HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-12-02 Bd Comm minutesAd Hoc Senior Services Committee :3b(i)
November 12, 2014
Page 1
MINUTES FINAL
AD HOC SENIOR SERVICES COMMITTEE
NOVEMBER 12, 2014 — 3:30 P.M.
HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
Members Present: Mercedes Bern -Klug, Rick Dobyns, Jane Dohrmann, Jay Honohan, Hiram
Rick Webber, Joe Younker (Chair)
Members Absent: Ellen Cannon
Staff Present: Marian Karr, Michelle Buhman< Geoff Fruin
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council
action):
None.
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Younker called the meeting to order at 3:30 P.M.
CONSIDER MOTION ADOPTING CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED:
a. Minutes of the meeting on 10/22/14
b. Minutes of the meeting on 10/25/14
Honohan moved to accept the Consent Calendar as presented. Dobyns seconded the
motion. The motion carried 6-0; Cannon absent.
Before moving to public comment, Karr stated that Cannon would be unable to attend this
evening, and has notified her that she will be resigning from the Committee due to health
reasons. Cannon did pass along that she has enjoyed working on the Committee with everyone
and that she is sorry she is unable to continue. Younker stated that he understands her position
and thanked Cannon for her input in the process.
PUBLIC INPUT ON DRAFT REPORT:
Younker then explained how the evening's agenda will proceed, noting that they have broken
down the topics and have shown corresponding page numbers from the meeting packet. He
asked that those wishing to speak limit their comments to the section they are talking about at
that particular time.
a. Initial Sections (pgs 36-37) — Younker began with the initial sections, asking if
anyone wished to address these. He responded to general questions from the audience
regarding page numbers. No one spoke regarding these sections.
b. Charge 1: Evaluation of the Center (pgs 38-40) — Younker noted that this
section is on pages 3 — 5 of the draft report. Bob Welsh addressed Members, stating
that the one question he has is in regards to the three models for senior centers that he
presented on June 23, where he recommended one that he felt was the most practical.
Looking over the minutes and draft report, he questioned if there was any discussion or
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
November 12, 2014
Page 2
consideration of his suggestions. Younker stated that the Committee did receive
Welsh's material and he noted that what they are currently addressing is Charge 1 —
Evaluation of the Senior Center and that he would like to limit comments to the report.
Younker asked if he is asking why his suggestions are not in Charge 1. Welsh
responded, stating that he is questioning if any consideration was given to his
suggestion. He noted that he did not see any discussion regarding it in the minutes, only
acceptance of his report by the Committee. Younker reiterated that the Committee did
receive these comments and did consider them as they put the report together.
Kathy Mitchell, a Member of the Senior Center Commission and the Steering Council,
spoke next. Her first recommendation is on page 5 of the draft report and pages 112-
117 on the handout. She noted that under 'participant fees,' she is recommending that
they add 'Senior Center staff, Commission, and Steering Council' to this. She added
that these three groups can work together to address this issue. Continuing, Mitchell
stated that another possibility is to take B with participant fees and combine it with C,
pages 129 — 131, regarding evaluating membership fees so that the two would be
reviewed together. Younker asked for clarification of Mitchell's comments, noting that
her first comment was in regards to page 40 of the packet, page 5 of the report, line 114.
She responded that what she is suggesting is taking the C bullet point and combining it
with B. In other words that they would evaluate membership fees and all participant fees
thereof. Karr stated that for the Members knowledge, Mitchell did provide a late handout
this evening regarding her comments. Honohan responded to Mitchell's suggestions,
asking if they were to eliminate the one from line 114 to 117 and combine parts of it with
the 129 — 131 if that would satisfy her concerns. Mitchell stated that this may be a
possibility, that the difference is you would only have it focused on in one section.
Younker then asked Mitchell to continue with her page 5 suggestions. She next
reviewed pages 119 — 121 and 125 — 127. Mitchell's suggestion is to remove any
definition regarding diversity and replace it with 'current level of diversity.' She explained
that the Senior Center already has diversity, and that they wish to expand what they
have. She believes this should be consistent throughout the report.
Next, Harry Olmstead commented that he noticed the report does not speak to persons
with disabilities and that it should.
C. Charge 2: Physical and Financial Resources (pgs 41-45) — Mary Gravitt
addressed the Committee regarding Charge 2, page 7. She spoke to the services that
are supposed to be serving senior citizens. She stated that they do not know exactly
what services these agencies provide, that they only have their word on what it is they
provide. She noted that they did not get client input on the services and whether they
are sufficient. Gravitt noted that Elder Services, for example, is no longer serving
Sunday meals at the Senior Center, and as of the 22nd they are also stopping Saturday
meals. She stated that most of the agencies listed have nothing to do with the Senior
Center itself. Bern -Klug asked for some clarification of Gravitt's comments, asking what
she means when she says they are `mixing them in with us.' Gravitt responded that the
Ad Hoc Committee is supposed to be about the Senior Center and the senior citizens of
the community. She explained that, for example, most seniors have Medicare and
therefore cannot use the services of the Free Medical Clinic. The VNA, on the other
hand, does serve the population at the Center and even has an office in the building.
SEATS serves those seniors who can afford the services, according to Gravitt.
Continuing, Gravitt noted that many of the agencies listed serve other populations, not
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
November 12, 2014
Page 3
seniors. Bern -Klug stated that when Gravitt says 'we,' she could mean senior citizens or
the Senior Center, and that while there may be an overlap, they are not the same thing.
Gravitt agreed they are not the same thing, but that the Senior Center is basically there
to serve seniors, not other populations. She reiterated what she had previously said,
that she feels this report has gone too far. It is bloated and goes beyond what this Ad
Hoc Committee was charged with, in her opinion. Bern -Klug stated that the charge to
the Committee was beyond just the Senior Center and that the second charge was to
look at the needs of the senior population, not just at the Center itself. Gravitt asked if
the Committee is following the strategic plan as they have made their review. She
stated that if they are not following the strategic plan, they are going to get lost. Younker
asked that they try to stay on topic, suggesting that Gravitt make further comments later
in the agenda.
Larry Rogers, a resident of Ecumenical Towers, referred to page 8 of the draft report,
line item 237. He stated that he is concerned that they are talking about different types
of dementia, increased life spans, and demand for supportive services all together.
Rogers spoke to some studies on aging, noting that many people are surprised at how
long they live. When it comes to dementia issues, he believes the Senior Center should
not handle these, that dementia should be handled by people who are trained in the
mental field. He questioned why dementia has been put into consideration in this
section.
Harry Olmstead stated that he is concerned that the Committee overlooked the Johnson
County Task Force on Aging, that it is not referenced in this section. He asked that the
Committee attempt to get some information from them.
Kathy Mitchell spoke to pages 8 and 9 on the draft report, pages 232 — 244. On #1, the
suggestion is that everything up through the word 'area' be dropped. It would then read
'It will be increasingly challenging to meet the needs of a growing and increasingly
diverse senior population. This is especially true for those of limited financial resources.'
On #2, the suggestion is to completely redo this. The suggested would read 'Demand
for programs and services that promote overall wellness and independence, and prevent
or delay the onset of chronic diseases, are likely to increase.' #2 would then become #3.
#3 would become #4. Mitchell then stated that #4 currently appears to be incomplete
and she questioned if something needs to be added. If not, she asked that #4 be
removed.
Ed Flarrety spoke next to page 7, lines 176 — 183. He questioned if the word 'will' on
176 and 182 shouldn't be changed to 'may.' He stated that he would refer to the
consistency, skipping ahead to line 240 where it says `may.' Flarrety added that they do
not know what the State will do as far as its kickback to cities to even out the property
tax decreases, and they also do not know what the political climate in Washington, D.C.
will be.
Ina Lowenberg addressed the Committee, beginning with Section IV, lines 251 — 253.
'The Committee is recommending the reconsideration of the fees for non -Iowa City
residents.' She pointed out that non -Iowa City residents have paid higher fees
previously, and that they will undoubtedly continue to do so. She added that the
recommendation of reconsidering the fee structure is not only for non -Iowa City
residents, but also for all members of the Senior Center. Moving to Section 2, lines 255
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
November 12, 2014
Page 4
— 256, `Generating revenue through the rental of meeting and gathering space.'
Lowenberg stated that this sounds very hopeful, but that it would require staff. She
stated that there would not be an option to add staff time to make this possible, and that
it may also require redoing these spaces to make them attractive for rent. Jumping to
Section 4, lines 265 — 266, she noted that trying to increase the funding received from
Johnson County is a noble goal, but that people have been trying to do this for some
time. Lowenberg stated that by doing this it appears that they are taking the onus off the
City, and the City is really the main supporter of the Center, as she believes it should be.
Larry Rogers addressed Section IV, #8, lines 284 — 286, 'To aid these seniors...' He
asked what seniors they are referring to. 'The Committee proposes that the City Council
initiate a program ... full participation awards for the next three years of four grants, of
$10,000 each to non -profits for programs to enhance social programming for these
seniors.' He stated that he thought they did not have extra money to be using for things
like this. He is instead proposing that the City give tax incentives to businesses serving
the citizens of Iowa City, and tax incentives to developers who build low-income housing,
senior housing, and medical facilities that provide care for senior citizens. Rogers stated
that he believes these are the types of incentives the City needs to provide, not grants of
the nature described.
Kathy Mitchell returned to the podium to address page 9, Section IV, lines 268 — 271.
She noted that the Center currently does what this charge says, with the SHIPP
program, the VNA, income tax help, both personal and legal counseling, holistic health,
and senior college. There are also programs done in partnership with the University of
Iowa, Kirkwood Community College, and the area city business community.
d. Charge 3: Recommendations (pgs 45-47) — Ina Lowenberg began by
addressing C, Lack of Available Programming, lines 318 — 322. She stated that she
does not understand what the content is of this obstacle. She added that there is a 72 -
page program guide currently available, that programs keep increasing every term, and
she questioned which organizations would be involved in identifying gaps in service, that
could without additional staff, be offered at the Senior Center. She added that she would
like to have some information on this issue. Honohan then asked for a clarification of the
line numbers being referred to.
Kathy Mitchell spoke to B, page 312, and obstacle C, page 318 — 322, and obstacle E,
pages 329 — 331. She stated that she is recommending that in all three of these the
words 'lack of be removed. She added that the reasoning is that the wording gives the
impression that the Center is not doing these things, when indeed they are doing them.
Regarding obstacle C on page 318 — 322, Mitchell stated that they are questioning who
`City staff' is, since Senior Center staff is City staff. The question, again, is who is the
City staff that would be part of this. Also, the Center already collaborates with the
Johnson County Livable Community, and the Task Force on Aging; therefore,
collaborations are already in place. On obstacle E, lack of community awareness,
Mitchell stated that the Center has promoted multigenerational activities and
programming through its program guide, through its commercials, and through its
community outreach program — the Ambassador Program — as well as participation with
students from the University of Iowa and Kirkwood Community College.
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
November 12, 2014
Page 5
Harry Olmstead spoke to A, Transportation. He stated that they need to find out what
the impact of doing away with reduced fares is going to have on seniors, and particularly
on the Center, as many of the members take the SEATS bus to get there. He added
that he is afraid there will be a reduction in attendance at the Center due to this increase.
Larry Rogers spoke to lines 333 — 334, Affordable Housing, stating that he hates to be
quoting a rumor since he does not have the facts to back it up, but he heard from a
neighbor that a couple of the low-income senior citizen centers, handicap centers, in the
downtown area are now being used by students of the University. Rogers stated that his
question is, is the City currently monitoring what space is available, and who is using it.
He recommended that the City check into this issue, if indeed there is truth to this rumor.
e. Exhibits:
A — Res. 14-37 (pgs 48-51) — Larry Rogers spoke to Members, stating that he is
interested in the fourth 'whereas.' 'It's important for City services to recognize
and adapt to the changing demographics and socioeconomic profile of Iowa City
residents in order to ensure that municipal services are best meeting the needs
of the population.' He spoke to the moving of the Post Office out of the
downtown area. He noted that you want your services centered in the town and
he gave several examples of why this should be, noting that the Senior Center is
located in the center of town.
Younker reiterated that this section is for the public to comment on whether they
think these exhibits should be included in the final report. Otherwise if there are
comments in general about documents in the report, he noted that during agenda
Item 7, Public Discussion, would probably be the best time to discuss these.
B — FY2013 Annual Report (pgs 52-68) — Mary Gravitt stated that to her it
appears that things are designed to confuse them. She spoke to what the
Committee has been charged with, asking about the strategic plan. Gravitt noted
that most of the time she has no idea what the Committee is talking about.
C — Subcommittee Evaluation (pgs 69-74) — Honohan stated that this section
is going to need some cleaning up, that it was basically his draft. Younker noted
that as he previously noted, they will go through and make sure punctuation
marks are correct and that formatting is consistent.
Bob Welsh spoke to the statement 'is the central resource,' asking if this can be
phrased to recognize the real contribution of the various agencies. Honohan
responded that this is something that is in error. The last draft that was approved
by the Committee was changed to read 'is the primary central resource.' He
apologized for not catching this error. Welsh asked if `primary' is the correct term
here in relation to other agencies. He stated that he is thinking specifically of
Elder Services and the wide range of services that they offer. Younker added
that they did have extensive discussion about use of the word `primary' and
`central resource,' and that they will be sure that the final report has the approved
wording.
Larry Rogers then spoke to the survey that the Center carried out, noting that it
was sent out to all of the people who receive the monthly guide, removing those
who were outside of Johnson County and those who were businesses. He
added that he did not find any breakdown of those other people, within Johnson
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
November 12, 2014
Page 6
County, indicating how many of them were from Iowa City, how many from
Coralville, etc.
Beth Clompton stated that the matter of 'central' and 'primary' came up several
meetings ago, and that she believes the word 'unique' should be used here. She
believes the Senior Center is a unique resource for quality programs and
services and should be labeled as such. She added that this is what makes the
Center so valuable.
D — Accreditation letter and report (pgs 75-81) — Mary Gravitt asked what is
meant by the word 'physical.' Younker asked where she is exactly in Exhibit D.
Gravitt responded that she is on 3, where it talks about Charge 2 — physical and
financial resources. Karr attempted to clarify which document Gravitt was
referring to. Gravitt stated that she is looking at the agenda. Younker noted that
he thinks Gravitt is looking at the item they just finished. He asked if she could
hold her comments until they reach the final public comment section.
E - National Council on Aging (pgs 82-83) — No comments.
F — 2013 Survey Report (pgs 84-92) — No comments.
G — Program Guide Spring 2014 (pgs 93-178) — An audience member stated
that this is incorrect, that the program guide begins on page 95. Younker noted
that this is correct, that the other pages are a Senior Center brochure that was
not part of the program guide itself. Karr encouraged people to come to the
microphone when making comments, as they are not heard otherwise.
H — Strategic Plan Booklet (2010-2015) (pgs 179-184) — No comments.
I — Census (pgs 185-187) — No comments.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION (draft report items):
At this point in the meeting, Younker asked Gravitt if she wanted to discuss Charge 2 again.
Gravitt stated that what she wants to know is the legal definition of the word 'physical' in this
instance. She noted that on page 10 it says they are recommending to maintain the current
location for the Center. Younker responded that the Committee's understanding of the charge
was that they were to provide recommendations regarding financial and physical resources. He
added that they did not come up with a definition as a committee, but that the working definition
was that 'physical resources' would include everything other than financial resources. Gravitt
noted that she has read the Charter, and that the Charter works on specific words. She
questioned if the strategic plan mentions physical or not, but that she really just wants to know
the legal definition of 'physical.' Younker stated that for the purposes of the report, the
Committee was considering physical resources to mean the building. Honohan responded that
he is not concerned about a legal definition of 'physical' as this is not that type of situation. His
personal opinion would be that 'physical' refers to concrete things, like the building. He added
that he thought it was a very broad statement, not a limited one.
Younker then asked for a motion to accept correspondence from Kathy Mitchell and Mary
Guttmann. Honohan moved to accept correspondence. Webber seconded the motion.
The motion carried 6-0; Cannon absent. Honohan commented that for everyone's
information, Mary Wallis Gutmann gave the Committee several different comments regarding
the draft report and they will be part of the record. The Committee will be discussing them in
detail at the next meeting, according to Honohan.
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
November 12, 2014
Page 7
Harry Olmstead asked if the position being vacated by Cannon will be filled. Younker stated
that it will not be, that the Committee itself dissolves on December 1, per resolution.
Ina Lowenberg asked if this will not cause a problem with there being an even number of
members on the Committee, versus an uneven number as originally planned. She asked if any
effort has been made by Member Cannon to participate in votes.
Kathy Mitchell stated that she noticed the older Americans report being noted here but that the
State of Iowa also puts out its own report on older Americans, specifically geared towards Iowa.
She asked why this is not part of the report, adding that perhaps it has not been released yet for
this year.
Mary Gravitt addressed the Committee, stating that the City Council appointed a Member of the
Council to the Ad Hoc Committee. She added that the Council also appointed the Chair and the
Vice -Chair. She asked who is representing the members of the Senior Center, when the City is
appointing all of these people. Younker reminded Gravitt that they are still speaking to the draft
report at this point.
DISCUSSION OF EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DRAFT (Pqs. 188-189):
Younker noted that the Chair and Vice -Chair asked City staff to put together a draft Executive
Summary for discussion. This is on pages 188 and 189 of the packet. Dohrmann moved to
accept the Executive Summary as it appears on pages 188 and 189 of the packet.
Younker seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0, Cannon absent. Discussion on the
Executive Summary began with Honohan reviewing his suggested changes. On the next to last
line where it states `Committee's draft report to the City Council,' he is asking that `initial' be
inserted here, as this is not the final draft that was presented. It is instead the initial draft report.
Honohan moved to insert `initial' between `Committee's' and `draft,' as discussed.
Webber seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-1, Dobyns in the negative and
Cannon absent.
Honohan then moved to Charge 1, Evaluation of the Senior Center. In the second line, he
stated that he does not like the word 'direct.' He believes this should be deleted. Down to the
fifth line, Honohan questioned the use of 'further' before 'agreed.' He would like to delete this.
In the next to last line, Honohan questioned 'various external agencies,' stating that it should be
`agencies that provide services to seniors' instead. Honohan moved to make the three
recommended changes, as discussed. Bern -Klug seconded the motion. The motion
carried 5-1, Dobyns in the negative and Cannon absent.
Moving to Charge 2, financial and physical, Honohan stated that he agrees with Ed Flarrety's
suggestion to change 'will' to 'may' on line 3. In the same paragraph, he suggested on line 4
that `several' be deleted before 'City staff.' Line 5, Honohan stated that after the word `and' he
would add '...Committee members investigated,' and then jump over to before 'in the
community,' and say 'agencies providing services to seniors in the community.' Honohan
moved to accept the changes as discussed above. Webber seconded the motion. Bern -
Klug stated that investigated seems more in-depth than what they actually did. Honohan
suggested saying 'Committee Members reviewed' instead. Bern -Klug stated that this sounds
better to her. Younker then stated that he does not have a problem with the last two suggested
changes, but that he does believe the budget situation is severe and while not a certainty, it is a
very strong possibility and pretty close to a certainty that things will play out this way. Bern -Klug
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
November 12, 2014
Page 8
suggested using `will likely' in this situation. Honohan moved a friendly amendment to add
`will likely' to his original motion. Webber upheld his second. The motion carried 6-0,
Cannon absent.
Bern -Klug stated that she would like the last sentence changed, that what is shown there is not
what their motion was. She moved that they change this to say `and the Committee suggests
an official survey of the needs of seniors. Fruin stated that anything in italics and quotations
was pulled from the draft report verbatim. Therefore, he thinks that this language may have
been changed in the recommendations section and that somewhere in the body of Charge 2,
this statement appears as is written here. He noted that if the Committee does make a change
in the Executive Summary, they should go back to Charge 2 and consider a similar change to
that wording. Younker stated that he would like to get to the point where they can vote on the
Executive Summary, perhaps with the understanding that they will accurately quote their own
report. He asked Karr if they could footnote this so they could discuss it at Friday's meeting,
once they've had a chance to go back and look at the report. Bern -Klug agreed, as long as they
discuss it on Friday and have the option to change where it is on page 8. Karr noted that for the
agenda, she will note this and page 8. Bern -Klug agreed, adding that lines 215 through 217 are
where the discussion takes place about a `scientific survey.' Bern -Klug withdrew her motion.
Younker asked if there was any further discussion regarding Charge 2, as it appears in the
Executive Summary. Honohan then spoke to the summarized recommendations. He read the
second recommendation, noting that he does not believe this to be a viable recommendation.
The Center already does rentals, but Honohan does not believe this avenue would generate
much revenue. Honohan proposed that they delete this particular recommendation.
Continuing, Honohan questioned whom they are talking about when they say 'the City' will do
something. He asked if this refers to staff at City Hall, staff at the Senior Center, or the Senior
Center Commission. Honohan stated that if they are going to make strong recommendations,
he believes they need to clarify who it is they are recommending should do these things.
Younker stated that the intent was to summarize the recommendations in the Executive
Summary and that they do identify in the actual recommendations the staff they are referring to.
Honohan noted that they do, but that he is concerned that when they are sending this to the
Council, that perhaps the Executive Summary is what is really read, considering the thickness of
the overall report. He added that many only read the Executive Summary, and therefore, he
believes it needs to be very clear. Honohan stated that on Friday he will speak to trying to
delete some of the attachments to the report. Younker asked if Honohan had a proposed
recommendation to share, and Honohan stated that he will have that at Friday's meeting.
Honohan then moved to the fifth bullet, stating that he believes this is another one that should
be removed. He noted that they already share space with SHIP, the VNA, the volunteer
lawyers, and others. He added that there is no extra space available. Younker noted that they
have an approved recommendation regarding this, `That City staff and Center staff should
continue to assess opportunities to share space, funding strategies, and other resources with
relevant community social service agencies to increase efficiencies and leverage various
funding opportunities.' He asked Honohan if he wouldn't agree that this fifth bullet point
summarizes what they have already approved. Honohan responded that they have not yet
approved the final draft, and that he has several things on the final draft that he will be moving
to delete. Younker asked if they could then limit the discussion to the Executive Summary itself
then at this point, and that if Members think something has been misstated in the Summary,
now is the time to bring that up. Bern -Klug spoke to the fourth bullet from the bottom, noting
that 'any' should be removed here in her opinion. Younker stated that this comes from
recommendation 6 on page 45 of the packet. Bern -Klug stated that she is speaking to the
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
November 12, 2014
Page 9
phrase 'any available funds,' and she believes 'any' should be removed as it sounds like they
are expecting these agencies to be writing grants right and left. Bern -Klug moved that they
delete the word `any' in this bullet. Dobyns seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-
1, Younker in the negative.
Moving on to Charge 3, Honohan spoke to the obstacles. He stated that in this text, perhaps it
would be best to list the obstacles, similar to the format of the rest of the report. He would like
to see the obstacle listed and then the recommended solution. Younker clarified this, noting
that the first bullet would be 'transportation' and then the text of the bullet point. Honohan noted
that the second one would be 'diversity.' He added that he does not like the third one and will
have a suggestion for it later. The fourth one would be 'Center accessibility.' Younker
suggested they use the same language that they used in the body of the report, and Honohan
agreed. Younker clarified that the first one would be 'transportation,' with the second one being
`lack of diversity,' followed by 'lack of available programming,' `barriers to access the Center,'
'lack of community awareness of the inclusivity of the Center programs,' and the last one 'lack of
downtown affordable housing for low and middle-income seniors.' Karr noted that if the body of
the report should change, these bullets would change as well. She added that there is another
obstacle on page 12, as well. Younker then suggested that they need to capture obstacle G,
page 47 of the packet, noting that it does not currently appear in the bullet point. Honohan then
referred to the third bullet point, asking again who is supposed to carry this out. He stated that if
it is the Center staff, they do not have the time to do this type of additional work. He questioned
who would complete this task. Younker asked that they first entertain a motion to revise the
bullet points so that they are including the obstacle to better track the report to the summary.
Honohan moved to revise the bullet points to better track the report to the summary.
Webber seconded the motion. Bern -Klug stated that one of the biggest obstacles they heard
was that when the human services programs went to the priority system and older adults were
not a priority, some local agencies lost money. She stated that she does not see that reflected
here at all. Fruin interjected at this point, noting that where this is captured is the sentence
where the Committee previously struck the word 'any.' He added that when he wrote this
recommendation and was trying to track the report, this issue came up in Charge 2, under the
recommendations for the physical and financial resources. He stated that this speaks to the
financial resources of the external agencies, and that this bullet is where the Committee was
trying to express to the Council that those agencies that serve seniors — regardless if that is
their primary function or not — that they apply for funds to serve low-income seniors. Honohan
asked Bern -Klug if the addition of obstacle G didn't address her concern. She replied that she
finds that they have drifted away from a very important opportunity to clearly state that an
obstacle to providing services for low-income seniors is the lack of funding to agencies that in
the past received funding. She noted that this has been a thread through the last six months,
yet she does not see it listed here as an obstacle. Bern -Klug stated that she does not want this
issue to be diluted when she believes it to be a very important part of their charge. Younker
responded that he thinks they are talking about several issues at once here. He reiterated that
what they are talking about right now is the proposed Executive Summary. Honohan suggested
that Bern -Klug come up with suggested language for them to discuss on Friday. She stated that
she could work on this and welcomed other's input. Members continued to discuss this issue,
referring to the addition of obstacle G and how this may address Bern-Klug's concerns. The
motion carried 6-0. Younker then asked for a motion to approve the Executive Summary as
amended. Honohan moved to approve the Executive Summary as amended. Dohrmann
seconded the motion. Younker then asked Karr for a Point of Order on this issue. She
suggested that staff give Members a revised Executive Summary, per tonight's discussion, for
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
November 12, 2014
Page 10
them to review and discuss at Friday's meeting. They could then adopt it at that time. The
Committee agreed. Honohan withdrew his motion.
DISCUSSION OF CONCLUSIONS DRAFT (Do 190):
Moving on, Younker noted that he and the Vice-Chair prepared a draft Conclusion document for
discussion. He stated that he would entertain a motion to adopt this. Bern-Klug moved to
adopt the Conclusions draft. Honohan seconded the motion for discussion. Discussion
began with Honohan discussing his handout. His first concern is on line 1, 'fulfilled' is the term
in question. Honohan stated that this seems more than they really did. He stated that he would
like to use 'completed' here instead. On line 2, he stated that he does not believe they
performed an 'assessment,' but did 'review.' He would like to add 'to meet the needs,' in the
next paragraph. 'Should continue to support the Senior Center in its current location,' and he
questioned the term 'by allowing it.' Honohan moved to make the proposed changes to the
draft document. Bern-Klug seconded the motion. Bern-Klug asked if this means that they
are accepting what is on Honohan's handout, or just the two items he talked about. Younker
stated that they are accepting the changes to the draft as it appears on page 190. The changes
are exchanging 'completed' for `fulfilled,' 'review' for 'assess,' and then deleting 'by allowing it to
remain.' Karr added that it is also adding 'to meet the needs.' Karr asked if this could be a
friendly amendment to the original, that they currently have two motions on the floor — one to
adopt it as presented and one to do it as amended. The motion carried 5-1, Dobyns in the
negative.
TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE:
November 14 (Friday 3:00 P.M.) — Younker noted that the next meeting is Friday at
3:00 P.M. The packet will need to be released by 3:00 on Thursday. He added that on
Friday they will discuss the public comment received and also what changes they want
to make to the report, if any. Karr noted that noon on Thursday would be the deadline
for anyone wishing to get something into the meeting packet. Discussion continued
about the agenda for the final meeting and just what needs to occur then. Dobyns
stated that he believes they should be done after Friday's meeting. Bern-Klug spoke
briefly to the World Health Organization (WHO) and its program for'age friendly cities.'
She asked if people would be willing to look over this information prior to Friday and
consider recommending that the City pursue getting Iowa City named a WHO 'world
friendly city.' Younker suggested that Bern-Klug put together a recommendation for
Friday's packet so that it can be an agenda item. Dobyns stated that he would be a bit
concerned, that the sense of the agenda is to comment on things that have already been
brought up. He believes that to introduce something new at this point is not a good idea.
Younker agreed that discussion of a new program at this stage might not be something
they can accomplish, but he suggested Bern-Klug bring this to Friday's meeting for
further discussion by the Committee.
November 24 (Monday 3:30 P.M.)
Special meetings if needed.
PUBLIC COMMENT (items not on the agenda):
Bob Welsh addressed the Committee, noting that in relation to Bern-Klug's comment, Des
Moines is the one city in Iowa that has done this. This effort was led by the Iowa AARP. Welsh
also spoke to the Executive Summary, noting that in Charge 1 there are no summarized
recommendations, but there are in Charges 2 and 3. Welsh also spoke to the statement,
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
November 12, 2014
Page 11
'...with our own stuff.' He stated that there is a tendency to say `ours' and 'theirs' when
speaking about such programming. He believes they need comments that are about
collaborating and sharing, more positive terms.
Kathy Mitchell of the Senior Center Commission and Steering Council spoke next. She pointed
out that the Iowa City Johnson County Senior Center is multigenerational. It is county wide. It
is inclusional, and the programs are not elite programs just for the Center, but are programs
provided at the Center for the members and the general public.
Mary Gravitt stated that she wanted to point out something in lines 14-37, on page 2, section B.
She pointed out 8B where it talks about current financial and physical resources, not future.
Gravitt stated that she keeps hearing about the future, but that that is not the charge here. She
reiterated that it is existing resources, not what might happen in the future. She also noted that
things need to be in line with the Council's strategic plan. Gravitt suggested the Committee go
back and read what they have been charged with. She also stated that there has to be a
meeting on November 24, as the public has a right to comment on this final report.
Shirley Lundell followed up with a comment regarding Mitchell's comment about the wording as
far as `lack of.' She stated that she hopes that when the Committee looks at their final report
that they take out the 'lack of terminology.
ADJOURNMENT:
Honohan moved to adjourn the meeting at 5:35 P.M. Dohrmann seconded the motion.
The motion carried 6-0.
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
November 12, 2014
Page 12
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
cn
o
c�+
O
as
o
w
O
-4
O
-4
o
-J
O
o
o
m
O
m
O
-L
O
o
o
-�
NAME
EXP.
O
c+
m
O
m
N
W
O
-
N
W
O
oo
W
N
as
O
o
N
N
cn
N
12/1/14
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Joe
Younker
Jay
12/1/14
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Honohan
Mercedes
12/1/14
X
X
X
X
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
X
X
X
X
Richard
Webber
Ellen
12/1/14
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/
O/
O/
O/
O/
O/
Cannon
E
E
E
E
E
E
Jane
12/1/14
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/
X
X
X
X
X
Dohrmann
E
Rick
12/1/14
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/
O/
X
Dobyns
E
E
Key.
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
--- = Not a Member at this time
-12-02-14
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee 3b(2)
November 14, 2014
Page 1
MINUTES FINAL
AD HOC SENIOR SERVICES COMMITTEE
NOVEMBER 14, 2014 — 3:00 P.M.
HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
Members Present: Mercedes Bern -Klug, Rick Dobyns, Jane Dohrmann, Jay Honohan, Hiram
Rick Webber, Joe Younker (Chair)
Staff Present: Marian Karr, Linda Kopping, 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 3:00 P.M. He noted that the purpose of
today's meeting is to digest and consider the comments that they received from the public at
Wednesday's meeting.
DISCUSSION AND ACTION OF REPORT:
a. Initial Sections (pgs 2 -3) -
Younker began with the Initial Sections review. Dobyns moved to accept the Initial
Sections as typed. Honohan seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0.
b. Charge 1: Evaluation of the Center (pgs 4-6, comments pgs 165-168) —
Moving on to Charge 1, Honohan noted that everyone has a copy of his handout
regarding this section. Honohan stated that he would propose to delete on page 5b,
bullet 2, lines 119-121, and replace with: The current level of diversity in the participants
at the Center continues to be a concern of the Senior Center Commission, the Steering
Council, and staff. Efforts are being made to increase the gender, age, ethnic, racial,
economic, and other types of diversity of the participants, seeking to maintain or enlarge
the level of diversity that reflects the community as a whole. Honohan added that these
changes reflect the suggestions of Mary Gutmann and Kathy Mitchell. Honohan moved
to make the above noted changes. Webber seconded the motion. Discussion began
with Dohrmann speaking to the word 'diversity' in Honohan's proposal. She suggested
dropping the specifics and instead saying: 'Efforts are being made to increase diversity
of participants.' Honohan stated that he is agreeable to this friendly amendment. Bern -
Klug asked if Mitchell didn't suggest this portion at the last meeting. Honohan stated
that the first part is what Mitchell suggested. The second portion was left in from the
original wording. Kathy Mitchell then spoke to this suggestion, stating that her request
had to do with the differentials in diversity, and she asked that all of these lists be
removed and replaced with 'current levels of diversity,' with the understanding that the
Center already has diversity, but that they are working very hard to expand it, especially
in certain areas. After further discussion, Bern -Klug stated that she does not believe
they need the second sentence in Honohan's proposal. She would merely say, `Efforts
are being made to increase diversity,' and she asked to amend the original motion.
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
November 14, 2014
Page 2
Honohan stated that he is agreeable to this friendly amendment. Webber stated
that his second stands. The motion carries 5-1, Dobyns in the negative.
Dohrmann then moved to line 126, page 5. She made the motion to strike the words
`racial' and `ethnic' from this sentence. Dobyns seconded the motion. Honohan
stated that it appears that they are deleting the specifics. He added that if they are going
to be consistent, this change is a good idea. The motion carried 6-0.
Younker asked if there were any further comments regarding Charge 1. Bern -Klug
asked if they have addressed all of the changes suggested at Wednesday's meeting.
Younker referred to page 165 of the packet, noting that this is where the summary of
Charge 1 comments appears. Honohan noted for the record that he did review Miss
Gutmann's comments, as well as Kathy Mitchell's comments, in great detail. He stated
that he did not agree with all of them, but that many of the suggested changes arose
from their comments. Dohrmann agreed that she reviewed all of the comments and
suggestions, as well. Webber moved to approve Charge 1 as amended. Dohrmann
seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-1, Dobyns in the negative.
C. Charge 2: Physical and Financial Resources (pgs 7-10, comments pgs 169-
171) — Honohan began on page 8, III, line 228, suggesting that the following be added at
the end of the second paragraph: 'Both the City and non-profit agencies serving seniors
will be challenged... (continue rest of paragraph.' Honohan moved the above
proposed change on Charge 2, per his handout. Younker seconded the motion.
Bern -Klug asked if there is a reason for changing to 'will be' from `are' challenged in this
sentence. Honohan stated that he took this to mean in the future. He added that what
he is trying to show is that the City itself is going to also be challenged, not just the non-
profit agencies. Dohrmann spoke to this, as well, noting that all of them are currently
challenged to meet the needs of seniors, and that they heard this when they heard how
stretched the Senior Center staff are right now, as well as other non-profit agencies.
Honohan stated that the reason he is still leaning towards `will' is shown on pages 232 to
239, where they are speaking to the future. Younker responded to this, noting that he
would agree that it probably does make sense to add 'The City' here but that he thinks
the present tense, using 'are,' makes more sense. Honohan agreed to this friendly
amendment. Younker stated that his second stands. The motion carried 6-0.
Moving to page 8, III, lines 232-236, Honohan stated that he would delete these lines
entirely. He would change this to say: 'The Committee recognizes that with the growing
senior population, it will be increasingly challenging to meet the needs of a growing and
increasing diverse senior population, especially for seniors with limited financial
resources.' He added that this came from Mitchell's suggestions, with some editing on
his part. Honohan moved the above proposed change on Charge 2, per his
handout. Dobyns seconded the motion. Younker asked Honohan why the shift from
organizations to the Committee. Honohan stated that he believes as a Committee they
are supposed to be making positive statements about various issues. He thinks it
makes this a stronger statement. Members briefly discussed their thoughts on the
amendment. The motion carried 6-0.
Honohan's next amendment, also page 8, III, lines 237-239 is as follows. He would
delete lines 237-239 and replace with: 'The Committee recognizes that the demand for
programs and services that promote overall wellness and independence and prevent or
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
November 14, 2014
Page 3
delay the onset of chronic diseases will increase.' Honohan moved the above
proposed change under Charge 2, lines 237-239, as discussed. Dobyns seconded
the motion. The motion carried 6-0.
Moving to page 9, III, lines 244-245, Honohan suggested deleting these lines entirely.
He added that his thought is that they are putting into this report a recommendation that
the City conduct a professional survey of seniors in the community to determine needs,
concerns, etc. He stated that he was uncomfortable with this sentence and that he feels
they should not put anything in the report that detracts from the survey. Honohan
moved the above proposed change under Charge 2, lines 244-245. Bern -Klug
seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-1, Dobyns in the negative.
Younker asked if there was any further discussion regarding Charge 2. Honohan
moved to accept Charge 2 as amended. Dohrmann seconded the motion. The
motion carried 5-1, Dobyns in the negative.
d. Charge 3: Recommendations (pgs 10-13, comments pgs 172-175) —
Honohan began his suggestion proposal on page 10, line 300. This deals with Mary
Gutmann's recommendation to change as the title of Charge 3: 'Obstacles and
Recommendations.' Honohan moved to add `Obstacles' to the title line of Charge 3,
as discussed. Dobyns seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0.
Next under Charge 3, Honohan proposed a change on page 11, line 312, to delete `Lack
of Diversity,' and to replace it with `Expand Current Level of Diversity.' Honohan moved
to delete `Lack of Diversity,' and replace it with `Expand Current Level of Diversity.'
Bern -Klug seconded the motion. Bern -Klug stated that this really is not an obstacle.
Honohan responded, noting that he believes it is, that they do have diversity, but the
Center is wanting it to be greater. The problem then is how to expand this. Bern -Klug
stated that this would then be the obstacle. Younker suggested `difficulty with diversity
expansion' instead. Honohan stated that he is concerned with how it currently reads, as
it sounds like there is no diversity at the Center. Younker suggested they vote on what
is written here first, and then discuss a way to rephrase it to capture what they are trying
to express. Bern -Klug stated that she thought they were going to go through the public
comments, piece by piece, and that she is somewhat confused by what they are doing at
this point. Younker stated that he believes that was the intent of Honohan's motion, that
it was made in response to comments received at Wednesday's meeting. Honohan
stated that with this particular motion that is true. Younker suggested Bern -Klug look at
page 172 of the packet where there is a summary of the comments received from the
public. Bern -Klug stated that she is confused that only some of the comments were
made into motions. Honohan responded that he ran out of time with the rest of them
and that his motions were not meant to be all-inclusive. Younker tried to draw the
discussion back to the point at hand. Honohan then withdraw his motion.
Honohan stated that he believes Bern -Klug makes a good point here. He stated that
perhaps they should change what they have been doing and go back to where they
began, the comments on pages 165-168, and see what the Committee thinks should
also be changed here and not just what Honohan has proposed. Younker stated that he
believes they have pretty much done this so far, that there is nothing else he would
suggest they change. Dohrmann stated that she would agree with this, that she went
through everything too. Honohan asked Bern -Klug if this is what she is wanting to do
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
November 14, 2014
Page 4
with the public comments, and she responded that it is, that she wanted to make sure
they directly addressed what everyone said at the public forum, and that she wanted to
clarify what Honohan had done in his handout. Younker asked Bern -Klug if she felt
there was something that had not been addressed so far. She stated that she does, but
that they are not at that point yet in the discussion.
Younker restated what they have been through so far. The initial sections — they
received no public comment here, thus there were no comments to review. In Charge 1,
the comments begin at page 165 and go through page 168, according to Younker.
Discussion was held regarding Honohan's motions about diversity, levels of diversity,
and subsequent amendments were made. In Charge 2, the comments run from page
169 to 171. Younker asked Honohan if his proposals here were drafted in consideration
of public comments. Honohan responded that they were. Larry Rogers, audience
member, stated that his one comment under Charge 2 was skipped over completely.
Rogers noted that on page 169, his name is mentioned twice. The first comment was
covered by Honohan; however, the second comment regarding the proposed grants to
be given to community agencies was skipped completely. Rogers again questioned
where the City is going to get the $40,000 when they are talking about budget shortfalls.
He read the section he is referring to, again asking how this is going to improve the
Senior Center's financial status, or that of the City, to give out these grants. His
proposal was to look into incentives to keep businesses that affect senior citizens in
Iowa City. Younker again asked Bern -Klug if she had anything she wanted to address
up to this point. Dobyns then made a Point of Order to the Chair, as several audience
members continued to add to the discussion. He stated that public comment was this
past Wednesday, and that he believes, for the purposes of the Committee's
deliberations today, that they should withhold public comment. Younker responded that
he would like the Committee to have an opportunity to discuss the public comments from
Wednesday and that he would not entertain any further comments from the audience.
Dohrmann then spoke to Honohan's motion about the difficulty with expansion of
diversity. Younker moved that on line 312 delete 'lack of diversity' and replace it with
`difficulties with expansion of diversity.' Dohrmann suggested adding to this same
section the alternative that Guttmann suggested. This can be found on page 174, under
Charge 3, Obstacles and Recommendations. This proposal states: 'The Senior Center
Commission, the Steering Council, and the Center staff should continue the working
committee to explore ways to add to the current diversity of participants at the Center
and make sure the diversity reflects that of the community at large.' She asked if they
could combine those two. Younker then withdrew his original motion. He then moved
to delete `lack of diversity' on line 312 and replace it with `difficulties with
expansion of diversity,' delete the recommendation that begins at line 313 and
replace it with `The Senior Center Commission, the Steering Council, and the
Center staff should continue the working committee to explore ways to add to the
current diversity of participants at the Center and make sure the diversity reflects
that of the community at large.' Honohan seconded the motion. The motion
carried 5-1, Dobyns in the negative.
Moving to page 11, obstacle C, line 318, Bern -Klug noted that on Wednesday it was
suggested they delete the language 'lack of available programming' by Ina Lowenberg.
She asked if others are interested in doing this. Honohan moved to delete entirely
lines 318-322 on page 11. Bern -Klug seconded the motion. Discussion began with
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
November 14, 2014
Page 5
Honohan speaking to what the staff of the Senior Center is responsible for. He noted
that it is not for them to coordinate and bring agencies in, and to help other agencies
within the community. He does not believes this is the role of either the City or the
Center staff. Honohan stated that he believes the requested survey will be important in
solving the problem that appears to be addressed in this item. Younker stated that he
would disagree somewhat with this. He believes their charge here is to make
recommendations regarding how the City should use financial and physical resources.
Through that discussion, the fact that there may be gaps in services was brought up.
Continuing, Younker noted that in Charge 3 then, identifying the gaps and providing
recommendations, they are not saying that the Center staff should be charged with
coordinating services among agencies, but that there appear to be some gaps in
services. The Center is in a position to have information, potentially, about that and
would be in a position to collaborate with some of these other agencies. The
recommendation, according to Younker, is that this issue be discussed. Dohrmann
stated that to her this is really critical, especially in light of the City's strategic plan and
goals. Bern -Klug stated that she believes this is beyond the scope of the responsibility
of the Senior Center staff. Younker asked Bern -Klug what it is she believes the Center's
staff will be doing here. She responded that she does not believe the staff should be
responsible for better understanding any gaps in senior services in Iowa City, that they
are responsible for the programming that the Senior Center provides. Younker stated
that he would disagree with this. Honohan reiterated that he believes once the City
performs the requested survey that this will identify the gaps in services. He asked how
this would actually go, if a meeting would be held with Center staff and Elder Services
and the VNA, for example, where everyone would be asked what the gaps are.
Honohan spoke then to Elder Services, noting that they must be going through some
changes as they have moved out of the Senior Center, but with no consultation given on
this. He added that he has heard they are considering dropping their collaboration with
the federal government so they do not have to set the lower price for meals and could
therefore raise prices. Honohan continued, stating that he just does not see how this
type of meeting would even be productive. Younker stated that this would be a good
reason to highlight why it would be appropriate to categorize the lack of dialogue as an
obstacle. Bern -Klug then suggested they delete this, as Honohan had suggested. She
spoke to her suggested wording, and Younker noted that this is covered under item 2.f.,
page 154 of the packet. Younker asked if there was any further discussion regarding
obstacle C. The motion failed 3-3; Honohan, Bern -Klug, and Webber in the
positive.
Moving to line 319, page 11, obstacle C, Bern -Klug suggested they delete 'the Center
staff' so that it would read `City staff should continue to engage in dialogue.' She noted
that as Honohan had previously mentioned, Center staff are City staff, and she
questioned the distinction. Bern -Klug moved that she would change her suggestion
to `Agencies involved with providing services to seniors should continue to
engage in a dialogue ... (cont as stated).' Younker stated that he believes they do
need to have the City involved in such dialogue, that this was the point of the
recommendation. Honohan seconded the motion. Younker again stated that he
believes the City needs to be involved in such dialogue, and Dohrmann agreed. Bern -
Klug stated that she believes the City does not need to be involved in what happens at
these agencies. She believes this is too broad of a statement. Discussion continued,
with Members giving their thoughts on this statement and what it actually means. The
motion failed 2-4, Webber and Bern -Klug in the positive.
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
November 14, 2014
Page 6
Honohan then moved to title this obstacle as Gaps in Services for Seniors, and
add `The City and agencies that serve older adults should engage in a dialogue
with appropriate organizations to better understand gaps in services,' and then
delete the next sentence entirely. Bern -Klug seconded the motion. Discussion
began with Honohan stating that the reason he is against this paragraph is mainly due to
the second sentence, that the dialogue should include Center staff. He stated that he
would be agreeable to using the suggested wording he has given. Younker stated that
he does not have a problem with the first sentence proposed; however, he does believe
that a discussion of possible areas of collaboration will be very important. Dohrmann
asked Honohan to clarify his proposal again, which he did. Dobyns stated that he would
like to make a friendly amendment to retain the second sentence and to make the
suggested changes to the first. Honohan stated that he would not be agreeable to this
amendment, as he wants to get rid of the second sentence. Bern -Klug agreed that she
too is not open to this amendment. She added that the last sentence insinuates that the
Center has not been doing this for the last decade, and that the report shows example
after example of collaboration between the Center and various agencies. Younker
suggested the second sentence be modified to read, `The dialogue should include the
continued identification of possible areas of further collaboration between the Center and
various agencies.' He added that the intent was not to say that this is a new idea that
the Center has not been doing. The intent was to say that if there is an opportunity out
there, it should be discussed and identified and taken advantage of. Dohrmann stated
that she supports this, but her big concern are the groups that come to mind — hidden
groups — those consisting of people from other countries with different languages and
cultures who are not as fully engaged in the community. She believes it is the
responsibility of the City and the Senior Center to address this, and that this means
attempting to foster relationships with these other groups. To her this second sentence
speaks to the importance of doing this. Honohan then made the proposal to keep the
first sentence as proposed, and change the second sentence to `The dialogue
should include the identification of possible areas of collaboration.' Younker
proposed saying `between the City and various agencies.' Honohan stated that he
would be agreeable to this. Bern -Klug stated that she would hold her second and
agreed, as well. Younker then reiterated how the proposal would read: `The dialogue
should include the continued identification of possible areas of collaboration
between the City and various agencies.' The first sentence is, 'The City and
agencies that serve older adults should engage in a dialogue with appropriate
organizations to better understand any gaps in services.' Honohan withdrew his
pending motion and moved the motion as just read. Webber seconded the
motion. The motion carried 5-1, Dobyns in the negative.
Moving to page 12, Honohan proposed reducing this obstacle to one line. Decrease in
funding was suggested by Younker. Honohan moved to change the obstacle to a
Decrease in Funding. Bern -Klug seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-1,
Dobyns in the negative. Younker then asked if there was any further comment
regarding Charge 3. Honohan moved to approve Charge 3 as amended in the
discussions. Dohrmann seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-1, Dobyns in
the negative.
e. Exhibits (comments pg 176):
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
November 14, 2014
Page 7
A — Res 14-37 (pgs 14-17) — Younker worked his way through the exhibit list,
asking if there were any further comments regarding each exhibit. Discussion
ensued about this list, with Members asking if they can delete some of these
documents from the report. Younker stated that it makes sense to include the
Resolution with the report so that it is clear what the Committee was charged
with.
B — FY2013 Annual Report (pgs 18-34) — Retain, no comments.
C — Subcommittee Evaluation (pgs 35-40, clean version pgs 156-160) —
Retain, no comments.
D — Accreditation letter and report (pgs 41-47) — Retain, no comments.
E — National Council on Aging (pgs 48-49) — Younker stated that this was the
Fact Sheet. He questioned if they spoke directly to this or not. Karr stated that
they did on page 3 and she cited the reference. Bern -Klug stated that this
particular document is not part of the assessment, but rather a brochure about
senior centers in general. She stated that she does not believe they need to
include this. After a brief discussion, Younker noted that the Accreditation letter
and report, pages 41-47, are the actual report and what is needed. Honohan
moved to delete Exhibit E. Younker seconded the motion. Younker stated
that he believes they included it because they stated that they agree with the
nine standards of national excellence, and this fact sheet identifies those nine
standards. However, he thinks the nine standards are also in the report, and
Honohan stated that they indeed are. The motion carried 6-0.
F — 2013 Survey Report (pgs 50-60) — Karr noted that pages 58 and 59 do not
belong here, that the report ends on page 57. Younker agreed with this, noting
that those were a cover memo and a Senior Center flyer. Younker stated that he
would entertain a motion to delete these pages. Honohan moved to delete
pages 58 through 60 per the discussion. Dohrmann seconded the motion.
The motion carried 6-0.
G — Program Guide Spring 2014 (pgs 61-144) — Honohan moved to delete
the Program Guide of Spring 2014. Younker seconded the motion.
Discussion began with Honohan stating that he realizes they refer to the guide in
the report and discuss the various programs, etc., however, he believes they do
not need an 83 -page program guide to be a part of this report. He added that as
he has previously suggested, less paper in the report is better. Younker stated
that he would agree with this, especially since the guide is available online if
anyone needs to refer to it. Bern -Klug suggested they embed the link to the
program guide. Karr noted that they cannot archive a link, but that perhaps they
could refer the Council to the program guide as it appears on the Senior Center's
web site. The motion carried 5-1, Dobyns in the negative.
H — Strategic Plan Booklet (2010-2015) (pgs 145-150) — Bern -Klug stated that
she believes this should say `Senior Center Strategic Plan booklet.' Younker
noted that what Council will receive is what is shown on the screen.
I — Census (pgs 151-153) — Retain, no comments.
Younker asked Bern -Klug if she wanted to return to exhibit F. She stated that
she wondered if all 10 pages should be part of the report to Council or if they
should refer them to the web site on this one, as well. Karr noted that it is now
only seven pages, as they removed the three pages that were inadvertently
attached. Also, Karr noted that when things are archived for Council, they are
not responsible for archiving other sites and when those sites are updated. With
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
November 14, 2014
Page 8
the program guide it makes sense; however, with the survey results, you don't
know how long they will be kept on that site at that address. She suggested they
keep these seven pages in the report. Younker agreed that this makes sense.
Honohan moved to approve the Exhibits section as modified. Dohrmann
seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-1, Dobyns in the negative.
f. Age Friendly City (pgs 154-155) — Bern -Klug stated that she would like to propose a
motion dealing with the lack of a vision for older adults in Iowa City. She stated that the
World Health Organization has developed a vision that can be applied to cities around
the world and then subsequently adapted by cities to fit their needs. Bern -Klug thought
this would be a good idea to have a meeting of the key organizations to see if this would
be something beneficial for Iowa City. Instead of the Council coming up with a vision for
dealing with older adults and the aging population, the WHO's vision would be used as a
starting point. Items like transportation, services for frail older adults, and social
participation are all items that are part of the WHO's vision, many obstacles that the
Committee has themselves identified. Dobyns stated that this sounds like a good
document, but that he does not believe this is the time to introduce this into the report.
He added that there were times back in August and September to add new information
to the report. He would want more time to digest this information, something they do not
have at this point. Honohan stated that he has a thought for a motion, he recommended
that the City Council establish an exploratory committee comprised of representatives
from community groups and the University, of seeking the WHO Age Friendly City
designation. Bern -Klug stated that she is not suggesting the Council adopt this, but that
she is suggesting they use something like this to better understand the services in a big
connected picture versus piece meal. She added that she wishes she had thought of
this earlier, as she believes it would have been more effective. Bern -Klug reiterated that
the WHO's vision would give the City a framework to work with on these issues. She
stated that much of what the WHO's vision states, they have already touched upon.
Bern -Klug seconded the motion. She then asked Honohan to reread the motion for
clarification. 'Recommend that the City Council establish an exploratory committee,' and
then continue with what Bern -Klug already suggested. Younker asked if the framework
provided by the WHO would go to the discussion of gaps in services. He asked what
connection she sees between the WHO's framework and the gaps in services obstacle
discussed earlier in the meeting. Bern -Klug stated that since their charge was to look at
how the City could provide better services for seniors, this framework lays out a way to
assess the extent to which cities are providing better services for senior citizens.
Therefore, she believes it is completely consistent with the charge. It does not go into as
much depth as they had talked about for the survey for low-income seniors, but that this
could be incorporated into this. Younker stated that speaking to Dobyns' point, the
Committee has not had the time to vet the WHO's framework. He suggested that if they
do believe it fits well with the recommendation they have, should they just make Council
aware of this instead. Bern -Klug stated that she believes this item should be a separate
obstacle, the lack of a stated vision for the City's role with senior services. Dohrmann
stated that she wonders if a different avenue should be taken, with perhaps Bern -Klug
submitting the report to the Council — separate from the report itself. She added that she
believes the concept is good, but that they have not had the time to vet the report. Bern -
Klug asked if they could revisit this at the meeting on November 24. She believes it ties
in directly with what they have been discussing. Dobyns stated that he believes they
need to move forward at this point. Bern -Klug responded that she believes the City
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
November 14, 2014
Page 9
needs to see this type of framework, to help them move forward with their planning.
Younker agreed that it is probably a bit late in the game to add this report at this point.
He does believe they should make Council aware of it and suggested that individual
Members could do so, or they could make it part of the obstacles. Bern -Klug stated that
she could change the wording to say that 'dialogue be engaged with the City and
agencies to consider this.' Honohan asked for some clarification on why Younker has
made the statement he did. He suggested they make a recommendation through the
Committee, agreeing that he himself has not had a chance to read through the WHO's
documentation. However, he believes that suggesting to the Council to establish a
committee is not a bad idea. Younker stated that he agrees they should make Council
aware of this resource, but that he has not read this so he does not believe he should
make a recommendation that Council do something with it. He stated that they could
make a comment in the conclusion section. Bern -Klug stated that she would be
prepared to propose an obstacle that there is a lack of an articulated City vision for how
to make Iowa City a city for all ages, which is the goal of the WHO tool. She added that
she would like to make this as an obstacle and then this tool is one approach that has
been vetted at the national and international level as a solid approach for cities to use.
She again stated that if today is not a good time to discuss this issue, she would like to
revisit it at the November 24 meeting. Younker stated that today is the day to have that
decision, that they need to be ready to vote on the report at the next meeting. Honohan
withdrew his motion. Bern -Klug moved to add an obstacle to the report, the lack of
an articulated vision for how to make Iowa City age friendly. Her recommendation
would be for the City Council to establish an exploratory committee to consider
the WHO approach to age friendly cities. Honohan seconded the motion. Dobyns
replied that he will be voting against this as that is the mission of this Committee, to
establish a vision. Bern -Klug stated that they were never told to come up with a vision.
Dobyns replied that that is how he interpreted it, as a Member of Council. She replied
that this would have been helpful information to have back in June and again in August
when she asked what the vision was. Dobyns stated that he did say this. She asked if
he had proposed any visions for them to discuss. Dobyns replied that the majority of this
Committee's vision is what is in their report. This is the vision that will be presented to
Council. Bern -Klug stated that this is a reframing that she was not aware of and that
nowhere in the document does it say what the vision is for the City. Younker stated that
they are getting off track and he brought the group back to the motion on the floor. The
motion carried 4-2, Dobyns and Younker in the negative. Younker noted that this
will become obstacle H.
DISCUSSION AND ACTION OF EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (Dgs 161-163) —
Younker noted that what they have in front of them is a red -lined version, capturing the changes
made at the last meeting. Dohrmann moved to adopt the Executive Summary as it appears
in their packet. Dobyns seconded the motion. Discussion began with Honohan referring to
Younker's comment earlier that what they do today to the report is basically the end. He added
that he is not prepared to approve a final report to Council until he sees the actual report. He
stated that he is reserving the right to move to amend things in the final report if he sees things
that he is uncomfortable with. Younker stated that they have gone through each section and
approved each section, that the final meeting will be that final approval. Members will have that
final report in the meeting packet. Younker questioned if they have an obstacle on page 163.
Honohan stated that he is assuming the last obstacle, which was changed, will need to be
shown, as will the new obstacle (H) that they approved at this meeting. Karr noted that the
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
November 14, 2014
Page 10
highlighted portion on page 163 was a staff question and that it can be changed in the summary
and the report. Dohrmann stated that for clarity, they could drop 'the City' from this. Bern -Klug
noted that on page 162, she mentioned that the wording should be taken out — the first sentence
now on page 162 that is in quotations, 'if the Council wishes for a more scientific approach for
determining the needs, it will likely need to utilize...'. They had talked about this being toned
down. Karr stated that as she remembers, Fruin had brought up that this was text from another
part of the report. She added that she is unsure if they resolved this matter any further.
Younker noted that there was no motion to amend this sentence, as he recalls. Bern -Klug
moved to amend the sentence by saying the needs of the senior populations could be
better understood through an official survey. Younker asked what Bern-Klug's concern is
with quoting text that is already in the report. She stated that they talked about changing this in
the body of the report also. Her concern is that it sounds a little snooty to her. She stated that
this was the previous concern as well. She believes it should be changed in the summary.
Bern Klug reiterated her motion for clarification, stating that building off the sentence at the
bottom of page 161, 'Time and resource constraints did not allow for a more formal
approach to gauge the needs of the senior population, a professional survey should be
considered by the City Council.' Honohan seconded the motion. Younker suggested they
make two sentences out of this. He suggested putting a period after populations and then
starting a new sentence. Bern -Klug agreed to a friendly amendment. Honohan kept his
second and approved this, as well. The motion carried 6-0.
Dohrmann moved to approve the Executive Summary as amended. Honohan seconded
the motion. The motion carried 6-0.
DISCUSSION AND ACTION OF CONCLUSIONS (pq 164) —
Moving on to the Conclusion, page 164, Younker asked for a motion to approve said document.
Bern -Klug moved to approve the revised Conclusion. Webber seconded the motion. The
motion carried 5-1, Dobyns in the negative. Honohan asked where in the report this section
will go, and Younker replied at the end. He asked where the Executive Summary is placed, and
Younker stated that it will go at the beginning of the report.
Dobyns spoke to Honohan's statement of having the right to make changes at the final meeting.
He asked if they would then have another meeting to make those amendments. Younker stated
that they need to wrap things up at the next meeting. They dissolve by resolution on December
1St. and the 24th is the Monday of Thanksgiving week. Therefore, the 24th has to be their last
meeting. Members continued to discuss this issue, with Honohan and Bern -Klug stating that
they need to see what the final document is going to look like. Bern -Klug stated that she agrees
with the Chair, that now is not the time to bring up new topics. Members asked when to expect
the packet for the last meeting, and Karr responded that it could be available on Thursday the
20th. Younker stated that if significant changes are submitted prior to the meeting on the 24th
they do have that meeting to review them and make their final decisions. He stated that in his
view, substantive discussion ends today. Karr stated that she would like to get Member
concurrence to take down the web site of the draft because the draft has been changed
significantly and substantively. She can then replace it with something else, such as a link to
the upcoming packet. Bern -Klug asked if there is any way to put up just the report without the
exhibits. Karr noted that this is how it currently is on the web site. Younker clarified the report
contains the exhibits and should be approved as one item. After some discussion, Members
agreed that the next packet will contain the final report in its entirety.
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
November 14, 2014
Page 11
TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE:
November 24 (Monday 3:30 P.M.)
PUBLIC DISCUSSION (draft reoort items):
Kathy Mitchell thanked the Committee for their time and effort in this endeavor. She did note
that the reason she wanted to clarify her remarks regarding `lack of in the obstacle section,
especially for sections B, C, and E, is because she felt that these are things the Center is
already doing. Therefore, she does not believe them to be obstacles, but are continuing goals.
She added that she would have liked to have not only a recommendations section, but also
'continuing goals.' Mitchell stated that she believes the Committee has now created obstacles
that were not there, and now she feels this is somewhat troubling. She reiterated that she
wishes they had removed these issues, and only put up those that would be perceived as goals.
Mary Gravitt stated that she sees a problem already. They were interested in the current
funding, not the projected funding. Section B speaks to current, not projected. On line 244, she
noted that this is part of the strategic plan and needs to stay. Also the language about the
programs, she questioned if they are referring to the written programs or something else.
Dialogue is another part of the strategic plan, according to Gravitt. She stated that the
Committee is going into areas that they are not charged with, such as on line 337, it should be
deleted because this is not part of their charge. Gravitt stated that the Committee has to get the
language straight in their report as they cannot go against the strategic plan of the Council. She
stated that she plans to address Council on these issues.
Larry Rogers stated that he would like to clarify something with line 276. `Serving older adults
that address a substance abuse emotional health services.' He asked if this shouldn't have a
comma after substance abuse. Dohrmann responded that there is a comma missing here and
that they would make that correction.
ADJOURNMENT:
Bern -Klug moved to adjourn the meeting at 5:35 P.M. Dohrmann seconded the motion.
The motion carried 6-0.
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
November 14, 2014
Page 12
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
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
s
j
s
j
s
cn
cn
w
rn
-4
-4
-4
co
w
w
O
O
O
O
NAME
EXP.
w
w
w
W
-
O
oo
w
w
N
cn
N
12/1/14
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Joe Younker
Jay Honohan
12/1/14
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Mercedes
12/1/14
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Bern -Klug
Hiram Richard
12/1/14
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Webber
Ellen Cannon
12/1/14
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/
O/E
O/
O/
O/
O/E
N
E
E
E
E
M
Jane
12/1/14
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/
X
X
X
X
X
X
Dohrmann
E
Rick Dobyns
12/1/14
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/
O/
X
X
E
E
Key.,
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
--- = Not a Member at this time
MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
OCTOBER 8, 2014 — 5:15 PM
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
CALL TO ORDER:
Larry Baker, Connie Goeb, Becky Soglin
Gene Chrischilles, Brock Grenis
Sarah Walz, John Yapp, Susan Dulek
Erica Damman; Pam Earhart; Casey Boyd
The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM.
ROLLCALL:
APPROVED
A brief opening statement was read by Baker outlining the role and purpose of the Board and
the procedures that would be followed the meeting.
CONSIDERATION OF THE SEPTEMBER 10, 2014 MINUTES:
Soglin moved to approve the minutes.
Goeb seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 3-0.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEM EXC14-000010:
Discussion of an application submitted Erica Damman for a special exception to reduce the
front principal building setback requirement from 15 feet to 7 feet for property located in the
Low Density Single-family (RS -5) zone at 427 Clark Street.
Walz showed the location map of the property indicating the zone in which the property is located.
The applicant has also submitted an application to the Historic Preservation
Commission for approval of the porch design because the house is located in the Clark
Street Conservation District.
Walz showed an aerial view of the property. She stated that in older neighborhoods homes
are sometimes built with a variation such as being set back much further to the street than
would be required now or, in other cases, the homes are set much closer to the front property
line than is required now. In this case, the frontage along Clark Street shows the homes on
the north end of the block are set much closer to the street than the homes on the southern
Board of Adjustment
October 8, 2014
Page 2 of 7
end of the block, which are set further back. When setbacks are consistently different from
the current requirement, the code allows setback averaging, which bases the setback on the
placement of existing buildings abutting the subject property, In this case, that would be 7
feet at 425 Clark to the north and 6 feet at 431 Clark to the south for an average setback of
6.5 feet. However, because homes on the south end of the block have deeper setbacks,
setback averaging is not an option for reducing the current setback requirements.
In 2008, the abutting property at 425 Clark Street was granted a special exception to
reduce the required front setback to 7 feet to allow for the construction of a historically
appropriate porch, similar to what is proposed by the applicant.
Historical documents show that the subject structure included a front porch at one time,
though was later removed. Walz stated porches are common in this neighborhood; the house
currently has an unsheltered entrance and a front facade that is out of character with its
historic architecture and out of character with the surrounding neighborhood. Most other
houses along the street either have full front porches or covered entries.
Wals said that Staff believes that the reduction in the front setback requirement would
not be counter to the purpose of the regulations as the home will still be set back 7 feet from
the front property line. The reduction will not diminish the opportunity for privacy between
buildings as it does not encroach on properties to either side and is separated from
neighboring properties across the street by more than 60 feet. Walz explained that it is
important that the structure be an open air front porch, rather than an enclosed addition,
the structure has a lesser effect on the sense of separation for light and air.
Staff recommends that EXC14-00010, an application for a reduction in the front
principal building setback from 15 feet to 7 feet to allow construction of an open-air front
porch, subject to the following conditions:
• The applicant will secure a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Historic
Preservation Commission.
• The constructed porch will remain open and may not be enclosed with solid walls
or windows.
Goeb asked for clarification on whether the Historical Preservation Commission must approve
the application first, or if the Board needs to give approval for the setback exception firs. Walz
replied that either can happen first because each is conditioned on the other.
Goeb questioned how the setback will be changed, specifically how far will the front of the
porch be from the sidewalk. Walz confirmed the new setback will be 7 feet from the sidewalk
to the front of the new porch.
Erica Damman (427 Clark Street) stated that the house originally had a front porch, similar to
the one being proposed and similar to the one on the neighboring house.
Baker opened public hearing.
Pam Earhart a resident of Clark Street for 42 years confirmed that the home in question once
had a front porch, and is in favor of the exception to the setback to allow this home to have a
front porch again.
Board of Adjustment
October 8, 2014
Page 3 of 7
Baker closed public hearing.
Soglin moved to approve item EXC14-00010 an application submitted Erica Damman
for a special exception to reduce the front principal building setback requirement from
15 feet to 7 feet for property located in the Low Density Single-family (RS -5) zone at 427
Clark Street subject to the following conditions:
• The applicant will secure a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Historic
Preservation Commission.
• The constructed porch will remain open and may not be enclosed with solid
walls or windows.
Goeb seconded the motion.
Baker stated he felt this would be an improvement on the property and is in favor.
Soglin said that regarding EXC14-00010 she concurs with the findings set forth in the staff
report dated October 8, 2014, and conclude that the general and specific criteria are
satisfied. Unless amended or opposed by another Board member she recommends that
the Board adopt the findings in the staff report as their findings for the acceptance of this
proposal.
Baker noted that this was supported by letters to the board as well as public approval so
support from the neighborhood.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 3-0.
Baker 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.
VARIANCE VAR14-00001:
Discussion of an application submitted by Greg Sirowy for a variance from the vehicular access
requirements for a two-family use for properties located in the High -Density Single -Family (RS -
12) zone at 1243 and 1253 Dodge Street Court.
Yapp presented the staff report and showed slides of the property. The property was
subdivided in 1996 for duplex construction and duplexes were constructed on four of the lots
and the other two lots have remained undeveloped. A building permit was issued for duplex
construction on the properties at 1243-1253 North Dodge Court, and foundations have
been constructed. After construction started, staff discovered the properties could not
meet the specific standard in City Code Section 14-4134A (5f(2)): If the lot width is less
than 80 feet, vehicular access is restricted to an alley or private rear lane. These two lots
are 70 feet wide.
In reviewing the history of these lots, staff discovered that the initial subdivision in 1996 and
a subsequent rezoning in 2005 were approved with the expressed intent of allowing duplex
construction. The other lots which were a part of the 1996 subdivision (Jacob Ricord's
Board of Adjustment
October 8, 2014
Page 4 of 7
Subdivision) on North Dodge Court have had duplexes constructed on them. A rear lane or
alley, which was made a requirement for duplex lots narrower than 70 feet in 2005, was not a
part of the 1996 subdivision.
Previously to 2005, the lots on the south side of North Dodge Court were zoned RS -8,
Medium Density Single Family, and duplex construction was permitted on the lots. In 2005,
as a part of an update to the Zoning Code, duplexes were made to be only permitted on
corner lots in the RS -8 Zone. Therefore, the lots on North Dodge Court were rezoned (as a
part of a City -initiated rezoning) to RS -12 with the expressed intent of allowing duplex
construction on the lots. A 2005 staff report to the Planning and Zoning Commission from
the 2005 rezoning states:
Because some recent subdivisions were designed for zero -lot line or duplex dwellings
and there are still vacant lots within these subdivisions, staff is proposing to rezone
these areas from RS -8 to High Density Single Family (RS -12). The RS -12 Zone will
allow duplexes and zero -lot dwellings on the interior Jots as well as corner Jots.
The intent of the rezoning was to continue to allow for duplex construction on lots
subdivided prior to the 2005 Zoning Code amendment. What was not considered however
was the requirement for alley or rear lane access for lots narrower than 80 feet in width.
In this case no alley or rear lane was required as a part of the original subdivision in 1996,
and the applicant cannot meet the requirement for rear access for these lots.
Yapp gave the analysis that The proposed variance will not threaten neighborhood
integrity, nor have a substantially adverse effect on the use or value of other properties
in the area adjacent to the property included in the variance. These lots were intended
for duplex construction when platted in 1996, and duplexes have been constructed on the
other lots in the subdivision. Duplexes are not out of character for the south side of North
Dodge Court.
The proposed variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the
Zoning Chapter and will not contravene the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, as
amended. Staff finds the Comprehensive Plan s u p p o r t s a diversity of
housing t y p e s within neighborhoods — this neighborhood contains single fdn*
structures, duplexes, and a multi-- family project was recently approved on the north side
of North Dodge Court. The Comprehensive Plan also supports compatible infill
development- as noted above, the other lots on the south side of North Dodge Court (as
part of the 1996 subdivision) also contain duplexes.
When these lots were rezoned to RS -12 in 2005, the intent was to continue to permit duplexes
on these lots.
Yapp explained that the test for unnecessary hardship consists of three prongs:
1. The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if used only for a
purpose allowed in the zone where the property is located. The lots were
platted and intended for duplex construction, rezoned in 2005 to allow for duplex
construction, and purchased as duplex lots. No rear lane or alley was required when
Board of Adjustment
October 8, 2014
Page 5 of 7
the property was subdivided, and it is prohibitive to require a rear lane or alley at this
stage due to lot size, and the ownership and land use of surrounding property. The
other duplex lets on North Dodge Court do not have rear access. Foundations have
been installed for duplex construction on these lots.
2. The owner's situation is unique or peculiar to the property in question,
and the situation is not shared with other landowners in the area nor
due to general conditions in the neighborhood. The situation is peculiar in that
the property was subdivided in 1996 prior to there being a requirement for alley or
rear lane access for duplexes on lots less than 80 feet in width. It is also peculiar in
that the Zoning Code was amended in 2005 to no longer allow duplexes on interior
lots, which resulted in a City- initiated rezoning of the lots to RS -12 with the intent of
allowing duplexes to be constructed. The rezoning in 2005 failed to account for the fact
that these lots did not have rear access. Requiring rear lane access for these two lots
would be peculiar and unique, and the other duplexes on North Dodge Court do not
have rear access.
3. The hardship is not of the landowner's or applicant's own making or that
of a predecessor in title. The 2005 Zoning Code amendment to require rear -lane
access for lots less than 80 feet in width is not of the landowner's making, and the lots
were platted prior to this requirement being enacted. The City -initiated rezoning in
2005 to RS -12 was not of the landowner's making, and was intended to continue to
allow duplex structures on these lots.
Yapp noted that staff received one email from a neighboring property owner in favor of
granting the variance.
Staff recommends that VAR14-00001, a variance from City Code 14-4134A (5f(2)), which
requires alley or rear lane access for two-family structures on lots less than 80 feet in width,
be approved for Lots 1 and 2 of Jacob Ricord's Subdivision i.e. the properties at 1243 and
1253 North Dodge Court.
Soglin questioned if this issue had been noticed in 2005 what would have happened. Yapp
stated that the code would have included the exception and written differently.
Baker asked if the code needs to be rewritten. Yapp stated that this is an isolated issue and
should not require the code to be rewritten, unless they find it is also an issue in other parts of
the city. The code is good for future subdivisions, as new subdivision will be designed to meet
the code, this was an isolated issue due to the majority of the subdivision being constructed
prior to the 2005 code change.
Casey Boyd introduced himself as a property partner for the construction project and
appreciates the Board and the city staff's time. Once the problem was identified they all
worked together to remedy it.
Baker asked Boyd if the construction of the project had been suspended due to this issue.
Boyd confirmed that construction has been suspended for one month.
Goeb asked how the issue was discovered. Boyd explained that appraiser noticed the zoning
requirement and notified the city staff.
Baker opened public hearing.
Board of Adjustment
October 8, 2014
Page 6 of 7
No one from the public was in attendance
The public hearing was closed.
Soglin moved that VAR14-00001, a variance from City Code 14 -4B -4A (5f(2)), which
requires alley or rear lane access for two-family structures on lots less than 80 feet in
width, be approved for Lots 1 and 2 of Jacob Ricord's Subdivision i.e. the properties at
1243 and 1253 North Dodge Court. Goeb seconded the motion.
Baker noted concern about the construction suspension and agreed that is something that
needs to be address in a more sensitive manner in the future.
Goeb said that regarding VAR14-00001 she concurs with the findings set forth in the staff
report dated October 8, 2014, and conclude that the general and specific criteria are
satisfied. Unless amended or opposed by another Board member she recommends that
the Board adopt the findings in the staff report as their findings for the acceptance of this
proposal.
Baker agreed and also noted the cooperation of the applicant with appreciation.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 3-0.
Baker declared the motion 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.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION:
None
ADJOURNMENT:
Goeb moved to adjourn
Soglin seconded
Meeting was adjourned on a 3-0 vote.
1"
Z
Cw
G
U)
Q
LL
O
O
Q
m
O
V
w
w
w
U
Z
Q
Z
w
H
Q
d'
T
O
N
M
T
O
N
w
Y
o
X
X
X
0
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
v
N
V-
X
X
X
X
X
Cl)
°�°
X
X
X
X
X
r
r
N
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
CL
ti
LO
m
0)
OD
w
o
0
0
0
0
N
N
N
N
N
F
w
Z
w
H
Q
Z
J
w
J
m
V
N
U
Z
w
w
m
Z
U)
J
Z
m
C9
C9
U
N
w
Y
Charter Review Commission 3b(4)
November 10, 2014
Page 1
MINUTES FINAL
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 10, 2014 — 7:45 A.M.
HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
Members Present: Steve Atkins, Andy Chappell, Karrie Craig, Karen Kubby, Mark Schantz
(via telephone), Melvin Shaw, Anna Moyers -Stone, Adam Sullivan, Dee
Vanderhoef
Staff Present: Eleanor Dilkes, Julie Voparil
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council
action):
None
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Chappell called the meeting to order at 7:45 A.M.
CONSIDER MOTION ADOPTING CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED:
a. Minutes of the Meetings on 10/28/14
b. Citizens Police Review Board
Sullivan moved to accept the Consent Calendar as presented. Atkins seconded the motion.
The motion carried 9-0.
REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF:
a. League of Women Voters Forum — Chappell reviewed previous discussions
and stated that they do need to make a decision on participation. He stated that
they have committed to doing the forum, and what the League would like to see
is three to four Members present at their upcoming public forum. Chappell stated
that he is happy to attend the forum, especially in light of being Chair. He stated
that he would like to have two females and one additional male attend, so as to
achieve a gender balance. Vanderhoef suggested Shaw attend. He noted that
he is scheduled to be in Cedar Rapids at 6:00 that day. Members continued to
discuss the issue, with Schantz stating that he would be happy to attend. In
addition, Moyers -Stone and Kubby agreed to attend the forum.
b. Compensatory History — Chappell noted that Karr provided the changes in the
ordinance dealing with council compensation.
C. Other — Chappell asked if there were any other reports from staff or Commission
Members. Kubby stated that she has some ideas about the word `person' and
corporations and the association, but that she did not have the time to get her
report done prior to this meeting.
REVIEW CHARTER:
a. Compensation of council members — Chappell noted that their previous
discussions ended with them unsure if they wanted to do anything about this
piece. He noted that Moyers -Stone and Schantz were gone at the last meeting,
Charter Review Commission
November 10, 2014
Page 2
and that he would be interested in what they may have to say. He added that he
believes this may be something they want to talk about at their second public
forum, that it would be interesting to see what feedback they get. Moyers -Stone
stated that her feelings are pretty much the same, in that she believes the
compensation should be enough to compensate council for the amount of time
that they are spending on council duties, but not so much that this would become
a real job. She does not believe a number should be set in the Charter
necessarily. Schantz stated that he believes the compensation is too low, but
that there is something to be said for the Charter taking the burden off the council
itself of raising their own salary. Chappell suggested they indefinitely table this
item until they decide how they are going to structure their second public forum.
Atkins stated that he believes they should settle on something and not leave this
item hanging. Chappell stated that he is comfortable in hearing some input at the
public forum. Kubby stated that not only is it a compensation issue, but it is also
a Charter issue — whether compensation should be part of the Charter or not.
Dilkes noted that State law says that compensation must be set by ordinance. If
the Charter addresses compensation, the Council will probably adopt an
ordinance to reflect whatever the Charter says.
b. Use of word "citizen" — Chappell then moved on to discuss use of the word
`citizen.' He noted that everyone has the document where Karr highlighted all of
the different uses of the word. Chappell then asked who would like to replace the
word 'citizen' with 'resident' in the Charter. Sullivan stated that he would be open
to that change. Atkins stated that he would like to hear a bit more discussion on
this issue. Chappell then asked if any of the Members believe it would be a bad
idea to replace 'citizen' with 'resident.' Kubby stated that the one section she
believes it would not work is the Citizen Police Review Board section.
Vanderhoef stated that as they previously discussed, changing the Preamble
section which may eliminate the need for this change. Dilkes then asked if the
option of defining `citizen' as a `resident of Iowa City' was discussed at all. Kubby
stated that they did, but the reason behind the change is due to the connotation
of the word, not the definition of the word. She noted that they also discussed
defining `resident,' and that they should not do this as it can lead to its own
issues. Moyers -Stone stated that for her, she would like to see one term used
and to have it defined. She noted that currently neither word is defined and that
they are used back and forth throughout the Charter.
Sullivan noted that both are used very sparsely, with 'citizen' appearing 10 times
in two different sections, and 'resident' only appears twice. Half of the uses of
`citizen' appear in the Preamble, which could be solved with a new Preamble.
Sullivan continued, noting that he likes what Kubby said about the connotation of
'citizen,' but that he also believes if they define 'citizen' as they see it in this case
that it would address the issue to some extent. Atkins added that 'resident' is
more of a location -sounding word, that you are physically there. 'Citizen,' on the
other hand, is something broader in definition. Atkins stated that he likes the
idea of writing their own definition for the use here. Members continued to
discuss this issue, with some believing 'resident' should be used and others
leaning towards `citizen.' Shaw stated that more importantly, how often does the
issue of citizenship versus resident come up. He added that if they cannot agree
on the use, he asked if either use of the word 'citizen' or `resident' has less
political connotations, than perhaps a broader interpretation should be used.
Charter Review Commission
November 10, 2014
Page 3
Members continued to discuss the issue, agreeing finally that use of 'resident,'
undefined, is their preference but that they would still use the word in reference
to the CPRB. Dilkes questioned this, which led to a brief discussion, with
Members speaking to the CPRB and whether it should be the Police Review
Board instead.
Chappell reiterated what is being proposed, which is changing the name to
'Residents Police Review Board,' or the 'Police Review Board.' Continuing,
Chappell moved through the sections that they are proposing changes to. He
stated that it appears they have consensus to change the word 'citizen' to
'resident' throughout the Charter document. He noted that he will contact
Melissa Jensen, the CPRB Chair, to let her know what the Commission is
considering, as well as the reasoning behind it. Chappell stated that from what
he has heard, the CPRB has recommended some changes. He continued,
noting that this is on page 10 of the meeting packet. The CPRB's proposal is to
'hold at least one community forum each year for the purpose of the CPRB
hearing views on the polices, practices, and procedures of the Iowa City Police
Department.' Chappell noted that the first thing being recommended is to get rid
of the word 'citizen,' which the Commission have themselves addressed. The
second recommendation is to remove the phrase'... and to make
recommendations regarding such policies, practices, and procedures to the City
Council.' Chappell stated that he is uncomfortable removing this phrase, and he
asked if others on the Commission are as well. Craig stated that she thought this
was the point of the CPRB — to make recommendations based on what they
hear. Chappell stated that he would raise this issue with the Chair, as well.
C. Preamble and Definitions — Moving on, the discussion turned to the Preamble
and Definitions sections of the Charter. Chappell asked Schantz if he would like
to discuss his recommendations, which are on page 18 of the meeting packet.
Schantz spoke first to the decision to add 'Home Rule' to the Charter, noting that
he believes the best place is in the first phrase — between 'full' and 'powers.' 'To
confer upon it the full Home Rule powers of a Charter city.' Continuing, Schantz
stated that he believes these words were left out as he put 'self determination' in
instead. He noted that this comes mainly from the model Home Rule Charter
document. Schantz stated that he believes the first two bullet points are
essential, and that the last two may be debatable. Chappell asked Schantz if he
could speak to why he believes this version is better than the current one.
Schantz responded that first off he likes the 'We the people' phrase as it is used
in many constitutions and emphasizes a 'bottom-up' process, which he believes
the current wording does not do. He believes the language he is proposing
captures the importance of what the Charter is attempting to do. Secondly,
Schantz stated that some of the items in the Preamble are there so that in
political discussions or arguments about city government, there would be some
very broad principles that you could grab hold of and indicate that those come
right from the core of the Charter itself. Chappell then asked the Commission if
there is a general consensus to change the Preamble to something along the
lines of what Schantz is proposing. He added that they can then look at making
any changes to it that Members may want to make. Sullivan stated that he likes
Schantz's proposal and would agree to using it as a starting point for a
recommendation. Others agreed with Sullivan's statement, with Shaw stating
that he would be happy to work with Schantz on any revisions to the most recent
Charter Review Commission
November 10, 2014
Page 4
draft. Atkins and Moyers -Stone both agreed with Schantz's proposal. Chappell
suggested that they put the Preamble on the next agenda and that everyone
bring any revisions they would like to see made to it.
d. Commission discussion of other sections (if time allows) — Chappell then
suggested they briefly discuss the public forum set-up that he would like to see
for the second meeting. He asked Kubby to help explain the second public forum
that was held 10 years ago, during the previous Charter review. Kubby stated
that the purpose of the process was not to just have people say what they think
and have the Commission absorb it, but to really have conversations and the
exchange of ideas with the public. She explained that at this forum, people were
split up into small groups, and each Commission Member facilitated a small
group. Each Member led their group with a specific topic, asking people what
their opinions were and asking how they felt about a possible change to
something in the Charter. Continuing, Kubby stated that they each had around
three topics and typically spent about 20 minutes on each topic. Chappell noted
that the group would identify beforehand what the top three or four topics are that
they want to get feedback on. He added that typically an hour to an hour and a
half timeframe is the most they should have.
Chappell then asked Members how they feel about this type of format for the
second forum. Sullivan stated that to him this is a completely new idea, and that
his first concern is that not everyone who comes is heard by the entire
Commission. Chappell stated that this is a good point and they would need
someone to take detailed notes. Sullivan added that if someone takes the time
to come to the forum, he would like to hear what they have to say, rather than
read someone's notes. His other concern is that it seems very formulated, in that
people end up feeling that their viewpoint was lost in the shuffle of others'
viewpoints. He feels that a forum like this kind of molds peoples' viewpoints
together. Kubby noted that it is different — that they are asking people to think
about where they are at and to put themselves in a different frame, to look at
both pros and cons — not just one viewpoint. Craig noted that there are all kinds
of avenues for people to share their opinions — emails, Commission meetings,
forums — and she thinks this type of forum adds to those available avenues, so
people can share their thoughts and opinions.
Shaw spoke to this type of forum, asking if they are there to `referee' each small
group. He noted that at the first forum people could say what they want, but that
the second is stricter in what people share. Kubby noted that it is a different way
to get feedback, and that the job of the facilitators is to really keep the
conversation on topic. Chappell stated that they are definitely not referees at this
forum, that it is facilitating the group and keeping people on topic. Kubby stated
that she could send to Karr what the previous Commission used at their second
forum. They had a 'cheat sheet' of sorts that formatted the topics and gave them
ideas on how to run the group.
Chappell asked Sullivan if he has ideas for other ways to conduct such a forum.
Sullivan responded that he thought it would be similar to the first forum, where
people speak from the podium. He added that once they know what the changes
are going to be to the Charter, they should have another `open mic' style meeting
to gather input. Others agreed that once they have their final draft it would make
Charter Review Commission
November 10, 2014
Page 5
sense to ask for public input again. Moyers -Stone stated that the small group
approach appeals to her, versus the open mic, in that the public can see exactly
what the Members are doing and what the process has been. Chappell stated
that they need to now figure out the best date for this second forum. He stated
that over the next three meetings, they need to discuss 'Initiative and
Referendum.' Other issues where they have not had consensus yet include the
direct election of the mayor, and whether to change to 'pure' or keep the
bifurcated district system. Continuing, Chappell suggested they look at a
January date for the forum. Some discussion ensued regarding the Council's
schedule at that time and room availability. Chappell suggested January 7 as the
forum date and asked Members their thoughts. Vanderhoef asked if they should
have a special meeting themselves, prior to the forum. Others agreed that the
day before, January 6, would work. Chappell then reiterated his request that
Karr check for a forum space and time for Wednesday, January 7, at 7:00 P.M.
(or earlier if necessary), and also a special meeting of the Charter Review
Commission on Tuesday morning, January 6.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
None.
TENTATIVE THREE-MONTH MEETING SCHEDULE (7:45 AM unless specified):
November 25 — Chappell noted that they should have the report on the League of
Women Voters regarding their forum. He asked that Members bring their calendars to
this meeting so they can get their meetings set for 2015. Craig asked if they should plan
on specific topics to discuss at the next meeting, and Chappell stated that they would
definitely talk about Initiative and Referendum, as well as the Preamble. Before
adjourning, Atkins asked for some clarification of the second forum's format. Chappell
and Kubby responded, with Kubby noting that she will find the suggested format outline
and facilitator notes so that everyone understands how they conducted this previously.
Dilkes noted that Karr can probably access this fairly easily from the previous
Commission's minutes and notes. Dilkes suggested the group keep track of the pros
and cons when they themselves discuss some of these bigger issues, as it may help
them conduct the upcoming forum.
December 9
December 23
(Commission work completed no later than April 1, 2015)
ADJOURNMENT:
Sullivan moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:55 A.M., seconded by Vanderhoef. Motion carried
9-0.
Charter Review Commission
November 10, 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
o
o
�_
cn
cn
rn
o)
-4
W
W
m
m
W
NAME
EXP.
O
0
W
-4
o
o
co
W
o
co
o
c�+
4/1/15
X
X
O/
X
X
X
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
X
X
X
Chappell
Karrie
4/1/15
X
X
X
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
X
X
X
Kubby
Mark
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/
X
X
X
O/
X
O/
X
Schantz
E
E
E
Melvin
4/1/15
X
X
X
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
X
O/
X
Moyers
E
E
Stone
Adam
4/1/15
X
X
X
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
O/
X
X
Vanderhoef
E
Key:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
--- = Not a Member at this time
12-02
3b(5)
MINUTES APPROVED
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
OCTOBER 9, 2014
EMMA HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Ackerson, Thomas Agran, Esther Baker, Gosia Clore, Kate
Corcoran, Frank Durham, Andrew Litton, Pam Michaud, Ben
Sandell
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ginalie Swaim, Frank Wagner
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo
OTHERS PRESENT: Heidi Anderson, Erica Damman, David Kacena
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.
CONSENT AGENDA CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS;
717 Grant Street.
Miklo said this is a window replacement project on the consent agenda. He said he would not
go into detail unless Commission members had questions or wanted a full report.
MOTION: Corcoran moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at
717 Grant Street as presented in the application. Baker seconded the motion. The
motion carried on a vote of 9-0 (Swaim and Wagner absent).
CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS:
427 Clark Street.
Miklo said this is a contributing property on the west side of the street in the Clark Street
Conservation District. He said the proposal is to build a new front porch. Miklo said he checked
the Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, and it appears that at one time there was a full-length front
porch on the property, but he did not know when that was removed.
Miklo stated that the house itself is a very simple, vernacular house. He said that some refer to
this as an I house, because it is shaped like an I and is one room deep. Miklo said this house
has an extension on the back.
Miklo said the Commission has approved previous projects on this site, including a small,
second floor addition and some other improvements over the years. He said there are some
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
October 9, 2014
Page 2 of 10
concept drawings in the packet showing the general design of the porch. Miklo said that
perhaps a better indication of what it will look like is the porch next door, which was built by the
same person who will be constructing this porch.
Miklo said there are some differences in that the proposal for 427 Clark Street is to bring the
porch all the way to the edge of the house. He said the roofline will also likely extend a few
inches beyond in order to protect the edge of the porch, which is a common practice.
Miklo said that rather than having a porch ceiling and ends on the roof, the proposal is to leave
the area open so that one will basically see the exposed rafters. He said there would be a bead
board type ceiling on the underside of the porch roof. Miklo said that although it is not really a
traditional design for a porch roof, staff feels it is a good interpretation or simplified version of
what one would typically see on a simple house like this. He said it is perhaps appropriate for a
conservation district that one is not recreating something but is showing the general indication of
what a porch here would look like.
Miklo said there is an exception being requested for this porch, and a similar exception was
granted for the neighboring porch, in that generally tongue and groove fir porch flooring is
required for porches. He said that an exception may be granted in conservation districts on a
case by case basis for decking type material, which is being proposed in this case.
Miklo said that a more traditional type skirting than that which is on the neighboring porch is
being proposed.
Miklo said staff finds that this does meet the guidelines for porches, and the staff report details
the things staff and the Commission normally consider when reviewing porches. He said staff is
recommending approval subject to the final details being approved by staff and the chair.
Damman, the owner of the property, said she was available to answer questions.
MOTION: Ackerson moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at
427 Clark Street as presented in the application, including an exception to allow the use
of deck flooring, subject to final plan details being approved by chair and staff. Durham
seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0 (Swaim and Wagner absent).
604 Grant Street.
Miklo stated that this is a contributing property in the Longfellow Historic District. He said the
house is roughly mid -block between Court and Center Streets, on the east side of the street.
Miklo said this property has been before the Commission on a few occasions in the past. He
said originally it had just a small entry porch on the left side of the house, but the Commission
approved the reconstruction of that as a full porch a few years ago. Miklo said that windows
were also approved for replacement. He added that at one point, a single -car garage was
approved for this property; however, it was never built.
Miklo said this proposal is to build a two -car garage with a loft above it, on the north side of the
house. He said the garage would be set back quite far from the street, in accordance with the
guidelines. Miklo said the garage would be behind the front plane of the house. He said an
earlier drawing showed it lining up with the rear of main part of the house, but a newer drawing
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
October 9, 2014
Page 3 of 10
shows it even farther back. Miklo said that either is acceptable, but staff will need to clarify the
location before a building permit can be issued.
Miklo showed a photograph of the property from the air and pointed out the features. He said
there is a platted alley to the back, but it was never built because the creek is back there. Miklo
said the guidelines call for placing new garages behind the house with access off an alley if
available, although an alley is obviously not available here. If the driveway is going to be on the
street, which is what is being proposed here, he said the guidelines discuss having a narrow
driveway, eight to ten feet wide at the front of the lot, with it widening at the garage entrance.
Miklo said that as noted, the garage would be two levels: the car level and a level on the upper
part of the garage that could be used for storage or a finished, loft -type space. He said the
photograph shows that there is a slope to this property, so one side of the entrance will be
higher than the other, which results in quite a bit of exposed foundation on the south side of the
property and the back side of the garage.
Miklo said the house itself has a brick veneer foundation. He said the proposal here is to use
concrete, and the guidelines say that is acceptable in that if one is not able to match the
foundation material of the main structure, a simple concrete foundation or stucco -type
foundation is appropriate. Miklo said the guidelines would not allow for a fake or stamped brick
foundation.
Miklo said the windows on the garage would match those on the house but would be slightly
smaller in size, which is appropriate. Miklo stated that although the illustration does not show
this, the applicant has indicated that the windows will have divided lights to match those on the
house.
He said the guidelines discuss a garage or outbuilding being smaller in size or scale and the
finish not being as elaborate as the main structure
Miklo said that two garage doors are proposed, and that is recommended by the guidelines. He
showed an illustration of the garage doors and the carriage -style door, which is very appropriate
for this type of structure. Miklo said he would even suggest that, given the quality and character
of the door, having one wide single door would be inappropriate in this location.
Miklo showed the plan for the garage. He said the actual, pedestrian level entrance is up a few
feet, so one would go into the garage and then walk down to the floor level for the car space or
up to the loft space. Miklo showed a profile demonstrating the amount of storage or possible
finished space above the garage.
Miklo said that he initially questioned the position of the windows, given that they look quite low,
when he first saw the plan. He said that because of the grade and the ceiling height, it really is
not possible to move them up. Miklo stated that these windows will be on the house side of the
garage, so they won't be highly visible.
Miklo said staff's recommendation in the staff report is to approve this as submitted, subject to a
site plan showing the proposed curb cut, drive, and drive location and also product information
on the pedestrian door. He said the site plan has been received, so that is no longer needed as
a condition. Miklo said that prior to issuing a building permit, staff will need verification that the
door on the side meets the standards, which would mean basically a fiberglass door probably
with panels on the bottom.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
October 9, 2014
Page 4 of 10
Miklo said that at this point staff is recommending approval subject to product information for the
door being supplied prior to the issuance of the building permit.
Sandell asked if there are other properties in the neighborhood that have this situation and if
they have a standard setback for the base of the garage that could be emulated. Miklo
responded that there are not many new garages in this neighborhood; most of them are older,
historic garages. He said he did not have an aerial photograph, but most if not all of the
garages in this area are single -stall wide. Miklo said this is pretty much in keeping with the
position of most garages in the neighborhood.
Miklo said there is a porte-cochere on the side of the house where there is a curb cut. He said it
would be unusual in this neighborhood to have two driveways and the amount of concrete that
comes with that, so staff is recommending that that curb cut be removed as a condition of
approval. Miklo said that with the new garage there would be there would be four parking
spaces (two in the garage and in the drive that would replace the one that is recommended for
removal.
Miklo said the guidelines really don't address that. He said the Commission could leave it there;
it is just a suggestion on the part of staff to make this more compatible with the neighborhood.
Corcoran asked about the location of the proposed driveway in relation to trees on the property.
Anderson, one of the owners of the house, said the driveway would go to the right of the tree,
lined up with the left stall of the garage.
Miklo stated that the zoning code requires that driveways be three feet off the property line,
unless they are curbed and designed to drain away from the adjacent property. He said he
believes this is proposed to be five feet, so it more than meets the requirement.
Michaud asked if the carriage house would be considerably shorter than the main house, since
it is lower anyway. Anderson confirmed this.
MOTION: Baker moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 604
Grant Street as presented in the application with the following conditions: 1) a site plan
showing the location of the proposed curb cut and drive and product information for the
pedestrian door to be submitted and approved by the Commission chair and staff; 2) the
current curb cut and driveway being removed; and 3) the option for the applicant to
install a single -garage door of the same quality of the two that are currently proposed.
Ackerson seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0 (Swaim and Wagner
absent).
420 N. Dodge Street.
Miklo said this property is in the Goosetown Horace Mann Conservation District. He said the
property is on the east side of Dodge Street between Fairchild and Davenport Streets.
Miklo said the proposal is to remove a chimney from the house. He said the chimney is
obviously damaged, and the packet includes written material from the applicant explaining the
issues that have occurred with the chimney over the years.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
October 9, 2014
Page 5 of 10
Miklo said the guidelines indicate that, where a chimney is a prominent feature of a house or an
important architectural feature such as those that are part of a fireplace that is in the side, it
should not be removed. He said that although this is visible from the street, it is on the back
side of the house and is not a key feature of the house. Miklo said the Commission has looked
at other proposals to remove a chimney and leave a metal pipe, which is not something that
would be seen on an historic house, and the Commission has denied those proposals.
Miklo stated that in this case, staff recommends approval, finding that the chimney is not a
prominent architectural feature of this house.
MOTION: Agran moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 420
North Dodge Street as presented in the application with the following conditions: 1) the
chimney including the metal pipe being removed to the roof line with the clarification that
if the metal pipe were to be retained as a functioning chimney, staff would not
recommend approval of removal of the brick; and 2) the roof being repaired with shingles
that match the existing. Clore seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0
(Swaim and Wagner absent).
718 E. Davenport Street.
Miklo said this is a proposal to demolish a garage or a small barn at 718 East Davenport Street
in the Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District. He stated that the property is on the
north side of Davenport Street mid -block between Dodge and Lucas Streets.
Miklo said the staff report was in error in calling this a contributing property. He said that it is
actually a key property in the district. Miklo said that a study by Marlys Svendsen, a historian
who has consulted for the Commission, indicates that the property is individually eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places.
Miklo said that the property was built in 1890 by Joseph Cerny. Miklo stated that the Cerny
family was a prominent Czech family in Goosetown and in the establishment of Saint
Wenceslaus Church. He stated that this is one of the more prominent houses in Goosetown,
perhaps due to Joseph's success as a businessman and as a bricklayer.
Miklo said that Joseph's son, William, built a house next door to Joseph. Miklo said he believes
the house farther to the west was also built by the same family.
Miklo said that the small barn or garage located off the alley at the back of the property can be
seen from the street. He said the barn represents the small buildings that were built for horses
or livestock that were once common in Goosetown. Miklo stated that several of them have been
lost. He said there are not many of them left that are this representative of what used to be
there.
Miklo said this has a fairly steep pitched roof, with a board and batten type siding. He said staff
believes that a garage door was added at a later date. Miklo said that Frank Wagner, who is a
contractor, visited the property with him and inspected it. Miklo said that based on the
construction techniques and some of the lumber, Wagner believes that it dates from the same
period as the house. Miklo said that some of the planks in the roof are 14 inches wide, which is
a dimension that was not available much after 1900.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
October 9, 2014
Page 6 of 10
Miklo showed a side view of the barn, stating that similar to the house, it has a standing seam
metal roof. He said there is a little lean-to roof extension or addition. Miklo pointed out the
portion of the roof that is in plywood and in fairly poor condition, although the metal part of the
roof is actually in pretty good shape compared to metal roofs seen repaired and painted around
town. He said that it does show some slight signs of rust, but it is something that could be
corrected with a coating.
Miklo showed a view from the house looking back toward the alley and a view from the side. He
said there was some question as to the age of this building, as the applicant had indicated that
there perhaps was a time when this building was not there. Miklo said he therefore reviewed
the Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, which are maps that were done throughout the United States
for fire insurance purposes. He said they are very accurate and were available for the first time
in this neighborhood in 1899 and continued to be updated until approximately 1970, when they
were discontinued.
Miklo stated that the barn, or a building of this size and location, does appear pretty much where
it is today. He said he checked maps from 1906, 1916, 1920, and up through 1970, and they all
show a building of this size in this general location, as well as other small buildings located on
the alley on this lot. Miklo said that based on that and Wagner's examination of the construction
techniques and materials, he believes this building was built at about the same time as the
house.
When considering demolition, Miklo said the Commission is asked to consider three things: the
condition of the building, the integrity of the building or whether it is similar to the way it
appeared historically, and its architectural significance. He said that as indicated in the report,
staff feels this building is pretty much as it was when it was built. Miklo said there might have
been repairs to the siding over the years. He said he suspects it was lifted off a stone
foundation and put on a concrete foundation and the garage door was added at some point.
Even with the evidence of some remodeling, Miklo said the overall form of the garage has pretty
good integrity.
In terms of architectural significance, Miklo said this is a representation of the types of barns
that were once found throughout Goosetown. He said he checked the book written by Mary
Beth Slonneger, who is an historian who has done a lot of research in the Goosetown area.
Miklo said Slonneger pointed out him to the picture that was taken on Davenport Street, which
he believes is actually the barn to the west on the property that was built by this same family.
Miklo said it shows the simple character of these types of buildings that were once found
throughout the neighborhood. Miklo said, based on that, he believes it is historically significant.
Regarding the condition, Miklo said there are obviously some issues with this barn or garage.
He said it does show some deferred maintenance, and the City's building department would cite
it for peeling paint, so obviously the paint needs to be scraped. Miklo said that some of the
boards have rotted through, but in staff's estimation, probably over 50% and perhaps as much
as 75% of the boards are in reasonable condition and simply need to be scraped and painted.
Miklo said the material is fairly inexpensive, so it would not be difficult to replace the rotting
wood on this barn. He said that in fact some of the upper parts could be salvaged to patch
other portions of the barn. Miklo said Wagner felt the greatest condition concern of this barn is
its relationship to the ground. Miklo said Wagner felt it would be better to clear some dirt away
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
October 9, 2014
Page 7 of 10
from it, and ideally, it would be lifted and put on a new concrete slab, which would make it more
resistant to weather conditions.
Miklo stated that even though there are some condition problems, Wagner felt that this could
fairly easily be repaired, given its simple construction technique and materials. Miklo said
Wagner thought the biggest expense would be the new concrete. Miklo said that because this
is a rental property, a new concrete parking pad would need to be provided anyway, so that
would cover much of the expense of repairing this building.
Miklo showed other examples, including a barn in the Woodlawn Historic District that was raised
and then lowered onto a new concrete foundation and is still in use today.
Based on the historical significance of this simple building and its fairly simple construction
techniques, Miklo said staff would recommend that the demolition permit be denied and that the
building be repaired. He said that at a minimum, the Building Department will require that the
rotting lumber be replaced and that the building be scraped and painted. Miklo said the Building
Department would not require a new foundation; however, staff would advise that, for the long
term, it would be less expensive to do that sort of repair than to build a new garage on the
property.
Although not a consideration in terms of the Commission's guidelines, Miklo said this is a
neighborhood in which the City is encouraging investment and encouraging home ownership.
He said that retaining and repairing this barn would add value to this property versus just having
a concrete parking pad there.
Kacena said he represents the Chudacek Partnership that owns this property. Kacena said he
wanted to point out some flaws in the staff report regarding this garage.
Kacena said staff feels the barn was likely built at the same time as the house. He presented a
photograph from 1915 or 1916 and said that there is a shed in the back yard there, but the
roofline of the shed is turned 90 degrees from the way of the garage that is there now. Kacena
said there is also what is most likely an outhouse next to it.
Kacena said staff indicated the shed was built as a small barn for a horse or for small livestock.
Kacena said that on the inside of that shed, there is absolutely no wear and tear from any type
of livestock there, including no rubbing up against the framing, and no indication of horses
chewing on the boards at all.
Kacena said the construction of the building indicates that it was built with used lumber, as there
are several different dimensions of lumber in the place. He said that those dimensions were
never really certified probably up until the 1960s, if any of the stuff was provided by a local
lumber yard.
Kacena said that in the photo neither the house nor the shed is roofed with a metal roof. He
said the metal roofing obviously has come at a much later point.
Kacena said that it is also said that there is also a small loft accessible from the alley there. He
stated that there is no loft nor is there any indication that there ever was aloft in there. Kacena
said he understands from the owner that the door was cut in there to allow them to put storm
windows from the house and the house at 710 there and store them up above the garage.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
October 9, 2014
Page 8 of 10
Kacena said he actually believes that there really is not any historic significance to the property
and that it is certainly not economically feasible to lift it up and put a new foundation under it.
He said the owners are just trying to get some more parking there to bring it up to what the
rental codes are going to require there.
Corcoran asked what the homeowner believes the cost would be of raising this up. Kacena said
he could not get anyone to give him a price on that in a short amount of time.
Miklo stated that this is a rental property, so the owners would be required to provide two off-
street parking spaces. He said that if this were repaired, then an additional pad would have to
be poured.
Michaud asked if there is no longer a bay window on the house. Miklo replied that there is still a
bay window on the house. Kacena said that the front porch was built later on, and it cuts into
the roofline of that. Miklo said the porch was enlarged.
Miklo said that a lot of the original roofs in Iowa City were wood shingle, and the standing seam
metal roofs came from around 1900 through about 1920. He said the Sanborn maps that show
a building in this location date from 1890. Miklo said, in terms of when the house had some
remodeling done, the roof and the fact that the barn has a metal roof probably from the same
era would indicate that if this wasn't built around the same time as the house. Regardless of the
remodeling the house and barn appear to date from around the turn of the century.
Agran said it seems that some of things brought up about the provenance of the building are
speculative in nature. He said he has worked on a property directly across the street from this
house. Agran said there is nothing consistent about the framing of the entire house. He said
the lumber is of varied dimensions, and he thinks it was actually built out of repurposed wood
from other properties in the neighborhood. Agran said he has been in a lot of other buildings
where wood has been reused, so he is not sure that it proves one thing or the other about the
age of the building.
Regarding the dimensions, Agran said the foundation probably is not original to the building so
that at the time the building was constructed, given that picture, it could have been moved or
adjusted. He said that in discussing the importance of the building, the things the contractor
brings up he is not certain prove one way or the other. Agran said that some of the things Miklo
he has brought up prove that, at the very least, if this was not built immediately with the house it
was built shortly therefore. He said that it seems to him that the building is undeniably very old.
Miklo said that although it is hard to tell from the photograph, this may be the same building that
was turned to allow access to the garage. Agran agreed and said that if the building was
constructed before it would have been used to house an automobile, the orientation of it along
that axis would not have been as important. He said that if the owners were rebuilding the
garage to be utilized for a vehicle, it might have been rotated when the concrete floor was
poured, although he said that is equally speculative.
Miklo said that on the Sanborn map from 1920, one can see another small shed on this
property. He said it did show an additional building and showed the location and showed the
location of another one as well. Miklo said that there are not any others on the property. In
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
October 9, 2014
Page 9 of 10
terms of livestock, he said the building might have been used for chickens or geese. Miklo
showed a historic photo of the barn next door that has the chicken enclosure right next to it.
Kacena said the barn in that photo brings more to mind the property at 710 Davenport Street
with that garage there and the other garages to the west of there facing the other direction.
MOTION: Michaud moved to deny a certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of
the garage at 718 East Davenport Street due to its historic importance in the Goosetown
Neighborhood. Agran seconded the motion. The motion to deny carried on a vote of 9-0
(Swaim and Waaner absent).
REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF:
Miklo said he did not have time to put the list together, so he will include it in the next agenda
packet.
DISCUSSION OF ANNUAL AWARDS PROGRAM:
Miklo stated that he. Swaim, Alicia Trimble, Erica Blair from Friends of Historic Preservation
and intern, Bailee McClellan, have been preparing for the awards program, which will be held in
January. He said that Swaim has asked for volunteers to be on the selection committee to
choose the properties to receive awards. Miklo said this involves making note of properties
around town or speaking with contractors and painters to find projects that were done in the
past year or two that have not yet received awards and then serving on the committee to look at
all the nominees to select those worthy of awards based on quality of workmanship, etc. He
said the committee would probably meet three or four times before the awards ceremony.
Agran, Clore, and Corcoran volunteered to serve on the committee. Miklo said the idea is to
reward good work and to promote preservation by showing how to do it.
COMMISSION INFORMATION/DISCUSSION:
Miklo said that Chery Peterson is now working at the State Historical Society in Des Moines.
Michaud asked if there would be an assistant to replace her. Miklo said that at this point a
decision about filling that role has not been made.
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 11, 2014:
MOTION: Corcoran moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's
September 11, 2014 meeting, as written. Agran seconded the motion. The motion carried on a
vote of 9-0 (Swaim and Waaner absent).
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 6:18 p.m.
Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte
Z
0
N
0
U 0
(L)
Z LU
� r
F- W o
> Z M
� Q r
LU N
U Z
W z
ix LLI
�
CL I--
0 0
U)
p
r
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O
O
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
a)
x
p
x
0
0
x
X
x
X
0
N
X
x
x
x
X
O
O
O
X
x
x
tC
co
N
w X
X
X
x
x
x
X
x
X
w
0
x
X
X
x
X
X
x
X
et
M
X
X
X
i
X
X
X
x
i
x
W
O
M
CL
No
X
X
X
i
x
X
x
i
X
X
ti
M C-
C,M
X
X
x
x
x
x
x
i
X
x
N "
N
X
x
x
i
x
X
x
i
O
O
O
v
o
X
i
x
x
x
x
i
x
x
CD
x
i
X
i
x
x
x
o
x
x
IL
W W0)
N
0)
N
0)
N
0)
N
0)
N
ZZ
0)
N
CD
N
CD
N
0)
N
0)m
N
N
..
Mm
Mm
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
W
Q
W
Q
Q
Z
W
Q
W
J
Z
m
O
W
Z
Q
a
Q
J
LL
N
=
a
Z
OC
U
wO
Q
Z
O
QLU
W
u 11
w
Y
Q
O
U
V
Z
Q
O
x0
U
(9
Q
m
0
_�
N
Q
Q
W
Y
MINUTES APPROVED
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 18, 2014 — 6:00 PM
DALE HELLING CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Byler, Andrew Chappell, David Hacker, Jim Jacobson,
Dottie Persson, Christine Ralston, Rachel Zimmermann Smith,
Angel Taylor
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Tracy Hightshoe
OTHERS PRESENT: Kristin Watson
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL:
None.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by Chair Andrew Chappell.
APPROVAL OF JUNE 19. 2014 MINUTES
Persson moved to approve minutes with minor corrections.
Jacobson seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0.
PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None
STAFF/COMMISSION COMMENT:
Hightshoe shared with the Commission news on Steve Long's resignation.
NOMINATION AND ELECTION OF OFFICERS:
Chappell explained that the by-laws require that the commission elect a Chair and Vice Chair
each September.
Jacobson moved to nominate Zimmermann Smith for the Chair.
Persson seconded the motion.
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 18, 2014
PAGE 2 of 6
Chappell asked if there were any other nominations.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0.
Zimmermann Smith called for nominations for Vice Chair. Chappell moved to nominate Ralston
for Vice Chair.
Persson seconded the motion.
Zimmermann Smith asked if there were any other nominations.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0.
Taylor arrived.
Fair Housing Presentation by Human Rights Department
Hightshoe introduced Kristin from the Human Rights Department. Hightshoe explained that
periodically Human Rights staff will inform various Commissions about what is fair housing,
common issues in Iowa City and explain briefly the process on how to file a complaint if needed.
Kristin began by explaining the function of the Human Rights Department. Kristin's primary
function is to investigate discrimination complaints. The Director, Stephanie Bowers, also
investigates discrimination complaints as well as many other functions. They both serve as staff
for the Human Rights Commission to do research and reports. Bowers is also the Equity
Director for the City. The Human Rights Department also does community outreach training
and programs.
Kristin explained her function of investigating discrimination complaints. There are five areas of
complaints; credit, education, housing, employment, and public accommodation. Employment
is always the largest area of complaints. But housing and public accommodations are second
and third in complaints.
Kristin discussed what discrimination really means - it is not just being treated badly or unfairly,
but discrimination legally is being treated badly because of a certain protected class. She also
explained that there is a tiered legal system in this country so state and local laws can expand
on federal laws or be somewhat different from federal law, as long as they don't contradict. So
the Federal Fair Housing Act covers the fewest areas and state and local laws expand on that.
At the federal level there is race and color, national origin, religion, disabilities, sex, and familial
status (having children under the age of 18 in the household). Iowa adds gender identity and
sexual orientation as protected classes, and Iowa City has broader categories with public
assistance and source of income, marital status, age, and presence or absence of dependents
which is wider than familial status because it can be an elderly parent or any kind of dependent,
which covers more people.
The department encourages citizens to call them and discuss their situations if they feel there
has been a violation. If they cannot help as the person is not covered by a protective class, they
will refer them to other assistance. They also encourage landlords to proactively contact the
Department because the Department can provide free trainings for their staff, or be able to
address specific questions. Kristin explained that they get a lot of service animal questions.
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 18, 2014
PAGE 3 of 6
Landlords tend to not understand the difference between a service animal, which is a disability
accommodation, and a pet.
She explained there are two types of discrimination. The one that is typically addressed is
disparate treatment, which is simply that a person was treated badly because of a person's
class. They are currently seeing a development of disparate impact recognized in employment
and that is when there is no bad intent but a policy can affect a group negatively. Other
examples in housing may be neighborhoods with very large minimum lot requirements, no
sidewalks, or other low income discrimination which isn't a protected class. Seeing increasing
number of neighborhoods designed that if one does not have a car there are no options.
Another example more typical in larger cities is when developers are given tax incentives to
include a number of affordable housing units and put all of those in one building or location
away from the rest of the development and deny certain amenities. In Iowa the most common
discriminations are race and disability, with African American and Hispanic persons making up
the largest share. With disabilities, the major disability complaints are with service animals and
mental disabilities.
The Department also sees a lot of complaints from unprotected classes such as students. There
are specific landlords that cater to students; however there are a few landlords that have
perceptions of what students are like and deny renting to them. Students aren't a protected
class, so the Department is limited unless they can base their complaint on something protected
like age or familial status.
Chappell asked about clarification on age discrimination. Kristin replied that there is no set age,
and landlords cannot deny any tenant based on age.
The process of investigating complaints was questioned. Kristin answered that the State Civil
Rights Commission has done several studies so not as many have been done on the local level
but occasionally she does go out to sites to view the complaints in question. The Iowa Civil
Rights Commission has completed studies in Iowa City (results are available on their website)
and they did find issues with race and disability.
Kristin also stated that the complaints in housing are almost 100% rental based. There are also
several complaints from Section 8 tenants who have a difficult time finding housing. Even
though income is a protected class, it excludes rental vouchers as protected because the
Section 8 program is voluntary, so those complaints can be difficult.
Kristin handed out brochures to the Commission that explained the Department's process in
housing mediation. This is mandatory for housing; however for the other four types of
complaints, mediation is done only if both parties agree.
The process is begun with a written signed compliant, the investigation consists of written
questions and must be signed with note that under laws of perjury all documents and
statements are true. The Department then conducts interviews with both the complainant and
the respondent and any witnesses. Once all the information is gathered, they view the updated
legal research and apply the facts to whatever law is current and write a summary report and
the decision can either be made by the Department head, or sometimes is consulted with the
City Attorney's office, to decide if there was probable cause of discrimination. If there is not a
clear decision, the Department may administratively close the case, which opens the
complainant opportunities for appeal. The complainant can appeal to the State. It can be
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 18, 2014
PAGE 4 of 6
appealed and reviewed by the State even if it is a local protected class case, not included in the
State protected class.
Kristin explained that the number of complaints per year varies but they have an average of 40-
60 complaints per year.
Member questioned the Analysis of Impediments recommendations about housing vouchers as
a protected class. Kristin stated they are researching that right now and there are split
decisions from the courts. The discussion is if landlords are required to accept Section 8
vouchers. Not sure if that helps or hinders the cause of affordable housing.
Kristin also mentioned that the Department does have a translation service for over 140
languages to assist citizens with communications.
Kristin explained that the Department only makes recommendations to the City Council when
specifically asked to by the Civil Rights Commission. When the Council asks for a memo on
some issue it's referred to the City Attorney's office, and we many consult with them.
New Business
Public Hearing and Approval of the FY14 Consolidated Annual Performance & Evaluation
Report (CAPER)
Hightshoe explained that the report is a HUD required document and is completed in the format
required by HUD. The report basically shows how the City used its money in FY14. She
clarified that the data in the report is based on the agencies that were funded during that year.
She stated a good summary of the total report can be found in two tables. One summarizes
CDBG accomplishments and projects and the other summarize HOME activities. She noted
that the low income and minority concentrations were updated for the 2010 Census and the
2006-2010 American Community Survey data.
Hightshoe stated that the PR -26 report was not completed as staff is working with their HUD
representative to resolve some technical issues. This report reconciles the HUD disbursement
system with the City's records.
Question on the Analysis of Impediments where it states racial and ethnic concentrations exist
in Iowa City and that "we" recommend that Iowa City adopt mandatory inclusionary zoning.
Member questioned clarification of who is the "we." Hightshoe stated the report was completed
by the University of Iowa Public Policy Center. The City Manager certified that is in compliance
with the CDBG program.
The Commission discussed inclusionary zoning and the process. The report is stating that the
City will continue to research this issue.
There was a question about African American and Hispanics being denied home mortgage
loans at a higher rate than white households. Is this a known problem? Hightshoe reported that
in the research with banks there may have been a difference in reporting, such as if an applicant
simply does not submit all materials or complete an application some banks count that as a
denial. This makes it appear as there was discrimination, but probably wasn't the case. The
City will monitor and research any complaints.
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 18, 2014
PAGE 5 of 6
Jacobson moved to recommend approval of the FY14 Consolidated Annual Performance
& Evaluation Report (CAPER) and forward to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development.
Persson seconded.
The motion passed by a vote of 8-0.
Selection of Projects to Monitor in FY15
Hightshoe explained how the monitoring process worked and the Commission divided
assignments among the members.
Timeline for the Annual Review of CITY STEPS
Hightshoe explained that CITY STEPS is a five year plan in which there were several meetings
with the public and other agencies. The consultant will prepare a housing analysis assessment
as well. We expect a first draft in October. Hightshoe will share that with the Commission via
email once received. A 30 -day public comment period will begin at the end of October. HCDC
will review and make a recommendation at their November meeting. The City Council will
consider it at their December 2 Council meeting.
ADJOURNMENT:
Ralston moved to adjourn.
Persson seconded.
Motion to adjourn carried 8-0.
z
O
O
U
I -
z
W
0..
O
J
W
W
�o
O N
0�
QwCo
m —
z m 0
Fn W CDW
T-cwna
z
0
O
V
H
z
W Cl
E
W
00
V
W
UJW0
W N
Do et
Z
Z N
z
LU
Oa
V
0
z
0
z
U)
M
co
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
X
0
0
X
?
0
B
0
to
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
M
X
X
X
x
x
o
X
X
X
N
O
X
X
X
x
O
x
x
X
N
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
T
CD
N
D
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
X
T
T
X
X
X
x
x
X
X
0
x
T
0
0
X
X
X
0
0
X
X
X
T
CD
x
x
O
x
x
O
X
x
O
LO
x
X
x
x
x
B
B
0
0
co
°-
Ln
It
Cf)
co
I,-
co
co
r-
LO
rl-
LO
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
w
O
O
O
O
m
O
O)
O
O
O
O
O
H
W
J
J
W
V
W
Z
H
Z
O
J
Q
W
F -
W
Z
a
U
Q
a
o
F
0
z
z
a
a
=
U
w
O
m
to
z
WQ
O
ww
W
z
O
z
a
Y
O
F-
con
0
w
Co
J
_
Z
m
0
0
_
Gw.
m
H
N OC
n n n n
W ,
jo x 0 0
12-0272'—]
3b(7)
Minutes APPROVED
Human Rights Commission
October 21, 2014 — 6 PM
Helling Conference Room
Members Present: Harry Olmstead, Shams Ghoneim, Orville Townsend, Ali Ahmed, Kim
Hanrahan, Joe Coulter, Stella Hart.
Members Excused: Paul Retish, Andrea Cohen.
Staff Present: Stefanie Bowers.
Recommendations to Council: No.
Call to Order:
Olmstead called the meeting to order at 18:00.
Consideration of the Minutes from the September 16, 2014 & October 2, 2014 Meeting Dates:
Motion Coulter, seconded by Hanrahan. Motion passed 7-0.
Motion Townsend, seconded Coulter. Motion passed 7-0.
Meeting Business:
Change time of November 18 meeting from 6 pm to 6.-30 pm.
Motion Coulter, seconded by Townsend. Motion passed 7-0.
Sponsorship Request from the University of Iowa Center for Human Rights
The event is Saturday, November 15 from 8:30-4:30 at the University of Iowa Capital Centre. The event
celebrates the 15th anniversary of the University of Iowa Center for Human Rights and also will have a
series of panel discussions on The Future of Human Rights in the Academy and the Community. The
Commission agreed to offer non -monetary support for this event.
Motion Coulter, seconded by Hanrahan. Motion passed. 6-0. Olmstead abstained citing conflict of
interest due to serving on the Center for Human Rights Board of Directors and assisting in
planning this event.
Goal Setting Session
This item will be placed on the December agenda for final approval to allow for Retish and Cohen to
participate. Waiting until December also allows the Commission to know who its 3 new Commissioners
will be for 2015.
Human Rights Breakfast
The Breakfast is scheduled for Wednesday, October 29 at 7:30 am. The Honorable Jim Leach will be the
keynote speaker and 6 awards will be presented to the following: The Council of International Visitors -Jo
Butterfield, John Stimmel, Diane Finnerty, Ginny Naso -United Action for Youth, Dr. Christopher Buresh,
and Mike Quinlan.
Job Fair
The Job Fair is scheudled for Thursday, October 30 from 4-6 pm at the Eastdale Plaza. 17 employers are
currently registered to attend along with several social service agencies.
Public Accommodation Training
A training on public accommodation discrimination will be held on Wednesday, November 12 at the Iowa
City Public Library from 1-3 pm.
Reports:
Human Rights Opportunity Fair
This event was held on September 17 at the T. Anne Cleary Walkway on the University of Iowa Campus.
Mr. Townsend reports it was a nice location to get a flow of students and there was a fair percent of
students that stopped by to see what was going on.
Defending Migrants' Rights
Hart and Cohen met with the Russian guests, who wanted to know what the Human Rights Commission
does. Hart and Cohen both said the guests had very good questions. Hart said they were mostly lawyers
for immigration and it was a good dialogue with all asking questions of each other with the assistance of
two translators. Ghoneim added she met with the same group again at the Law School with Professor
Brian Farrell and so she shared some of the topics of the American Civil Liberties Union -Iowa of which
Ghoneim is a board member.
Education Subcommittee
Bowers spoke on behalf of Retish who was unable to attend the Commission meeting. Retish asked that
the Commission send a letter to the Iowa City Community School Board (ICCSD) in reference to West
High School having a football game on the start of the holiest day for Jewish individuals, Yom Kippur.
Retish reported via email that the ICCSD has received calendars informing them of this date and
somehow it did not register. Retish believes a letter encouraging ICCSD to be more aware of all religious
observances and to be responsible to its students should be sent.
Townsend not present for discussion or vote. Townsend had left meeting prior to accept
proclamation from Council for 2014 National Disability Employment Awareness Month (October).
Motion Coulter, seconded by Ghoneim. Motion passed 6-0. (Townsend not present).
The Past, Present, Future: The History of Minorities Views on Law Enforcement
Chair Olmstead had read an article in the Daily Iowan about a recent panel discussion in which someone
in the article is quoted as saying that "some African-Americans in Johnson County live in fear of the
police." Chair Olmstead would like to explore this topic. Bowers thought it might be a good fit for the
education committee. This topic was placed on the agenda to see if there was any interest in it. This item
will be moved to the November agenda if there is any interest on creating such a program.
Building Communities
Townsend reported that the Black Voices Project is working with the ICCSD in terms of requesting
information concerning its hiring practices. And that as a member of the school board, he is requesting
information on the ICCSD's hiring practices to see exactly what the procedure is that they use. One of
Townsend's concerns is that some minorities in the school district who have applied for positions but are
not selected feel like they do not have a future with the ICCSD and leave. Townsend believes the process
needs to be reviewed to make sure that the system is fair and that administration is having some input into
the selection process to make sure that opportunities to bring a minority on board are not being missed.
Commission
Hart has been organizing a free and open to the public street harassment bystander intervention training
that will be held on November 6 at First Baptist Church. The training will be led by a representative from
the Women's Resource and Action Center (WRAC).
2
Coulter reminded Commissioners to read the Equity Report and that it is an important process of this
Commission.
Olmstead mentioned that there will be another screening of Woke Up Black on October 23 at 6:30pm at
Phillips Hall on the University of Iowa Campus. Olmstead also noted the City has allocated another
$50,000 for curb cuts for sidewalks but this is over a two year period of time. Olmstead said we were all
led to believe this was for the next year, but it's actually two years. Olmstead also reported he had gone to
the Task Force on Aging concerning the City's lack of compliance with curb cuts for sidewalks, not
knowing that the chairperson was a former attorney for the government who took it upon himself to write
a letter to the US Attorney's Office. The US Attorney's Office in turn said we will investigate it. The US
Attorney's Office contacted Olmstead about it and he provided information on what he knew. Olmstead
also reminded Commissioners that the Council said they were going to provide storage shelters for
individuals' belongings that are currently homeless and he thinks the commission should remind them of
this because winter is coming up pretty quickly.
Staff
Bowers recently attended a program sponsored by Diversity Focus called Cracking the Code which
looked at ways to increase diversity within the workforce. The office is also in the process of selecting an
intern for next spring. Bowers also presented to the Chamber Leadership Program recently on civil rights
and she and other City staff attended a meeting on Community IDs held by the County within the last
month.
Adjournment: 19:25
Next Regular Meeting — November 18, 2014 at 6:30 pm.
Human Rights Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
YEAR 2013/2014
(MPPtina natP.)
NAME
TERM
EXP.
11/19/
13
12/17/
13
1/21/
14
2/18/
14
3/18/
14
4/29/
14
5/20/
14
6/17/
14
7/15/
14
8/19/
14
9/16/
14
10/2/
14
10/21/
14
Ali Ahmed
1/1/17
-
-
X
X
O/E
O/E
O/E
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
Orville
Townsend, Sr.
1/1/17
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Paul Retish
1/1/17
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
O/E
X
O/E
X
O/E
Kim
Hanrahan
1/1/15
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
Shams
Ghoneim
1/1/15
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Stella Hart
1/1/15
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
Jewell Amos
1/1/15
O/E
X
X
X
O/E
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
Joe D. Coulter
1/1/16
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
Harry
Olmstead
1/1/16
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Andrea Cohen
1/1/16
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
O/E
KEY: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
-- = No longer a member
R = Resignation
114
IOWA CITY
ITY
PUBLIC LIBRARY
123 S. Linn St. • Iowa City, IA 52240
wrcc Susan Craig..r+an 319-356-520D• 319-3565494•wwwkpl.mg
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
October 16, 2014
3b(8)
FINAL APPROVED
Members Present: Diane Baker, Janet Freeman (in at 5:20 pm), David Hamilton, Linzee McCray,
Robin Paetzold, Meredith Rich -Chappell, Jay Semel.
Members Absent: Tom Dean, Thomas Martin.
Staff Present: Maeve Clark, Susan Craig, Kara Logsden, Patty McCarthy, Elyse Miller, Brent Palmer.
Guests Present: Tom Gelman, Phelan, Tucker, Mullen, Walker, Tucker & Gelman, LLP and Past
President, Iowa City Public Library Board of Trustees and Friends Foundation Board.
Call Meeting to Order. President Paetzold called the meeting to order at 5:04 p.m.
Public Discussion.
Approval of Minutes.
The minutes of the September 25, 2014 Regular Meeting of Library Board of Trustees were
reviewed. A motion to approve the minutes was made by McCray and seconded by Rich -Chappell.
Motion carried 6/0.
New Business.
Friends Foundation History and Structure. Tom Gelman, Attorney at Law and past member of the
Library Board of Trustees and Past President of the Friends Foundation Board of Directors provided
a history of the nonprofit organization. During the 1980s, two separate organizations did
fundraising on behalf of the Library: the ICPL Foundation and the Friends of the Library which was a
membership based organization. After a successful endowment fund campaign conducted by the
ICPL Foundation in the late 1980s, questions arose about the tax exempt status of the ICPL
Foundation and focused on whether or not it was a publicly supported nonprofit organization, or a
supporting organization which received 35% of its income from a single source. Earnings on the
invested endowment income were approaching the 35% threshold. The board determined that it
would be best to restructure the ICPL Foundation to more clearly establish it as a publicly supported
nonprofit organization. That resulted in a merger of the ICPL Foundation and Friends of the Library
completed in 1997 to create the ICPL Friends Foundation, a corporation exempt from tax under IRC
(Internal Revenue Code) 501(c)3.
The priorities of the ICPL Friends Foundation are aligned with the library's priorities and the
members of the Library Board of Trustees serve as the Corporate Members of the ICPL Friends
Foundation. The Corporate Members' authority is defined by the Friends Foundation Articles and
Bylaws. The Corporate Members elect the Board of Directors of the Friends Foundation including
two representatives from the Corporate Members/Library Board of Trustees. The Friends Foundation
Governance Committee is responsible for succession planning and after an application process,
nominates candidates for Board membership to the Corporate Members/Library Board of Trustees.
The nominating process is driven by the Foundation's strategic plan.
When the Foundation was established in the early 1980s, an arrangement was made with the Library
that staff performing fundraising activities in consultation with the Foundation would be Library
employees rather than employed by the Foundation. The Foundation reimburses the Library every
year all costs associated with the employee. Gelman said the historical compatibility of the
Foundation with the Library resulted from the integration of the Director of Development into
library operations. The Foundation has its own strategic plan and the Director of Development is
responsible for its implementation. As an employee of the Library, the Director of Development
reports to the Library Director who conducts the annual evaluation of the Director of Development
after receiving input from the Foundation board. The structure has been copied by other libraries
and foundations in Iowa.
The Library Director is a non-voting member of the Friends Foundation board, and participates in
Executive Committee and Foundation board meetings. "It is a complicated relationship but has
served us well," said Craig. "And, for the size of our community, everyone should take pride in what
the Friends Foundation has accomplished over the years. We have had great financial and legal
advisors serve on the Friends Foundation board through the years." Paetzold asked what the Board
of Trustees can do to support the Friends Foundation. Gelman said talking up events and 100%
Board member support through a donation to the Foundation is important. McCray said it is useful
for Trustees to serve as representatives on the Foundation board.
Freeman in at 5:20 pm.
Gelman out at 5:49 pm.
FY16 Operating Budget. No changes to staffing levels have been requested. Craig made few
recommended increases. Significant increases were requested to cover additional costs for the
growing Summer Reading Program and a small capital request to fix the doors on the first floor, and
a 1% increase for materials. Basically, a hold the line budget. A motion to approve the FY16
operating budget as presented was made by Freeman and seconded by Baker. Motion carried 7/0.
Baker asked if budgeting in the MUNIS system is better this year than it was last year. "There's light
at the end of the tunnel," said Craig. A document included in the Board packet entitled Iowa City
Tax Allocation to Four Departments FY1999-FY2015 underscored that City priorities for the last 20
years have been public safety
Local Option Sales Tax. Board discussed endorsing the local option sales tax (LOST). The City
Finance Director, Dennis Bockenstedt, made a presentation to the Board last month after which this
item was put on the agenda for October. Semel asked how the LOST will benefit the library. Craig
said all entities like the library that rely on property taxes will "benefit" from LOST because property
tax relief is identified as one of the ways in which the LOST will be used. Local option sales tax
income will help fill the property tax gap that is anticipated due to changes in state law. This
indirectly affects the library in a positive way in response to a question from Hamilton. Semel asked
2
if it would be detrimental to our relationship with the City if the Library Board did not endorse the
local option sales tax. A motion to endorse the local option sales tax was made by Freeman and
seconded by Hamilton. Motion carried 7/0.
Unfinished Business. None.
Staff Reports.
Director's Report. Channel 10 will become Channel 20 on October 29, 2014. The City's 175th birthday
is upon us, and we will be supporting and participating in these activities.
Departmental Reports.
Children's Services. No comments.
Collection Services. No comments.
IT. No comments.
Development Office. Paetzold asked about the Noon Lions Club and eye exams. McCarthy said the
Lions come in once a month and use an expensive camera that takes highly detailed images of
children's eyes. The photos are analyzed by physicians at UIHC. The partnership has screened 300
children so far in nearly every preschool and daycare center. The group is working with the State of
Iowa to have this screening qualify for the mandatory vision test required to attend school.
McCarthy said the percentage of children with eye problems detected at libraries is greater than
children identified in institutional settings. Rich -Chappell asked about the Family fundraiser event
mentioned at the last meeting. McCarthy said it is still in the planning stages but the library will be
closed, there will be reading, activities, and snacks and the opportunity to interact with other library
families. The cutoff is 12/5/14 to donate arts and crafts for the Craft Bazaar. There will be a
crafternoon on Sunday from 12-6 at the library for people who'd like to work on their bazaar
projects.
Miscellaneous. No comments.
Spotlight on the Collection. No comments.
President's Report. Paetzold asked members to suggest topics of interest they would like to
discuss/learn about at future meetings. She asked how other Boards use their public input time to
effectively allow public participation and at the same time have the Board get something from these
interactions. Semel would like a session about The Library Channel and other ways we get the
library's message out.
Announcements from Members. None.
Committee Reports.
Foundation Members. None. Next meeting is November 5.
Communications. None.
Quarterly Financial Reports. No comments.
Quarterly Use Reports. A few observations: the number of people into the building is up because
our new counters are more accurate. Circulation is down but not as much as last year. Number of in-
house teen programs is up 97.9%; last year we didn't have a teen space.
Financial Reports. No discussion.
Disbursements.
The MasterCard expenditures for September, 2014 were reviewed. A motion to approve the
disbursements for September 2014 was made by Rich -Chappell and seconded by McCray. Motion
carried 7/0.
Set Agenda Order for October Meeting.
Policy reviews.
Meeting is November 20, 2014.
Adjournment. A motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Hamilton, and seconded by McCray.
Motion carried 7/0. President Paetzold closed the meeting at 6:30 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Elyse Miller
4
Board or Commission: ICPL Board of Trustees
ATTENDANCE RECORD
12 Month
KEY:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
Meeting :Date
Name'
Terre.
Ex iration
12/18/13
1/28/14;
2/27/14 ,
3/27/14
4/24/14
5/22/14
6/26/14
7/24/14
8/28/14 j
9/25/14
10!16/14
11/20/14
Diane Baker
6/30/19
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
Thomas Dean
6/30/15
X
O/E
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
Mark Edwards
6/30/15
O
Resigned
Janet Freeman
6/30/19
O/E
O/E
X
X
FX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
David Hamilton
6/30/15
Not on Board
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Tom Martin
6/30/17
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
Linzee Kull
McCra
6/30/15
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Robin Paetzold
6/30/17
X
X
O/E
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
Meredith
Rich -Chappell
6/30/17
X
X
x
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
O/E
X
X
Semel, Jay
6/30/19
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
KEY:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
12-02-
3b(9)
MINUTES APPROVED
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 16, 2014 — 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
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Sara Greenwood-Hektoen, Karen Howard
OTHERS PRESENT: Duane Musser; Ted Pacha; Kevin Digmannn; Alicia Trimble; Loren
Ingells; Lisa Roberts; Russell Gamin
1;19�0VAJi14 LIN
The Commission voted 6-1 (Eastham voting no) to recommend approval of an application
submitted by Build To Suit for a rezoning of 39.6 acres of property from Interim Development
Single Family Residential (ID -RS) zone to Low Density Single -Family (RS -5) zone for 32.34 -
acres and to Low Density Multi -Family (RM -12) zone for 7.26 -acres located at 4701 Herbert
Hoover Highway subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement specifying:
1. The owner/developer will be responsible for providing sanitary sewer and water service
to this property.
2. The owner/developer will provide a pedestrian access route to the city sidewalk system
at the time of development.
3. Development of the RM -12 zone will be in substantial compliance with the concept
plan showing townhouse style multi -family buildings with driveway access from a rear
lane.
4. Approval of a development plan, including a landscaping plan, exterior building
designs, and site plan by the Design Review Committee to ensure Comprehensive
Plan policies regarding compatibility with lower density residential properties and
appropriate development appearance for an entranceway to the city, will be required
prior to approval of a building permit. (REZ14-00015)
The Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of an application submitted by Noah Kemp
for a rezoning of approximately .39 acres of property at 708 S. Riverside Drive from Community
Commercial (CC -2) zone to Riverfront Crossings—West Riverfront (RFC -WR) zone and a
vacation of approximately 4665 square feet of the Old West Benton Street right-of-way. (REZ14-
00018/VAC 14-00002)
The Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval SUB14-00017, an application submitted by
Carter Holdings, LLC for a preliminary plat of Carter Estate, a two -lot with one outlot residential
subdivision located east of Camp Cardinal Road and north of Eagle Place. (SUB14-00017)
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 16, 2014 - Formal
Page 2 of 18
•► reMITTO 11*7104100*1► a 1:_ MT -
There were none.
REZONING ITEMS:
REZ14-00015
Discussion of an application submitted by Build To Suit for a rezoning of 39.6 acres of property
from Interim Development Single Family Residential (ID -RS) zone to Low Density Single -Family
(RS -5) zone for 32.34 -acres and to Low Density Multi -Family (RM -12) zone for 7.26 -acres
located at 4701 Herbert Hoover Highway.
Miklo showed images and location maps of the area. The property was annexed into the city
earlier in the year and zoned Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID -RS), a zoning
that is given to properties that do not have full access to city infrastructure and services. The
applicant is now proposing to zone the northern part Low Density Multifamily Residential
(RM -12) and the southern part Low Density Single Family Residential (RS -5). The applicant
does have a plan to provide sanitary and sewer and water services to this property. The
purpose of the Interim Development Zone (ID) is to provide for areas of managed growth in
which agricultural and other non -urban uses of land may continue until such time as the City is
able to provide City services and urban development can occur. The Interim Development
Zone is the default zoning district, to which all undeveloped areas should be classified until City
services are provided. Upon provision of City services, the City or the property owner may
initiate rezoning to zones consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended.
The applicant proposes to provide sanitary sewer service by installing a sanitary sewer line in
the right-of-way in Herbert Hoover Highway, and a lift station near the southeast corner of the
property to pump sewage to an existing gravity flow sewer line located in Olde Towne Village
approximately 2,500 feet to the west of this property. A water line would also be installed in the
County right-of-way. There is a possibility that in the future the applicant may obtain an
easement to allow sanitary sewer to gravity flow across the Miller property located to the south
east to connect to the trunk located in Stonebridge Estates south of Lower West Branch Road.
The proposed RM -12 zoning would allow for high density single family or low density multi-
family development. Each dwelling unit is required to have 2700 and 25 sq. ft. per unit or
roughly 15 units per acre. Staff does believe that this is in compliance with the comprehensive
plan and the northeast district plan which shows a mix of single family, townhouse and small
multi -family in this general vicinity of the concept plan. The district plan does show a street on
the north side of the St. Patrick's property and shows for some additional townhouses along that
street. The applicant's proposal would replace that street with one further to the north and
therefore would not have the townhouses which were based on having a single loaded street.
The RS -5 zone complies with the comprehensive zoning plan. Which allows for lower density
development in the interior of the development. The comprehensive plan requires the inclusion
of open space or natural areas into the design of subdivisions. The plan also encourages the
use of alleys or rear lanes for higher density areas which this proposed design does include for
the townhouses and smaller single family units.
In terms of traffic, the metropolitan transportation organization planners did look at the proposed
plan and have determined that Herbert Hoover Hwy does have the capacity to handle the traffic
from this development. In the long term it will need to be improved to city standards as required
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 16, 2014 - Formal
Page 3 of 18
by subdivision regulations and the developer would be required to contribute to the cost of those
improvements at the time of final platting.
There are a couple of comments about the concept plan and staff is recommending that the
multi -family zoning be tied to this concept plan that if there were any significant changes they
would have to come back to the P&Z Commission and City Council for alteration of concept.
Staff would not tie the single family part of the plan to the concept plan, it does need a little more
work and does not quite comply with the subdivision regulations in terms of block length in a few
locations and generally there is more flexibility in how single family subdivisions are laid out so
Staff doesn't see the need to tie it to this zoning.
Staff recommends approval of REZ14-00015, a proposal to rezone approximately 39.6 acres of
property located south of Herbert Hoover Highway from Interim Development Single Family
Residential (ID -RS) to Low Density Single Family Residential (RS -5) for 32.34 acres and Low
Density Multifamily (RM -12) for 7.26 acres, subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement stipulating:
1. The owner/developer will be responsible for providing sanitary sewer and water service
to this property.
2. The owner/developer will provide a pedestrian access route to the city sidewalk system
at the time of development.
3. Development of the RM -12 zone will be in substantial compliance with the concept
plan showing townhouse style multi -family buildings with driveway access from a rear
lane.
4. Approval of a development plan, including a landscaping plan, exterior building
designs, and site plan by the Design Review Committee to ensure Comprehensive
Plan policies regarding compatibility with lower density residential properties and
appropriate development appearance for an entranceway to the city, will be required
prior to approval of a building permit.
Freerks asked if the particular layout could be altered and Miklo answered that the multi -family
part of the plan would be tied to general conformance with the concept plan, but the single
family area would not have to be tied to the concept plan.
Eastham asked if it would be possible to do a more grid like street design. Miklo stated there
could be one however the current design does have a grid -like pattern and one of the
requirements of all subdivisions is street access to adjacent properties. He said when this is
platted additional street connections will be required and he showed on the map where the
additional streets would need to be placed.
Eastham asked about the comprehensive plan requirements about neighborhood park space
being within three to four blocks of every residence and asked if the space in the center of this
concept is considered green space. Miklo stated that the space between the lots near the
center is not public space, it would be private open space maintained by the homeowners
association and that does follow the intent of the comprehensive plan of creating open spaces in
every subdivision.
Eastham asked if the homeowners association could install a playground on this green space
and Miklo confirmed that yes, the homeowners association could do with the space as they
wish.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 16, 2014 - Formal
Page 4 of 18
Eastham counts a ratio of about 1/3 townhomes to 2/3 single family dwellings and that seems
heavily weighted to single family detached, and questioned if the staff looks at requiring
apartment buildings as part of the development along Herbert Hoover Hwy. Miklo showed that
the buildings along the highway are small 4 -unit apartment buildings and if you look at the
language of the comprehensive plan, the staff feels the plan stresses not concentrating multi-
family in any one area making this scale appropriate for the neighborhood, and a good mix of
housing.
Thomas asked about the lift station and if the applicant would pay for the installation and the city
is responsible for the operation and maintenance of the lift station. Miklo confirmed that in the
long term that is correct. Thomas asked if there were many lift stations in Iowa City and Miklo
replied that it is something the City tries to avoid, but due to topography there are a few lift
stations throughout the City.
Freerks opened public discussion.
Duane Musser (MMS Consultants) came forward representing the applicant Build to Suit.
Freerks stated that part of the comprehensive plan compliance states separating sensitive
features and questioned the area in the northwest where there is currently a home and large
trees and shared concern about preservation of trees in the area. Musser replied that they
would try to grade around all the trees possible and pointed out that the intent of the open space
in the middle of the development is to preserve as many of the trees in the waterway as
possible. Freerks restated concerned about the trees up in the northwest corner and the
intentions of the developer for those trees as the current plan shows all those trees to be
graded. Musser stated with the multi -family houses along Herbert Hoover Hwy it would be
impossible to avoid grading those trees, however there are some single family homes on the
concept plan that have been changed to accommodate leaving some of the trees. Musser also
stated that they are tied to where the access road to the development can be due to the
intersection with Hanks Drive, so some of the trees cannot be saved.
Eastham asked about the area shown on the plan as outlots, and asked if all that outlot area is
required as result of some sensitive feature. Musser replied that no, there might be some steep
slopes, but no sensitive areas.
Freerks asked if there would be an evaluation of the sensitive areas once the development
begins construction to reassess the sensitive areas and Musser confirmed that yes it would be
re-evaluated during platting and construction.
Eastham asked if part of the area now shown as an outlot be developed and that northwest
corner which does have some magnificent trees be persevered as a local park. Musser felt the
outlot would likely not be developed because it was a low area and part of the waterway, but
again could not confirm how much of the northwest tree area that could be preserved due to the
roadways. Additionally Musser is unsure if the Parks & Recreation Department would want any
public park area in the development.
Eastham asked why one or two apartment buildings were not part of this plan, Musser stated it
was looked at in earlier concepts, however staff did not feel a larger scale building fit into the
area, so the applicant chose to go with townhomes in the area instead. The earlier concept had
looked at possible 16 unit buildings with underground parking. Also in the current concept there
are some zero -lot properties to add to the mix of townhomes and small single family dwellings.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 16, 2014 - Formal
Page 5 of 18
Thomas asked if the single family was planned for RS -5, and Musser confirmed. Thomas asked
if there were discussion of RS -8 or higher single family and Musser stated there was no
discussion.
Miklo added that the comprehensive plan encourages diversity in housing with townhouses and
small apartment buildings located at major intersections, near commercial areas ( there is no
commercial in this development) and adjacent to parks and open spaces. Apartment houses
are intended to be small in scale and size to fit compatibly with nearby residences and that is
what staff used in their guide in terms of this concept. As noted in the staff report several of the
corner lots are designed for zero lot lines so staff felt that added to the variety scattered
attached housing throughout the neighborhood in compliance with the policies of the
comprehensive plan.
Freerks closed public discussion.
Thomas moved to approve REZ14-00015, a proposal to rezone approximately 39.6 acres of
property located south of Herbert Hoover Highway from Interim Development Single Family
Residential (ID -RS) to Low Density Single Family Residential (RS -5) for 32.34 acres and Low
Density Multifamily (RM -12) for 7.26 acres, subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement stipulating:
1. The owner/developer will be responsible for providing sanitary sewer and water
service to this property.
2. The owner/developer will provide a pedestrian access route to the city sidewalk
system at the time of development.
3. Development of the RM -12 zone will be in substantial compliance with the concept
plan showing townhouse style multi -family buildings with driveway access from a rear
lane.
4. Approval of a development plan, including a landscaping plan, exterior building
designs, and site plan by the Design Review Committee to ensure Comprehensive
Plan policies regarding compatibility with lower density residential properties and
appropriate development appearance for an entranceway to the city, will be required
prior to approval of a building permit.
Swygard seconded the motion.
Freerks stated the annexation of this property was discussed a few months ago, and likes the
idea of the small multi -family, townhouse -like buildings and feels the development is not
unbalanced with others in the area. Freerks shared concern about the integration of the
sensitive features, and would like to see thought put into place to maintain the sensitive features
as this application moves forward. Overall feels this will be a nice addition to the community.
Martin stated disappointment in not being able to keep more of the trees especially in the
proximity to the multi -family housing because it would be nice to have some of the open space
and some of the existing trees be connected to that area.
Thomas stated he liked being explicit with the townhouse concept and how the density is set
and thinks townhouses in this area are a good idea. Thomas stated he would prefer the
gradient be RS -5, RS -8 or RS -12 and multi -family and would love to see the City discuss the
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 16, 2014 - Formal
Page 6 of 18
issue of traditional neighborhood design and a form based approach to residential
developments so there could be more flexibility in terms of how the density is allocated and
possibly open up opportunities to transfer some of the development to conserve some natural
features.
Swygard agreed that there is a lot that can be done with flexibility in some of these
neighborhoods that would develop them in a more desirable way but this does comply with the
comprehensive plan as far as the size and scale of the buildings.
Eastman voiced his concerns about the number of townhomes as part of the zoning plan,
although he feels this is a favorable development. Eastman did say he doesn't feel the area
zoned for RM -12 townhome or small apartment buildings is quite large enough. There is nearly
40 acres here and only about 7 '/2 are zoned for multi -family. Eastman also stated the
development is in the Lemme School area and has FRL ratios that are in the 20% range which
is below the district average. There is a provision in the comprehensive plan about income
balance and apartment buildings, even units sold in apartment complexes, are lower priced than
townhomes or single family dwellings. Eastman feels the comprehensive plan could be
interpreted as more in favor of smaller apartment buildings. The other issue is that an additional
east/west street would make this more of a grid favorable neighborhood.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-1 (Eastham voted no).
REZ14-00019
Discussion of an application submitted by Hodge Construction for a rezoning of
approximately 2.3 acres of land in the 600 block of S. Dubuque Street and the 200 block of
Prentiss Street from Community Commercial (CC -2) zone and Intensive Commercial (CI -1)
Zone to Riverfront Crossings — Central Crossings (RFC -CX) zone.
Howard showed a map of the area and stated that the area to be rezoned is almost an entire
city block with the exception of one property located on the alley. The properties that front on
Dubuque Street are currently zoned Community Commercial (CC -2) and the properties that
abut Ralston Creek and front on Prentiss Street are zoned Intensive Commercial (CI -1).
The existing buildings along South Dubuque Street include a small mixed-use building
containing commercial space and three apartments, a single family house, three 19th
century stone cottages, and a small strip commercial building. All buildings are currently
occupied. The properties zoned CI -1 that front on Prentiss Street contain quasi -industrial
buildings that contain a wholesale distributor of plumbing supplies.
The subject property falls within the Central Crossings Subdistrict of the Riverfront
Crossings District and, therefore, the recently adopted form -based zoning code for Riverfront
Crossings will apply if the property is rezoned. The applicant has not indicated their plans
for redevelopment of the properties.
The applicant held a "good neighbor" meeting on October 8, 2014.
Current and proposed zoning: The Community Commercial Zone (CC -2) is intended for
major retail commercial areas that serve a significant segment of the community
population. The maximum building height in the CC -2 Zone is 35 feet. The zone is primarily
a commercial zone, but allows upper floor residential uses at a density of approximately 15
units per acre by special exception. Since the area zoned CC -2 is approximately 1 acre, the
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 16, 2014 - Formal
Page 7 of 18
current zoning would allow up to 15 dwelling units. Minimal parking and building setbacks
apply, but in this zone parking may be placed between buildings and the street.
Unlike the Riverfront Crossings form-based code, a special exception is needed to develop
residential in the CC-2 Zone. The CC-2 zone is used in many of the City's outlying commercial
areas. There are not any form based standards to indicate where parking or buildings should be
located in relation to the street.
The Intensive Commercial (CI-1) Zone is intended to provide areas for those sales and
service functions and businesses whose operations are typically
characterized by I a n d intensive commercial uses that have outdoor storage or work
area components, back office functions and wholesale sales businesses that do not require
the prime location and visibility necessary for retail commercial uses, and commercial uses
with quasi-industrial aspects. Due to the potential for externalities such as noise, dust, and
odors from the allowed uses in this zone, residential uses are not allowed in this zone.
The Riverfront Crossings form-based zoning for the Central Crossings subdistrict (RFC-CX)
would be a significant upzoning. The RFC-CX zone allows for a broad mix of commercial and
residential uses, similar to uses allowed in the Central Business Zones. Unlike the CC-2 and
CI-1 Zones, the Riverfront Crossings code allows for a variety of building types (Townhouse,
Multi-Dwelling, Live- Work Townhouses, Commercial, Mixed-Use, and Liner buildings).
Commercial uses are allowed, but not required on the ground-level floor of buildings.
Buildings must be located close to and oriented toward the street with entries opening onto
an improved streetscape designed to provide a comfortable and attractive environment for
pedestrians.
The maximum building height in the Central Crossings subdistrict is four stories. Parking
must be located behind or within buildings and screened from the sidewalk and the street.
Residential density is limited only by building height standards and parking requirements,
so a rezoning from CC-2 and CI-1 to RFC-CX could yield a considerable number of
residential dwelling units as well as space for commercial uses. The rezoning would have
the potential to yield conservatively five times the residential density that the current zoning
would allow due to the lower parking requirements in the RFC-CX zone and the absence of
a maximum residential density standard. Up to four additional stories may be granted
through the bonus provisions, one of which would allow additional height through a
transfer of development rights if the existing historic buildings were proposed for preservation.
The Riverfront Crossings code will require compliance with the 30-foot minimum setback from
Ralston Creek and will require a "Ralston Creek Frontage" as specified in the form-based
code for any new buildings constructed on the properties that abut the creek. This means
that the area between the creek and the buildings must be configured as a 30 foot-wide
pedestrian street. The lower portion of the block is within the floodplain of Ralston Creek, so any
residential space must be elevated, making this an appropriate location for residential buildings
types with lower level parking that is built to be flood resilient.
The Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan was adopted in January 2013 as an
integral part of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The subject property is located in the Central
Crossings Subdistrict of Riverfront Crossings. The plan highlights some of the defining features
of this subdistrict, including the two rail lines, the historic Rock Is!and Rail Depot, and Ralston
Creek. In the long term future the rail lines may provide opportunities for passenger service,
both r e g i o n a l and local.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 16, 2014 - Formal
Page 8 of 18
The Riverfront Crossings Master Plan specifically calls out this block for special attention due to
its location along Ralston Creek, as noted above, and because of a unique cluster of mid -19th
century cottages located along the property's Dubuque Street frontage.
To be consistent with the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan, staff feels that a concept should be
developed to address the unique features highlighted in the Riverfront Crossings Plan for this
particular block. The applicant hasn't submitted a concept plan showing how they would
redevelop the properties. Therefore, staff is recommending this rezoning request be deferred
until the applicant indicates how they intend to develop the site in compliance with the
comprehensive plan. It should be noted that the cottages are not designated as historic
landmarks at this point in time although the University of Iowa will be hiring a consultant to
complete an historic survey of the buildings in the area as partial mitigation for the upcoming
demolition of the former Sabin Elementary School building.
The streets and public alley are already in place in this block that will provide for adequate traffic
circulation if redevelopment of the subject properties were to occur according to the proposed
zoning and the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan.
Staff recommends deferral of REZ14-00019, a proposal to rezone approximately 2.3 acres of
property located within the 600 block of South Dubuque Street and the 200 block of Prentiss
Street from Community Commercial (CC -2) and Intensive Commercial (CI -1) to Riverfront
Crossing -Central Crossings (RFC -CX), until the applicant has developed a concept plan for how
the property would be redeveloped in a manner consistent with the Riverfront Crossings Master
Plan.
Eastham asked what time frame staff had in mind for the deferral and Howard answered that it
was up to applicant, as they should be given the opportunity to indicate how they will develop
the property in a manner that is consistent with the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan.
Freerks noted that the application does seem odd that there is not anything substantial
submitted with the application upon which to base the rezoning, and more clarification is
needed.
Eastham ask for confirmation that the staff recommendation is to not change the zoning at this
time, and Howard confirmed the deferral is until the applicant shares what the concept is for the
property and how the redevelopment of this property would be in compliance with the
comprehensive plan.
Freerks opened public hearing.
Ted Pacha (4848 480th Street SE), owner of the property, explained that he has owned the
property for roughly 30 years. He is surprised by the deferral recommendation. He said that
due to health issues, he feels he needs to do something with the property. If he were to keep
the zoning and property as is, which he has been informed by many that is not best for the City,
and does not fit into the Riverfront Crossing plan and he has affidavits stating the problems with
the cottages being in disarray. Pacha has had the property appraised, and is paying roughly
$30,000 in property taxes per year on the buildings that are currently there and with the
rezoning the possibilities could be up to $300,000 in property tax revenue to the City depending
on how the property is developed. Pacha approached the Hodge Group for their assistance in
the process of rezoning since they have been through this process many times. Pacha said he
is surprised that now there is a request for a concept plan. The application does state it will
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 16, 2014 - Formal
Page 9 of 18
follow the master plan of the Riverfront Crossings, but at this time no one has purchased the
property so the Hodge Group should not have to go to the expense of drawing up development
plans. Pacha would just like to know if it can be rezoned, as it appears it can based on the
Riverfront Crossing plan and documents he has seen from the City in the past few years.
Pacha met with the City a few months ago to ask for guidance on how to go about this process,
and have two options, leave it as is and not do anything or rezone the property and see it
developed into what the City sees fit for that area.
Pacha stated he would like to address the cottages on the property as they are in terrible shape,
structurally poor, foundations are cracking and walls unstable, and as of last summer was not in
compliance with current housing codes. So one option would be to demolish the buildings due
to their safety issues and that is why this proposal for rezoning has come forward. Once the
rezoning is approved, then the Hodge Group can spend the money to create a concept plan for
the area. Additionally the creek has been a menace to the properties, and having a sidewalk
along the creek is not feasible in the present state of the property. Pacha intends to sell the
property as one sale, not two distinct properties, so the creek, sidewalk, and all buildings will be
included in the one sale. The developers that Pacha has spoken with agree that is the best way
to proceed.
Kevin Digmann, applicant with Hodge Construction, showed the aerial site plan and talked
through the property features. The building on the far east side, the large oversized building,
was included in the rezoning because it was Pacha's property, but the current occupants have a
long-term lease and that portion of the property will not be developed for years. Therefore the
focus is on the lots that front on Dubuque Street. There is a steep slope on the backside of
these lots that cause some challenges to develop on that lot other than doing some
underground parking perhaps. Digmann wants to clarify some of what Howard meant with the
upzoning of the property, Hodge Group has shared some preliminary design concepts with the
City, however there is not a final concept. The goal is to use the form based concept that was
put in place in June that is to be followed. This application is not requesting deviation from that
plan. In August the City sent out notice of all the property they were rezoning downtown, Hodge
has some property in that area and were not asked to submit a plan before that rezoning could
take place.
Digmann also wanted to discuss the high density, the zones being redone are CB -5 and PRM
which are 4-5 story buildings. Additionally there will be plans for the old St. Patrick's lot to hold
a building that could possibility be 10-12 stories. This shows a lot of upzoning happening in the
downtown area with no one submitting concept plans and that is all this application is also trying
to achieve. Once zoning is approved, then they can spend their money on a design concept
that will work for the area and the correct zoning, prepare for a building permit request, and
conform with the City standards.
Freerks stated that the Commission is not asking for full plans but just a concept plan. At this
point the Commission does not have enough information to base a decision of rezoning on, and
all other applications that have come forward did include a concept plan that ties into how the
entire Riverfront Crossing plan will be. The property in question is two acres which is a full city
block so it's very important to see how this will integrate with everything else that will be in the
area.
Digmann stated he did question why the City did not include the Pacha parcel as part of the
City's other downtown rezoning application and was told it was too late to be included, and that
they should seek rezoning on their own. Digmann is asking for clarification on why those areas
can be rezoned without a concept plan, but the Pacha parcel cannot.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 16, 2014 - Formal
Page 10 of 18
Howard stated they were directed by the City Council to start some of the rezoning of Riverfront
Crossing with the south downtown area. In that area, much of the zoning is central business
zoning already and a lot of the properties have already been redeveloped. The City did
examine the properties in that area and chose to leave out one of the properties from the South
Downtown blanket rezoning because there were unique aspects to that property and a need for
a new street extension. Since the owner did not have a concept on how it would be developed
and how the new street extension would affect that block, the City left that block out of the
rezoning. There was consideration of the properties that were rezoned by the City to make sure
they followed the master plan and checked if there were anything specific or unique that they
needed to be concerned about and felt that area was a good area to start with for rezoning to
the Riverfront Crossings zone. In this particular case, the applicant is correct the City wants this
area to redevelop according to the Riverfront Crossings Plan and to the Riverfront Crossings
code. However, in this particular case the plan calls out this particular block for a number of
reasons as being particularly unique. So that is the reason the staff feels that there should be a
concept plan presented that shows how the property will be redeveloped to comply with the
master plan.
Hektoen stated that additional information is necessary to determine if it complies with the
Comprehensive Plan because of the features that Howard has highlighted.
Eastham asked for clarification from Digmann on what is the front and back of the lot. Digmann
stated that the street would be the front because the alley and the drop-off in the back, the
property lends itself for a rear entrance, underground parking.
Freerks stated that a concept plan would be fair.
Swygard questioned Digmann about the staff report stating that a good neighbor meeting was
held, and asked for details regarding that meeting.
Digmann stated there were 8-10 in attendance, mostly just curious what was going on, not with
objections.
Alicia Trimble (2232 California Avenue) is the director of the Board for Friends of Historic
Preservation, and here tonight on behalf of the Board to ask that this request be deferred until
there is a plan for this area and to underscore the importance of the cottages on Dubuque
Street. The City Council has recognized for some time that these are important features of Iowa
City history and architecture as they have been on the last three plans for this area just like the
Tate Arms had been which was recently made a local landmark. The architecture is both
significant and unique to Iowa City and looks to date from the late 1850's and early 1860's.
They are further unique because they are some of the few remaining vestiges of the near south
side as Sabin school will soon be gone. These are some of the few working class cottages left
in Iowa City and certainly the last in that area. They do appear to be from the time around the
Civil War which is extremely old for buildings in Iowa City especially free standing non -
institutional buildings. Most housing from that time, if it does still exist, was incorporated into a
large house built over it. These buildings also represent a class we don't have historically
represented in Iowa City, the working class has very few buildings left. People who lived in this
area tended to be teamsters related to the railroad, some were carpenters, some were bellboys,
but their known history is limited among the history of Iowa City and these are important
representations of how people during that time lived. Trimble also pointed out there is
significant financial incentives for saving historic buildings through tax credits and other means.
Friends of Historic Preservation would like to encourage the City that when redevelopment
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 16, 2014 - Formal
Page 11 of 18
occurs and if the cottages are saved, that the density and parking bonuses be granted to the
applicant similar to what happened with the Tate Arms. Trimble restated the request that this
application be deferred until everyone has a chance to see a plan of what will happen to that
area.
Loren Inaells (535 E Davenport St) came forward to speak about a couple topics. First the
overall view of the river development in that these are very important channeling streets that will
be coming into the development and part of a larger neighborhood that still has some remnants
that reflect the history of the area. The cottages are important remnants of that but also the
house next to it and the one on the corner. There were hotels that were related to the railroad,
and the depot making the area a cultural district with cultural resources that are not only a
district but individually significant cultural resources. These buildings are unique to the south
side and a remnant of a way of living and show the railroads importance to that side of town.
Second, Ingells would like to speak to the idea of preservation rather than demolition. It is very
simple when someone wants to develop a property the first thing they think about is removal,
however there are a lot of ways to approach preservation of properties, and these buildings are
easily salvageable. Just because they don't look great right now doesn't mean they aren't
important and significant and can't be restored. With tax incentives and various other
incentives, he thinks there is potential for saving these buildings as an entryway to a new
development and as a cultural resource that will retain the unique character of the area. A
deeper look would reveal the potential for these buildings and will shape what that streetscape
and the cultural significance of the south side in the future.
Pacha stated that in 30 years of owning those buildings he had never heard the City say they
liked those buildings but the bottom line is engineers have stated those building could not
withstand construction. However Pacha had no idea the cottages were of significance and
would like it on the record that if the City would like those three buildings or the historic
preservation people want them, they are free for the taking and can be moved from the
property.
Freerks closed public hearing.
Eastham moved that the Commission defer consideration of this item until the next meeting.
Freerks stated that there may not be any more information presented by the next meeting.
Miklo stated the 45 day period would be up the day after the next scheduled meeting unless the
applicant consents to a longer deferral.
Thomas seconded the motion to defer consideration of this item unit the next meeting.
Eastham stated he was puzzled and is moving to deferring this application because he wants
clarification of what the Commission is being asked to do other than the rezoning of the property
if these properties are subject to the form based code. What does the Commission need to do
to ensure the development is consistent with the Riverfront Crossings master plan? And if
those consistencies can be described in three, four, or five conditional zoning agreement
provisions. That would seem to be the way to proceed, to describe what needs to be done in
addition to what is required in the form based code to comply with the master plan and then the
applicant can have his rezoning so he can move forward.
Freerks stated that the Commission has consistently asked for specifics because of the
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 16, 2014 - Formal
Page 12 of 18
importance placed especially on areas, corners, and large lots such as this. At this time,
Freerks doesn't feel there is enough information to show if it complies with the comprehensive
plan because of how the form based code is laid out until the Commission can review
something more substantial and therefore will not vote in favor of the rezoning based on four or
five provisional notes that might be placed on the agreement. Freerks did state it is key to see
what can be done in this area, they need to see a concept plan, and that is in the best interest of
the community and the City. The best results are always when the owners and the community
come together to see what is possible, what can be done. Freerks stated that Hodge has done
some great projects where they have restored buildings, so there are many possibilities. There
can be up to four additional floors, there are tax credits, and would urge the applicant to look
into the possibilities for the community and the applicant before taking out demolition permits.
Martin stated confusion due to the City wanting to see more areas zoned Riverfront Crossing.
She understands when it is discussed to tie things into that zoning, but does not understand
why it would behoove the Commission to not zone this property as Riverfront Crossing before
there is a concept plan.
Howard stated it would be beneficial to know more information from the applicant about what
the intentions are with regards to complying with the comprehensive plan, and how it relates to
those historic structures and Ralston Creek as this block was called out specifically in the
master plan for those unique features.
Freerks stated those were goals set aside in the comprehensive plan specifically about this lot
so to ignore that and to allow anything to happen at this time, and to grant a bonus or benefit to
the applicant and allow the rezoning without a concept plan, the Commission will not see a
concept plan for the area. This is the time they need to see the plan and take it into
consideration because they were called out specifically in the plan as goals.
Howard added that in the absence of easy conditions to place on this property staff felt they
should give the applicant a chance to identify their thoughts on how they want to develop the
property but have not received anything from them. For example the rezoning approved on the
west riverfront subdistrict of Riverfront Crossings there were specific and easily quantified
conditions that could be placed on the rezoning to comply with the master plan. We knew we
needed more space along Riverside Drive for the kind of pedestrian improvements we planned
for that area, so a condition was placed on the rezoning that the applicant had to dedicate 10
feet of land along the frontage of the property to widen the pedestrian parkway. That was an
easy condition we could put on the zoning at the time, although concept plans were submitted
for that property as well. That was the one condition that was called out in the comprehensive
plan that wouldn't have been something that the code would have been able to achieve with just
the code. That is the issue, when you go through a rezoning property that is your opportunity to
look at the uniqueness of each individual site to say is there something special about this that
needs to be taken into consideration based on the comprehensive plan vs. just with the zoning
rules. The zoning sets rules that apply across the board to lots of different properties. In this
situation because staff had not heard from the applicants what their concepts were, we could
not determine whether future development would be consistent with the master plan or develop
conditions to ensure that it would.
Freerks stated the Commission needs to give the applicant the opportunity to state the direction
they would like to go.
Eastham referred to the application the Commission recommended to rezone to Riverfront
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 16, 2014 - Formal
Page 13 of 18
Crossings designation on Riverside Drive, stating the applicant presented a concept plan for
that site, including a building on the site, and the Commission recognized it was a meaningless
submission as they would be required to develop that property in compliance with the form
based code.
Miklo stated the concept plan did show compliance with the master plan and the form based
code.
Eastham stated with this application there seems to be a concern with the three buildings and
their potential historic designation which he would support a conditional zoning provision that
includes that possibility as well as something about Ralston Creek improvements. With those
provisions the applicant could then proceed with development. In his opinion to approve the
rezoning sends a message that the Riverfront Crossing and form based code do not give
enough information to allow for development opportunities to developers.
Thomas supports staff recommendation and believes these are special conditions and doesn't
believe there are many in the Riverfront Crossings area, and therefore is concerned that special
conditions are given consideration. The Riverfront Crossings area, in terms of historic area,
there is not much there, so there can be made a strong case to try preserve that they can
provide incentives to try to encourage that approach and as staff also said there is significant
changes with this rezoning so he feels it makes sense to see a concept plan.
A vote was taken and the motion to defer this application to the next meeting was carried 7-0.
Rezoning / Vacation Item
R EZ 14-00018/VAC 14-00002
Discussion of an application submitted by Noah Kemp for a rezoning of approximately .39
acres of property at 708 S. Riverside Drive from Community Commercial (CC -2) zone to
Riverfront Crossings—West Riverfront (RFC -WR) zone and a vacation of approximately 4665
square feet of the Old West Benton Street right-of-way.
Howard presented the location map and handed out the concept plan developed by the
applicant, indicating how the property would be redeveloped. The property is currently zoned
Community Commercial (CC -2) and is located at the northeast corner of Benton Street and
Riverside Drive. The site was formerly home to Professional Muffler until it was destroyed in
the tornado of 2006. At the time, the owner, Noah Kemp, intended to rebuild his business
on the site. In order to construct a new building and provide adequate parking in
compliance with the zoning code, Mr. Kemp acquired a portion of the Old Benton Street
right-of-way and a portion of the parking area at Ned Ashton Park from the City. The City
retained a 24 -foot wide right-of-way ( Old West Benton Street) in order to access the park
and a small parking area at the trailhead. The right- of -way is also used by the adjacent
property, Linder Tire, for access to their property.
Though Mr. Kemp secured a special exception allowing him to rebuild on the site, he
decided soon after to relocate his business to a lot further to the north along Riverside Drive.
The special exception expired in 2007, and the lot has remained vacant ever since.
Mr. Kemp has an opportunity to sell the property now to a new owner who would like to relocate
a business to this property and build a new building on this site in compliance with the Riverfront
Crossings zoning.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 16, 2014 - Formal
Page 14 of 18
The Riverfront Crossings form -based zoning for the West Riverfront subdistrict allows for a
broad mix of commercial and residential uses. Unlike the CC -2 Zone, buildings must be
oriented toward the street -in the case of a comer lot, this means locating the building
toward both Benton Street and Riverside Drive. This application is asking for 10 feet of
right-of-way to enhance the pedestrian traffic along Riverside Drive, similar to the rezoning
recently approved across the street. There is plenty of right-of-way along Benton Street so
there is no need for additional right-of-way along that frontage.
There is a concept plan for the redevelopment of the site, basically it's a small commercial
building would be built to the corner and the potential builder of the property has looked at the
form based code and determine they could build a building that could be in compliance with the
form based code with some adjustments because of the small size of the property and its
location at that corner. They are amendable to dedicating that 10 ft. of right -away, the building
would front on both corners and there would be a small drive thru facility on the east side. We
do allow in the Riverfront Crossings code drive thru facilities through exceptions so they would
need to comply with those conditions.
The second request from the applicant, in order to allow this to comply with the Riverfront
Crossings plan, is a vacation of a portion of what is currently the old right-of-way of Old West
Benton Street. Howard showed photos of the driveways to this property and adjacent properties
and also provides access to a small public parking area for Ned Ashton Park and the trailhead
for the Iowa River Corridor Trail. In order to fit the parking on the site for a small commercial
building in a manner as shown in the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan we need to vacate a
portion of that right-of-way so they have enough room for the head -in parking. Staff has looked
at the vacation request and feels the Old West Benton Street right-of-way is not serving any
other purpose as far a vehicular movement or traffic circulation other than to access to those
three parcels. So as long as that vehicular access is maintained staff feels that a 22 -foot wide
public access easement would preserve access for both private properties and the
park/trailhead and allow for easier development of the applicant's property according to the
Riverfront Crossings Plan.
Howard also noted there is a sewer line that runs through the center of the property. If this
property is redeveloped that sewer line may need to be moved. There is a sewer easement
established into which the sewer line could be moved.
Staff recommends approval of REZ14-00009, a proposal to rezone approximately 21,665 square
feet of property located at the northeast corner of S. Riverside Drive and W. Benton Street from
Community Commercial (CC -2) to Riverfront Crossing -West Riverfront (RFC -WR), subject to a
Conditional Zoning Agreement requiring the applicant/owner to dedicate 10 feet of land along the
Riverside Drive frontage of the property to the City in order to widen the public right-of-way along
Riverside Drive.
Staff recommends approval of VAC14-00018, a right-of-way vacation for Old West Benton
Street right-of-way adjacent to property, subject to the following conditions:
• Rezoning of the property at 708 S. Riverside Drive to Riverfront Crossings West
Riverbank Subdistrict;
• Conveyance of the 4,665 square foot portion of ROW is concurrent with
the redevelopment of the corner property; and
• Establishment of a 22 -foot wide public access easement to preserve vehicular access
for both private properties and the park and trailhead.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 16, 2014 - Formal
Page 15 of 18
Swygard asked where the proposed curb cut on West Benton Street would be in relationship to
the current curb cut for business right across the street from it, the McDonalds.
Howard showed the aerial but stated the exact location hasn't been determined and it would
need to be approved by the city engineer based on distance from the bridge and from the
corner.
Eastham asked if it would be a right exit only onto Benton Street. Howard stated that the city
and traffic engineers have looked at the site and they have found it does need to be a right exit
only.
Miklo also pointed out that the application does require a special exception due to the proposed
drive thru and it will go before the Board of Adjustment.
Freerks opened public hearing.
No one present.
Freerks closed public hearing.
Martin moved to approve REZ14-00009, a proposal to rezone approximately 21,665 square feet
of property located at the northeast corner of S. Riverside Drive and W. Benton Street from
Community Commercial (CC -2) to Riverfront Crossings -West Riverfront (RFC -WR), subject to
a Conditional Zoning Agreement requiring the applicant/owner to dedicate 10 feet of land along
the Riverside Drive frontage of the property to the City in order to widen the public right-of-way
along Riverside Drive.
Additionally Martin moved to approve VAC14-00018, a right-of-way vacation for Old West
Benton Street right-of-way adjacent to property, subject to the following conditions:
• Rezoning of the property at 708 S. Riverside Drive to Riverfront Crossings West
Riverbank Subdistrict;
• Conveyance of the 4,665 square foot portion of ROW is concurrent with the
redevelopment of the corner property; and
• Establishment of a 22 foot public easement to preserve vehicular access for both
private properties and the park and trailhead.
Eastham seconded.
Freerks noted this lot has been vacant for almost a decade it will be nice to see something
established there.
Swygard stated this improvement will also create a view corridor to the river which is another
positive.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0.
Development Item
SUB14-00017
Discussion of an application submitted by Carter Holding, LLC for a preliminary plat of Carter
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 16, 2014 - Formal
Page 16 of 18
Estate, a 2 -lot and 1 outlot, 19.10 acre residential subdivision located east of Camp Cardinal
Road, north of Eagle Place and Meadow Lark Drive.
Hektoen recused herself as her husband is working for the developer on this subdivision.
Hektoen stated if the Commission needs legal counsel on this item, please defer until the next
meeting and another city attorney will be present to assist at that meeting.
Miklo presented the staff report. This area was set aside as an outlet for future development at
the time of the development of Cardinal Ridge Subdivision. He showed an aerial photo showing
the relationship of the outlot to the Cardinal Ridge Subdivision. It is a heavily wooded lot with a
pond and fairly steep slopes. What is proposed is a two lot subdivision that would allow two
houses to be built. The majority of the sensitive areas, the woodlands and steep slopes and
pond, would be set aside and preserved. There is a no build area identified on the subdivision
plat and a portion of that would be set aside as an outlot to be dedicated to the larger
homeowners association. The two house lots would share a common drive back to Camp
Cardinal Road. They are odd shape lots, the subdivision code discourages this however given
the sensitive areas of this plat, staff feel a justification can be made. The subdivision fees, the
open neighborhood fees and stormwater management were all addressed when the larger
subdivision was approved years ago.
Staff recommends approval of SUB14-00017; an application submitted by Carter Holdings, LLC
for a preliminary plat of Carter Estate, a two -lot with one outlot residential subdivision located
east of Camp Cardinal Road and north of Eagle Place.
Eastham asked about the emergency vehicle turnaround only for one of the houses, but not the
other. Miklo confirmed that the Fire Department review turn around and found that it will be
adequate to serve both lots.
Freerks opened public discussion.
Duane Musser, MMS Consultants representing the applicant stepped forward. There were no
questions for Musser.
Lisa Roberts (878 Kennedy Pkwy) stated her family bought their property in July and the draw
for their new home was the wooded area. She was shocked and worried when she received
notice a week ago of this new proposed subdivision as her house is one of the ones the outlot
backs up to. Roberts wants to clarify the tree lines will be protected and wants assurances that
trees will be preserved on both sides of the ravine. Additionally wants assurance that
waterways and drainage will be protected. Roberts would also like to know who owns the
property now and what are the future plans for development and whether that would infringe the
area and are more houses to be built in the area.
Russell Gamin (878 Kennedy Pkwy) asked why there was no good neighbor meeting held with
respect to this initiative.
Freerks answered that some time ago the Commission requested that the good neighbor
meetings be a requirement for rezonings rather than just a policy, but it was not passed by City
Council so it's just an option for the applicant, but not a requirement, but it is put in the staff
report so the Commission knows if it was held or not.
Miklo answered the questions on the future plans for development and showed areas on the
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 16, 2014 - Formal
Page 17 of 18
aerial plat of future developments. He showed the area that would be maintained as a private
outlot area maintained by the homeowners association and there would be no further
development other than the two houses proposed. In terms of the steep slopes and woodlands,
the vast majority would be set aside in Outlot A and even a large portion on the two buildable
lots will be set aside as a no build area.
Freerks closed public discussion.
Eastham moved to approve SUB14-00017, an application submitted by Carter Holdings, LLC
for a preliminary plat of Carter Estate, a two -lot with one outlot residential subdivision located
east of Camp Cardinal Road and north of Eagle Place.
Dyer seconded the motion.
The motion carried 7-0.
Consideration of Meeting Minutes: October 2, 2014
Swygard moved to approve the meeting minutes with corrections, Eastham seconded and the
motion carried 7-0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
Miklo reported on the success of the South District community meeting with about 80 attending.
Eastham stated that they talked about revising the exemption part of the sensitive area
ordinance.
Miklo stated that the Council has put that on the list as well and it will be reviewed sometime
next year after completion of the South District Plan.
ADJOURNMENT:
Eastham moved to adjourn.
Thomas seconded.
Motion carried 7-0.
o vml�x xlxlx x xlx
oIXIXXXXxo
coxxxxlxxx
co
SIX XIX X XIXIo
00
X xlxlx x XIX
x XlxlX x olx
z
;xxXXxxX
U)
W
Lo
O
"
NXXXXXXX
E-
E
X0000000
U)
N
E
W
�xxoxxxx
N
X
X
X
U 0
X
X
X
O CD
a) LL
,
c!)
z
U z
.c
N o
-0 CN
V-XXXXXXX
w
JW
L) LWL I w
wxxXxxxx
m�
cn
�wco0wF--LoWLo
w
?V� 2
z
X
o
J=zwQo2
0
0
0
0
0
W
•E.0
00<=
Q
N a
oQo
_Xxxxxxx
Q�Na�o�
J
Lu
O
J=
U
vi
O
a
aqLo
W 0
2
O
=
J
o
z "
�XXXXXxx
Q
XX
owLLLinHH
z
zQ
LU
w
0�
2
2
z
a
w
U.
z
U)
I-
F-
axxx
x
xxo
MIxXxXoxx
N I X x x x x x x
C:
wco(omr--
U)
W
Lo
NXXXXXXX
E-
E
X0000000
N
E
W
N
X
X
X
U 0
X
X
X
ZxxXoxxx
a) LL
,
.c
N o
-0 CN
V-XXXXXXX
w
JW
J
W
m�
cn
�wco0wF--LoWLo
zW
z
X
o
J=zwQo2
0
0
0
0
0
W
•E.0
00<=
0
ao
Q�Na�o�
J
Lu
O
J=
U
vi
O
a
OCHwi-002
2
O
=
J
>-
Q
W
Q
XX
owLLLinHH
>-
<
LU
w
0�
2
r-XXXXXXX
CD
NXXXXXXX
N
N
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
ZxxXoxxx
V-XXXXXXX
cn
�wco0wF--LoWLo
X
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
W
w_
'J
w
J
Lu
O
J=
U
Z Q
O
a
2
O
=
J
CiQ�CZamQ
wdF-
Q
>-
<
LU
w
0�
2
2
z
a
w
U.
U)
I-
F-
c
x E N
a N
U)
Nf� Y
0
U) co o
a`QQ?
nn
XOo
w
Y
MINUTES APPROVED
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 6,2014-7:OOPM—FORMAL
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Paula Swygard, Phoebe Martin,
Jodie Theobald, John Thomas
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ann Freerks
STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Karen Howard, Sarah Walz
OTHERS PRESENT: Sandra Steil, Steve Gordon, Sharon Sorensen, Melinda Ragona, Bob
Barta, Kyle Dieleman, Lon Drake, Linda Moss, Joe Snyder, Tom
Sorensen, Wynn Johnson, Alan Jones, Tammy Smith, Adam Yack
The Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of an application submitted by Moss
Farms/Stephen A Moss for a rezoning of approximately 51.03 acres from Interim Development -
Research Park (ID -RP), Research Development Park (RDP) and Planned Development Overlay -
Highway Commercial (OPD- CH1) to Interim Development — Research Park (ID -RP), Research
Development Park (RDP) and Planned Development Overlay- Highway Commercial (0PD-CH1).
This rezoning represents a shift of existing zoning boundaries to coincide with the lot lines in a
revised preliminary plat of Moss Ridge Campus, a 9 -lot, 4-outlot commercial subdivision located
west of 2510 N. Dodge Street and north of Interstate 80 (REZ14-00020/SUB14-00019)
Eastham called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
There were none.
REZONING ITEM (REZ14-00019)
Discussion of an application submitted by Hodge Construction for a rezoning of approximately 2.3
acres of land in the 600 block of S. Dubuque Street and the 200 block of Prentiss Street from
Community Commercial (CC -2) zone and Intensive Commercial (CI -1) Zone to Riverfront Crossings —
Central Crossings (RFC -CX) zone.
Applicant has requested deferral to November 20, 2014 meeting.
Theobald made a motion to defer discussion of REZ14-00019 until the November 20 meeting.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 6, 2014 - Formal
Page 2 of 16
Swygard seconded the motion.
Eastham opened the discussion for public hearing.
There was none.
Eastham closed public hearing.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0
Rezonina / Development Item (REZ14-00020/SUB14-00019
Discussion of an application submitted by Moss Farms/Stephen A. Moss for a rezoning of
approximately 51.03 acres from Interim Development- Research Park (ID -RP), Research
Development Park (RDP) and Planned Development Overlay- Highway Commercial (OPD- CH1) to
Interim Development — Research Park (ID -RP), Research Development Park (RDP) and Planned
Development Overlay- Highway Commercial (OPD-CH1). This rezoning represents a shift of existing
zoning boundaries to coincide with the lot lines in a revised preliminary plat of Moss Ridge
Campus, a 9 -lot, 4-outlot commercial subdivision located west of 2510 N. Dodge Street and north
of Interstate 80
Howard presented the staff report. The development is located north of Interstate 80 and west of
Highway 1. Howard showed a map of the area in which the red lines showed the current boundary
lines of the zoning and the hash lines showing the entire first development phase. There are two
items before the Commission tonight; first rezoning that will shift zoning boundaries and second that
zoning shift will coincide with lot lines in the revised plat. Howard noted that preliminary plats are valid
for two years and the previous plat had just expired. A preliminary plat and associated rezoning for
the office park was approved in 2012, and through the development of the master plan and the
grading plans for the site to make the lots more conducive to office park development they found they
need to shift the boundaries. Additionally, Howard pointed out that due to the sensitive areas on the
site, one of the roads previously proposed across the center of the development would be eliminated
in order to preserve more of the wooded areas in future phases of the development. There was an
environmental review that determined this area to contain habitat for the endangered Indiana Bat so
any woodland disturbed in this area will have to be mitigated. The plan for stormwater management
has been refined since the previous preliminary plat was approved, which has also caused a shift in
the lot lines. The revised plat also indicates areas that will be reserved for wetland mitigation and bat
habitat conservation.
Howard showed a plat of the new proposed zoning boundaries to illustrate the shit in the boundaries. She also
showed a map showing the lot lines in the revised plat. There are nine lots; 4 - 7 are reserved for retail services that
would support a larger office park, and the remaining lots are reserved for research development park. It is
the same basic plan as the original plat, what shifted was the stormwater basins are more refined and
will be designed as a feature of the new office park with some trails around the larger basin. As
mentioned previously, the other change from the original plat is to eliminate the road across the center
of the property to preserve more of the woodlands.
Howard also noted that the applicant had discussions with Pearson to see if there could be a road
connection on the south side near the Pearson property to connect to Highway 1. However, Pearson
was not agreeable to that road connection, so the plat no longer includes a cul-de-sac at the east
end of Creek Preserve Drive. However, an outlot is being reserved in this location in case in the
long term future such a road connection becomes possible.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 6, 2014 - Formal
Page 3 of 16
Howard explained that the changes to the preliminary plat caused the need for the change to the
zoning, so that the new lot lines correspond with the correct zoning. In addition, the applicant has
requested a change to the conditional zoning agreement. When zoned in 2010 and rezoned in 2012
they had not yet developed a detailed master plan for the office park and because of that in the
conditional zoning agreement they had agreed to submit site plans for each lot to the Planning and
Zoning Commission for their review rather than through the typical administrative review process
conducted by staff. Now that the developer has developed a more refined master plan with the lots
identified, stormwater management plan, trails and landscaping to enhance the area, and a signage
plan, they are requesting to eliminate the requirement to bring every individual site plan to the
Commission for approval. Staff recommends approval of this change.
Hektoen reiterated that it was just the provision regarding review approval by the Commission that
would be struck from the conditional zoning agreement. All other provisions of the CZA would remain
the same.
Eastham stated that the Commission had looked at the zoning and site plans for this property
previously and expressed interest in the view from Interstate 80 into this area and if it would be a
desirable view and an indication of what Iowa City is about and posed the question to Howard to
speak on how this revised plat contributes to that interest.
Howard stated that the conditional zoning agreement has quite a few requirements for quality building
materials, signage plan to assure there is not signage clutter along the interstate, parking lots will
have to comply with all landscaping requirements. Staff therefore feels it is an extensive list of quality
checks for the developer to fulfill to make this a Class A office space.
Thomas asked if the developer was present to present the project and answer questions. Howard
confirmed there was someone from the development team. Thomas has a question regarding the
bicycle component (as in what is the bicycle circulation concept) of the project and was unsure if it
should be addressed to staff or to the developer. Howard suggested Thomas ask the developer for
the details, however pointed out there is an extensive set of trails and sidewalks extending throughout
the property.
Eastham opened public hearing.
Sandra Steil (Shive Hattery) representing Moss Development Group came forward to answer any
questions the Commission has. Thomas asked Steil about the bicycle circulation and if the plan was
for the bicycles to share the streets. Steil answered that bicycles could share the streets, but since
this would be a Class A business park and the trails will be hard surface bicycles will likely use the
trails. Thomas asked for verification that the sidewalks and trails would be five feet wide. Steil could
not confirm that. Howard stated that the streets are designed as collector streets and will be able to
accommodate bicycles and the sidewalks would meet the city standard of five feet for city sidewalks.
Howard stated there would be an eight foot sidewalk leading into the development along the south
side of Moss Ridge Drive. Howard pointed out that in the future, Oakdale Boulevard will be an arterial
street extending through the property, which would also have a wide sidewalk on one side. Thomas
shared his concern of traffic speeds if the road is shared due to the wide width of the proposed street.
Steil stated the developer would work with City Staff to address that concern when working on the
final plat.
Eastham closed public hearing.
Thomas moved to recommend approval of an application submitted by Moss Farms/Stephen A.
Moss for a rezoning of approximately 51.03 acres and subdivision of approximately 172 acres from
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 6, 2014 - Formal
Page 4 of 16
Interim .Development- Research Park (ID -RP), Research Development Park (RDP) and Planned
Development Overlay- Highway Commercial (OPD- CH1) to Interim Development — Research
Park (ID -RP), Research Development Park (RDP) and Planned Development Overlay- Highway
Commercial (OPD-CH1). This rezoning represents a shift of existing zoning boundaries to coincide
with the lot lines in a revised preliminary plat of Moss Ridge Campus, a Not, 4-outlot commercial
subdivision located west of 2510 N. Dodge Street and north of Interstate 80 (REZ14-
00020/SUB14-00019).
Thomas also moved to recommend amending the conditional zoning agreement to delete the
provision that requires Planning and Zoning Commission review of all site plans. The remaining
provisions in the conditional zoning agreement would remain the same.
Martin seconded the motion.
Thomas stated that looking at the overall site plan it is very pleasing and shows appropriate attention
to open space, woodland sensitive area preservation, and the fact that it will be open to the public is a
great amenity. He stated that the use of the roundabouts is appropriate and will add to the features
of the plan. Thomas did state his concern about 15 foot traffic lanes if speeds are higher than 25
mph and thought perhaps the traffic lanes could be narrower or bike lanes inserted.
Swygard agreed with Thomas that the plan was improved from previous reiterations including the
improved signage plan and agreed it is not necessary for the Commission to review all the individual
site plans.
Eastham agreed that the overall plan for the development is improved and thinks the use of the
roundabouts in the development is forward -thinking, feature oriented, street design. He also stated
an appreciation of the signage throughout the development. In terms of the street width, Eastham
shared Thomas' concern about the street width of two, 15 -foot wide lanes and feels it could be less
wide.
Dyer stated it was a great improvement over the first plan as it shows more attention to the current
topography and landscape.
Theobald stated she hoped to see a selection of various tree types in the park. Also in response to
the width of the streets, she is concerned about larger vehicles (delivery trucks, etc.) and the need for
wider streets for that reason.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0.
Development item (SUB14-000211
Discussion of an application submitted by MBHG Investment Co. for a Sensitive Areas
Development Plan and Preliminary Plat for Sycamore Woods, approximate 34.86 -acre, 115- lot
residential subdivision located west of Whispering Meadows Subdivision, Parts 2 and 3, along
extensions of Whispering Meadow and Blazing Star Drives.
Eastham stated he is a member of a board of trustees of a non-profit that owns affordable housing
and the non-profit is the general partner and a limited liability corporation which owns property
adjacent to part of this property. Eastham stated he would be impartial in his consideration of this
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 6, 2014 - Formal
Page 5 of 16
development item as he knows of no interest whatsoever of the non-profit corporation he is part of
with this subdivision.
Walz presented the staff report beginning with explaining that the City sent out notification to meet the
seven-day deadline ahead of the meeting. At the time the applicant had applied for a rezoning and
Staff did not realized until after the letter went out that rezoning was not required. When it went
through the rezoning in 2007 it was subject to a conditional zoning agreement and an OPD plan. In
the staff report it explains that while the subdivision expires after two years, the zoning stays in place
so long as it meets the conditions. The Zoning Code indicates that a re -zoning is not required so
long as changes to the approved preliminary OPD or Sensitive Areas Development Plan are not
substantial. The code defines a substantive change as "any significant change in the land uses,
street locations, character of the development from what is shown on the approved OPD Plan or
Sensitive Area Development Plan, or any variation from the underlying zoning requirements or
street standards beyond the ranges approved on the Preliminary OPD Plan or Preliminary
Sensitive Areas Development Plan." Because there are no substantive variations in street layout
or location, open space or protection of sensitive features, or lot configuration, no rezoning is
required as part of the approval process. The proposed development remains subject to the
existing conditional zoning agreement. The letter did cause some confusion for the neighbors and for
that Walz apologized. Walz shared email correspondence from neighbors with the Commission and
indicated that City Council will receive the same correspondence when the preliminary plat is forwarded to
them.
In 2007, the property was conditionally rezoned OPD -8 and OPD-RS12 with a sensitive areas
development plan. The approved plan allowed for clustered housing and located streets away
from sensitive features, which include woodlands, a regulated stream corridor, and wetlands. A
preliminary plat for a 122 -lot subdivision (76 detached single-family and 46 townhouse units) was
also approved and later granted an extension in 2009.
Preliminary plats expire after two years, and thus the applicant is now submitting a new, amended
plat. The current plat reduces the number of lots from 122 to 115 (71 detached single-family lots
oriented along Whispering Meadow, Indigo, and Blazing Star Drives and 44 townhome lots mostly
along Verbena and Whispering Meadow Drives). Street layout, open space, lot configuration, and
protection of sensitive areas are otherwise consistent with the previously approved OPD Plan. The
applicant has also submitted a Sensitive Areas Development Plan to illustrate how the land will be
developed in a manner that will protect, preserve, or mitigate for disturbance of these sensitive
features.
A conditional zoning agreement (CZA) for the property includes requirements for the developer to
construct Whispering Meadows Drive to the western edge of the Sycamore
Greenway (connecting into the General Quarters subdivision) and to extend Blazing Start Drive to
the east across a portion of City -owned property adjacent to the Greenway trail. Whispering
Meadows Drive will connect with the future Dickenson Lane and supply
connectivity to Sycamore Street for developments. The CZA also requires a wetland
mitigation plan to be approved by the Army Corps of Engineers and other applicable State and
Federal agencies prior to development activity and addresses maintenance of wetland during and
after housing construction.
Walz commented on the Sensitive Areas Plan. According to a note on the plat, this property
contains 430,544 square feet of woodlands (approximately 9.9 acres), and 162,418 square
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 6, 2014 - Formal
Page 6 of 16
feet (approx. 3.7 acres) will be preserved, which represents approximately 37.7%. Most of
the tree removal will occur at the northwest quadrant of the property where Whispering Meadows
Drive is proposed to be extended and in areas where the stream corridor will be graded and
reconstructed to create new wetland areas proposed as mitigation. The sensitive areas
ordinance allows for more than 50% of the woodlands on a property to be removed if an
appropriate tree replacement plan is submitted indicating a replacement ratio of 1 tree per 200
square feet of woodland lost above the 50% allowed. The applicant is required to replace
trees to mitigate for the 52,854 square feet of woodland lost or 264 trees. The applicant
proposes to plant 146 trees in the upland areas surrounding the newly created wetland cells, 4
trees on the islands within the wetland cells, and plant 1 tree in the front yard of every dwelling
unit prior to occupancy for a total of 265 trees.
In addition, the code requires the preservation of "groves of trees" wherever possible. The
applicant is proposing to preserve the grove of trees that exists along the southern border of the
property where it abuts the Sycamore Greenway by establishing a construction area limit and
implementing tree protection measures during construction. To preserve these trees over time
this area is designated as a no -build conservation area.
Walz stated that Staff finds that, with the measures taken above to preserve and replace trees,
that the plan meets the standards for woodlands and groves in the sensitive areas ordinance and
are consistent with the previously approved plan.
In regards to the stream corridor, Walz explained that a regulated stream corridor extends in an
east -west direction across the center of the proposed development. The stream corridor in this
case is 30 feet wide. The buffer areas are illustrated on the sensitive areas development plan.
The existing wetlands are mainly of a linear variety associated with the stream corridor,
particularly in the area east of Verbena Drive.
The development as proposed will impact 1.5 acres of wetland, some of which is within or
adjacent to the stream corridor. The applicant is proposing to provide replacement wetlands in
the area of the existing stream corridor east of Verbena Drive. A series of wetland cells will
replace the existing stream corridor. The applicant has illustrated how this can be achieved with
the mitigation area being proposed.
In order to develop the property, the applicant is requesting to disturb 1.5 acres of wetland,
which will require 2.26 acres of replacement wetlands according to the replacement ratios
in the sensitive areas ordinance. For properties containing a wetland, a wetland mitigation plan
is required as part of the Sensitive Areas Development Plan. The applicant submitted a wetland
mitigation plan to the City and the Army Corps of Engineers in 2007. The plan was reviewed by
staff and a wetland specialist and was recommended for approval. The developer must verify
that the plan has the current approval of the Army Corps prior to any development activity.
Because it is unlikely that construction of the homes in this development will be completed within
the typical 5 -year wetland monitoring period required by the Corps, the conditional zoning
agreement requires that the wetlands be monitored for as long as home construction is occurring
on lots that surround the wetlands with written reports submitted to the City after every site visit,
rather than just yearly as proposed in the mitigation plan. This will allow a quick response to any
damage to the new wetlands occurring due to ongoing construction activity. Also, prior to final
platting of the property, the applicant must submit a maintenance plan prepared by a wetland
specialist and approved by the City that estimates maintenance costs for the wetland areas and
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 6, 2014 - Formal
Page 7 of 16
private open space within Outlets A and B, and specifically details long-term maintenance
responsibilities, and describes generally to who these responsibilities will be assigned.
Walz shared that the plat includes of 115 residential lots clustered away from the sensitive areas
on the site. The subdivision will consist of a mix of townhouse lots and detached single-family
home lots.
Staff finds that the proposed lot layout is acceptable. Townhouse units will be clustered along
the south side of Whispering Meadows Drive and along Verbena Drive. Staff
finds the placement of the various housing types within the development to be appropriate.
The sensitive areas development plan shows the rear lanes behind the townhomes will be screen
with rows of evergreen trees and landscaping.
Walz explained that the Comprehensive Plan calls for, and the current subdivision regulations
require, that "all streets, sidewalks, and trails, should connect to other streets, sidewalks, and
trails with the development and to the property line for their extension to adjacent properties.
However, the possibilities for street connections through the subject property are severely
constrained by the extensive network of sensitive environmental features on the property. Both
Indigo Drive and Blazing Circle Drive end in cul-de-sacs in order to limit impacts to the wetlands
and woodlands on the site.
Connections to adjacent development are limited due to the location of the Sycamore Greenway
and the established street layout and development of residential lots in the neighborhood to the
north. While street crossings of the Sycamore Greenway should be minimized, at the time of the
rezoning of this property a collector street crossing was deemed necessary between Lakeside
Drive and the future east -west arterial (McCollister Boulevard) proposed further south. The
conditional zoning agreement requires the applicant to construct the extension of Whispering
Meadows Drive across the Sycamore Greenway to connect up with Dickenson Lane in the
General Quarters subdivision. Dickenson Lane connects into Sycamore Street.
At the southeast comer of the plat, the extension of Blazing Star Drive will cross the corner of City -
owned park property adjacent to the Sycamore Greenway. Allowing this street crossing location
will benefit both the developer and the community; the developer will gain land for the
development of 3 or 4 additional lots on the east side of Blazing Star Drive and the community will
gain street access to a corner of City parkland.
While connections to and through Sycamore Woods are less than ideal, opportunities to improve
circulation and connectivity for neighborhoods to the south are possible and should be required
with future plats in this area. With future extension of Blazing Star Drive to the east and
Whispering Meadows to the south, a more grid -like pattern should emerge, connecting into the
future extension of the McCollister Boulevard. This will bring better circulation within the area and
provide better access to the many recreational amenities, schools, and commercial destinations in
south Iowa City for what has been a somewhat isolated neighborhood.
Walz explained that sidewalks are required along all streets within new subdivisions, including
along all outlets. The plat indicates sidewalks along both sides of all streets in compliance with
this requirement. This includes sidewalks along both sides on Verbena Drive.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 6, 2014 - Formal
Page 8 of 16
In addition, the proposed plat indicates that an 8 -foot sidewalk will be constructed in Outlot C
between lots 86 and 87. Said outlot will subsequently be dedicated to the City. The Parks
Department has agreed to accept this outlot to satisfy a portion of the open space requirement for
this development. The plat also shows a public access easement over the storm sewer drainage
easement next to lot 61 along Indigo Drive. This easement will provide access for area residents
along Indigo Drive and Thistle Court to the private open space in Outlot B.
Walz showed on the plat the three mailbox clusters: one at the southwest corner of Verbena and
Whispering Meadows Drive; one at adjacent to lot 58 serving 14 units on Indigo Drive; and another
located in Outlot C serving 53 units. Parks and Recreation will not allow a mailbox cluster to be located
in an outlot to be dedicated to the City (Outlot C will be dedicated). Staff therefore recommends that the
mailbox cluster be moved to an area north of lot 115 or east of lot 101 along the private open space.
Walz indicated that, if the Commission believed it appropriate, they could require some design
treatment or landscaping around the mailbox clusters, which are large but are not located directly
adjacent to any residential lot.
Walz stated Staff recommends that SUB14-00021, a Sensitive Area Development Plan and
preliminary plat for Sycamore Woods, an approximate 34.86 -acre, 115 -lot residential subdivision
located west of Whispering Meadows Subdivision, Parts 2 and 3, be approved, subject to
resolution of deficiencies and discrepancies noted below.
DEFICIENCIES AND DISCREPANCIES:
• All townhome lots must meet the 3,000 square foot minimum of the RS -12 zone. Indicate
lot width for lot 22.
• Relocation of mailbox cluster from Outlot C.
• Technical discrepancies as noted by the City Engineer
Eastham asked Hektoen to explain what the role of the Commission is with regards to this item since
it is not a rezoning application.
Hektoen stated the Commission is to vote on the compliance to the sensitive areas ordinance and
compliance with the subdivision code.
Thomas asked Walz about the pedestrian connection at the south of the subdivision and requested it
if could be aligned with Verbena Drive rather than the offset. Walz explained that it is lined up so that
the sidewalk from Verbena Drive lines up with the trail connection on the other side of Blazing Star.
Thomasshared a concern with lot 87 which is directly aligned with Verbena Drive and vehicle lights,
etc. will point directly into the center of that lot. If the outlot was centered there, that would correct
that issue.
Eastham asked regarding compliance with the sensitive areas ordinance if those were new
requirements or if they were from the original subdivision. Walz confirmed they were approved with
the original subdivision request in 2007. Additionally the applicant will have to show they have
approval of the Army Core of Engineers and other agencies for the changes that are proposed.
Since it's been seven years since the original approval, it needs to be revisited to make sure those
approvals are still valid.
Eastham opened public hearing.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 6, 2014 - Formal
Page 9 of 16
Steve Gordon (605 Grandview Ct) with AM Management spoke representing the developer. He
stated a lot of work was done several years ago putting this plan together with the sensitive features
and connectivity. At that time was in the process of developing Whispering Meadows Parts 2 & 3 and
then the housing market fell, so they did not continue onto final plat for this development. They are
ready to proceed at this time. One of the changes in the new preliminary plat is the townhomes are
larger to accommodate better construction as well as some of the angled lots on the cul-de-sacs did
not have enough buildable space. That is why there is now a reduction in the total number of lots.
Gordon did confirm they will move the mailbox cluster wherever the City recommends. He also
discussed the sidewalk from Verbena Drive to the trail and stated it was aligned the way it is so a
sidewalk will connect with a sidewalk, and not have the sidewalk from Verbena Drive align with a
driveway.
Martin asked if Gordon had designs for the mailbox clusters and he stated not at this point.
Sharon Sorenson (26 Amber Lane) presented notice as read "we the residents bordering or near the
above stated location would like to protest this proposal as it stands. We request no wooded area
within 500 foot of existing homes be torn down. This wooded area that adjoins the City walking park
should also remain undisturbed. These trees and wetland area are sensitive. By not destroying the
trees, birds such as pheasants, duck, geese, owls and also deer could remain protected for everyone
to enjoy." Sorenson presented the signed document to Waltz. Sorenson stated that she received the
letter from the City on October 28, and were told in that letter to have any comments back to the City
by Thursday, October 30, which was less than the seven days required. Additionally it was written
that citizens had to have any comments notarized. Only the people bordering the area were allowed
to sign. In 2007 Sorenson collected signatures from people who used the walking path because they
will be impacted by the development. Sorenson said that the letter and Waltz stated to her this
development was a "done deal" because it is not a rezoning it has already been accepted.
Sorenson's main concern is the trees, between her home on Amber Lane and the first home on
Regal Lane (14 properties) there will be 21 new properties built in the new development. And in that
area, more than half of it is filled with trees. Sorenson stated along the walking path to the left there
are trees that will also be cut down as part of this development. Whispering Meadows, the main
street, will eventually connect with Dickenson Lane, but Dickenson is not a completed road yet, and
that subdivision is owned by a different developer, so will all these new houses be built before that
road is complete? That is a lot of traffic to dump out onto Lakeside Drive, and onto Sherman Avenue
to get to Lakeside. If the road is to go through Sherman, that is currently a turnaround, so they will
have to open up that road and it will create so much additional traffic through that area. Sorenson
requested from City Staff a list of the names of the citizens that own homes that received the letter
and was told verbally over 300 people were sent the letters. When insisted upon, a list was
presented there were only 150 names and some were duplicates. Only 84 of the names on the list
were residences the rest were owned by the City or companies that Sorenson was told were not
allowed to sign neighborhood petitions. Sorenson explained her concern regarding being told this
development was a "done deal" from Walz. And if this is not a rezoning (although the letter stated
rezoning) how can it be stated to be a "done deal". This has to be approved by the Commission, and
then approved by the City Council so it is not a "done deal" and should not be described as such.
Sorenson closed her comments by stating again her concern about the removal of trees and the
close proximity of the homes and concerns about all the traffic until the through streets can be
constructed.
Walz stated that she had not use the phrase "done deal", the zoning is completed so that is done, but
informed all who inquired they had the right to come to the meeting to discuss the issue of the trees.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 6, 2014 - Formal
Page 10 of 16
Additionally Walz confirmed where the trees were being removed from, and indicated where there will
continue to be trees along the Greenway. As far as the trees on the lots, the developer will determine
if they need to remove all the trees on each lot to allow for building or if some can be maintained.
She showed on the map the areas where trees must be maintained along the buffer.
Sorenson questioned if there was a City requirement to keep trees along the City walkways and Walz
replied that if the City is required to keep the trees on the City property they would, and regardless
the developer will not be removing trees from the City property. The development property does not
cross over the City walkway, thought he street does.
Walz asked Hektoen for clarification that the City mails to every property owner within 300 feet of the
development area and Hektoen confirmed that as well as people within 200 feet of the property can
officially protest a rezoning. However, this development is not a rezoning so there is no right to file a
formal protest that is limited to a rezoning application. Everyone in the community has the right to
come to the Commission meeting and speak, however there is no formal protest or need for a super
majority vote by the Council.
Sorenson questioned if the rezoning expires after two years and Walz stated that it does not— the
preliminary plat expires after two years, but rezoning does not expire as long as the new plat does
not vary substantially from the OPD plan. The preliminary plat was renewed again in 2009 but then it
expired in 2011, so now the developer is back before the Commission to renew the preliminary plat.
Sorenson asked about the drainage of the wetland, in 2007 the developer said it would be behind the
21 houses and there would be a drainage ditch that would connect to the other side by Sherman, but
in this plan that will now go under the roads and questioned how that will work.
Walz stated she cannot speak to exactly how the drainage system will function, the applicant's
engineer would have to speak to that, however there are storm sewers that do run from this area
between Regal and Amber Lanes that will bring the water down and into the outlots.
Melinda Ragona (32 Regal Lane) stated concern that the property had already been rezoned and
property owners were just notified they don't have any say in the matter. She is passionately against
the rezoning of Sycamore Woods to a medium density subdivision. Her backyard is at the edge of
the wetland prairie on Regal Lane, as a mother of two young children and having lived in this home
for five years, bought this home at this location was for the beauty of the area. As a stay at home
mother of a 2 and 4 year olds living at this residence was affordable for their one income family. She
feels it would be disastrous and environmentally unstable to build on this land and it should just be
maintained as part of Whispering Meadows Wetlands and Park. Over the past few years, Mother
Nature has demonstrated weather extremes in form of flooding and drought. During the torrential
downpours of late Sycamore Woods turns into a water drainage system helping to deviate water from
surrounding properties. It would be unstable ground to build upon and would perpetuate the flooding
problems all properties are experiencing. Keeping this area in its natural form not only helps with the
ever-increasing flooding the wetland serves as wildlife habitat to frogs, pheasants and deer. Ragona
also shared concern about the density of housing proposed for rezoning, and if it would be more low-
income units and help or hinder the FRL school problems. She noted that this side of town holds an
unsavory stigma for low-income housing. She stated she has great neighbors and has never had
any problems. Her daughter attends Grantwood Elementary for preschool and the teachers are
wonderful. Ragona mentioned the ongoing school boundary discussions and how it is deluding the
district diversity policy, and her concern is to have more low-income housing which will create an
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 6, 2014 - Formal
Page 11 of 16
even more unbalance in the schools. She noted that perhaps one could reinvest in the two vacant
homes already on Regal Lane, they have been sitting vacant multiple years and no one is up keeping
this property. Adding more properties to the area will affect the property values of existing homes in
the area. Why oversaturate the market when there are two vacant homes on just one block. Why
build on a natural wetland that everyone can appreciate and enjoy and is a natural habitat for wildlife
and a detrimental environmental flood mitigation zone. She suggest the City incorporates Sycamore
Woods officially into Whispering Lanes Wetland Park and reinvest in the dilapidated vacant
properties on this side of town.
Bob Barta (20 Amber Lane) read a portion of a letter he drafted to the City. He wrote to express his
opposition to the proposed Sycamore Woods property development. He and his wife have been
homeowners on Amber Lane for nearly 18 years, and close to the proposed development. When
originally moved into this neighborhood from Coralville to escape the development and traffic
associated with Coral Ridge Mall, one of the main factors that influenced their decision to buy a home
at this location was the proximity to undeveloped areas immediately to the south and west. With the
creation of the Sycamore Greenway Trail System, there was access on the trail to see wildlife, open
fields and the tall grass prairie restorations. The landscape has been dramatically now changed with
recent developments and open areas have been replaced with houses. Now with the proposed
Sycamore Woods plan here is another development in the area. Barta stated his most pressing
concern about the Sycamore Woods development is the destruction of a major portion of the
woodland area in the northwest corner. The conservation easements shown on the plan map protect
only part of the western portion and the southern portion, but none on the northern areas. Instead
there would be new homes immediately adjacent to existing homes on the northern border and more
homes along a portion of the Sycamore Greenway including another city street crossing. These
affected western bordered woods have some of the largest trees, silver maple, which are some of the
best trees in terms of snags to be seen. The tree size is similar to other silver maple trees in the
surrounding neighborhoods, one cannot replace 45 year old trees with nursery stock trees in a
suburban setting and expect similar environment benefits. Barta said his letter continues on to
express his rationale explaining his objection to the plans and would just like to state his hope that
the environmental considerations discussed will be given a fair review. Barta questioned Waltz
regarding a conversation he had with the NRC person today he was sent a map of Iowa City showing
an inventory of the national wetlands along the bike path and wanted to know how much the new
development would affect that portion of the wetlands. Waltz could not say exactly how much it will
impact the wetlands, the developer is required to mitigate anything that they impact. Walz showed on
the map the area where the developer cannot disturb the wetlands and the barrier between the
wetlands and the lots. She estimated the barrier would be 80-100 feet.
Kyle Dieleman (77 Thistle Court) originally came to the meeting to address comments regarding the
zoning, but understands now that is not the issue. He is however concerned about the environmental
impacts as other folks have spoken about. He feels it is absurd to remove woodlands and add single
trees in yards and state that is not a fair substitution. Dieleman stated his other, more major concern,
is the connectivity issue. He drives on Whispering Meadow Drive every day and the sort of housing
that is already there is, and he assumes will continue in this new development, are single car garage
homes which lends itself heavily to on street parking. Whispering Meadows Drive already has cars on
both sides of the road making it difficult as only one car can pass through. Additionally there are lot of
children in this neighborhood and therefore traffic issues are very serious. Even extending Whispering
Meadow Drive will not solve the issue, especially since the development is adding 115 new homes.
The Indigo street cul-de-sac will add another 20 lots and there is no outlet for that. His concern is that
the connectivity issues will not be resolved adequately.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 6, 2014 - Formal
Page 12 of 16
Lon Drake (rural Iowa City) designed the south Sycamore Greenway along with MMS Consultants and
stated that in 1998 the City signed an agreement with the Core of Engineers to preserve the wooded
area on the west end of this property and questioned if the City has now received a waiver or
something that allows this development to now proceed. Walz stated that in 2007 the Army Core of
Engineers had approved the development and rezoning. Drake stated the agreement signed in 1998
was an agreement for the watershed and specifically stated those trees would be saved. Walz stated
she would submit the agreement Drake has to the City Engineers for their clarification. Drake read
from the agreement "referring to that strip of maple trees "this eco system should be preserved and
enhanced because it is serving a useful purpose for wildlife and human aesthetics. Enhancement will
include planting of shade loving forest floor species like native ferns, common spring wild flowers." For
the portion of the younger trees further in the back "the green space plan is to remove the majority of
the silver maples preserving only the best in the very open spacing and then planting a more diverse
mix of more desirable native tree species." Drake stated the City made a commitment to this area that
should still be valid. Eastham stated the Staff will follow up on that agreement.
Linda Moss (38 Amber Lane) explained that at the beginning of this conversation she thought it does
have to have rezoning if it amends the OPD and questioned if that is correct. Walz stated that if the
changes are substantive, change in uses, layout of streets, etc. then that would be correct, however in
this situation there have been no substantive changes. Moss stated it was very confusing to receive a
letter stating it was a rezoning, and Walz apologized again.
Joe Snyder (26 Regal Lane) stated his main concern is with home values, he recently refinanced his
home and to his dismay the current home value is now less than the original purchase value. That is
understandable with the economic situations however he does believe this preliminary plat would
adversely affect one of the main selling points of his home with 20 lots behind it, specifically three lots
adjacent to his. Snyder said the subdivisions they live in are obviously early 70's, homes directly to
the west are newer subdivisions and now with this development there will be a lot more newer homes
in the area which causes concern on how it will affect his home's value especially with replacing views
with homes. He also pointed out on the preliminary plat there are areas for outlots A, B, C with tree
reduction in certain areas, with tree ridges preserved on the back side but no considerations for the
area adjacent to the existing subdivisions. Snyder also echoed the earlier comments regarding traffic
and understands Verbena is similar to Whispering Meadows that it is not a very wide street and
doesn't believe adding this many homes with only one through street to Sycamore will alleviate traffic
congestion. Lakeside Drive currently sees a lot of traffic and has traffic concerns around Grant Wood
Elementary with students crossing.
Tom Sorenson (26 Amber Lane) has a public notice from the Coreps of Engineers, Staff stated the
Core of. Engineers approved this preliminary plat and in the notice it does not state an approval of this
subdivision. It is a lot of legal jargon, but nothing saying it's approved. Sorenson also questioned why
this subdivision would be allowed to proceed without the access of the connection to Dickenson Lane
completed first. It could be a one, five, or ten years before that is completed so all the traffic will go out
through Lakeside which Staff has agreed is over utilized already. Secondly Staff pointed out on the
map a creek running through the property, it is not a creek, it's a drainage ditch, and it drains off of
Regal and Amber Lanes, and floods that whole area during horrendous rains. At times Amber Lane
has two foot of water on it with only one drain on the street, which goes into that timber area. Also,
why not move the houses away and leave the timber along the back of the current subdivisions. Then
the street can cross directly over to Dickenson Lane as well without having to make a turn. That would
leave the majority of that timber in place. Sorenson reiterated that the notice from the Corps of
Engineers does not state approval.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 6, 2014 - Formal
Page 13 of 16
Walz stated the subdivision has not been approved, the Corps approved the plan in 2007, but the
developers do need to get approval again from the Corps of Engineers before the final plat can
proceed. Hektoen confirmed that before the final plat can be approved the developers will need to
demonstrate they have approval from the Corps of Engineers, it does not matter what was approved in
the past, new approval will be needed. Sorenson asked Hektoen if it could be insisted that the street
connection to Dickenson Lane be completed prior to building any homes in the subdivision. Hektoen
stated there are secondary access standards in City code, however the developer has rights only over
the land they own, and this developer will be required to build the street to the edge of the property.
Wynn Johnson (2061 Sherman Drive) is not within the 300 feet of the development so did not receive
notice, however heard about the meeting and wanted to share some concerns. Johnson understands
the topic is the sensitive areas ordinance, streets and connectivity and that is his major concern.
Adding a more densely populated area than the current subdivisions in the area. They say the lot
sizes are comparable, but there are a lot of townhomes and even the single-family homes are much
denser. While this is great for diversity, there is a need for diverse housing to attract a diverse
population, however there needs to be the infrastructure in place. Need options for traffic for this level
of density. Johnson understands that Dickenson Lane will eventually extend out to Sycamore Street,
but that has not even yet been designed. Johnson recalled previous meetings discussing the plat for
General Quarters and heard from Hall and Hall Engineering, there was a neighborhood meeting with
Build to Suit who bought the land from Dolan Homes/Town & Country Development. In that short
period of time neighbors were waiting for something to start and nothing happened, instead that land
has been resold twice and a farmer has purchased it. Therefore the connectivity and infrastructure
from the development to Dickenson Lane or Sherman Drive is undecided and with an unknown
timeline. Johnson stated that currently it is difficult to even get a snowplow or garbage truck on
Sherman Drive due to vehicles being parked on both sides of the street. He concluded that concerns
about streets standards, locations, connectivity needs to be addressed. Johnson asked Walz for
confirmation on the cul-de-sac on Sherman Drive will always remain a cul-de-sac. Hektoen stated that
cannot be promised for all time.
Alan Jones (34 Regal Lane) shared his unhappiness with the late notice, not receiving the letter from
the City until Friday, but understands that is now moot because this is not a rezoning. He noted the
maps provided, both with the letter and online, are difficult to read. Jones pointed out the easement
that runs behind his property is not shown on the map as going all the way to the street as it should.
His home at 34 Regal Lane is adjacent to the storm drain which then runs under his property. He
questioned if there were any other underground lines that connect to that drain. Walz pointed out the
two connections and Jones questioned how much volume that one drain has to collect because he
feels it's insufficient as the area floods during heavy rains. Additionally the back yard is a sea of water
and that will affect the new development area. He stated the City is supposed to dredge out the
drainage ditch periodically but it has not been done. He shared that three houses up Regal Lane
there is another easement where another sewer line could be put in to alleviate the neighborhood
flooding. This new sewer drainage should be installed before the new development is approved, or be
part of the development plan. Jones also stated that the street is broken above the sewer line and
snowplows make an awful racket when they hit that spot of the street. In closing he stated the area
should be maintained as wildlife area with desirable trees planted similar to a Hickory Hill Park.
Tammy Smith (30 Regal Lane) disagrees with the letter that was sent regarding the rezoning, received
the letter on Friday, October 31, which did not allow for even a full week to prepare, she began right
away soliciting the notarized signatures and was not aware that the rezoning was not happening and
feels that is unfair to the homeowners. Additionally there has been seven years since the zoning was
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 6, 2014 - Formal
Page 14 of 16
approved and there has been a lot of development in the area in that time and new homeowners who
don't have a voice. Her purpose tonight is to stress the need to save the woods, the wildlife there, and
all of that will be destroyed. Additionally she disagrees with the high density housing directly behind
her house and it will decrease her property value. The backyards do have significant flooding issues
as well. Smith has collected letters and notarized signatures from the neighbors and pointed out that
the turnout at tonight's meeting shows the community interest in this project.
Adam Yack (3 Thistle Court) is concerned about Whispering Prairie Drive and the width of the road.
Currently Whispering Prairie allows for parking on both sides of the street and that congests traffic
flow.
Eastham closed public hearing.
Theobald stated that in light of the information shared at tonight's meeting, as well as the question
regarding the 1998 agreement with the Army Core of Engineers, moved to defer this application to the
November 20th meeting.
Thomas seconded the motion.
Swygard stated the deferral will give the Commission time to review all the materials submitted this
evening.
Thomas stated that perhaps some of the issues related to the flooding in the adjacent streets, and the
connectivity issue of when the street will be built can be addressed by Staff as well.
Eastham said he did not hear from the earlier Staff report any concern about the amount of traffic this
development will add to the area, but if that is a concern it should be addressed. He believed the
Commission had heard about the adjacent street flooding issues before so requested Staff comment if
the new, development will exasperate or not affect those issues.
Walz will discuss the flood and traffic issues with the City Engineer and asked that the developer also
bring their engineer to the next meeting.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0.
Consideration of Meetina Minutes: October 16, 2014
Dyer moved to defer the approval of the meeting minutes as they were not included in the packets
sent to the Commission.
Swygard seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and motion carried 6-0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
Eastham proposed a discussion in subsequent meetings regarding the public input process and
questions on the format of long range planning meetings.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 6, 2014 - Formal
Page 15 of 16
Hektoen stated Staff can provide the Commission with materials on how they go about notifying
citizens of meetings. Eastham stated he is not particularly concerned about notices but rather how
the meeting itself is structured.
Howard asked for clarification that the Commission is interested in discussing in general how long
range planning and public outreach meetings are conducted. Charlie agreed that that is what is he
requesting.
Thomas questioned the planning meeting on the near -east side and how people were notified of the
meeting, believes it was not on the City's calendar on the website. He thought that probably there
was not a very high turn -out for the meeting. Howard stated there were over 80 people at the meeting.
Hektoen stated standard protocol was followed on the notification of that meeting.
The Commission agreed that this should be discussed at a future meeting.
ADJOURNMENT:
Thomas moved to adjourn the meeting.
Dyer seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and motion carried 6-0.
Z
U)
U 0
OV
V uj
?(Z-)�
Z N
Np
ca W
�F-
Z
za
Z
J
CL
0
p
LU
W
J
OC
0
LL
T"XX�XXXX
co
o
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
N
oXXXXXX�
CV)
XXXOXXx
co
-XXXXXXX
rn
C4XXXXXXo
N-
xxxxxx
U.)
w
Ln
Go
I-XXxxxwX
o
0
0
0
0
0ti
0
;Xxxxxxx
ti
w
w
�XXOXXxx
z
M
J
0
J
=
Z
w
a
�
_
W)XXXXXXX
=
a
0
Q=
a�
�
J
0
�XXXXXXX
�=ix?am<
�
�XXxxxxx
CE
w
-002
et
a
W
LL.
2
U)
P
P
XXXXXXo
N
X
x
X
X
O
x
X
Cl)
�w0CDwr--U)wLo
waU)LO0LO000
X
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
w
W
w
z
w
J
J4ZWa0=
0Q<M
0
a
W
vi
�
�
>-
Q
oc
Q
=
2
0
W
LL.
0)
H
F -
CD
p
LU
w
O
U.z
rXXXXXXX
o)
NxXxXXXx
N
NXxxXxxx
CV)
XXXOXXx
C4Xxxxxx
w
U.)
w
Ln
wazi)�nLOLOLnLOLn
X
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
w
w
w
z
M
J
0
J
=
Z
w
a
�
_
=
a
0
Q=
a�
�
J
0
�=ix?am<
�
LU
a>-aoca�==
CE
w
-002
Z
a
W
LL.
2
U)
P
P
Cc:
x E
LU
a� N
)
c
aQQZ?
n n n u n
xow
0
w
Y
3b(11)
Approved Minutes
July 17, 2014
MINUTES
SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION
JULY 17, 2014
ROOM 209, IOWA CITY/JOHNSON COUNTY SENIOR CENTER
Members Present: Jay Honohan, Chuck Felling, Kathy Mitchell, Rose Hanson,
Jack Hobbs, Mark Holbrook, Margaret Reese
Members Absent:
Staff Present: Linda Kopping, Kristin Kromray
Others Present: None
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL:
None.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by Honohan at 4:00 PM.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM JUNE 19, 2014 MEETING:
Motion: To accept the minutes from the June 19, 2014 meeting. Motion
carried on a vote of 7/0. Mitchell/Holbrook
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
COMMISSION ASSIGNMENTS:
Honohan will attend the August 19 City Council meeting.
REPORT ON AD HOC SENIOR SERVICES COMMITTEE:
Honohan reported that Mercedes Bern -Klug, Rick Weber and he are on a
subcommittee that will evaluate and submit a report on the Senior Center. They
will be meeting soon to discuss how they will begin this evaluation. Honohan
Approved Minutes
July 17, 2014
reported he was also responsible for submitting a report on Shelter House and
he shared some of his findings.
Honohan stressed the need for commissioners to be supportive of the process of
the Senior Services Ad Hoc committee and not to point out any one who may
have differing options on where senior service dollars should be allocated. He
urged all commissioners to remind participants and public to share their thoughts
with the Ad Hoc committee in a positive way.
UPDATE ON RELOCATION OF THE SENIOR NUTRITION PROGRAM:
Kopping reported that the nutrition program is planning on moving out of the
kitchen on July 27tH
FUNDRAISING INITIATIVE:
Hobbs shared some thoughts for fundraising for Friends of the Center. The
Commission discussed some of these ideas and brainstormed different options.
OPERATIONAL OVERVIEW
Kopping reported that she met with the New Horizons band steering committee
on JUly 10th. She had prepared a document outlining the options for the band if
they choose to move forward with a 501(c)(3) fundraising organization. She
stated that it had been her understanding that the band steering committee had
been directly involved in setting up the 501(c)(3); although during the meeting it
was discovered that another group of band members had moved separately on
forming this fundraising body. The band is now finished practicing for the summer
and will return in the fall. More meetings are forth coming to discuss the
relationship between the band and the Senior Center and how they can work
together towards each of their goals.
Kopping reported that Emily Light was integral in three new Senior Center
commercials that are now being shown. Light also wrote a community foundation
grant for the Family Folk Machine to produce a music video about the benefits of
composting. The fall program guide is coming together and it is shaping up to be
a very full fall with many new and returning programs. Kopping also mentioned
that the Voices of Experience/ Family Folk Machine concert at the Englert was a
wonderful and very successful program.
2
Approved Minutes
July 17, 2014
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Mitchell mentioned that she saw the earth boxes at Ecumenical Towers and said
they look great. She enquired about the earth boxes at other locations and
Kopping said she would ask Michelle Buhman about how the project was
progressing.
Felling noted that the Senior Center is lucky to have Craig Buhman on staff as he
is so attentive to the needs and issues of the Senior Center building.
ADJOURNMENT:
Motion: To Adjourn. Motion carried on a vote of 7/0. Holbrook/Mitchell
Approved Minutes
July 17, 2014
Senior Center Commission
Attendance Record
Year 2014
Name
Term Expires
10/24
11/21
12/19
1/16
1/30
2/6
2/20
3/3
3/20
5/15
6/19
7/17
Chuck Felling
12/31/15
X
NM
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Rose Hanson
12/31/14
O/E
NM
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Jack Hobbs
12/31/16
--
--
--
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
Mark Holbrook
12/31/14
X
NM
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
Jay Honohan
12/31/16
X
NM
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Kathy Mitchell
12/31/15
X
NM
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Margaret Reese
12/31/15
X
NM
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
Key: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM= No meeting
-- = Not a member
12-02-14
3b(12)
Approved Minutes
October 23, 2014
MINUTES
SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION
October 23, 2014
ROOM 209, IOWA CITY/JOHNSON COUNTY SENIOR CENTER
Members Present: Jay Honohan, Chuck Felling, Kathy Mitchell, Jack Hobbs,
Mark Holbrook, Margaret Reese, Rose Hanson
Members Absent:
Staff Present: Linda Kopping, Kristin Kromray, Michelle Buhman
Others Present: None
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL:
None.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by Honohan at 4:00 PM.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM July 17, 2014 MEETING:
Motion: To accept the minutes from the July 17, 2014 meeting. Motion
carried on a vote of 6/0. Mitchell/Holbrook
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
COMMISSION ASSIGNMENTS:
Honohan will attend City Council meeting in November.
REPORT ON AD HOC SENIOR SERVICES COMMITTEE:
Honohan reported that the Ad Hoc Senior Services continues to meet and that
the committee is working on approving all parts of the report that will be
submitted to the City Council. The report is to be submitted to the City Council by
the end of November. There will be a chance for public comment on the report
before it is submitted.
Approved Minutes
October 23, 2014
UPDATE ON RELOCATION OF THE SENIOR NUTRITION PROGRAM:
Kopping reported that the scissor lift on the loading dock was broken. The lift has
been repaired and Elder Services is planning on removing the remainder of their
large items soon. There continues to be a number of areas that need to be
cleaned of smaller items.
REPORT ON NEW HORIZONS BAND
Kopping noted that currently student band instructors are temporary part time
employees of the City who are paid once a semester and the band director is
paid a stipend each semester.
At the beginning of the semester the Director of the band mentioned to the New
Horizons Band Steering Committee that it was cumbersome and inconvenient for
the students to go through the hiring process with the City and often resulted in
bureaucratic mix-ups in which she had to become involved. The Band Steering
Committee approached staff to look into alternatives to the current way the
student instructors and director are paid. Specifically they wanted to know if we
could pay the student band instructors with a stipend, like we pay the director in
order to avoid the City employment process.
Kopping and Buhman said they would investigate this, but advised against it due
to concerns that it may lead to some unanticipated consequences. The
Committee wished to proceed and Kopping agreed to work with Committee
Chair, Jean Hill to follow up on this with Human Resources.
Kopping indicated she prepared an e-mail that was reviewed by Hill and
subsequently sent to the Director of Personnel. The Director of Personnel
referred the question to the City's Legal Department and the City Attorney and
Assistant City Attorney began to look more carefully at how The Center was
paying the student instructors and band director. They indicated that the
methods we have been using are not in compliance with the law.
The options for resolving this situation that were given by the Director of Human
Resources and the City Attorney's office are that the director of the band needed
to become a part time temporary employee of the City or an independent
contractor. In the latter circumstance the Senior Center would collect band
participation fees and the director would be paid a set amount of money to
compensate the director and all the student instructors. If this option were used,
there would need to be a contract with the city outlining such things as the
service to be provided, all fees, and indemnification.
Rose Hanson arrives at meeting.
2
Approved Minutes
October 23, 2014
The current director rejected both options. The NHB Steering Committee then
sent back two alternatives for consideration. They suggested that the Senior
Center collect the fees and then cut a check to either the University of Iowa
(making the University the fiscal agent for the band) or to the newly formed
fundraising organization, Friends of the New Horizons Band.
The City Attorney's office replied that if the University becomes the independent
contractor, contracts would need to be signed with the University outlining the
services provided. The second option was seen as problematic because of the
historically close relationship with the band and the City. Working with Friends of
the New Horizons Band would make that separation difficult when attempting to
establish a clear line between the New Horizons Band and The Center.
Kopping distributed a letter she drafted to the Steering Committee outlining the
response to the inquiry and setting a two-week deadline for making an
employment decision. This was in keeping with directives from the legal
department.
OPERATIONAL OVERVIEW
Kopping reported that we will be getting new drinking fountain on the ground floor
that will have a bottle filler option.
Three coils were found to be leaking on the chiller. The repair for new coils may
cost as much as $11,000.
The FY16 budget is due to finance department. Kopping reported that various
areas of the budget are split out into new orgs.
Buhman reported that proofing of the winter program guide is currently taking
place. The Earth Box project was very successful. The 175 anniversary of the
City is occurring in December and Buhman has been working with the City
Clerk's office on some programming for this. Buhman has completed the work on
designating the Senior Center a blue zone work site. Lastly the Iowa City book
festival went very well. This year was the first time the Senior Center was a
location for programs for the Iowa City Book Festival and the programs held here
went very well.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Honohan reported that the volunteer recognition dinner went very well.
Approved Minutes
October 23, 2014
Mitchell asked that the alcohol policy be put on the agenda for the November
commission meeting.
ADJOURNMENT:
Motion: To Adjourn. Motion carried on a vote of 7/0. Mitchell/Hobbs
4
Approved Minutes
October 23, 2014
Senior Center Commission
Attendance Record
Year 2014
Name
Term Expires
11/21
12/19
1/16
1/30
2/6
2/20
3/3
3/20
5/15
6/19
7/17
10/23
Chuck Felling
12/31/15
NM
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Rose Hanson
12/31/14
NM
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Jack Hobbs
12/31/16
--
--
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
Mark Holbrook
12/31/14
NM
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
Jay Honohan
12/31/16
NM
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Kathy Mitchell
12/31/15
NM
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Margaret Reese
12/31/15
NM
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
Key: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM= No meeting
-- = Not a member