basically designed for agricultural buildings and as siding. He said these have become very inexpensive to put on. Miklo said they do have more durability than a shingle roof, so staff has noticed a trend of houses that were originally built with shingles having metal roofs placed over them. Miklo said it is often not appropriate for the building. He showed an example from the College Hill Historic District. Miklo stated that the building code currently does not require a building permit for a new roof as long as one is not affecting the sub -roof — the sheathing under the roof. He said these are therefore going on perfectly legally, as they are not required to get permits, and they are being put over the shingles. Miklo said staff's concern is that these really are out of character with an historic metal roof. He showed a typical historic, metal roof, where the panels are about 16 inches wide, and they have standing seams. Miklo said there are some modern metal roofs that replicate this almost but not exactly and are less expensive than doing a traditional standing seam. He said the Commission has approved a few of those, and staff would probably have no objection in most cases to putting this sort of metal roof on, but agricultural type corrugated metal roofs are a concern. Miklo suggested the Commission recommend to the City Council that the building code be amended to require some review whenever a roof is being changed from one material to another. He said it would be similar to replacement windows, as for a newer house or outside of an historic district they don't require a permit but in an historic or conservation district they do require a permit through the building code. Miklo said staff suggests a similar amendment be made to the building code to allow the Commission or staff to review these types of situations with the idea of not allowing this to occur. Miklo said the proposal would be to require a permit for this in historic and /or conservation districts. He said, for example, putting on vinyl siding outside of a historic district does not require a permit, but it does in an historic district. Michaud said it seems reasonable to require a permit for this. She asked if color would be regulated, as many of the colors she has seen do not seem to fit. Agran said that there are some really ugly colors of asphalt roofs that one can choose also. He said the Historic Preservation Commission runs a dangerous line of determining what is in keeping with the historic nature and how much does the Commission allow people to make their own aesthetic decisions whether or not the Commission agrees with them. Miklo said one of the reasons the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission does not regular color, as commissions in some cities do, is that one has to paint every so often so that if someone paints something a really bad color, it will probably be changed somewhere down the line. He said this material, however, is a little more permanent; these roofs probably will never be painted so that HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION September 11, 2014 Page 7 of 9 one might be stuck with a really bad color. Miklo said the color is probably a minor consideration though, compared to the corrugated appearance. Wagner said it is also just the way these things are finished. He said that on the previous photograph, one can see that the ribs are open at the bottom, and even the covers are open. Wagner said that on a pole barn that would be fine. Agran asked if the question is actually that this is not necessarily about the choice of materials so much as some degree of oversight for a change of materials. Miklo agreed. Agran asked, if a person has a metal roof with holes and wants to put on a new roof on, a new metal roof can be put on without review but shingles would require review. Miklo said there have been several cases in which the Commission has approved going from metal to shingles. He said those were cases where someone was making some other changes to the roof or remove sheathing, so that a permit was required. Miklo said that is less of a concern than going from asphalt to newer style metal or going from a standing seam metal roof to a corrugated metal roof. Corcoran asked if the affect of a change like this to the building code would require someone wanting to go from asphalt to metal to come before the Commission to get the building permit. Miklo said that is a detail to be worked out. He said the person would have to apply to the building department for a permit, and then it would be sent to staff. Miklo said that, depending on how the ordinance is drafted, it might require them to come before the Commission or it might be something that could be approved administratively. Baker asked if this would say that any roof in an historic district would come under review whether they are switching materials or not or only if they are switching materials. Miklo said it would only be if they are switching materials. Sandell asked if metal roofs that resemble the old metal roofs are available. Miklo confirmed that they are available. Michaud asked if there are reasonably priced roofs that are available. Miklo replied that there are examples that are not true standing seam metal roofs that have a similar width of pattern. He said he will include some photographs of those when this is next discussed. Wagner said those new metal roofs will keep going on unless something is done. Miklo agreed and said it could have a significant effect on the character of the historic districts. Considering that these roofs last for decades, Michaud said she thinks it might be reasonable to say the roof should be a neutral color or an earth tone. Agran said this idea is fine, but it sounds very subjective. He asked if the Commission would be prohibiting certain roof materials. Miklo said the guidelines would have to be amended. He said that in a conservation district, on a garage, this new metal roof might be perfectly acceptable. Miklo said staff would have to do a lot more work, but he just wanted to bring this to the Commission's attention to see if it is something the Commission felt should be addressed. Miklo said the building code is going to be amended early next year, so the Commission would have between now and then to get some language worked out and get it to the City Council. Sandell said this seems appropriate to him. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION September 11, 2014 Page 8 of 9 MOTION: Male (Sandell ?) moved that the Historic Preservation Commission ask staff to prepare a draft of the proposed changes to the building code for review by the Historic Preservation Commission. Wagner seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 10 -0 (Swaim absent). Michaud said she recently talked to a neighbor /landlord who replaced every window on an adjacent property. Michaud said there were 50 or 60 casement windows with small panes involved. Michaud said the owner wanted to make them double pane glass and have exterior muntins, but he could not increase the efficiency of the five -unit building, because he was limited to restoring the windows. She said it ended up costing him significantly more for five units, perhaps $60,000 versus $30,000, and he got zero efficiency out of it. Michaud said that while the Commission is reviewing permits for something like this, which is basically a new material, she did not know how flexible the Secretary of the Interior Standards are about muntins, but she thinks it is a little onerous not to allow a more efficient window given the fact that we are facing energy problems in the near future. Miklo said he is not familiar with this project. Michaud said it was reviewed by Peterson and is at 603 College. Miklo said that replacement windows with divided lights are allowed. Michaud said that the owner could not put in double pane at all, even if the muntins were applied to the outside. Miklo said that is allowed, according to the guidelines. Michaud said there might have been some misunderstanding, but the owner ended up having some windows rebuilt. Miklo said this is probably something that should be talked about with Peterson after the meeting. He said that if the windows are deteriorated, the Commission does allow replacement windows. Miklo said they have to have divided lights, and double pane is pretty standard. Michaud asked Miklo to review a little bit to see what 603 College was like and if the windows were deteriorated. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR AUGUST 14, 2014: MOTION: Corcoran moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's August 14, 2014 meeting, as written. Baker seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 10 -0 (Swaim absent). COMMISSION INFORMATION /DISCUSSION: Corcoran asked about the Saint Mary's application. Wagner said he visited the site with other Commission members. He said they definitely do not need to be replaced and should be restored. Miklo said the application was denied, but the application was appealed to the City Council, and it will be on the City Council's October 8 agenda. Wagner said that Alicia Trimble of Friends of Historic Preservation has proposed doing a demonstration project at St. Mary's Rectory to show how to restore the sashes. This would give them a sense of how affective repair can be and would save them the cost for the two windows. Wagner did not know if the applicant has yet to accept the offer of the demonstration. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:26 p.m. Z N _N O V Z O F- /W/� V/ W a 0 2 O u W w U M Z N Z W F- H a T x x x x x x x x x x as x 0 x 0 0 0 x x x x 0 co T- x x x x x 0 0 LU 0 x x x to co o x x x x x x x x x 0 0 X 0 x X 0 X 0 X X x x X X X I X X x X I X 0 M Cl) Q' N p x X X i X X X I X X ti M Q' �M X X X I x X x x I X X N jA N N X 0 LLJ X I O O T 0 I X I X X X x I X X T O c x I x I X x X 0 I X x T r X i X I x x X 0 I 0 x co w X I X I 0 0 I X X O O to N X i X i X X X i X X ti cfl n U) ti cfl co r� �n Ln Un W W 0) N 0) N 0) N rn N rn N 0) N m N 0) N 0) N 0) N 0) N F— M M M M M Cl) Cl) M Cl) Y x cn Q w a CO Q g LU Z = w Z " o ° Z _ LL W 9: Q J d Q Z U Z O Q Z = W C ? z W Y OJ 0 O V a Q C9 7 N x E W N -0-0 o a¢¢z 11 11 11 11 XODi w Y r 10-2;;4 CITY OF IOWA CITY 4b(6) MEMORANDUM Date: October 2, 2014 To: Mayor and City Council From: Tracy Hightshoe, Housing and Community Development Commission Re: Recommendations from Housing and Community Development Commission At their September 18, 2014 meeting the Housing and Community Development Commission approved the June 19 minutes with the following recommendation to the City Council: The Commission voted 4 -1 (with Hacker opposed) to recommend approval of the changes to the Administrative Plan as noted in the memorandum from the City Attorney's office. Additional action (check one) No further action needed Board or Commission is requesting Council direction _X_ Agenda item will be prepared by staff for Council action - Done MINUTES APPROVED HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2014 — 6:30 PM DALE HELLING CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Michelle Bacon Curry, Andrew Chappell, Cheryll Clamon, David Hacker, Dottie Persson MEMBERS ABSENT: Jim Jacobson, Peter Matthes, Christine Ralston, Rachel Zimmermann Smith STAFF PRESENT: Tracy Hightshoe OTHERS PRESENT: Steve Rackis RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: The Commission voted 4 -1 (with Hacker opposed) to recommend approval of the changes to the Administrative Plan as noted in the memorandum from the City Attorney's office. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chair Andrew Chappell. APPROVAL OF APRIL 17. 2014 MINUTES Bacon Curry moved to approve minutes with minor corrections. Clamon seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 5 -0. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: None STAFF /COMMISSION COMMENT: Chappell reminded Clamon, Jacobson and Bacon Curry that they had until July 23rd to apply for another term on the Commission. Review of the FYI 6-20 Consolidated Plan Project Schedule Hightshoe said the consultants were in Iowa City June 9 -11. Hightshoe described the meetings the consultants attended with major City departments, Neighborhood Council representatives, school district, and affordable housing, economic development and social service providers. She said the City has an open public comment period until June 30th for written comments. In July the consultants will provide a written summary of the comments received from the HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION June 19, 2014 PAGE 2 of 5 stakeholder interviews and meetings. A first draft will be submitted in October that will start a 30 day public comment period. HCDC will provide comment. After updating, the revised Plan will be sent to Council for review /approval on December 2. The consultant stated that due to major cuts to the programs in the last 20 years, this new process will focus federal funds on narrowly defined needs. The City will advertise its priorities, which may be limited given the funds available, and request applications that address those identified needs. Hightshoe stated this will create a problem for our CDBG portion of Aid to Agencies. Applications are due in late summer /early fall, but we won't establish our priorities until December. Further discussion warranted. Review Updates /Amendments to the Iowa City Housing Authority's Housing Choice Voucher and Family Self - Sufficiency Programs. Rackis presented the proposed changes. He said that the City Attorney advised they should also add a denial for use of synthetic marijuana. This was a late modification and not in the memo submitted to HCDC. He said currently HUD doesn't address synthetic marijuana in its regulations. He said before they go to Council, they will work with the Police Department to add a denial if someone is engaged in selling or utilizing synthetic marijuana. Rackis clarified that currently they can deny an application for use of a controlled substance. Chappell asked how they enforce the use provision. Rackis said it's based on charges or an admission. He said what HUD is concerned about is someone being engaged in drug related activity, not the charges. Rackis said what they want to do is extend that to apply to synthetic marijuana. Bacon Curry asked what, if any, action is taken with other mind - altering activities, like sniffing glue or abusing OTC drugs. She wanted to know if an issue if it's not illegal. Rackis said that a drug is defined as a controlled substance per HUD. Currently, synthetic marijuana has not been labeled as such. Chappell said he would be comfortable with applying whatever is legal or illegal in the State Code. There was much discussion about legality, admission, and criminal activity. Persson said she thought that until it's codified, the Commission should not make a policy decision. Commissioners agreed that they would like to see the language before recommending it to City Council. Hacker asked Rackis to clarify the language that refers to the periods of ineligibility for housing. Rackis said they go back five years and gave the example of someone who was arrested three years ago for possession of a controlled substance. At time of eligibility for housing assistance, criminal records are reviewed. The Housing Authority may deny the application at that time for a prior offense. Depending on the reason for denial, the period of ineligibility would run from one to three years from the Housing Authority's denial date, not the date of the arrest/conviction. He said adjustments in ineligibility are also possible on a case by case basis. Hacker said he's uncomfortable with this whole thing from the due process point of view and wants to know the goal of this. He asked what they are trying to accomplish by telling someone they can't have low income housing for a period of time because they did something in particular. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION June 19, 2014 PAGE 3 of 5 Rackis explained that HUD requires denial or termination due to certain acts — violence, drug activity. He said there are acts that HUD states the Housing Authority must terminate or deny and some acts that are based on local decisions in the administrative plan. Hacker said he agrees with that but he is curious about an articulated reason for why changes are made and what they are supposed to accomplish. Rackis explained that there are so many more applicants for low income housing than there are vouchers. The Housing Authority decided to make certain types of criminal behavior reasons for denial. He said in terms of due process applicants are afforded a hearing and can challenge the results in district court. He said the Housing Authority's program is based on being provided with true and complete disclosure of information from applicants. There was not a consensus among the Commission members to recommend approval of adding synthetic marijuana to the list of controlled substances for which the Housing Authority can deny eligibility for the Housing Authority programs. Hacker asked about the eviction of children. Rackis replied that he doesn't recall one case in which denial led to immediate homelessness. There was a discussion about the definitions of harassment. Rackis said they would determine harassment on a case by case basis so mitigating circumstances would be considered. Rackis said participants have a higher level of protection than do applicants per HUD regulations. There was discussion about the other updates and amendments that the Housing Authority was asking for per the memo provided in the packet. There was consensus to approve the language as stated in the HCDC packet, but not to include synthetic marijuana as the language to be used was not included. Bacon Curry moved to recommend approval of the changes to the Administrative Plan as noted in the memorandum from the Iowa City Housing Authority. Persson seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 4 -1 with Hacker opposed. Review Allocation Process — Aid to Agencies Persson said the subcommittee will meet one more time before they come back to the full Commission with a report. She said they have had some good discussions and received good information. Monitoring Reports • FY14 Housing Rehab — Hightshoe provided an update regarding housing rehab. projects completed during the fiscal year. 29 CDBG /HOME projects completed with the average median income of homebuyers of 49 %. • FY14 Economic Development Fund — Hightshoe stated one business opened in FY14 Max Effect, two applications were denied or withdrawn and one application approved for funding — Butter, a breakfast/lunch restaurant to be open in FY15. Four fagade improvements approved and completed — Quintons, Bo James, Active Endeavors, and Atlas. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION June 19, 2014 PAGE 4 of 5 • FY14 Charm Homes LLC — Hightshoe stated Charms purchased 909 Sandusky and is currently in the process of leasing. The single family home with 4 bedrooms will provide affordable rental with supportive services to 4 persons with disabilities or frail elders. • FY14 Mayor's Youth — Hightshoe reported that the upper renovation is complete. Administrative offices moved upstairs and increased programming for those 16 and older with disabilities provided on the main, accessible level. • FY14 Neighborhood Centers — Hacker reported that improvements underway to be completed by end of June to the outside play area. • FY13 Habitat for Humanity - Matthes provided a written report. Habitat acquired two homes and rehabilitated them. Sold to income eligible homebuyers. They were unable to purchase third home and funds reallocated to another project. • FY11 Housing Authority TBRA — Hacker reported that funds used for rental assistance based on referrals from DVIP. Funds have not all been utilized due to limited referrals. Hightshoe stated that one more tenant will be assisted and then the project will close on or before June 30, 2015 as they have reached the end of the statutory period to use the funds. Any funds not utilized by the end of FY15 will be reallocated to another HOME eligible project. ADJOURNMENT: Bacon Curry moved to adjourn. Hacker seconded. Motion to adjourn carried 5 -0. Z O U) U) 0 F- Z W 2 CL O J W w cD cG L O U 0 Z,t < - LO O' N O ZpjLo Lu :D (L) 0 o�CL z 0 0 U H Z WD CL0 00 U W ��� 0 Z T Z 0 N = Z 0Q U 0 z c� z rn 0 0 x 0 Ljj 0 x x x x x x x x x v M X x x x X o x x x N O X x x X O X X X N to x x X x x o x o X T N O x X X X X X X X T T C4 X X X X x x x LU x T 0 0 x x X 0 0 X X X T o x x o x x p x X w O r� X X X o x x x 0 0 o x x o o x X x X cc a W v r Un r v T M r M [- LO T c0 T- M r Nt T (0 T c0 r LO T In T rt 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N W 0) rn rn rn rn rn rn M rn M rn M rn W J J W_ w W Z _ W 0 Z W 0 0 Q W p to � Q a D V z U a U 0 = U d = m z O� Q �w W W z 0 d 0 C9 z J w `1 F- 0 con J �U Z m 0 0 1 0 0 C7 2 2 L d NOQC L () w a) o c ai�NCa aQQZ II II II II W_ , YXOO I IU-21 -O. ®fir CITY OF IOWA CITY 4b(7) MEMORANDUM Date: September 26, 2014 To: Mayor and City Council From: Bob Miklo, Planning & Zoning Commission Re: Recommendations from Planning & Zoning Commission At their September 18, 2014 meeting the Planning & Zoning Commission approved the September 4 minutes with the following recommendation to the City Council: The Commission voted 1 -5 to recommend approval of SUB14 -00015 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. Additional action (check one) No further action needed Board or Commission is requesting Council direction _X_ Agenda item will be prepared by staff for Council action - Done MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL APPROVED MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Paula Swygard, Phoebe Martin, Jodie Theobald MEMBERS ABSENT: John Thomas STAFF PRESENT: John Yapp, Sara Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: Ron Amelon, Becky Soglin (65 Rita Lyn Ct) RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: The Commission voted 1 -5 to recommend approval of SUB14 -00015 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. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There were 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 for the proposed subdivision. Yapp explained that this is the second meeting the commission has seen the current proposed plat which is largely a single - family subdivision and is 3.59 acres. He noted that 10 lots are proposed with eight detached single - family structures and the corner lot for a 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. Yapp explained that at the last meeting the Commission questioned the interpretation of the sensitive areas ordinance. Hektoen from the City Attorney's Office has provided the Commission with a memorandum explaining the exemption process in the sensitive areas ordinance and refers to a letter from the Director of the Neighborhood Development Services Department granting that Planning and Zoning Commission September 4, 2014 - Formal Page 2 of 5 exemption for construction of single - family and two family structures. Yapp then distributed the letter to the commission for review. Freerks questioned the first paragraph of the Hektoen memo because it refers to a stream corridor and wetlands which are considered protective sensitive areas with a footnote that says that the steep and critical slopes are not considered sensitive protected areas. Freerks asked for an explanation since they'll fall within the same category and will now be allowed to be disturbed. Hektoen explained that per definition in the code steep and critical slopes are not protected areas and are allowed to be disturbed. Yapp stated that the slopes that are protected are 40% or steeper which are defined as Protected Slopes. Freerks had Yapp confirm that the slopes in this case are not 40% or steeper. Eastham asked Yapp to once again review the purpose of the provisions in this sensitive ordinance area that provide for establishing up to 100 foot buffer zone between development activities. Yapp explained that the purpose of the wetland buffer is to protect the wetland by not allowing any structures or paving within that buffer and then to encourage the planting of wetland friendly vegetation. Freerks opened public discussion. Ron Amelon from MMS Consultants presented on behalf of the developer. Amelon stated that this proposal is based on feedback from previous commission meetings, and feedback from surrounding citizens requesting a single family development. Freerks asked about Lot 1. Yapp stated that a 'minimum low opening' will need to be designated so if the stream overflows it would help protect the house on Lot 1. Amelon confirmed that the plan was to establish the minimum opening elevation, which means that the lowest elevation of a window or door of the house will be above the sidewalk of the street such that whenever the rain causes water backup, even if it gets over the top of the road, it protects water from getting into the home. Eastham questioned if the area was in the city's water flood hazard area, and Yapp confirmed that the area is not in a flood plain, and is not subject to the flood plan ordinance. Eastham then questioned the distance between construction line limit and the edge of the wetlands area. Amelon answered that the construction area is 30 feet from the edge of the wetland area. Becky Soglin a resident of Iowa City spoke about her concern regarding the granting of the exemption to the SAO (sensitive areas ordinance) for this subdivision as it seems like the decision ignores the intent of the SAO and is concerned about how this could set precedent for future analysis from this particular case and if there's a loophole in how a tract is defined, and /or when shared infrastructure exists it seems that it should be corrected and considered in the commission's decision tonight. Soglin questioned if the area is a tract, because the Assistant Attorney's memo states it is not a tract because they're no shared common facilities that gives three examples of the street parking, loading, and driveways. Presumably there are other features that could be shared common facilities. Although in the Code there was no explicit definition of that list but questioned if a Planning and Zoning Commission September 4, 2014 - Formal Page 3 of 5 shared electrical transformer which serves two or three houses would be considered a common facility. Soglin then stated if it this development is not considered a tract, the construction line should be questioned, and separate construction access and storage, which doesn't make economic sense, should be considered. Theobold posed a question to Yapp regarding the mailbox cluster for this subdivision. Yapp confirmed that the 10 lots will have one mailbox cluster where lot 1 meets lot 2. Freerks closed the public discussion. Freerks question if there were a grading plan. Yapps stated that they did receive a grading plan for the sidewalks. Theobald moved to approve SUB 14 -00015 a preliminary plat of Evan Heights a 10 lot subdivision east of First Avenue and north of hickory trail. Martin seconded the motion. Freerks raised the question concerning how a tract is being defined stating that in the report the plat is not described as a tract, but the exemption states it is for activities on a tract of land. So Freerks questioned using an exemption for a tract of land when this is not considered a tract. Additionally Freerks questioned the exemption being from the zoning code, when this situation is not changing zoning, but rather should be from the subdivision regulations. Eastham raised the question regarding the construction line limit that the applicant agreed to on the preliminary plat which is drawn at a 30 foot buffer from the stream edge which is the buffer required by the sensitive area ordinance unless there is an exemption and asked for clarification if that staff is saying that this application is exempt from that buffer. Yapp stated that the ordinance does not allow development activity to encroach into protected sensitive areas of wetlands and stream corridors. The construction limits line was requested for this plat to protect the wetlands and stream corridor, which the applicant agreed to. Hektoen stated that the exemption has already been administratively approved, and is not a question on appeal before the Commission tonight. If the Commission so desires, they can recommend that the sensitive areas ordinance exemption provisions be amended to clarify its applicability to subdivisions of this nature. Martin said she did not feel like she had the authority to question staff's interpretation of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, and the granting of the exemption. Martin said this subdivision is not a surprise given the public input with the previous proposal for the property. Freerks still questioned the exemption being for a tract of land, whereas this plat was not a tract of land. Hektoen replied that each lot is considered a tract of land in the situation of this exemption. A vote was taken and the motion was failed 1 -5 (Martin voting affirmative). Consideration of Meeting Minutes: August 21, 2014 Meeting minutes approved 6 -0 with minor amendments. Planning and Zoning Commission September 4, 2014 - Formal Page 4 of 5 PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION Yapp introduced the new minute taker for the commission, Becky Scott Yapp also shared with the commission some information about the South District Plan. There will be a workshop on Monday, October 6 from 7 -9 at Grantwood Elementary. Martin questioned if this workshop was open to the public and Yapp replied that yes, it is primarily for the public and postcards will be sent to the households in the south district inviting them to the workshop. Commissioners are encouraged to attend to listen to the comments and be available to answer questions, but are asked not to unduly participate in resident's discussions Yapp then stated that there would also be a bike tour on September 20th of the south district area, again more for the public, but commissioners are invited to attend. Martin suggested sending invites to the realtors as well, to see progress and plans for the south district. Yapp stated that there is now a south district web page, and flyers for these events will be on that website. Yapp stated lastly, the commission needs to schedule a van tour of the south district for the Commission. The Commission agreed to do the van the tour on Wednesday, September 17 at 5:30 p. M. Yapp reminded the commission that at the September 18 meeting there would be a work session beginning at 6:00 p.m. to review street planning with a focus on the Couth District and Sycamore Street. Freerks asked if the commission should ask staff to look into the sensitive ordinance area, and the commission agreed. OTHER Swygard reported to the commission that she University of Iowa is putting on September 20tH forward the email to the rest of the commission. ADJOURNMENT: Eastham moved to adjourn Martin seconded, Meeting was adjourned on a 6 -0 vote. received an email regarding a workshop The a creative communities symposium and she will z O V) Cf)o 20 O tU 0w W Z V M r N in N 06 z W z ~ za z J IL 0 z_ N w w Q O LL � XXXXXx- x x x x x x x x x x x N N X X x X X X x w �XXXXX -X ti %XXXXXXX XXXXxXx ti �_XX�xxxx naoUn wd 0 0U) 0 00LOU - -)to �XXXXXXX XXXXxxx ;xxxxxxx _ c w �yZ�= 0 c!) w 0Z XXxxXxo MXXXX�XX UQYZ�QW 0 N x x x x x x x zQLU L LL N NHI- NXXXXXXX ;oxxxxxx Nxxxxxxx co �r- Z��r -r-� �X0000000 w w >-0zp�OZ _ C7 — —'O Owzw0 VQYZ�Qtn m Q 2 � � � owa � in== z P w W J Q OTC O LL z CD N x x x x x x x x x x x x x x N NXXXxxxx �xxXOXxx T-XXXXXXX XXXXxXx as �Wcfl(D00r, n naoUn wd 0 0U) 0 00LOU - -)to w _ c w �yZ�= 0 c!) w 0Z Owzw��0 UQYZ�QW =� - -amQ zQLU L LL N NHI- CD U _a X E N N N Y N rn U) o aQaz3 u n u u u xOW I O w Y 10 -21 -14 4b(8) MINUTES APPROVED PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 18 — 6:00 PM — WORK SESSION EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Paula Swygard, Jodie Theobald, John Thomas STAFF PRESENT: John Yapp, Kent Ralston, Ron Knoche, Sarah Walz CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 6:00 PM. Freerks explained that this meeting was to learn about arterial street planning, there would be no public input at this time as this is a work session for the Commission. Yapp explained that this session was requested by the Commission a few weeks ago in context of preparation for the South District Plan neighborhood workshop on October 6 at Grantwood school at 7 p.m. Three staff will speak tonight, Kent Ralston, transportation planner, who will discuss general arterial street planning issues, Ron Knoche, city engineer, who will discuss the Sycamore Street corridor design specifically, and Sara Walz, planning staff, who will discuss neighborhood design and subdivision design issues along arterial street corridors and specifically in the context of the South District design. Ralston gave a very brief overview of arterial streets and how the city plans for arterial streets. Ralston explained that he will give an overview of what arterial streets are and why they are important, Knoche will disucss how arterial streets are designed, and Walz will explain how subdivisions are designed around an arterial street network. Ralston began by stating why arterial streets are important. First they are major transportation corridors, and make up about 25% of the street networks and carry about 75% of the total vehicle miles traveled. They facilitate major through traffic movements for all modes of transportation. Iowa City has done a great job planning arterial streets to fit the needs for all modes of transportation, not just private vehicles, but also transit as well as bikes and pedestrians. Arterial streets provide primary access to neighborhoods, parks, commercial and industrial areas. If planned appropriately they can reduce congestion and emissions, vehicle miles travelled and cut traffic through neighborhoods. The biggest complaint from Iowa City residents is traffic cutting through neighborhoods. Arterial streets also provide primary routes for emergency responders and city services (such as garbage, police and fire). Finally, by being an arterial street by DOT standards it allows streets to be eligible for federal funding. Ralston stated he did not know exactly how much road use tax funds Iowa City receives but could state the metropolitan planning organization sees about 2 -3 million dollars available each year that Iowa City can access through grant program for arterial streets. Ralston presented a graph that showed the hierarchy of streets. On the left were arterial streets, the far left are freeways and expressways, in the middle of the chart are collector streets and on the right are the local streets. What this graph shows is that a freeway essentially has zero access to land but Planning and Zoning Commission September 18, 2014 — Work Session Page 2 of 6 provides 100% mobility as they are high speed through corridors. Collector streets provide a nice balance of access to property but are also able to move traffic efficiently and by the time you get down to local streets, the idea is that they move traffic much more slowly and much more safely, and provide access to all properties. Ralston explained that in Iowa City most our arterial streets land in that area between arterial and collector streets, a minor arterial category, which is good for an area our size. This plan gives our areas few access areas to driveways which is good for safety, and again allows for through traffic for vehicles that need to get where they are going, including emergency responders. Ralston showed a depiction of what he felt most our streets should look like, essentially a grid pattern, which is what planning strives to achieve. In the planning world they strive to have an arterial street every mile or so, a little more closely spaced in urban areas. The next image showed a more conventional neighborhood with a cul -de -sac and dead end streets. This plan has very little access to adjacent properties and something they try to avoid in Iowa City planning. Instead Ralston showed a traditional grid neighborhood, with a house, market and school. With the traditional grid plan, the house can access the school and market within a couple blocks walk whereas in a cul -de -sac neighborhood that same access might take a mile or so. So now that the Commission has more information about arterial streets, Ralston discussed how they plan for arterial streets. They do so through long range coordination typically driven by growth and development. At the lowest level in the metropolitan area planning would start with community input, in this case Iowa City, done through comprehensive planning. The South District plan is well on its way and there is a public meeting in the next few weeks and what will come out of that public meeting are issues with the street network. At this time, Ralston is anticipating discussion regarding a lack of east -west connection to Sycamore Street and overall how Sycamore Street is being designed. Ralston explained that from a regional scale, there is more of a long range transportation plan which is a kin to a comprehensive plan but when we talk about it regionally we are not only talking about streets, but transportation network and regional trails network. Lastly Ralston showed a slide of the metropolitan area arterial streets plan which includes Iowa City and it shows that Iowa City does have an arterial street roughly every mile or so. Ralston concluded that Iowa City has a good network of arterial streets. Ralston then introduced Ron Knoche to talk about the design of arterial streets. Knoche stated that the design of arterial streets is a coordinated effort of neighborhood groups and predesign meetings. The discussion is not only about design of streets, but of issues such as drainage and utility backups to get a more comprehensive idea of the problems that need to be solved with the capital project. Additionally during the design phase the will meet with Sit down with the MPOJC (Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County) who with with traffic models and traffic issues, and also help with coordination of intersections to determine what turn lanes or signals are necessary. The committee will also work with utility companies to accommodate right a ways and work with other government organizations like corporate property lines or municipal issues with Johnson County or City of Coralville. Finally the committee works with the consultants on the design aspects. Knoche explained the design standards used for our streets. He explained that the city's design standards date back to 1993 which are used on our locally funded streets, there is a state -wide urban design standard used on federally funded streets, however there is not a big difference between the two. The Iowa City standards for arterial streets are 12 ft. lanes, whereas the state -wide urban design has a preferred 12 ft. but allow 11 ft. on arterial streets. Therefore in the next few months Iowa City is Planning and Zoning Commission September 18, 2014 —Work Session Page 3 of 6 looking to adopt that state -wide standard for the local streets as well. The complete streets current language is pretty vague but through the Blue Zone project the city will look to upgrading the language for the complete streets standards. The city of Cedar Rapids, also a Blue Zone area, recently updated their standards and Iowa City will review those to see if they are applicable in Iowa City. Next, Knoche showed the Sycamore Street design. Sycamore Street will have 11 ft. lanes, and a 5.5 ft. bike lane on each side. On the west side of the road, the side the new school will sit on, there will be an 8 ft. wide side walk, and on the east side will be the 5 ft. sidewalk. Knoche pointed out that they are working on the storm sewers and other issues with the utility companies. So from the curb to 8 ft. sidewalk it's a total of 24 feet on the west, and 14 feet on the east to accommodate utility lines and water mains. This project will start at the south end of Sycamore at the L and work the way north to the point the project ended a few years ago. The design will incorporate at both the L and McCollister Blvd a roundabout. Roundabouts offer a refuge island for pedestrians crossing the streets. The 5 ft. sidewalk will be extended down Lehman Avenue to the trail system at the Sycamore green space. At Moira Ave the sidewalk will go into the McCada subdivision and that will be the intersection where the driveway to the new school will be. Further to the north, at Daniel Place is the 2nd access point into McCada subdivision, that street will extend west into the Lehman Farm property. Knoche showed the area where McCollister Blvd. will come through, the future arterial, and the second roundabout location. Knoche explained that when the Sycamore Street project that was completed a few years ago it was designed with three lanes to include a center turning lane. The engineers looked to continuing that to the south but with the introduction of the roundabouts there did not appear to be a need for the center turn lane. The pavement width is 34 ft., and he showed how they will use a refuge island to allow for a crossing from the east side 8 ft. sidewalk to the west side 8 ft. sidewalk, so the 8 ft. sidewalk will be on the new school side of the street. Knoche also commented on an additional project, the 1s' Avenue grade separation project, showing the Iowa Interstate railroad, Mall Drive, and Bradford Drive. The engineers have been struggling to figure out how to maintain traffic and pedestrian access through this corridor as they are building the project. The current plan is to build a temporary pavement to the east of 1 St Avenue to allow for the grading of the street and bridge work to happen while maintaining traffic. As they move forward with this project, they are looking at converting part of the street into a three -lane section all the way to highway 6 which will allow for bike lanes. Next Walz presented to the Commission the comprehensive plan land use and transportation goals. Walz stated that complete streets and narrower streets are one of the goals, and arterial streets are wider and accommodate all modes of transportation. In the subdivision regulations it is stated that blocks should be limited in size and laid out in a pattern to ensure the connectivity of streets. Along the collector streets, in the interior neighborhoods the block faces are to be within 300 and 600 ft. but along arterial streets the block faces will be longer, at least 600 ft. in length. If the length is greater than 600 ft. there will be mid -block connections via trails or sidewalks that cut between private properties. Walz explained that the subdivision code implements the transportation goals; it codifies the sidewalk width standards, and requires deeper lot depths along arterial streets to account for a greater set back or buffer. In residential areas they strive to avoid triple and double facing lots that have more than one street face, and corner lots are required to have additional standards to meet all required setbacks. Lots with multiple street frontages are to be 125% of the lot required in the zone to increase the depth Planning and Zoning Commission September 18, 2014 — Work Session Page 4 of 6 of the lot frontages and double and triple fronting lots where there will be a side or rear building facing or orienting to an arterial street have to provide a minimum 25 ft. landscape buffer area along the arterial street and no solid fences can be in that required buffer area. Walz showed pictures of the Sycamore Street area, showing that the double fronting lots with either a back yard or side yard on Sycamore Street have privacy fences. This is allowed because these developments were created before the current subdivision standards. It does not make for the most welcoming street face. Walz showed a picture of a similar situation on Scott Blvd and 1St Ave where privacy fences are used. She showed a newer area on Scott Blvd, an outlet the provided an area between single family homes and townhomes and the developer put in a fence, but it is a unified fence for the whole area. Walz showed an example of a double fronting lot, explaining that it has the additional setbacks and put in landscaping to buffer the backs of the houses from the arterial streets. When looking for other alternatives to double fronting lots planners take into consideration the over aesthetics of the property. Walz showed examples of townhomes on Scott Blvd. which have vehicle access from the rear so no driveways interrupting the aesthetics of the street so it creates a relatively pleasant street front. Walz showed an example of a multi - family area on Mormon Trek, and the use of privacy fencing. Walz explained that current standards require a 50 ft. separation from driveways. And she discussed the need for setback from the street to the sidewalks, and showed examples on Court and Benton Streets where there is not enough set back and that can be problematic in winter, as road plows push snow onto the sidewalks. Walz also mentioned the benefit of street trees in neighborhoods. Eastham expressed some questions on the Sycamore Street design. First he asked for clarification on how the students will cross Sycamore Street to have access to the new school, and how residents will also safely cross Sycamore. Knoche stated that initially all students will be bussed into the new school. Eastham questioned the busing stating he thought the current school board plan is for about 100 current Grantwood students to be redistricted to the new school, Alexander. Knoche stated that the district plan is not completely set yet. However, they are making plans for how all students will get to school, parents driving will have access off Sycamore Street, as will busses. The students walking will have 8 ft. sidewalks as well as the pedestrian refuges for those that need to cross. Knoche stated as new housing developments are created they will review how the collector streets are connected and if there are needs for additional pedestrian areas. New pedestrian refuges can be created in the future if needed, such as ones on Scott Blvd. and 1St Avenue (by the HyVee and trail crossing). Eastham questioned if pedestrians felt the refuges were safe, and Knoche replied that only positive comments have come from folks using the refuge islands. Planning and Zoning Commission September 18, 2014 —Work Session Page 5 of 6 Thomas questioned if there were street trees planned. Knoche replied that normally they do not put tree streets in their construction projects mostly due to planting times are not conducive to the construction projects. Additionally a year or two are needed for a freeze /thaw to happen to create the densities that are needed. Thomas stated that clearly Sycamore Street needs street trees, and Knoche agreed that street trees will be added in the future, but not at that time of construction. Thomas questioned the speeds on Sycamore Street. Knoche answered that currently 25 mph is posted, but does not have the most recent traffic counts. The current plan is to make south Sycamore Street also 25 mph. Thomas voiced his concern on speeds due to the Blue Zone report. Blue Zone recommended lane width of 10 ft., as a way to reduce speeds. He asked the city to consider reducing the lane widths to 10 ft. and keeping the bike lanes the current widths. Knoche stated that due to Sycamore Street being an arterial roadway, it would be used by all modes of transportation, buses, delivery trucks, etc. so the road must accommodate for those vehicles. Additionally the roundabout design will decrease the speeds in the corridor. Knoche also stated that they will watch the traffic reports for the area, and if needed in the future, the road stripes can be redesigned to fit future needs. Freerks thanked Knoche and others for their presentations. Eastham asked if the city council will approve the road design. Knoche stated they will do a memo back to the council updating them on what the current design is and they can request a formal presentation if they wish, but the council will have to approve the final design at the public hearings. Eastham moved to adjourn the work session meeting. Swygard seconded z O �o 20 O u ow, Lou Z I o Z< v N jj od z o W z~ E z Q J CL 0 z W W Q O LL C,j XXxxxXO T- NXXXxxxx o � XXXXxOX ti lxxxxxxx x x x x x x x ti XXX toXx�Xxxx xxxxxXx �XXxxxxx (D wcwr, u-)wv) �..X0000000 XXXXXXX ti XXxxxXX XxXXxX� _ C W MXXXX } y Z p - xx Z OwzwU)5 0 Nxxxxxxx UQYZ� ddn Q N N NXXXXXxx >-<I =m-amQ -WWPOO x< =I r —0 XXXXxX - ca W cDwaoll- U')aoU') �X0000000 W D a' W >- N z p O z owzmN�O J caiaYZw cc C6 =mF�ma a ow��in== z H W w J Q O LL z o- °xxxxxXx o> Nxxxxxxx N N x x x x x x x �>< XXX 04 xxxxxXx �W (D wcwr, u-)wv) �..X0000000 W _ C W } y Z p 0 Z OwzwU)5 UQYZ� ddn Q N WdF a >-<I =m-amQ -WWPOO x< =I ZaWw20 - a c U .0'0 X E N N N � � U) N N M N U) 0 0 aQaz� 11 11 xoo i ®,.T4 CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: October 3, 2014 To: Mayor and City Council From: Bob Miklo, Planning & Zoning Commission Re: Recommendations from Planning & Zoning Commission At their October 2, 2014 meeting the Planning & Zoning Commission approved the September 18 minutes with the following recommendation to the City Council: The Commission voted 7 -0 to recommend approval of an application submitted by Southgate Development Company for a site plan for 32 multi - family dwelling units on 2.19 acres located in the Low Density Multifamily Residential (RM -12) zone at 1425 Dodge Street (intersection of Dodge Street, Conklin Lane, and Dodge Street Court) subject to review of the design review committee approving additional screening in the southwest corner. Additional action (check one) No further action needed Board or Commission is requesting Council direction _X_ Agenda item will be prepared by staff for Council action MINUTES APPROVED PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 18 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Paula Swygard, Phoebe Martin, Jodie Theobald, John Thomas STAFF PRESENT: Robert Miklo, Sara Hektoen, Kent Ralston OTHERS PRESENT: Anne Duggan (115 Montrose Ave); Annie Tucker (1425 Oaklawn Ave); JP Claussen (2137 Davis); Anna Buss (525 W. Benton St.); William Knabe (1101 Weeber Circle); Mary Knudson (725 W. Benton St.); Ruth Baker (515 W. Benton St.); Rob Otto (733 W. Benton St.); Roxanne Mitten (4092 Winter Eagle Rd.); Mark Signs (1825 Hollywood Blvd.); Cheryl Cruise (905 Bluffwood Dr); Jerry Waddilove (863 Kennedy Pkwy); Alan McVey (1124 Conklin) RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: The Commission voted 7 -0 to recommend approval of an application submitted by Southgate Development Company for a site plan for 32 multi - family dwelling units on 2.19 acres located in the Low Density Multifamily Residential (RM -12) zone at 1425 Dodge Street (intersection of Dodge Street, Conklin Lane, and Dodge Street Court) subject to review of the design review committee approving additional screening in the southwest corner. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: Anne Duggan, President of Think Bicycles Coalition of Johnson County, would like to extend the groups support of bike lanes on Sycamore Street towards the new school. It's been shown that bike lanes are much safer even for children and sidewalks are much more dangerous. Duggan also stated that the idea of a bike lane to the new school is a way to have a feeling of inclusion to the rest of the city to this new area. Rezonina / Development Item R EZ 13 - 00010 /SUB 13 -00008 Discussion of an application submitted by Iowa City Co- Housing for a rezoning of 9.65 acres of land located at Miller Avenue and Benton Street from Medium Density Single - Family (RS -8) zone and Neighborhood Public (P -1) zone to Planned Development Overlay /Medium Density Single- Family (OPD -8) zone for 7.68 acres and Neighborhood Public (P -1) zone for 1.97 acres, and a preliminary plat of Prairie Hill, a 2 -lot residential subdivision with 32 dwelling units. Planning and Zoning Commission September 18, 2014 - Formal Page 2 of 14 Carolyn Dyer recused herself as a conflict of interest as she is on the Co- Housing committee. Dyer left the meeting room. John Thomas also recused himself as he was a consultant on the project. Thomas left the meeting table and joined the audience. Miklo stated that the property is located on the southwest intersection of Benton Street and Miller Avenue. The current zoning of the property is a combination of RS -8 Medium Density Single Family and P -1 which is public and that is because a portion of this property includes the western part of Benton Hill Park. The proposal is to rezone the property to Planned Development Overlay (OPD -8) which would allow the clustering of units not normally allowed on this property such as the duplexes and a common house which is part of this proposal. The western part of Benton Street Park would also be rezoned to the overlay zone however in exchange an area owned by the applicants, the Co- Housing group, would be rezoned from RS -8 or Single Family to public and would be added to Benton Hill Park, essentially a trade of land. Miklo explained that the current zoning allows for single family homes and duplexes on corner lots within this development and he showed an illustration of what a conventional subdivision on this lot might look like and how it would likely involve a street intersecting with Miller Avenue. The 32 lots would be single family lots although it might be possible to make the lots on the corners big enough for duplexes. Therefore Miklo stated that over 30 lots could be built on this property under a conventional development. The applicant's plan, rather than having all the land developed, includes green space and a park. Additionally rather than individual single family homes there would be 26 duplex style units and a common house that would contain 6 owner occupied apartments, as well as other features such as a large kitchen, dining area, meeting rooms, activity rooms, and a mail center that would be available for use of the residents. Miklo explained that the portion of the park that would be traded for Co- Housing would act as a driveway onto Benton Street for this development and a portion of four of the dwelling units. A portion of that area would be set aside as a conservation easement meaning that the existing woodlands on the property would be preserved. It would also have a public access easement over it so that neighborhood residents would have access to it but the area owned by the Co- Housing would not be maintained by the City's Parks and Recreation Department. Miklo showed a more detailed plan of the woodlands and topography of the property. There are some steep and critical slopes on the property. He shared illustrations of the buildings proposed and reminded the commission that with planned developments the city approves the specific designs as where with a conventional development once the subdivision is approved as long as the housing units meet the zoning codes and required setbacks, the owner /developer can build whatever design and are not subject to design review. He continued to explain that the Planned Development project proposed has given the community assurances of the quality and character of the development. The development includes a common house with six owner - occupied apartments as well as some shared facilities and the applicant will go into more details. Miklo also showed illustrations of the duplex style units. There are a variety of designs, it is not a cookie cutter development and will result in a very attractive street scape in staff's opinion. As noted in the staff report, because this project is on the hill, the units will primarily be one story units on the backside and two story on the street side. And on the other side of the street the houses will be two story on the backside and one story on the street side. Units are fairly low in profile, much lower than the 35 feet allowed in the zoning code, with 18 -20 feet on the front side and 30 feet on the backside. In situations of rezoning the Commission is asked to consider if the planned development fits in the character of the neighborhood. Planning and Zoning Commission September 18, 2014 - Formal Page 3 of 14 Miklo also pointed out there are several garages scattered throughout the development and one of the criteria for a planned development is that the garages be an attractive design. The staff feels these garages are unique in design and have character to them that complements the quality of the housing units. Miklo showed some photos of the property, including one of Miller Avenue looking west onto the property. He pointed point out the steep hill and explained the difficulty with putting a driveway in that area and explained that is why the developers have asked the city for an easement across the park land which would result in much less grading. The Parks and Recreation Director was concerned about having a street splitting the park in two and put on the table the possibility of trading the park spaces so the new park area along Miller Avenue is less steep, which the Parks and Recreation Staff and Commission felt that was more conducive to park design. The next photo showed the area on Benton Street where the driveway for the new development would be located. Miklo stated the transportation planners did look at this very closely and considered the location of the proposed driveway for safety reasons, stopping distance and found that it does meet city and national standards for sight and stopping distances. Miklo directed the Commission to a memo from Kent Ralston, Transportation Planner, in the staff report that goes into detail regarding the standards. Miklo did mention that several emails were received regarding a previous proposal on this property from 1993 which indicated that the development was denied due to the driveway proposed on Benton Street. He reviewed the record and found that the driveway access to Benton Street was a concern raised by the city engineer at that time and a staff report showed that a curb cut should only be done if there was adequate and safe sight distance. After a series of engineering studies, the Traffic Engineer concluded that the proposed driveway site (which was up higher on the hill than the current proposed driveway) did meet the minimum standards. There were a number of other concerns with that 1993 proposal in terms of its design, density and the planning and zoning commission never voted on it and the proposal was withdrawn by the applicant. Miklo also shared that this is an environmentally sensitive area due to the amount of woodland on the property and amount of sleep slopes. The staff report analyzes those concerns and does recommend approval as a considerable amount of woodland will be conserved and new trees will be planted. The City Forester did note that there are several trees on the property that are prone to disease, and will need to be removed. Also the city would need to approve the landscaping plan in the proposal. Miklo shared one other aspect of this proposal is storm water management. The proposal is to build a storm water basin in the southeast corner of the property. There would also be a berm built along the property to direct water to the basin. Miklo had discussions with the owners of one of the adjacent properties, Culvers, who was concerned about storm water and is now content with the proposed plan. Additionally the city engineer has reviewed the storm water management plans and find it acceptable in concept although there may be details that need to be worked out. Miklo stated in summary staff does find that this proposal is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the goals of the Southwest District Plan of the Roosevelt Neighborhood specifically with development that is a housing form that is compatible with the city's plans as well as the neighborhood's plans to develop the neighborhood. The proposal does meet safety standards in regard to access and in terms of the trade, Parks and Recreation Staff and Commission do feel this would be better park land and this area would be preserved and have much of the same function it has today in terms of open space and public access. Planning and Zoning Commission September 18, 2014 - Formal Page 4 of 14 Miklo concluded that Staff is recommending approval of the rezoning subject to the following conditions; the landscaping being approved by the City Forester, the City Engineer approving the storm water management plan, and the applicant installing offsite improvements through Benton Hill Park to provide the primary pedestrian access to the property. Those improvements would include paving part of the path in the park and lighting that path. Freerks asked about a trail that currently comes from the Hawk Ridge Development and asked for clarification on where that trail will be in the new plan. Miklo explained that when Hawk Ridge was developed years ago much of the adjoining property was owned by the same person and as a condition of the Hawk Ridge Development the city required a trail easement across the property. In this plan the proposal is to change the path of the easement to along the southern property line, which will make it less steep. He noted the City has also made improvements in the area by installing sidewalks on Miller and Hudson Avenues and Highway 1. r Freerks asked when the trail path would be finalized and Miklo replied that the trail plans are not part of this project; it would be something the City would put in at a later date if it is to be built. Freerks then questioned the clearing of vegetation along Benton Street for visibility from the proposed driveway. Miklo pointed out the area on the picture where clearing would need to happen but explained it would mostly be brush cleared out but the trees should be able to remain. Freerks requested that Miklo explore the details on the clearing to clarify if any trees would be involved and report back to the commission. Freerks also questioned if there were any guarantees that the area that will be owned by the Co- Housing group that was formally parkland would remain park land even if the property changed hands. Miklo confirmed that yes the area will be a conservation easement that will be recorded with the plat and there will be legal documents filed stating requirements for preservation of the land. Hektoen mentioned that with regards to the woodland if trees were to be removed, tree replacement would be done to preserve the area. Martin asked Miklo to clarify where the entrance to the park would be. Miklo explained that it would be something the Parks and Recreation Commission would decide. Martin then asked about the square footage of the park after the swap. Miklo explained that the area of the park that is proposed to be traded with Cohousing is currently 1.8 acres and the area that would be swapped and conveyed to the city is 1.97 acres. Theobald questioned if the traffic at Benton Street and Miller Avenue and Benton Street and Greenwood Drive were considered as part of this project. Miklo asked Kent Ralston to address that as the city's transportation planner. Ralston stated that they did not look at those intersections directly because the access of the driveway meets the requirements of the curb radius being 150 ft. from another street or driveway on an arterial street and both Miller and Greenwood are outside that distance. Eastham asked Ralston if the lesser width of this private access makes any different to the safety of access onto Benton Street. Ralston stated that the curb cut will meet all requirements and there are no concerns about the width of the driveway given that it's not a thru street. Ralston stated that for emergency access there are some concerns but that has been discussed with the Fire Department. Eastham then asked Ralston his opinion on access to this project off Miller Avenue vs Benton Street. Planning and Zoning Commission September 18, 2014 - Formal Page 5 of 14 Ralston stated that if all things were equal, that the preference would be Miller, however the areas are not equal due to the grading off Miller Avenue. Swygard asked about the emergency vehicle access and the ability to turn around in the property. Miklo pointed out the area on the plan that shows where a large vehicle such as a fire truck could turn around and this area has been viewed by the Fire Department. It does not have a typical cul -de -sac circular turn around but it will work. Swygard then asked about parking on the lane, Ralston answered that if parking is allowed, it will be on one side of the street and have to be approved by the fire department. Miklo confirmed that on the proposed plan there will be signs posted stating no parking on the street, only in the designated parking pods. Freerks then questioned the total number of parking spots and if there was a surplus or if there were plenty of parking for visitors. Miklo stated he thought there were three or four extra spaces, but could verify that to the Commission at a later date. Swygard questioned mail delivery, noting there are mailboxes in the common house, and asked if the post office would deliver to the common house. Miklo explained that the applicants did verify with the post office that they will deliver mail to the common house and there will not be a box somewhere along the street. Eastham questioned if the developer would be required to install the street entirely before construction begins. Miklo answered that they are likely to put it all in at once, and not phase it in. Eastham then questioned the parking for residents and stated it seemed to be removed, or far away, from the residences as well as other unique features of this proposal. Eastham asked for the staff opinion on what would happen if the property gets started, but then units aren't selling and something else has to happen. He asked where would the City be with an approve site plan like the one proposed and not enough buyers to make the plan work economically Hektoen explained that it's a risk that falls on the developer and Miklo explained that it's not that big of a project, only 32 units, and additionally in the proposal the applicant states they must have commitments for at least half the units in order to receive financing to begin building. Swygard questioned the pedestrian access to the development that is to connect a trail through the existing park and who would be responsible for maintaining the trail. Miklo answered that once the trail is in place Parks and Recreation would maintain the portion that is in the park itself and the Co- Housing group would maintain the portion on their property. Freerks opened public discussion. Annie Tucker, (1425 Oaklawn Avenue) from the board of managers for Iowa City Co- Housing introduced herself and began by stating there are hundreds of co- housing communities around the world, however this would be the first one in Iowa. She explained that what distinguishes co- housing from other developments is that it is the people that will live there that develop the space and make decisions based on common values. She presented slides showcasing co- housing communities. Most communities are attached homes or multi - family although sometimes single family detached. In the proposed Iowa City Co- Housing Community most will be offset duplexes so that every unit has light from four sides and access to all views. She shared examples of co- housing units elsewhere in the United States. Common characteristics are homes are clustered together and face each other, there are pedestrian walkways and often porches and decks face each other. The clustered homes Planning and Zoning Commission September 18, 2014 - Formal Page 6 of 14 make more space for common green areas, the homes are usually smaller and more energy efficient. Another key feature of Co- Housing is there is a common house, and in that common house there are functions that make it the hub of the community. There will be mailboxes there, laundry facilities, children's playroom, exercise room, workshop, and there will be guest rooms, which make it possible for owners to have smaller homes since guests can stay in the common house. The parking is on the exterior of the area again leaving plenty of area for common green space. Tucker spoke of how the developers in Co- Housing base their decisions on common values and the Iowa City Co- Housing values are small energy efficient homes, square footage will range from 645 to 1600 sq. ft.; emphasis on alternative transportation, biking, walking and public transportation; there needs to be a balance between community activities and private space, and will use the common spaces for gardens and play areas; committed social and economic diversity, stating they already have multi - generational interest. She spoke on how the site meets the needs, its near services, only a mile and a half from downtown Iowa City, the walkability and bike paths make it a great location for the way those in the Co- Housing group want to live. It's on bus lines, there is sufficient space to build the units as well as have room for gardens and green space. The decision to build the homes on the top area of the property allows units to be south facing, which is great for solar panels also the views are wonderful. Martin asked Tucker about requirements for the building of the houses, for instance are they required to have solar panels or geothermal or be LEED certified in some fashion. Tucker stated that the goal is the units in the duplexes will be LEED certified however the common house will not be LEED certified, but will be energy efficient. Tucker stated that they will not need geothermal due to the other energy efficient building materials and insulation. Additionally they are not requiring that owners use solar panel, that is something they can individually decide. Martin asked if this Co- Housing acted like a co -op in that people would need to apply to live there as people move on and new home owners come in. Tucker stated it will not be structured as a cooperative but more like a condo association as everyone will own their unit and a share of the outside space and common house. There is a process for becoming a member of the Co- Housing group. It will involve people learning about the Co- Housing lifestyle and then there is a vote of the current members. Swygard asked if it is structured as a condo who's responsible for garbage pickup and snow removal. Tucker replied that the Co- Housing group is responsible for snow removal. Miklo stated that at the time of final plat approval there would be specific documents filed specifying Co- Housing to maintain the street, to remove the garbage, and to maintain the common open spaces. JP Claussen (2139 Davis) talked to the Commission about the site plan and the decision to have access onto Benton Street. He explained that the access off Benton Street better follows the natural contours of the land so there is not as much grading, which will help reduce storm water run -off. He showed some illustrations of the area before the land swap and after. He pointed out the conservation easement area, maintaining as much of the woods as possible. The Co- Housing goal is to maintain the green area in line with the values of the community. He pointed out that the proposed land swap gives the City more acreage and with the conservation easement it will be a net gain of public green space. Claussen discussed visibility on Benton Street and stated it exceeds the visibility needed for city standards. Claussen pointed out as a community they are de- emphasizing cars and encouraging alterative transportation. Planning and Zoning Commission September 18, 2014 - Formal Page 7 of 14 Claussen spoke about the Co- Housing goal of affordable housing, they value social and economic diversity, and that fits in the City's plan to have more owner occupied affordable housing. All the dwellings will be accessible and they already have 11 people financially invested in this project which shows the project has energy and commitment. Martin questioned Claussen if the green space area owned by the Co- Housing group would be accessible from the park area; he confirmed it would be open space. Martin then questioned what the range of cost would be for the houses in this project. Claussen gave a very general estimate of $200,000 median home price. Anna Buss (525 W. Benton Street), stated that the Co- Housing group purchased this land knowing the access would be on Miller Avenue, and stated that the cost of developing the land is the developer's cost and redesigning the street off Miller Avenue, while it might be difficult, it is not impossible. She also stated that the smaller width of the interior streets should be a major concern for the fire trucks. Buss shared concern that the exchange of the property would set a bad precedent for future developments and possible lawsuits. Additionally she feels that city will incur a large expense getting the new green area in shape for park use. Buss questioned the common house and if the guest rooms would have to have rooming house permits with inspections by the City. Buss stated the biggest concern is the access onto Benton Street and stated how dangerous it appears. She shared concerns regarding the steepness of the street and issues in inclement weather. Additional developments elsewhere on Benton Street will add to the congestion, the Riverfront Crossings development, the 96 unit development on the old Hartwig Motors property, and the Kevin O'Brien project. In summary, Buss stated the driveway access on Benton Street is a bad idea. William Knabe (1101 Weeber Circle) asked the commission to separate the concept of Co- Housing and affordable housing from traffic, safety and preservation of the park because in reality he is not opposed to Co- Housing his concern is with Benton Street hill and the obstacles it presents to put a driveway half way down the hill. Knabe stated that in the past, Mace Braverman's application to develop this area was denied due to the entry onto Benton Street being a safety issue. There had also been discussions in the past about widening Benton Street, or adding a bike lane, but it was stopped due to no one wanting to increase the traffic on Benton Street. He stated that just a few months ago the Commission heard a proposal for a housing development on a property south of Roosevelt school and the issue was entry onto Benton Street, and that application was denied. So once again, he implored that the Commission remove the Co- Housing issue and just focus on the traffic issue and make a judgment on the basis of that. He additionally stressed that the Commission make sure it's clear why they would approve such an application when it seems entirely possible that Miller Avenue entrance could be an option. He also raised a concern about the City giving park land to private entities and would like clarification on that. Mary Knudson (725 West Benton Street) shared that half her property line will be adjacent to the Co- Housing groups land and therefore shared a couple concerns. The first concern is the entrance onto Benton Street. Knudson stated this is not the first time there has been a proposal to put new properties with access onto Benton Street, and all those showed concern from the city. She shared many emails and memos from past city officials stating concern about Benton Street traffic and grade. There was a traffic study done in 2010 on Benton Street with an average of 11,000 cars on that road which is 14 times the traffic on Miller Avenue. The study also showed the average speed on Benton Street was 33 mph or higher (posted speed limit is 25). She stated that she knows the Co- Housing values limit driving and car access, however the current traffic on Benton Street is already too much, no matter what development may go in that area. While she understands there may be a larger cost Planning and Zoning Commission September 18, 2014 - Formal Page 8 of 14 for developing the property to have access on Miller Avenue, however the cost to the neighborhood is adding traffic on Benton Street. Knudson stated her second point is the park. The neighborhood worked for over 20 years to acquire this park. People purchased homes thinking they were living next to a park. The neighborhood is very proud of the park and especially after the closing of Roosevelt Elementary; the park has become a unifying element to the neighborhood. This needs to be considered if the City wants to grant this land over to a private entity, it has never been done before and opens this idea to other developers and leads to possible litigation. Ruth Baker (515 West Benton Street) stated she had lived on Benton Street for over 30 years. She asked if the commission received an email she sent earlier in the day, and Freerks confirmed the email had been received. Baker stated she is in favor of the concept of Co- Housing however concerned about the safety of cars turning on Benton Street in the middle of the hill, as well as taking a portion of the park away. Baker stated that both in the report for this project and from the 1993 project the engineers quoted a 9% slope grade, when it's actually a 10 -12% slope grade. Baker had a memo that was written to the mayor and city council dated January 20, 1999 by Bill Buss, during the time of talks of widening Benton Street. The memo refutes some of the documentation from the transportation area about the site distance for that location. She requested copies of the memo to be distributed to the Commission. The memo points out a number of issues the Commission should be aware. Baker also stated that the park should not be divided because there is a path that goes through the park. Additionally the community planned this park for so long and it was not intended for playground area it was to be a respite area, a wooded area. The features being proposed for the park are not necessarily the features the neighborhood wants for the park. Again Baker stressed that the Co- Housing idea is terrific, but the property was purchased with the idea of entrance being on Miller Avenue and should stay that way to not risk the safety of the residents. Robert Otto (733 W. Benton St.) shared with the Commission that his mother is the owner of the property west of Mary Knudson, and has lived there for 68 years. Otto states at 7:45 a.m. you cannot back out, you have to wait your turn and dart out onto the street, it is so busy. Additionally in the evening when he tries to turn left into his property the traffic backs up. A bigger concern is winter on Benton Hill. It is common for cars to only get half way up the hill; you need to make a run up the hill, and cannot stop half way up. Otto feels the Co- Housing idea is great, but the access should not be on Benton Hill. Roxanne Mitten (4092 Winter Eagle Rd) stated that she doesn't live on Benton Street but has been observing the Co- Housing group and its plans and is amazed at how progressive this would be for Iowa City and the community. Mitten expressed her support of the development and also values the data collected by street engineers and knows the traffic issue is very challenging. This would be a community project, something that will raise property values something that matches what is planned in Iowa City in a good way. From an ecological aspect, the change of boundaries is looking at the big picture and city planners are proactive in their plans. Mark Signs (1825 Hollywood Blvd) introduced himself as a licensed realtor in Iowa City and stated he was very interested in housing issues, growth issues, and affordability and diversity of housing. Signs stated that he went to a seminar several years ago on the concept of Co- Housing, and he is very excited as a realtor to see a new type of housing, also a conservation type of development and have not seen that much in this market. He added it's appealing to cluster houses and leave a lot of green space. Planning and Zoning Commission September 18, 2014 - Formal Page 9 of 14 Signs went on to address a few of the issues, stating there is always passion and interest in new developments, however the reality is this is a prime piece of real estate in Iowa City and it will be developed at some point in some way. The question of whether something will be built there is moot. In regards to the traffic question, the area residents have painted a grizzly picture of that street, and Signs stated he was amazed a school had an entrance on that street if it was as dangerous as depicted. Signs also stated that things like the development down at River Crossing and some of the other developments there is a bigger issue about the traffic on Benton Street and questioned whether 32 houses will be a significant impact to that problem. Even if the development had access on Miller Avenue, the traffic will still go to Benton Street, 32 houses doesn't seem like an impact in the scheme of things. Finally Signs commented about the environmental impact to do a driveway off Miller Avenue stating the developers are trying to minimize the impact on the space and finally the issue of swapping land he believes that has happened in other cases in Iowa City. Baker stated that most parents would use the Greenwood Avenue entrance to the school. They did not use the Benton Street entrance. Knudson added that the school was built in 1930, well before the street was even paved. Also she wrote the city when she saw the proposal of the land swap and asked if it was the first case of such and received a reply that yes, this was the first land swap. Freerks closed the public discussion. Freerks addressed the Commission to entertain a motion, also stating the Commission has 45 days to entertain the proposal so there is time for further review and it could be deferred. Eastham made a motion to defer item REZ13- 00010 /SUB13 -00008 until the first meeting in October. Martin seconded the motion. Freerks called for discussion, to take this opportunity to map out items the Commission might have concerns about or want more information on. Eastham asked for more staff input on access onto Benton Street vs Miller Avenue. Eastham stated that a comment from the Transportation Planner stated their preference would be access onto Miller even though they have agreed to the confirmed access point. However, Eastham would still like to know if access on Miller Avenue is feasible, stating that is his major concern at this point. Martin commented that she understands the traffic study and traffic concerns as she had an accident on that hill a few years back during an ice storm. Simply put, Martin stated she loves the concept, hates the street. Theobald also stated she travels Benton Street frequently and avoids the hill in the winter. She is also greatly concerned about the park and to ensure that the park keeps with the integrity of the Roosevelt ravine, that entire neighborhood, and it appears the proposed new park does not have the same flavor, the topography is too flat. Swygard echoed everyone else's concerns and the neighborhoods concerns that they've expressed tonight. Everyone seems to be in favor of the concept of Co- Housing and the values the Co- Housing Planning and Zoning Commission September 18, 2014 - Formal Page 10 of 14 group has however access off Benton is a huge concern. She lives in this neighborhood and drives that hill, did use the entrance off Benton Street when her daughter was a student at Roosevelt, it is dangerous for a number of reasons that everyone has sited, as far a sun, slippery in rain, horrible in snow and like others she avoids the hill when possible. The slope of the hill in itself is dangerous. The other piece is about the park and what it represents to the neighborhood. Freerks stated that she is not so concerned with Benton Street, although she knows there are concerns; she states that thousands of people travel there daily and 32 new homes is not a deal breaker. She is concerned however about the park land swap, and needs to look at it further. Like others Freerks very much supports the idea of Co- Housing, but the park is the defining piece for this neighborhood and community, and the style of the park is important. Not worried about a precedent on the swap, they have been made, maybe not for parks, but for other land. Freerks stated she does hope that the Miller Orchard neighborhood and the Co- Housing group can work together. Eastham wanted to make sure he conveyed that his concern about access onto West Benton is increasing the risk to other motorists using Benton, the additional 32 houses is not the issue. A vote was taken and the motion carried 5 -0. Site Plan Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Development Company for approval of a site plan for 32 mult9amily dwelling units on 2.19 acres located in the Low Density Multifamily Residential (RM -12) zone at 1425 Dodge Street (intersection of Dodge Street, Conklin Lane and Dodge Street Court). Miklo stated it is unusual for the Commission to review a site plan and there are only a couple of circumstances where that occurs. One is when a site plan is submitted for staff administrative approval, and enough of the neighbors' sign a petition and those are bumped to this Commission, that happens once every few years. The other instance is the case for this application as it is before the Commission because in the Conditional - Zoning Agreement there was a requirement that the eventual development plan including the building plan and landscaping proposal be reviewed by the Commission. This condition was put into place when this property was rezoned from Community Commercial (CC -2) to Low Density Multifamily Residential (RM -12). At that time there was concern about how the development of this property would be compatible with surrounding neighborhood, and also that it's an entrance way to Iowa City as it will be one of the first developments that will be seen entering Iowa City. Miklo showed an aerial photograph of the site. The proposal is to have a driveway off Dodge Street which would provide access to parking and access to garages in the back of the townhouses, there would also be a parking garage under the apartment building. Miklo showed an illustration of the townhouses stating some would front on Dodge Street and some would front onto Dodge Street Court. He then showed an illustration of the larger apartment building which would front onto Dodge Street and showed the elevation for the entrance to the garage under the building. Miklo stated staff has reviewed the site plan and it is in compliance with setback and otter conditions, but the engineers and staff are still reviewing the site plan so there might be minor changes that need to be fixed. In terms of zoning it meets the requirements. The question before the Commission is if it is compatible with the neighborhood; in terms of design and character is it an appropriate development. The staff Design Review Committee has approved the application and does feel it meets the objectives talked about in the Comprehensive Plan for this Planning and Zoning Commission September 18, 2014 - Formal Page 11 of 14 neighborhood and is a development that is compatible with the neighborhood. The plan is that the townhouses will be a transition from the duplexes and single family homes in the area to the larger apartment building. The parking is in the interior of the site so not highly visible from the streets and there is proposal for dense vegetation on the back of the property along Dodge Street Court to restrict the view to the back of the townhomes that front on Dodge Street. Staff is recommending approval of this subject to staff approval for technical compliance. Martin asked if the driveway on Dodge Street was the only access point. Miklo confirmed there was only one access point from Dodge Street, and pointed out the parking spaces throughout the property. He did note that the driveways leading to the garages were not considered designated parking spots for zoning purposes; although they might be used for parking. Freerks commented that there was the maximum number of units on this site with the minimum number of parking spaces. Miklo confirmed it does meet all the minimum requirements. Eastham wanted confirmation on the landscaping. Miklo said the applicant agreed to do S3 standard which is 4 -6 feet mix of evergreens and dense shrubbery. Theobald questioned the other side of the road and the landscaping there, Miklo stated it was S2 standard which is 2 -4 ft. in height. Thomas asked if there was a sidewalk along Dodge Street. Miklo stated that yes, there was a sidewalk and also there would be a sidewalks added to Conklin Lane and Dodge Street Court. Miklo stated that they had looked at additional access to the property from Dodge Street Court but felt that the residents on Dodge Street Court would not be in favor of that and staff found it acceptable to have all the traffic access on Dodge Street. Thomas asked about the emergency turn around access. Miklo pointed out the emergency access on the plat. Freerks opened public discussion. Jerry Waddilove, Southgate Development, represented the applicant and said as the staff report has indicated they were granted a conditional zoning in October 2013 and identified several requirements for development in that area. Waddilove stated all those conditions have been met, and shared one item to note, a change as part of the work with staff related to the multifamily building that changed from 12 - 3 bedroom units to 11 - 3 bedroom units and 3 - 2 bedroom units so one less 3 bedroom unit and one more 2 bedroom unit. This aided in making the elevations better with windows, etc. Waddilove addressed a couple of concerns that have been voiced. The density of the site, the number of units proposing, does meet the conditional zoning that has been granted. He also addressed the parking space issues stating the minimum number of parking spaces that is required has been met with the 62 stalls identified on the site. In addition, Waddilove stated they are proposing an increase right of way that was required as part of the site plan on Dodge Street Court and add sidewalks on Conklin Lane and Dodge Street Court. Cheryl Cruise (905 Bluffwood Dr) owns property at 1265 Dodge Street Court and her son Tim Fuhrman owns the other half of the building. Cruise shared photos of Dodge Street Court and also wrote a memo to the Commission stating she does think the density is too much for the area. The Planning and Zoning Commission September 18, 2014 - Formal Page 12 of 14 neighbors have expressed concern about both density and parking. Cruise stated she was here tonight to highlight parking issues on Dodge Street Court. Dodge Street Court is about 20 feet wide and it's unimproved and originally it was no parking on both sides before the existing housing was built there. Because it's unimproved anyone that does park there gets into the grass and mud. Cruise stated there is also nowhere to turn around except in someone's driveway. Her concern is if nine townhouses were added across the street with sidewalks going to the front doors, it's very likely guests or tenants will park on Dodge Street Court. Cruise spoke with Assistant Fire Chief Roger Jensen and presented the situation to him. He advised her to come to this meeting and relay the statement that the Fire Department would have "great concern" if there was parking on Dodge Street Court as they could not get safety vehicles in the area. Cruise would like the City to change Dodge Street Court back to no parking on both sides. Alan McVey (1124 Conklin Lane) seconded that the proposal is very dense stating that right now in that neighborhood there might be 20 cars turning from Conklin Lane onto Dodge Street and it is very busy in the mornings. Adding 62 or more cars will be significant. McVey feels the density is too high given the neighborhood, given the streets, and conditions on Dodge Street Court. He also believes lighting can be an issue and definitely also feels the city needs to be sure the drainage does not come onto Dodge Street Court. Freerks asked Miklo to answer the question on lighting for the development. Miklo stated there are standards on residential lighting that cannot be exceeded and is reviewed at the time of the building permit. Freerks asked Waddilove to address the lighting issue. Waddilove stated they have not gone into detail but envision using similar lighting to what they have on Ryan Court where there are townhomes next to single family. They use incandescent lighting. Also Waddilove noted that on Dodge Street, at the point of access to the development, there is a turning lane. Thomas questioned the parking or potential parking on Dodge Street Court. Miklo stated that a resident or property owner on that street can petition the City and they will do a survey of the residents of the neighborhood and based on that the City could prohibit parking Freerks asked how many units were on Dodge Street Court. Miklo stated there were seven along the street and three or four set back further off the street. Swygard asked why Dodge Street Court has remained an unimproved lane. Miklo stated when it was subdivided years ago in the early 90's the city ordinance did not require improvement of adjacent streets at that time. Freerks closed the public discussion. Freerks stated that the parking on Dodge Street Court is a side issue and not pertinent to the approval of this application. Hektoen also stated that the issue of density is not on the table, this is not a rezoning issue. Eastham moved to approve the application submitted by Southgate Development Company of a site plan for 32 mult9amily dwelling units on 2.19 acres located in the Low Density Multifamily Residential (RM -12) zone at 1425 Dodge Street (intersection of Dodge Street, Conklin Lane and Dodge Street Court). Martin seconded the motion. Planning and Zoning Commission September 18, 2014 - Formal Page 13 of 14 Martin stated she is excited to see development here, especially with the Hy -Vee redesign. Theobald stated she voted against the rezoning because of concerns about the density but now that it's been rezoned she cannot deny the application based on that reason. Eastham felt it's a good mix of apartment and townhomes and access on Dodge Street is appropriate although is sympathetic to the parking issues on Dodge Street Court and hope that the City will address those. Thomas raised some concerns with the southwest corner, west of the townhouses, on Dodge Street Court. Staff had recommend S -3 landscaping. Given that the driveway runs close to the sidewalk there Thomas would prefer a thicker screening. Miklo stated according to landscaping zoning the next level S -4 would include a masonry wall combined with vegetation landscaping. Thomas feels the current plan does not properly define or screen the area. A denser vegetative screen might be sufficient, does not necessarily need to be a masonry wall but don't feel one row of S -3 screening is enough. Thomas made an amendment to the motion stating the approval of this application is to be subject to review of the design review committee approving additional screening in the southwest corner of the property. Martin seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion was carried 7 -0. Dyer questioned car lights shining towards the neighborhood and Miklo stated the screening would be more for the aesthetics. Freerks did share a concern about lighting, but feels there is a plan and precedents in other developments that have addressed this concern. Swygard commented although it's not in the purview of this Commission she would encourage the residents of Dodge Street Court to pursue the parking issues and approach City Council about the capital improvements to Dodge Street Court. A vote was taken and the motion was carried 7 -0. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: September 4. 2014 Eastham moved to approve the meeting minutes as amended. Martin seconded, and the motion carried 7 -0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION Miklo distributed a memo regarding a presentation by Dan Burden, a pedestrian street expert, and encourage the Commission to attend. Miklo also reminded the Commission of the South District workshop on October 6th. He stated they are welcome to attend but the workshop is for the residents and property owners. The Commission is being asked to participate but with the idea of not steering the conversations, rather just to learn and listen and provide information. This is the community's opportunity to give us ideas of the plan. ADJOURNMENT: Eastham moved to adjourn Martin seconded, Meeting was adjourned on a 7 -0 vote. z O �o �wo 20 OV 0Wo ? W N ZZm T �NaN W Z 0 W Z~ za z Q J CL o TZXXXXXXX 0 N X x X X x X T Nxxxxxxx o �XXXxx�X ti NXxxxxxx ti VZXXOxxxx XXXXXXX W- XXXXXXX X X X X X X X i A 4XXXXxx- i O CO) C-4 0 Nxxxxxxx N N x x x x x x x T-oXXXXXX m �wcowwr- LoWLo wXo0o0000 w a 2 W (9 — >Z'MZP OZ 0 w<< 0 0 a�fnzwO J N �mce I wCO)w��w0 >- Qwa 22 0ww2w�F- 0 z �WT- XXxxxxx m CD NXxxxxxx 7 N NXxxxxxx �XXXpXXX T NXxxxxxx W2 cocowr,L000cn W d LO Lo LO LO U-) LO U.) �X0o00o00 W a aw 0waa�' .0 VQY��QC =m?ama 2wr0w��0 2 a-0i U_a '0 N X (D N •��U) c c c N N i U) co U) o aQa z� n u u u n xOw 1 0 w Y a-0i U_a '0 N X (D N •��U) c c c N N i U) co U) o aQa z� n u u u n xOw 1 0 w Y