HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-02-09 Bd Comm minutesAirport Commission
December 15, 2014 4b(1)
Page 1 -
MINUTES FINAL
IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION
DECEMBER 15, 2014 — 5:30 P.M.
AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING
Members Present: Jose Assouline, David Davis, Minnetta Gardinier, A. Jacob Odgaard,
Chris Ogren
Staff Present: Michael Tharp, Eric Goers
Others Present: Matt Wolford, Greg Broussard, Carl Byers
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council
action):
None.
DETERMINE QUORUM:
Chairperson Ogren called the meeting to order at 5:35 P.M.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Ogren began by asking if Members had any changes to the November 20 meeting minutes.
Odgaard stated that he had some questions regarding the FAA/IDOT projects section. He
asked what 'CIP' refers to. Tharp responded that this stands for `capital improvement program.'
Ogren suggested that in minutes such as this, that such abbreviations be spelled out the first
time they are used so that all readers know what they stand for. In the same paragraph,
Odgaard noted that there is a reference to '17 and 18,' and he asked if this refers to `items.'
Tharp stated that this was part of the application packet that was being discussed at that time,
and that this was referring to the projects for that particular fiscal year. In other words, the '17
and 18' referred to the fiscal year being discussed in the CIP. Odgaard stated that he would
also like a clarification on the section regarding Airport minimum standards. He asked if this is a
document that is available regarding the flight training requirements the FBO or the Airport has
to adhere to. Ogren noted that this was actually in the meeting packet. Ogren moved to
accept the minutes of the November 20, 2014, meeting as amended. Assouline seconded
the motion. The motion carried 5-0.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION:
None.
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION:
a. Airport Commerce Park — Tharp stated that the listing agreement with
Realtor Jeff Edberg and Lepic-Kroeger Realtors ends at the end of the calendar
year. The closings on the two land sales are not projected to take place until the
end of January. Tharp noted that they are therefore looking to extend the current
Airport Commission
December 15, 2014
Page 2
listing agreement for a few months, in order to cover these closings. He then
responded to Member questions regarding this extension.
i. Consider a resolution amending the listing agreement with Lepic-
Kroeger Realtors — Gardinier moved to approve Resolution #A14-11
to amend the listing agreement with Lepic-Kroeger Realtors as
discussed. Assouline seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0.
b. Airport Master Plan — Greg Broussard first introduced Carl Byers,
Engineer, who has joined their team. He noted that Byers has 25 years of airport
experience. Byers then spoke to Members, stating that he has been doing
airport engineering in eastern Iowa for 25 years, as stated, and that his first
project was on runway 17/35 back in 1989. Previously Byers was a pilot with the
Air Force, and a Lt. Colonel with the National Guard.
Broussard then gave Members a quick update on the Master Plan process.
Currently they are getting the names of additional business users, as they only
received four responses from the initial survey. He noted that they will be
submitting the `inventory' and `forecast' for review in the next few days, and that
once they have received comments back on this it will be forwarded on to Scott
Tanner. From there, an open house will be planned so that they can share what
they have found from this.
Odgaard asked Broussard to elaborate on what is meant by `inventory.'
Broussard noted that this is a chapter required for the Master Plan that looks at
all of the existing stuff that is at the Airport. This covers types of aircraft, types of
navigational aids, and basically everything that is included with the Airport
currently. Broussard stated that this helps them to forecast needs for the Airport
into the future. Byers also addressed the `inventory' question, noting that it
covers everything from parking, hangar availability, size and shape of taxiways,
the runway system, and the electrical system of the Airport.
Members continued to ask questions of Broussard, with Ogren asking if there is a
plan in place to publicize this upcoming open house. He stated that they do —
that between the various web sites and whatever the Commission suggests, they
will get the word out to the community. Tharp added that they will be doing direct
mailing to Airport tenants and email alerts, as well.
C. FAA/IDOT Projects: AECOM (David Hughes) —
i. FYI Obstruction Mitigation — Tharp stated that Hughes is out
of the country currently and therefore unable to attend.
ii. Runway 7/25 Parallel Taxiway — Tharp shared that he does have
one of the final change orders on this project, so things are wrapping up.
He added that they have received comments from the FAA on the
obstruction mitigation engineering agreement. This will be on the January
agenda.
iii. Taxiway B lighting — Tharp stated that they are still waiting for a
couple of the light fixtures to arrive. Once they do arrive, these will be
replaced and this project will be closed out.
Airport Commission
December 15, 2014
Page 3
d. Airport Operations —
i. Strategic Plan- Implementation — Tharp stated that he would like
to schedule a presentation for either January or February. This would be
to give everyone a refresher and to bring new Members up-to-date. He
noted that the current plan ends in 2015, so they will need to work on a
new five-year plan soon. Odgaard asked Tharp how this planning is
coordinated with the Master Plan process. Tharp stated that it becomes a
part of it, with the Master Plan covering more of a 20 -year timeframe and
the Strategic Plan being a five-year plan, one that is more focused.
Odgaard asked if it shouldn't be the other way around, and adapt the
Strategic Plan to the Master Plan. Tharp stated that ultimately they do
not want plans that contradict each other. He further explained the
history of these two planning processes. Members continued to discuss
this, with Byers helping to explain the Master Plan and Strategic Plan
differences. Tharp further explained the Strategic Plan process to
Odgaard and how they have tried to review it on an annual basis. Tharp
reiterated that if all Members are present at the January meeting, he can
do a presentation/refresher on the Strategic Plan.
ii. Budget — Tharp stated that there is not much to update currently.
They are still working on the presentation for the City Council, which will
occur the first part of January. Tharp added that they are looking at some
changing times, with regard to the changing tax reforms in Iowa and the
expected drops to City revenue from this.
Gardinier asked Tharp what 'R&M' refers to. He noted that this is `repair
and maintenance.' She asked about the references to Jet Air in this
section, and Tharp further explained how the Jet Air agreement works.
One invoice is for $4,500 and covers groundskeeping, building
maintenance, and snow plowing. Another invoice, for $500, covers
janitorial services, and the third covers the maintenance supply
reimbursement. This means that if Jet Air has gone out and bought lawn
chemicals to spray the weeds, for example, this invoice covers such
supplies. Tharp further explained how this looks on the spreadsheet that
Members have.
iii. Management — None.
e. FBO/Flight Training Reports —
i. Jet Air — Matt Wolford with Jet Air spoke to Members about the
monthly reports, stating that the self -serve fuel pump's display was
recently replaced. He then briefly explained some of the miscellaneous
maintenance items that were addressed during the November and
December reporting period. Wolford noted that a few weeks ago Jet Air
had their FAA inspection for the `145 repair station.' He stated that they
passed with flying colors and that the FAA will be bringing their certificate
this week. Continuing, Wolford noted that Jet Air recently upgraded their
crew car fleet. Gardinier asked if they have any identifiers on these cars,
to let people know they are Jet Air. Wolford spoke to this issue, noting
that they do not and this led to a brief discussion by Members.
Airport Commission
December 15, 2014
Page 4
Wolford then talked about flight training and the process for international
students to obtain their pilot's license. Odgaard stated that he has one
student that was concerned about switching from Iowa Flight Training to
Jet Air for this very reason, but that it may be a good first -case scenario
for them to work from. Wolford agreed that this would be a good idea.
Members continued to ask general questions of Wolford about Jet Air and
its operations.
f. Commission Members' Reports — Gardinier stated that she flew down
to Sarasota, Florida to visit family over the Thanksgiving holiday. She
shared what the flight conditions were at the time and how she missed
the icing that other areas saw. Odgaard shared that he flew the 172 for
the first time. He believes learning to fly this type of aircraft will be
attractive to some students.
g. Staff Report — Tharp spoke to Members about the window -blind issues
and how they are addressing this and moving forward. The cost of the
blinds is at $2,500, according to Tharp. He then responded to Members'
questions regarding the windows. Tharp then noted that he plans to be
out of the office over the holidays, from December 24 through January 5.
SET NEXT REGULAR MEETING FOR:
The next regular meeting of the Airport Commission will be held on Thursday, January 15,
2015, at 6:00 P.M. at the Airport Terminal Building.
ADJOURN:
Ogren made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 6:35 P.M. Davis seconded the motion.
The motion carried 5-0.
CHAIRPERSON DATE
C
O .1
'N o
E vi
E
O
U
E Ln
CL U bn
N
4J
Q 0 d
T
O
N
12/15/14
z
2
X
�
X
x
Z2
X
X
11/20/14
Z2
X
X
X
z2
0
m
L
0
10/16/14
z
2
O
w
O w
X
z
2
X
N
X
N
09/18/14
z
2
X
-0.0
¢
X
X
z
2
X
X
x3�
08/21/14
z
2
X
X
X
z
2
X
O
07/17/14
z
2
X
X
X
z
2
X
z
2
06/23/14
z
20
w
X
X
z
2
z
2
z
2
05/1514
z
2
x
X
X
z
2
z
2
z
2
04/17/14
z2
X
X
x
z2
z2
z2
03/17/14
z
2
X
X
X
X
02/20/14
X
x
X
X
x
z
2
z
2
02/14/14
X
X
X
X
X
z
2
z
2
01/16/14
x
X
x
x
X
z
2
z
2
01/14/14
x
X
X
X
X
z2
z�
01/16/14
X
X
X
X
X
z
2
z
2
01/14/14
x
01/07/14
X
X
X
x
X
z
2
z
2
It
LO
w
lr
rl-
r•
r•
w X
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
F-- W
M
O
M
O
M
O
M
O
M
O
M
O
M
O
V
m
W
ca
�
C
m
A
a)
-a
O
y
.�
Q
Z
2
Rr
N
N
N
OE
�_
O
p
cu
__
'a
rn
c
�
m
E
a)
�
N
co
m
L
^(u
LL
:
W
a)
a)O
a)
N
N
co
to
a
O
aL
Q
-0.0
¢
z
AN
1
x3�
w
II
o
11
w
O
11
2
z
0
annomin
MINUTES APPROVED
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
NOVEMBER 12, 2014 — 5:15 PM
CITY HALL, HELLING CONFERENCE ROOM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, Gene Chrischilles, Connie Goeb, Brock
Grenis, Becky Soglin
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Susan Dulek
OTHERS PRESENT: Jim McCarragher, Dwight Dobberstein
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM.
ROLL CALL:
A brief opening statement was read by Grenis outlining the role and purpose of the Board and
the procedures that would be followed the meeting.
CONSIDERATION OF THE OCTOBER 8, 2014 MEETING MINUTES
Baker moved to approve the minutes.
Soglin seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0
SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEM EXC14-00011 :
Discussion of an application submitted by Dwight Dobberstein to allow off-site parking in the
Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-12) zone at 318 N. Linn Street.
Walz began by showing the zoning map where the property is located, just outside the C132
area in the RNS-12 zone. The subject property is located in the Neighborhood Stabilization
Residential (RNS-12) zone at 318 North Linn Street. The purpose of the RNS-12 zone is to
stabilize certain existing residential neighborhoods by preserving the predominantly single-
family residential character of these neighborhoods. Provisions in the zone prevent the
conversion or redevelopment of single-family uses to multi -family uses.
Board of Adjustment
November 12, 2014
Page 2 of 12
The subject property is a single-family use that currently provides no off-street parking. k
is therefore considered non -conforming with regard to parking. While the house includes 4
bedrooms, the rental permit allows an occupancy of no more than 2 unrelated persons due
to the lack of on-site parking. The maximum number of unrelated persons allowed in the zone
is 3. In order to allow of up to 3 unrelated persons, the property must come into compliance
with the required parking -2 spaces.
There is sufficient space in the back yard of 318 North Linn Street to provide 2 off-street
parking spaces, however this would require paving over most of the yard. In order to preserve
the back yard space, the applicant is proposing to provide the required parking on the
abutting lotto the east at 311/313 Davenport Street. The property at 311/313 Davenport
currently provides 6 parking spaces off the alley (two spaces are provided in the garage and 4
spaces on the parking aisle between the alley and the garage). In addition, at least one
parking space is provided on east of the house with access from Davenport Street.
The applicant is also the owner -occupant of 311/313 Davenport Street, which has a rental
permit allowing a maximum of 3 unrelated persons per unit. For two-family uses (duplexes)
the zoning code requires 1 off-street parking space per dwelling unit, unless the unit is
occupied by a household with more than two unrelated persons, in which case an
additional space is required. The maximum total parking that would be required for the duplex
property at 311/313 Davenport is 4 spaces -2 for each unit to allow a maximum occupancy
of 3 unrelated persons per unit. The applicant is proposing to construct one additional space
off the alley, to the east of the garage, which would stack the two spaces to be assigned for
318 North Linn.
Walz stated the Garage, Driveway, and Parking Standards for single-family zones are the
following: "For single -and two-family uses in the zone, a required parking space may be
located behind another parking space on a regularly constructed aisle, provided the spaces
are not stacked more than two spaces deep, counting the space within the garage."
Walz indicated that in accordance with the specific standards, the proposed parking is
located in the same RNS-12 zone and that the applicant had the required location plan,
drawn to scale, showing distance, parking location, walking route, property lines, etc. The
location plan shows two stacked parking spaces intended to serve 318 North Linn located
approximately 93 feet from the back door of the house. Staff believes the off-site parking
locations are sufficiently convenient and accessible because the two properties are abutting,
and parking is located along the rear alley that serves the both properties. Providing the
parking for 318 Linn off site will allow the applicant to preserve the minimal amount of rear
yard space that is available for the enjoyment of the residents and will reduce the additional
amount of paving necessary to meet the parking requirement.
Walz stated that Staff has recommended, and the applicant has indicated, that the
covenant be submitted as a condition of approval of the special exception. The covenant must
be approved by the City Attorney.
Grenis asked for clarification if the exception pertains only to the parking being next door? If
the owner were to make the backyard into the two spaces, would that require an exception?
Walz stated that would not require a special exception.
Board of Adjustment
November 12, 2014
Page 3 of 12
Baker asked about the requirements for space in a backyard that cannot be paved over,
if that is an issue in this case. Walz replied that the owner has adequate space in the
backyard to add the two parking spots without exceeding the coverage standard. Grenis
stated it would take an estimated 75-80% of the backyard space.
Goeb asked if there were any zoning requirements regarding the amount of space in a
backyard that can be paved. Walz stated there was not however there are standards for
setbacks, area of property that can be built upon, but pavement rules apply mainly to
front yards.
Jim McCarragher, representing the applicant, stated that the pavement has begun in the
proposed area, as it needs to be done before the weather turns too cold. That is
unrelated to the current application; the area being paved can be done without special
permission.
Walz ran through the general standards for the special exception. Staff believes the
application satisfies this criterion because the parking spaces are provided on the abutting
property along the alley that serves both properties. Residents will access parking from the
alley, which is considered safe for pedestrians and vehicles, and similar to how other
residents in the neighborhood access their parking. The proposed arrangement provides
assigned parking for the residents and will address this property's demand for on -street
parking.
She noted that parking is already established along the alley, and the property at 311/313
has more the parking than is required to serve the duplex located on the site. Staff believes that
the off-site parking arrangement preserves the limited private open space on the subject
property, which is a benefit to the residents of the single-family use and the neighborhood in
general as it has the potential to minimize paving in a very densely built neighborhood. The
zoning code allows required parking spaces for single- and two-family uses to be stacked. Staff
does not believe that the number of cars parking along the alley presents any concern
with regard to congestion on public streets and, in fact, will help reduce some demand for on -
street parking. The Director of Neighborhood and Development Services has indicated that the
parking area conforms to all other applicable regulations and standards.
Walz stated that the Central District Plan calls attention to the demand for rental properties in
this neighborhood and encourages a healthier balance of owner -occupied and rental housing.
It is noted in the plan that renters are able to pool funds such that they can outbid single-family
homebuyers. Though much of the Plan's focus is on homes that are reconfigured into
apartments, one may question allowing the increase in occupancy made possible by the
provision of parking. However, the subject property has adequate space in the rear yard to
provide two parking spaces on site. Staff believes it is therefore preferable to preserve the back
yard of 318 Linn, which would likely be paved if the special exception is denied.
Another goal of the Comprehensive Plan is to bring over occupied and non -conforming
properties into compliance. Because the home has four bedrooms, there may be a temptation
to over -occupy the rental. Providing off-street parking to allow 3 unrelated roomers will heip
ensure that adequate parking is provided for residents of the property. Staff believes that
posting a sign indicating the off-site parking will help ensure that residents and owners of both
properties are aware of the off-site parking agreement, and will allow Rental Inspectors to
readily verify that required parking is in place. This will help to ensure compliance over time as
Board of Adjustment
November 12, 2014
Page 4 of 12
owners and residents of the two properties change.
Staff recommends approval of the application subject to two conditions:
• City Attorney approval and recording of the covenant for off-site parking; and
• The subject off-site parking spaces should be posted with a sign indicating the spaces
assigned to residents of 318 North Linn Street. The sign to be approved by the Senior
Housing Inspector.
Soglin asked for clarification on which home was the owner -occupied house, Walz stated it is
the house on Davenport Street and confirmed that in the non -owner -occupied housing is
allowed to have 3 unrelated renters in the home, however, because currently there is no
provided parking, the limit is 2 unrelated renters in the home, but because it is a 4 bedroom
house there is a desire for more occupants.
Baker stated that this situation can be remedied without the exception, if the backyard were just
to be paved.
Grenis asked if since it were a 4 bedroom home, could there be 4 unrelated renters? Walz
stated that was illegal. Dulek confirmed legal action could be taken if that discovery was made.
However if a family or related occupants lived in the home, there is no limit.
Grenis asked if there were to be more parking, could then 4 unrelated people be in the house
and Walz stated no, the limit in that zoning is for 3 unrelated renters in one home.
Baker asked how long the zoning has been in place on this property. Walz answered it was
approved in early 2000's, perhaps 2003. Dulek stated it happened when the City started taking
action on single-family homes being converting into apartments or duplexes. Baker asked how
long the owners have owned the property.
Dwight Dobberstein, owner, stated he has owned the properties for approximately 15 years
and that the occupancy/parking requirements changed after the property was purchased.
Chrischilles asked Walz about RNS-12 zoning that states the purpose is to stabilize certain
existing residential neighborhoods by preserving the predominantly single-family residential
character of these neighborhoods. However it doesn't appear to be doing that.
Walz explained that when they talk about the single-family character it means the houses
themselves not being divided into duplexes or triplexes.,lit is not stating family in the sense of a
nuclear family., You can have a household of unrelated people., The zoning is referring to the
buildings themselves and the general cap on occupancywhereas in certain areas of the City
there were places where there could be 4-5 unrelated renters. This occupancy requirement is
the same in an RS -5 zone you would find well outside of the University Impact area. It has the
same occupancy standards for it is to preserve the character of the structures. Chrischilles
stated he thought that RNS-12 is to help balance the rental properties with owner -occupied
properties.
Dulek gave an example of the nearby house where the owner lives. If the owner changes that
home to make it no longer a duplex, removing the dividing wall, then if after another few years,
they would like to reinstate the home back into a duplex, they would not be allowed to.
Anything that was in the area already as a duplex or triplex was grandfathered in. There are
structures in the RNS-12 area that are clearly not single family structures.
Board of Adjustment
November 12, 2014
Page 5 of 12
Goeb stated that if there were not sufficient space in the backyard for the parking and the only
option was the adjacent property parking that needed the Board's exception, and the Board
granted the exception, they would then be contributing to the density of the property allowing it
to go from 2 unrelated renters to 3. Walz explained that it allows an increase in occupancy, not
density. She stated that, in this case, as the owner can proceed either way, but is asking for the
exception to avoid taking away the backyard space.
Chrischilles agreed thinking that the RNS-12 zoning was to limit the increase of density,
however just by increasing a parking spot; one can increase occupancy in a home that is
meant to keep a single-family character. Walz stated they are increasing the occupancy, not
the density. There could be a household of 10 in the same home if they are related.
Goeb stated that would then resort the property back to single-family and not multiple renters.
Walz stated the zoning is not to discuss the question of family, but to limit the number of
household/dwelling units on a property. Dulek confirmed that the zoning code does not
distinguish between owner -occupied and rental; it regulates the density and occupancy. The
Comprehensive Plan for a neighborhood states the type of occupancy desired.
Dulek confirmed that if she has a family of 10 and rents the property that is okay, as if she were
a family of 10 that owned the property and lived there; however in any case, only 1 unrelated
person can live in the property. The likelihood of when you have a duplex or triplex is that you
will have renters. So the idea of stabilizing it is if it ever changes, sold to someone who takes
the property from a duplex or triplex to a single -unit home, it cannot be changed back, it will
always be a 1 unit structure, it can never be put back into a duplex or triplex. Density speaks to
the number of units per acre, occupancy is the number of people per dwelling unit and is
primarily dependent on the zoning and parking.
Chrischilles asked for clarification then that the RNS-12 zoning code does not apply in any way
to the desirability to have owner -occupied single family homes in that zoning area. Because if
all that is required is matching parking spaces to number of people in a dwelling he doesn't see
how the RNS-12 zoning has any impact.
Walz read the RSN-12 zoning code purpose: "The purpose of the Neighborhood Stabilization
Residential Zone is to stabilize certain existing residential neighborhoods by preserving the
predominately single-family residential character of these neighborhoods. Provisions in this
zone prevent the conversion or redevelopment of single family uses to multi -family uses."
Walz further explained that this application is not changing the property to a multi -family use, it
is remaining a single-family use. Walz sensed the confusion is the word "family," which in the
zoning code just refers to how many units are on the property; it does not distinguish the type
of people that live in those units. Single-family means there is a property with just one dwelling
unit on it.
Chrischilles countered that statement saying the zoning code says it wants to stabilize
residential neighborhoods by preserving predominately single-family residential character.
Walz stated that in this zone, mostly what you have is single-family houses, a structure with
one living unit. Dulek explained that the single-family units cannot be divided up into duplexes
to increase occupancy. Chrischilles felt the zoning code was poorly worded and should state
single -unit and not single-family. It is misleading.
Board of Adjustment
November 12, 2014
Page 6 of 12
Walz stated the zoning code was put in place to help preserve the architecture of the area, so
multiplex buildings could not replace the character of a single-family home. Goeb felt the
architecture is not being preserved if you can build a parking lot behind all these homes to
allow for the unrelated renters. Walz stated the zoning code does not prevent anyone in any
zone from paving a good deal of their backyard.
Soglin asked if a married couple could then live with 2 other un -related people. Walz stated no,
only a family plus 1 unrelated person can live in the unit. The zoning code says a related
family of however many can live in the unit, but only 1 unrelated person can live with them.
Soglin stated the owners could be paving the backyard of this property, so if the special
exception is allowed they could still go ahead next summer and pave the backyard, which Walz
agreed could be done. Dulek stated the Board could add a condition to the approval to not
allow that to happen, if the Board's concern was to limit pavement.
Baker stated he did not have a problem with paving the backyard in this particular property.
Soglin stated she did as the area around the home is a lot of pavement.
Walz stated that in the Central District Plan there is language that talks about the lack of public
open space and an interest of having private open space for people to enjoy. This exception
would be a minimal amount of paving on the adjacent property in order to preserve the
backyard, which to staff seemed like a good tradeoff.
Soglin stated that is based on good faith of the owners, which is her issue. If the Board allows
this exception the homeowner could still pave the backyard.
Chrischilles agreed, stating the pavement on the adjacent property has already been done, and
then if the backyard is also paved, it would not allow for more renters, but would allow for more
parking and desirability of the rental properties. He goes back to the character of the
occupancy is not altered one way or the other by the pavement of the backyard.
Goeb asked for clarification on what the Board is approving then if the pavement has already
been done. Watz stated it is so those new parking spaces can be used for the neighboring
building so the occupancy can be raised to 3 unrelated renters in that unit.
Soglin asked why the owner is just now seeking to raise the occupancy, after owning the unit
for over 15 years.
Dobberstein stated there are currently 3 occupants in the unit, which is in violation of the
occupancy rules, so that is why they are seeking to increase the parking, to be in compliance.
When the property was purchased there were more than 3 occupants, when the new zoning
took affect they reduced the occupancy and were told they could only have 3 and proceeded
renting under that understanding. During a recent inspection when asked about parking,
Dobberstein showed the inspector the adjacent parking, as it always had been, thinking they
were in compliance.
Chrischilles asked if during the rental property inspection if the parking has to be verified and
Walz stated it is her understanding. Chrischilles stated the owner had been issued a rental
permit all these years with the occupancy stated as 2. The inspector does not always know
how many occupants are really in the units during the inspection.
Board of Adjustment
November 12, 2014
Page 7 of 12
Chrischilles also questioned why a special exception is not necessary to pave the backyard if
the issue of the application is to have enough parking to allow for 3 renters. Dulek stated the
zoning code allows pavement of property as a right.
Dobberstein explained that the house used to have a garage behind and a parking space
behind the garage. It was rundown, a homeless guy was living in it, and it was burnt down.
Now to be in compliance, he feels there is no reason to have parking in the backyard since
there is ample space for parking next door.
Goeb stated a concern that the owner has allowed 3 occupants for years when the rental
permit specifically states 2.
Walz asked Dulek how the Board could tie the condition of not allowing pavement of the
backyard to the special exception. Dulek said it could state the agreement to allow the parking
on the adjacent property is contingent on not paving the backyard.
Chrischilles states the Board cannot override the zoning ordinance, which allows for property
owners to pave their land, which is confusing then because Dulek is saying there can be a
restriction placed on the exception approval. Dulek stated if the backyard is then paved in the
future, the special exception would become void. There is no way to stop pavement of the
backyard in perpetuity.
McCarragher explained to the Board the goal of this application is to save the green space of
the backyard and the owner would not want to pave the backyard if the exception is granted.
There is currently a lot of stacked parking in that area, so it will not change the character of the
area and will allow some green area where there is very little. If the exception is denied, the
only option is to put the paving in the backyard. The goal of paying the money to go through
the exception process is to avoid paving the backyard. As far as the future goes, if a condition
is attached to the exception, and the owner did pave the backyard, the exception goes away.
However, there would be a covenant regarding the parking spaces and the covenant would
transfer between owners. There is currently a garden in that backyard that would be sad to
have to remove to put in the pavement.
Soglin stated if Council in upcoming years puts restrictions on paving backyards that would
preserve the green space for future use as well.
Goeb asked again for clarification because it appears if the paving has already been laid in the
spot, and there is already three occupants in the house, what is the Board approving? Walz
stated the Board is approving the dedication of that paved spot for the residents of 318 N. Linn
Street.
Open public hearing
No one present to speak.
Closed public hearing
Grenis asked for clarification on if the Board could put the restriction on the pavement of the
backyard.
Board of Adjustment
November 12, 2014
Page 8 of 12
Dulek confirmed again the Board could place a condition on the special exception, but if the
owner wanted to pave the backyard they could, it would just make the special exception void.
Baker stated he came to the meeting predisposed regarding the special exception because the
trade-off is the special exception seemed to present parking on another property to preserve
green space. He now looks at that green space, the neighborhood, the alley, the buildings
around it, and has no problem with putting 2 parking spaces in that green space. One of the
assumptions he was basing his judgment on was the special exception would allow for an
additional tenant in the unit. However, since there are already 3 tenants in the unit, when the
rental permit only allows for 2, allowing parking adjacent property is not necessary to satisfy
that requirement. Baker believes the parking should go on the property for which the tenants
live and by doing so it will be legitimizing the use they already are using, it won't increase the
use.
Grenis stated whether they are being legal or not right now is not the issue.,lt's a peculiar
application because the solution is right there. The owner can put parking spots elsewhere as
long as within 300 feet of the property, but since they happen to own both properties and there
is space for parking at the other property, it seems to be a good solution to keep the backyard
open. In going through the general standards he tried to focus on the option—this appears to
be the best option.
Soglin agrees.lt is important to save the green space and that is supported by some of the
specific standards. The bigger issue of parking in that neighborhood forces difficult decisions
and unfortunate trade-offs
Chrischilles states he sees the exception as the lesser of two evils, doesn't believe the intent
was to look at this as a reasonable solution. Although not within the power of the Board, he
stated his disappointment on being asked to rule on something there is no real control of
because if the special exception is denied they can go ahead and put the pavement in the
backyard and if we grant the exception they can just continue with what they were already
doing, just would now be in compliance.
Goeb agreed with Baker that she came in with one opinion and after discussion has another
opinion and feels that backyard will be paved in the future so why not just do it now.
Grenis called for a motion.
Dulek asked if the sentiment of the Board was 3-2 in favor of the exception. If not, the Board
would need to go through each of the standards and state findings as to why there is not a
preponderance of evidence. If there are 3 that will grant the exception then that would not be
necessary.
Grenis asked if everyone had looked at the findings and know what they can base their denial
on. Baker stated the argument that the tradeoff is the benefit of green space vs. parking is not
compelling, as put forth in the application, page 4 item 2. Dulek stated the question is whether
the specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property
in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the
neighborhood. Walz explained that under this standard staff saw this as an opportunity to
preserve green space on the property. Dulek said staff found it was not injurious and would not
diminish or impair property values, and if the Board thinks otherwise they will have to state why
it would be injurious and will substantially diminish or impair.
Board of Adjustment
November 12, 2014
Page 9 of 12
Soglin Moves to approve EXC14-00011, an application submitted by Dwight Dobberstein
to allow off-site parking for property in the Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-
12) zone at 318 N. Linn Street subject to:
• City Attorney approval and recording of the covenant for off-site parking; and
• The subject off-site parking spaces should be posted with a sign indicating the
spaces assigned to residents of 318 North Linn Street. The sign to be approved
by the Senior Housing Inspector.
Baker seconded the motion.
Grenis asked for discussion on the motion.
Baker stated that if this was a request for an exception request based on the fact there is no
other option, however in this case they do not need the special exception to achieve the goal
they are trying to achieve. Therefore the Board is under no obligation to grant that exception.
Dulek stated that is not correct., The applicant filled out an application and if the criteria are met
then application is to be approved. The why is in question. If the application is not approved,
there needs to be a "why -not" stated.
Baker questioned if once the staff has receives an application they set up the
criteria/standards. Walz explained that Council sets the criteria/standards; it is in the City
Code. The Board vote is needed because the Board may see the application does not meet
the criteria/standards and have a different opinion than staff.
Baker questioned the criteria of meeting the need for green space, and Dulek explained that is
not one of the criteria; it was just used in the staff report to show that the placement of the
paved parking space in the application is not injurious to the property as there is other parking
over there as well. Walz stated that by injurious they are looking to see if there is a safety
issue placing the parking there or an inconvenience and the space will not be used. Baker
commented that stacked parking is never ideal; however Walz stated it is allowed in the code.
Chrischilles asked even though it's allowed, could the Board state that because the stacked
parking is an inconvenience and therefore injurious to the residents when they could have side
by side parking right behind their house. Dulek replied that would not be a successful
argument since the stacked parking is allowed in the code, so it cannot be injurious.
Dulek acknowledged the City Code states that exceptions cannot be injurious to the use and
enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity. The Board must decide if the proposed
exception is injurious or not injurious to the use and enjoyment of the property in the vicinity.
Staff concluded no, however the Board can come to a different conclusion. Additionally the
Board needs to discuss if the exception will substantially diminish or impair property values in
the neighborhood. If the Board concludes there is reason to believe it is injurious, then they
need to state why. These are general standards applied to all exceptions, not just having to
deal with parking or this specific application. So the Board must determine if there is
something about this proposal that is unsafe or injurious to the use of this single-family
property.
Goeb asked if delaying voting on this item is an option to have more time for discovery. Her
dilemma is the whole preservation of the neighborhood, and if it is not being preserved in a way
one would think when hearing the term single-family, and then why not just pave everything up.
Board of Adjustment
November 12, 2014
Page 10 of 12
Dulek stated that is not the question of the application, and therefore not up to the Board to
determine what should or should not be paved.
Soglin feels that the Comprehensive Plan is to help preserve green space and this application
is following that plan by having the parking at the other property so to keep the green space at
the application property.
Grenis noted that since there were no public comments from surrounding properties, that
shows this application is not injurious.
Walz asked if the issue Goeb and Baker were having with the application is because they feel it
is unnecessary. Goeb stated it was more that the Board is not really in any decision making
situation, rather just "rubber stamping" the application because there is no choice.
Walz stated the Board does have a choice, but they must just state why the application is not
meeting the standard. Goeb questioned if the staff and legal counsel find the application
meets the standards than how can the Board disagree. Walz explained that when staff reviews
an application the only criteria is to see if it meets the standards and if there is something that
doesn't meet the standard criteria, then explain why. There can be times when something
seems very reasonable, but it does not meet the criteria. Additionally, there could be a case
where the application does not seem necessary, but it meets all the criteria. In this case, Walz
reviewed the application and found that due to the character of the neighborhood, because part
of the pavement was already there, in effort to preserve the green space at least at the present
moment, the application appeared to be a benefit with no negatives.
Baker asserted the staff put the report in terms of stating it was advantageous to approve the
exception. Baker sees no advantage to that space remaining green, it is such a small space.
Chrischilles discussed item 7, the Comprehensive Plan, and questioned the staff report stating
the proposed exception will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive
Plan encourages a healthier balance of owner -occupied and rental housing. The Board could
say this application discourages an unhealthier balance because it increases the occupancy of
the unit. Dulek said that was not a viable reason for denial because whether the unit allows for
2 or 3 does not reflect if it is owner -occupied or not.
Grenis stated the Comprehensive Plan calls for preservation of green space and the Board
cannot disagree with that. Then in the next paragraph it states another goal of the
Comprehensive Plan is to bring over occupied and non -conforming properties into compliance,
which this exception will do.
Dulek explained that the Board must show how this application is inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. Chrischilles stated if the Comprehensive Plan and the Code have
standards for occupancy based on parking and this property does not meet that standard one
could argue the Board is allowing the increase of occupancy by allowing the exception. Walz
stated the applicant could provide the parking without the exception though too. Staff could not
find any evidence to deny the application. The benefit found is preserving the green space of
the backyard.
Grenis said that regarding EXC14-00011 he concurs with the findings set forth in the staff
report of November 12, 2014, and concludes that without comment from neighbors of the
property it is found to not be injurious and supportive to the surrounding areas and the general
Board of Adjustment
November 12, 2014
Page 11 of 12
and specific criteria are satisfied. Unless amended or opposed by another Board member he
recommends that the Board adopt the findings in the staff report as their findings for the
acceptance of this proposal.
Soglin seconded what Grenis stated.
Baker stated his appreciation to the applicants for going through the process.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 3-2. (Baker and Goeb dissenting).
Grenis declared the motion for the special exception approved, noting that anyone wishing to
appeal the decision to a court of record may do so within 30 days after the decision is filed with
the City Clerk's Office.
OTHER:
None
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION:
None
ADJOURNMENT:
Soglin moved to adjourn, Goeb seconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 5-0 vote.
Z
W
2
F-
U)
Q
LL
O
D
Q
O
m
0
O
LU
w
W
C)
Z
Q
Z
W
F-
H
Q
r
O
N
M
r
O
N
N
e
X
X
X
X
X
r
co
O
X
X
X
O
X
X
X
X
X
rn
v
X
X
X
X
X
W)
O°
X
X
X
X
X
et
N
X
X
X
X
X
M
°�°
X
X
X
X
X
r
r
N
X
X
X
X
X
r
ti
X
X
X
X
X
r
co
X
X
X
X
X
os
N
X
X
X
X
co
O
X
X
X
X
N
X
X
X
X
tD
XU')
co
v
co
W
o
0
0
0
0
N
N
N
N
N
H
W
Z
W
H
U
N
a
Zm
J
m
J
V
_
Cr
N
U
Z
W
W
m
Z
N
J
Z
Cao
U
C7
U
N
wI
0
Charter Review Commission
January 13, 2015
Page 1
MINUTES FINAL
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
JANUARY 13, 2015 — 7:45 A.M.
HELLING CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL
Members Present: Steve Atkins, Andy Chappell, Karrie Craig, Karen Kubby, Mark Schantz
(via telephone), Melvin Shaw, Adam Sullivan
Members Absent: Anna Moyers -Stone, Dee Vanderhoef
Staff Present: Eleanor Dilkes, Marian Karr
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 01/06/15 and 01/07/15
b. Email from Bob Elliott
Sullivan moved to adopt the Consent Calendar as presented. Shaw seconded the
motion. The motion carried 7-0, Moyers -Stone and Vanderhoef absent.
REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF:
Chappell noted that he met with the Sunrise Optimist Club that morning and gave them an
overview of what the Commission is doing, and encouraged the group to weigh in. Kubby
asked what type of questions the group had. Chappell noted that one point raised was in
regards to the `qualified' versus `eligible' issue and whether you would lose the verification step
in this process. Another comment was in regards to Council compensation and what might be
recommended here. Chappell then stated that last Thursday he spoke to the Chamber's Local
Government Committee, basically giving the same information, and discussing the process that
the Charter Review Commission has been following.
REVIEW CHARTER AND DISCUSSION OF SECOND PUBLIC FORUM:
Chappell briefly discussed whether everyone wanted their notes from the forum typed up for
distribution or if they felt the minutes captured everything okay. Sullivan, Shaw, and Atkins
stated that they believe their notes were captured in the minutes. Karr stated that she can send
the notes to Chappell for his review, and he could notify her if he felt the notes should be typed
up and distributed. Chappell agreed that this would be a good idea. Reviewing what their
group's input was, Chappell noted that his group was very consistent with wanting 'change.'
02-0
4b(3)
Charter Review Commission
January 13, 2015
Page 2
Council compensation, Chappell asked if this is still an issue and what the Members think
about this. Sullivan stated that one comment he heard was that there is a feeling it should be
increased, but that it should not be built into the Charter. One reason being that this is not the
appropriate place, but the other is that this should not be an automatic mechanism, especially in
lean budgetary times, when a council may wish to not make an increase here. He believes they
should recommend to Council, outside of the Charter recommendations, that they look at this
issue separately. Shaw stated that he is not certain that this Commission should suggest a
particular salary or percentage of increase for the council. He added that he believes it is fine
the way it is in the Charter now. Kubby stated that she heard people saying it should be
increased. Shaw asked to what amount, that he has not yet heard a satisfactory formula for
such an increase. He agreed that council is underpaid for all they do, but that he is not sure
what amounts they should even consider. Kubby stated that by putting something in the
Charter itself it would then be structural, which would not give council any flexibility. She
believes that this is okay though. However, she does not believe that an actual number should
be put in the Charter, that something either needs to be tied to the CPI or a percent of median
income, so that it is a standard. Atkins stated that he is not comfortable with formulas that you
put into something, such as the Charter. Kubby stated that if you were to put in a set amount,
then it is stagnant for the next 10 years, until the Charter is reviewed again. Craig stated that
she believes they should leave this as is in the Charter and then make a recommendation that a
committee review this. She added that she heard several comments at the forum that the
compensation should be increased, some to as much as $37,500 for a council member and
$75,000 for the mayor.
Sullivan stated that he believes Council needs to hear this from their constituents and he doubts
they are. Shaw noted that under Section 2.06 it states that 'The council by ordinance shall
prescribe the compensation for the mayor and other council members.' Therefore, he believes
this addresses some of the issue of how often their compensation can be changed. Chappell
then asked Schantz what his feelings are on this issue. Schantz stated that he believes it
should be changed, that a recommendation would not address the basic problem — that the
council is conflicted in the issue of increasing compensation. He believes it is time to come up
with some language for the Charter that would address this. Sullivan asked for some
clarification on how this process was handled in the past, with recommending language and
substantive changes to the Charter. Chappell stated that ultimately if there is no consensus on
a change, then it does not move forward. At this point he asked if others want to do something
here, stating that he is not inclined to make a change in the Charter. He believes that the
compensation is too low; however, he is unsure of how to reach a consensus on what they
should do. He is less convinced that it should be this Commission making the change and
deciding what the change should be. Craig noted that some in her group made the comment
that even if there is an increase, what guarantees that something will change here. Chappell
asked again if there is consensus to suggest a change. He noted that Kubby and Schantz both
appear to feel strongly about this issue, and he suggested they write up a proposal prior to the
next meeting. At that point they can find out what the absent Members think, as well as the rest
of the Commission.
Qualified versus eligible (signatures for initiative and referendum petitions) - Chappell
stated his sense is that they have heard a lot of the same arguments regarding this matter. He
has not changed his mind on the matter, and he asked where others stand. Previously there
was a consensus to make the change from "qualified" to "eligible." Schantz stated that he is on
the `eligible' side. Sullivan stated that he is also interested in changing to 'eligible.' He noted
that his group at the forum had a couple of people who were not aware of this issue, and both
Charter Review Commission
January 13, 2015
Page 3
agreed that `eligible' made sense. He added that one participant was strongly in favor of
`qualified' and keeping that in place. This person did, however, agree that if the number of
signatures on petitions were increased that they could agree to `eligible,' as well. Shaw stated
that he is leaning towards `eligible' at this point, but that he could change this if the signature
number were not increased. He added that he does not want the process to be so easy that
people are bringing frivolous matters forward that could result in costly elections.
Kubby questioned the actual numbers of initiative versus referendum petitions. Dilkes noted
that this is a whole discussion in and of itself because it's actually fairly simple to craft
something and frame it as an initiative or a referendum, depending on what suits your purposes.
Chappell then asked Schantz if he supports bumping up the number of signatures required on
petitions. Schantz stated that his first thought would be to leave it as is, but that he is flexible.
Chappell then asked Atkins where he stands on the issue. Atkins replied that he is on the
`eligible' side, but that when it comes to changing the Charter itself, for example, it should be
harder to do. He believes that since it is a policy of the City to encourage participation by the
community members that `eligible' makes more sense. Dilkes noted that it is not her sense that
getting that number is the problem for people who want the change to "eligible" so much as not
knowing how many you collect are going to be rejected. Karr noted that there is a second
chance to get the required signatures, that the City gives people the chance to complete this
process. Chappell asked if Atkins believes the number of signatures should be bumped up, and
he agreed that it should, along with the change to 'eligible.' Craig stated that she too would
agree to `eligible' but that the number of signatures should be increased more than a little. She
gave an example of times where making this process `too easy' could cause some major issues
for the community. Kubby stated that it really does take some effort to get even the 2,500
signatures, and she is for the change to 'eligible' but believes they should keep the number of
signatures the same.
Discussion continued, with Members talking about the possible unintended consequences of
changes to this process. Shaw stated that he believes that changing it to `eligible' and
increasing the number of signatures provides a balance for those who put earnest effort in
collecting signatures. He added that he does not believe it is anyone's intention to discourage
anyone from doing this. The ease with which it could be done if changed to `eligible,' however,
makes him believe the number needs to increase. Shaw stated that as far as the number of
signatures, something less than 5,000 would probably be a good idea. Sullivan stated that he
believes it is a misplaced fear that under a different system they may have superfluous
referenda. He stated that they have not seen this type of behavior yet, and he doubts that it
would occur. Secondly, if someone wanted to do this now they could petition the City for
Charter amendments. Dilkes noted that the Supreme Court has said it has to be a form of
government amendment in order to amend the Charter, not just any legislative issue. Chappell
stated that he is not too concerned that this would happen either. Shaw asked if a change to
`eligible' would affect at all City staff and the work that they do. Karr clarified the petition review
process for candidates running for office, noting that will be handled by the County and not the
City Clerk starting this year, versus the review of initiative and referendum petitions. Candidate
papers were basically reviewed for an Iowa City address and a signature. The initiative and
referendum review started with registered voter rolls. Karr questioned what Clinton's language
is on this, as they are the only other city that does initiative and referendum here in Iowa.
Members continued to discuss this issue, with Dilkes and Karr providing clarification as needed.
Chappell summarized where they are with this issue, having six people who are supportive of a
change. He proposed that prior to the next meeting he will look at what specific changes need
Charter Review Commission
January 13, 2015
Page 4
to be made with regard to swapping 'qualified' with 'eligible.' He will run this by Dilkes for review
and have it available prior to the next meeting. He asked that Members come back with any
proposals they may have as to the number of signatures. He noted that Kubby would like no
change, as does Schantz. Sullivan, Shaw, Atkins, and Craig are for an increased number of
signatures.
District representation — Chappell noted that time was running out and asked if anyone has
heard anything new on this issue. Sullivan stated that he heard the idea of keeping everything
the same, except opening up the primaries to all voters. Atkins stated that he got the
impression from his group that `districts' were like `wards' in that if you lived in the district, you
ran in that district. Kubby added that some wanted to switch to a 4/3 mix, and as a group this
Commission has not wanted to do that, that everyone wants to maintain a majority at -large.
She stated that one suggestion was by someone from the Chamber, who suggested all seats be
at -large for recruitment purposes, but that no one else agreed with this. Craig stated that a
person in her group suggested up to 11 districts, all at -large. She added that some felt that
having four districts would give more representation to different areas of the city. Karr reviewed
the current process that takes place after each decennial census, noting districts are 'balanced'
and regulated by the state. Kubby stated that she continues to want true districts, as long as
they have four at -large. She believes that people will feel more represented by the district
seats. She also spoke to the potential for campaigns being different, should different people run
for seats in their district.
Shaw noted that they have previously discussed the issue of going to all districts and how these
could become little `fiefdoms' or issue -oriented districts. He questioned if having this type of
system would even be good for the city as a whole. Kubby responded that perhaps having
districts would give more voice to some of these important issues, since council members would
be more accountable to that geography. Members continued to discuss this issue, with
Chappell stating that what he likes about the current system is that it is set up so that the
districts pick their 'all-star,' who would be best to represent them. Kubby again stated that
having it be a 4/3 split (district/at-large), she believes, gives more balance to the system.
Chappell stated that he feels that he can go to any one of the council members and express his
concerns, not just the councilor for his district. They all represent the city as a whole. He added
that saying the current system is `too hard to explain' is not reason enough to make this change.
Kubby continued to speak to her reasons for making a change to pure districts. She stated that
she believes some issues do not get the attention they deserve, and that such a change would
help to deter this problem. Craig stated that you would hope anyone who is running would bring
up such important issues and that they are looking out for the city as a whole, not just their
district. Members continued to share their opinions regarding a pure district setup. Chappell
asked Schantz where he stands on this issue. He noted that he is really not sure at this point.
Schantz added that he believes the compromise that was made to achieve the current system
has worked pretty well. He is not in favor of having a completely at -large process, and that he is
somewhat sensitive to the concerns of having `ward -like' behavior if they move in that direction.
However, he may be open to some changes to the current system, although he leans towards
leaving it as is. Shaw asked if Kubby could put together a draft of what Section 2.01 would look
like, and she was agreeable to do this. Atkins added that if they were to go with pure districts,
there could be the chance of someone coming in with no competition. Members noted that this
has occurred under the current Charter.
Charter Review Commission
January 13, 2015
Page 5
Election of Mayor— Schantz stated he will come up with a draft for the 'election of mayor' issue
for Members to review.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
None.
DISCUSSION OF THIRD PUBLIC FORUM:
Chappell then turned the discussion to the third public forum. He noted that their hope is to
have the Charter review complete and a redline version available for review by that date. He
suggested they pick February 24 as the public forum and others agreed. Atkins noted that he is
unavailable that date.
TENTATIVE THREE-MONTH MEETING SCHEDULE (7:45 AM unless svecified): Schantz
noted that he has a conflict for the next meeting but stated he would provide information on
`election of mayor'.
January 27 — meeting will run until 10:00 A.M.
February 10
February 24
March 3
March 10
March 24
(Commission work completed no later than April 1, 2015)
ADJOURNMENT:
Atkins moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:05 A.M., seconded by Sullivan. Motion carried 7-0,
Moyers -Stone and Vanderhoef absent.
Charter Review Commission
January 13, 2015
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
o
o
O
o
0
0
o
O
o
0
4h.
of
W
Q)
C)
-I
c0
c0
O
O
s
NAME
EXP.
\
O
ooW
\
\
s
\
\
N
-4
\
\
O
\
\
N
46N
\
\
N
\
\
N
\
\
N
w
\
\
O
W
\
\
N
W
\
\
W
o
\
\
j
\
\
N
00
\
\
O
\
((A
A
ah
46
46
ab
ah
-N
46
ab
ah
41,,
�
N
\
�
\
A
4/1/15
X
X
O/
X
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
X
Chappell
Karrie
4/1/15
X
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
X
Kubby
Mark
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/
X
X
X
O/
X
O/
X
X
Schantz
E
E
E
Melvin
4/1/15
X
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
X
Moyers
E
E
Stone
Adam
4/1/15
X
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
X
Vanderhoef
E
Key.
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
--- = Not a Member at this time
Charter Review Commission
January 13, 2015
Page 7
Charter Review Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD (cont.)
2014/2015
Key.
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
--- = Not a Member at this time
TERM
0
0
0
0
NAME
EXP.
O
N
w
O
a)
O
j
w
N
A
A
to
Cn
(n
cn
411/15
X
X
X
X
X
Steve
Atkins
Andy
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
Chappell
Karrie
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
Craig
Karen
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
Kubby
Mark
4/1/15
X
X
X
O/
X
O/
Schantz
E
E
Melvin
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
Shaw
Anna
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
O/
Moyers
E
Stone
Adam
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
Sullivan
Dee
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
O
Vanderhoef
Key.
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
--- = Not a Member at this time
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 20, 2015
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Tracy Hightshoe, Housing and Community Development Commission
Re: Recommendations from Housing and Community Development Commission
At their January 15, 2015 meeting the Housing and Community Development Commission
approved the November 20 minutes with the following recommendation to the City Council:
HCDC recommends the City Council approve the 2016-2020 Consolidated Plan with the
following changes: Employment Training and Transportation be included as public
service priorities, the same public service priorities be used for public facilities, and as
opposed to a $50,000 minimum award for public facilities the language be changed to no
more than two public facilities shall be awarded funding per funding round. The
Commission also recommends that the preference under the economic development
set-aside shall be for micro -enterprise assistance.
Additional action (check one)
No further action needed
Board or Commission is requesting Council direction
_x_ Agenda item will be prepared by staff for Council action - Done
4b(4)
MINUTES APPROVED
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 20, 2014 — 7:00 PM
DALE HELLING CONFERNCE ROOM, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Byler, David Hacker, Jim Jacobson, Dorothy Persson,
Christine Ralston, Angel Taylor, Rachel Zimmermann Smith
MEMBERS ABSENT: Michelle Bacon Curry, Andrew Chappell
STAFF PRESENT: Marcia Bollinger, Tracy Hightshoe
OTHERS PRESENT: Kyra Seay
HCDC recommends the City Council approve the 2016-2020 Consolidated Plan with the
following changes: Employment Training and Transportation be included as public service
priorities, the same public service priorities be used for public facilities, and as opposed to a
$50,000 minimum award for public facilities the language be changed to no more than two public
facilities shall be awarded funding per funding round. The Commission also recommends that
the preference under the economic development set-aside shall be for micro -enterprise
assistance.
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 PM.
Ralston moved to approve the minutes of the September 18, 2014 meeting with minor edits.
Persson seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0.
There were none.
Housing and Community Development Commission
November 20, 2014 — 7:00 Pm
Page 2 of 7
STAFF/COMMISSION COMMENT:
Hightshoe introduced Marcia Bollinger, staff member in Neighborhood Services who will be the
lead contact for the Aid Agency projects.
REVIEW OF THE DRAFT 2016-2020 CONSOLIDATED PLAN (a.k.a. CITY STEPS):
Zimmermann Smith stated that the review of the draft consolidated plan is something fairly new
to many members of the Commission so Hightshoe will guide the Commission through the
document. It is a HUD mandated document, so there is not a lot of changes the Commission
can make in regards to formatting.
Hightshoe explained that the Consolidated Plan is a five-year plan to guide the City on how to
spend the CDBG and HOME dollars received each year. The Plan includes an estimate of the
funds we anticipate receiving; however the actual amounts are determined by the program
income received during the 5 -years and annual approval of a budget by Congress. Hightshoe
stated they anticipate the allocations will likely go down over the next 5 -years given the federal
climate. Therefore, when Hightshoe mentions an amount, it will be estimates, subject to change.
In the five-year plan there is a lot of data. The consultant, per HUD guidance, pulls much of the
data from Community Housing Authority System (CHAS) and the 2010 Census. Hightshoe asked
the Commission to focus on the priorities identified and the set -asides. She distributed two
documents for discussion. The first was the proposed set-aside activities and amounts. In the
last Plan, the Council established set -asides for rehabilitation, economic development, etc. by
Council resolution. In this Plan, the set -asides are directly identified. A separate Council action
will not be needed. Set -asides means funds are directly allocated to that activity, typically
administered by City staff. Set asides include rehabilitation, economic development, public
infrastructure (neighborhood amenities), Aid to Agencies and administration. The Commission
will recommend allocations for the entire Aid to Agencies budget under a different allocation
process in January. The other set -asides will be administered by staff. The CDBG public
service allocation is limited by HUD rules to no more than 15% of the CDBG entitlement plus last
year's program income.
The set -asides also support the Owner -Occupied Housing Rehabilitation program. In the
previous Council resolution, 13% of the CDBG and HOME entitlement plus CDBG rehab
program income was allocated to rehabilitation. With federal entitlements going down, it was not
sufficient to maintain our existing program. In the last few years, the City has applied for and
been awarded additional funds through the competitive process. The rehab. set-aside is now set
so that the City can continue to complete about 20 — 25 homes per year. Economic
development used to be 15% of the CDBG entitlement but in this proposed plan it is lowered as
more businesses have greater access to credit than they did in 2008/09. The amount has been
dropped to $50,000 and the oversight is done by the City Council Economic Development
Committee.
To align with the City's Strategic Plan we have introduced a new set-aside for public
infrastructure for neighborhood improvements in the amount of $75,000. This will grant greater
flexibility in responding to neighborhood needs and efforts to assist with neighborhood
stabilization. Staff will survey neighborhood needs, get feedback from neighborhoods and/or
neighborhood representatives and work with Public Works staff to price and bid projects such as
Housing and Community Development Commission
November 20, 2014 — 7:00 Pm
Page 3 of 7
sidewalk connections, neighborhood parks improvements, increased lighting, and streetscape
improvements in low income census tracts that are not primarily student dominated.
Improvements to the downtown neighborhoods are possible if for a specific low -moderate
income household (must be income certified) such as sidewalk replacements.
Byler asked about the $235,000 in CDBG and $90,000 in HOME for rehab. and how it was
calculated. Hightshoe clarified that amount is based on number of projects per year that the City
hopes to complete (20-25) and to cover the administrative costs to complete the projects. The
HOME set-aside for $90,000 for owner -occupied housing rehabilitation should be stated with the
CDBG set -asides for clarification, it was omitted by mistake.
Hightshoe stated that once the CDBG set -asides are removed there is approximately $80,000
available each year for public facilities and/or housing activities. There will be approximately
$298,000 available for HOME eligible housing activities. In the application, it states the
minimum award is $50,000. With $80,000 available, staff recommends the wording be changed
to no more than two CDBG projects in each funding round to grant some flexibility on the amount
allocated to one or two projects.
Byler asked who set the $50,000 project minimum amount. Hightshoe stated it was
administration's preference to start making a larger impact with our limited funds and factoring
administrative time to complete the projects.
Hightshoe stated that in total, what will be allocated out in March with CDBG/HOME funding
awards is about $378,000. There will be $80,000 in CDBG eligible projects and $298,000 for
HOME projects. The Aid to Agency budget includes $100,000 in CDBG funds. HCDC will be
recommending the budget for the entire Aid to Agency pool of funds that includes an additional
$278,000 in City general funds in January. In total, the Commission makes a budget
recommendation for approximately $756,000 in federal and local funds to eligible projects
annually.
Jacobson asked if the CDBG/HOME budget for competitive allocations (approx. $378,000) is
consistent with other years, because it seems low. Hightshoe confirmed that it was lower due to
the set -asides.
Hightshoe stated that HCDC can make recommendations to Council about set -asides, both the
activity and the amount of funds allocated to it. Council has final approval, but will consider
HCDC recommendations.
The second item Hightshoe wished to point out to the Commission from the Plan is the priorities.
In 2011 — 2015 all eligible activities were listed and were prioritized as high, medium, low or no
need. Any activity could be funded, except no need, without a Consolidated Plan amendment.
In the 2016-2020 Plan an activity may only be funded if identified as a priority. If not a priority
and Council wishes to fund, a Consolidated Plan amendment must be done. Hightshoe
suggested HCDC review the priorities. The Commission has the ability to edit the list, expand it,
or shorten it.
Hightshoe pointed out the priority changes from the 2011-2015 plan (high priorities) to the new
2016-2020 plan.
Housing and Community Development Commission
November 20, 2014 — 7:00 Pm
Page 4 of 7
Byler commented that the economic development committee reviews the fagade improvements
and small business assistance (including micro -enterprise), but some of these activities such as
fagade improvements don't necessarily assist extremely low, low income or moderate income
households. That seems to be a lot of money spent on an activity that could be better used to
benefit the extremely low or low income community. Hightshoe explained that 70% of the CDBG
activities must benefit low -moderate income (LMI) persons. There are some eligible activities
that don't require a LMI benefit. Fagade improvements are a CDBG eligible activity in an urban
renewal area that doesn't require a LMI benefit. It would be considered as preventing slum and
blight. Iowa City has various urban renewal areas founded on slum and blight in addition to the
City -University, such as the Towncrest Urban Renewal Area.
Persson asked if within the economic development set-aside could it be limited to only loans for
small businesses? Hightshoe confirmed it could. There was discussion regarding the funds
going to downtown businesses. Hightshoe stated that to be eligible the business has to hire
primarily LMI persons without requiring advanced degrees or certifications or be considered a
micro -enterprise (5 or fewer employees and/or employees, 51 % of which are LMI).
The City Council Economic Development Committee reviews the economic development
activities. The consensus of HCDC was to recommend that this set-aside focus on micro -
enterprise assistance and, if necessary, that fagade improvements be limited to areas of town
that really need revitalization.
Hightshoe explained a new partnership with MidWestOne bank regarding loans for business
owners under 80% median income. Applicants will apply to the City, the City will approve or
deny and forward loan approvals to MidWestOne. MidWestOne will enter a loan agreement,
provide the funds and service the loan, including collection if the borrower is delinquent. The
City will guarantee the loan amount. Having MidWestOne service the loan provides better
collection services and also provides the opportunity for the borrower to establish a line of credit
with a commercial lender and provides a lending history that can be used to obtain credit at other
banks.
HCDC discussed the priorities in the draft CITY STEPS Plan. Jacobson commented on the
listed priorities, and questioned the omission of transportation. Hightshoe stated in the 2011-
2015 plan it was a high priority, but in the X016-2020 plan is was not identified as a priority.
Hightshoe stated the consultants may not have included as the cost for transportation services
often exceeds the amount of CDBG funds available, such as the costs of an additional bus line,
etc. CDBG funds could assist with a taxi cab voucher program that requires much less funding.
Ralston stated that it's best to have as much on the priority list as possible since that is the only
way to receive funding. Zimmermann Smith questioned why employment funding is not listed as
a priority, as well as crime prevention.
Jacobson asked if the Commission was limited to the number of priorities. Hightshoe replied that
there is no limit to the number of priorities, but there is only $100,000 of funds in public services
to be allocated and about $80,000 for public facilities/housing with CDBG funds.
Zimmermann Smith requested that employment training be added as a public services priority.
Discussion on crime prevention, financial literacy, transportation and elder services priorities.
Housing and Community Development Commission
November 20, 2014 — 7:00 Pm
Page 5 of 7
Ralston questioned what would be an example of an activity that would fall under the public
facilities realm. Hightshoe stated that the way the draft Plan is worded any activity that benefits
low income households would be eligible.
Hacker recommended keeping the priorities general and allowing the greatest flexibility.
The Commission questioned the statement of "large family" as one of the desirable recipient
groups. Hightshoe stated the Plan's definition of a large family is a household of five or more
people where at least one person is related to the household by blood, marriage or adoption.
Members of the Commission discussed having different priorities for Public Services and Public
Facilities and found that to be inconsistent and suggested the same priorities be used for both.
Persson moved to have HCDC recommend that City Council approve the draft 2016-2020
Consolidated Plan with the following changes: Employment Training and Transportation be
included as public service priorities, the same public service priorities be used for public facilities,
and as opposed to a $50,000 minimum award for public facilities the language be changed to no
more than two public facilities shall be awarded funding per funding round. The Commission
also recommends that the preference under the economic development set-aside shall be for
micro -enterprise assistance.
Jacobson seconded the motion.
At vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0.
Jacobson questioned if HCDC should review the Affordable Housing Location Model at an
upcoming meeting as it is included in the Consolidated Plan as well. Hightshoe gave a brief
background about how the location model was developed and what reasons prompted the
model. Byler stated certain neighborhoods already have a high concentration of affordable
housing; however it should be noted that many of the newer neighborhoods are too pricy for
affordable housing and a barrier to building affordable housing. The Commission all agreed this
was an important topic to discuss at an upcoming meeting to see if there are any
recommendations the Commission should make to City Council as it relates to disbursing
affordable housing throughout Iowa City and in terms of policies to help create affordable
housing in city assisted residential developments. Will place as an agenda item in late spring or
early summer after the allocation process.
NEW BUSINESS:
Hightshoe discussed the FY16 CDBG/HOME Funding Process Timeline stating it was similar to
previous years. Applications will be due on January 16, the question/answer session will be
February 19, and review and budget recommendations scheduled March 5 and March 12.
Following the March meetings the FY16 Action Plan will be drafted to be presented to Council at
their May 5 meeting.
Persson stated that March 5 might be a problem as that is the Big 10 basketball tournament.
Zimmermann Smith felt the decisions could be made in one meeting, so possibly the only
meeting needed is March 12. There was a consensus to remove the March 5 date from the
timeline.
Housing and Community Development Commission
November 20, 2014 — 7:00 Pm
Page 6 of 7
Review and Approve FY16 CDBG/HOME Application Materials. Materials reviewed. There were
some changes to the evaluation criteria. Jacobson questioned the statement that "funds are not
available for public service eligible activities such as operations or salaries". Hightshoe stated
that those funding requests are considered under the United Way Joint Funding Process. We no
longer have extra funds for a funding round separate than the United Way Joint Funding Process
that includes about $100,000 of the City's CDBG funds.
Persson moved to approve the funding process timeline, as amended (removal of the
March 5 meeting date), the application materials with the amendment to state as opposed
to a $50,000 minimum award for public facilities the language be changed to no more than
two public facilities shall be awarded funding per funding round.
Taylor seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and motion carried 7-0.
Discuss and Review FY16Aid to Agency Funding Process & Timeline. Hightshoe reviewed the
timeline. Applications were due August 28. Applications from those agencies applying for Iowa
City funds will be distributed in December. The City Council will adopt CITY STEPS at their
December meeting that will outline the priorities for the next five years. Since the applications
were due before the City could adopt priorities, agencies will be allowed to submit an addendum
to state how their application fits into the priorities identified in CITY STEPS. On January 15
HCDC will formulate a budget recommendation to City Council. Hightshoe reported that
previously the Commission asked for the average score ranked vs. what was allocated. An
analysis was completed and submitted to members. Hightshoe asked if the Commission wanted
to tie the Aid to Agencies awards to CITY STEP priorities. That decision does not have to be
decided on at this time, but the Commission felt CITY STEPS priorities should be used as a
guiding principle.
MONITORING REPORTS:
Zimmermann Smith stated she was unable to complete her reports, FY15the Housing
Fellowship-CHOO & FY15 Crisis Center -Aid to Agencies. Hacker also stated he was
unable to complete his report, FY1 5 Shelter House -AidtoAgencies.
Persson worked with Brian Loring on the FY15 Neighborhood Centers -Aid to Agencies
report. Loring gave her a tour of the facilities on Halloween, showing the playground
HCDC had funded, also the drainage solutions they had been able to correct. It was
also encouraging to hear how they were partnering with other agencies to look for
programs to aid children. Overall it was a good visit and the improvements they have
made are all great.
ADJOURNMENT:
Jacobson moved to adjourn.
Ralston seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and motion carried 7-0.
C
O
.N
E
E
O
U
G
v
E
CL
O
E
a
Ino
� I
E
0
O N
U �
'a N
OA Q O
E
j to
2 Z a
z
O
Co
CO)
0
v
z
W
CL0
00
V
W
LU LO
> T
W
0
U�
Z
T
Z 17 N
z
LU
Oa
V
0
z
Q
0
z
N
T
W
O
W
O
i
iii
x
x
x
x
T
Co
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
o)
X
X
x
x
o
o
X
o
o
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
x
M
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
N
o
X
x
x
x
o
X
X
X
N
r
x
x
X
X
x
0
X
o
X
T
as
N
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
T
T
N
T
X
x
X
X
x
X
x
O
X
T
CD
X
X
X
Lu
x
X
X
T
CD
C
x
x
o
x
x
o
X
x
w
o
CL
W
IT
T
LO
r
�
r
M
T
(0
r
1`
r
CO
r
r
r
LO
r
r-
T-
LO
r
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
W
H
(3)
O)
O
O)
O)
O)
O)
O)
O)
O
O)
O)
W
J
J
W
U
W
UJI
z
H
>
Z
O
G
W
W
H
W
W
W
Z
J
J
a
a
o
W
x
0
V
JJ
a
V
OC
N
W
z
U)
a
z
OP
J
w
W
Z
O
a
W
Y
m
O
z
0
o
ul
U)
O
-j
Z
m
z
n
a
m
Z
H
Z
0
0
o
N
Minutes
Human Rights Commission
December 15, 2014 — 6 PM
Emma J. Harvat Hall
APPROVED
4b(5)
mmmmw�
Members Present: Harry Olmstead, Shams Ghoneim, Orville Townsend Sr., Ali Ahmed,
Kim Hanrahan, Joe D. Coulter, Stella Hart, Paul Retish, Andrea Cohen.
Others Present: Misty Rebik.
Staff Present: Stefanie Bowers.
Recommendations to Council: No.
Call to Order:
Olmstead called the meeting to order at 18:03.
Consideration of the Minutes from the November 18, 2014 Meeting Date:
Motion Coulter, seconded by Hanrahan. Motion passed 9-0.
Center for Worker Justice Just Employment Initiative
Misty Rebik reported on the status of several allegations against Rock Tenn, CFA Staffing and Sedona
Staffing based on discriminatory treatment and hour/wage violations. The allegations are made by 15
individuals many of whom are still current employees at the two staffing agencies. Rebik mentions that it
is the belief of the Center for Worker Justice (CWJ) that Rock Tenn is a joint employer to the staffing
agencies. In addition, Rebik informed that complaints have been filed with the Department of Labor and
the Iowa Civil Rights Commission. Rebik wants the community to know about the allegations because 1)
it is a human rights issue, and 2) it is necessary to make sure things change for the better. Rebik
commented that Rock Tenn has refused to speak or correspond with the CWJ. Townsend points out that
Rock Tenn is not the only employer in town violating workers' rights. Coulter encouraged Rebik to reach
out to the University of Iowa Center for Human Rights and the University of Iowa College of Law Legal
Clinic. Rebik believes a letter from the Commission would give more leverage to the CWJ in this
initiative. Rebik will supply the Commission with a redacted version of the complaint filed with the
Department of Labor to avoid exposing the names of the employees who have filed the complaints.
Motion Coulter, seconded by Ghoneim for the Center for Worker Justice Just Employment
Initiative to be placed on the January agenda. Motion passed 9-0.
Cohen would like to see the Commission take a more neutral stance until it has allowed both sides in the
dispute an opportunity to present information.
Motion Retish, seconded by Coulter to draft a letter to Rock Tenn, CFA Staffing and Sedona
Staffing letting each employer know that the Commission has been made aware of the allegations
and to be fair would like to provide them with the opportunity to provide any information they
would like concerning the allegations. Motion passed 8-1. (Townsend in the negative).
Equity Report
Coulter thinks that future reports could be created in a more readable format for the general population.
And would like to see the equity report as a standing agenda item.
Goal Setting Session
Commissioners designated leads for each of the four initiatives established by the Commission at its Goal
Setting Session. Hanrahan will lead the outreach to the community with assistance from Hart and
Townsend, Coulter will lead the outreach to Council with Retish assisting, Hart will lead the educational
programs for the community with assistance from Olmstead, and Ghoneim will lead the educational
presentations to the community with assistance from Ahmed and Townsend. Educational programs focus
on civil and human rights whereas educational presentations focus on the role and work of the
Commission in the community. Each group will provide monthly written reports on the status of each
initiative to be placed in the meeting packets.
Motion to accept the designated appointments by Coulter, seconded by Ghoneim. Motion passed.
9-0.
Job Fair Marketed for Retired Persons
Retish would like the Commission to sponsor a volunteer fair for retired persons who are looking to
volunteer with a local non-profit organization. A list of volunteer opportunities or resources will need to
be prepared and then those agencies/organizations should be invited to participate in the fair. United Way
and the Retired Senior Volunteer Program were mentioned as possible resources for the fair.
Making Johnson County a Human Rights County
Olmstead deferred this item. Professor Burns Weston who sent the correspondence is currently out of the
country, when he returns Olmstead will get more information from him concerning this topic.
Martin Luther King Jr. Day Proclamation
Either Townsend or Olmstead will accept the proclamation on behalf of the Commission. Bowers will
follow up closer in time to the January 6 Council meeting date.
Certificate of Appreciation Presentation
Olmstead presented Cohen with a Certificate of Appreciation signed by the Mayor recognizing her
service to the Commission and wishing her well in her future aspirations.
Reports:
Human Rights Breakfast
Bowers handed out results from the survey on the Breakfast for 2014. Attendees reported being very
satisfied with the Iowa Memorial Union (IMU). The survey close date runs to December 31. Bowers will
provide final survey results at the January meeting. If the event is held at the IMU in the future Bowers
will inquire about whether free or reduced parking is an option.
Education Subcommittee
Retish reported that he, Olmstead and Hanrahan are on the Iowa City Community School District
(ICCSD) Equity Committee and that many of the requests in the draft letter (see Commission packet of
12-15-14) have been passed on to the Director of Equity and Staffing for the ICCSD for follow up.
Townsend made the suggestion that requests are better made in writing. Coulter believes that the drafted
letter should still be sent out to the Superintendent of the ICCSD.
Motion Coulter, seconded by Hanrahan to send letter as drafted to the ICCSD Superintendent.
Motion passed 9-0.
Building Communities
Townsend discussed the need for affordable housing here in Iowa City and thought this subcommittee
may be a good venue to pursue talking about the issue.
2
University of Iowa Center for Human Rights
Ghoneim and Olmstead attended the Board meeting held on December 3, the next meeting will be in
April. The Annual Report was recently released and will be sent out to Commissioners in the near future.
The Center also held a Teach -In to commemorate International Human Rights Day.
Commission
Ghoneim reported that the American Civil Liberties Union Iowa Chapter has completed interviews and
hopes to make a job offer for a new Executive Director very soon.
Retish offered holiday wishes to all.
Hanrahan recently attended a program at the Dream Center where youth of color spoke on a variety of
topics including their media perceptions, interactions with law enforcement and relationships with peers.
The Dream Center will be holding a Youth Summit on Martin Luther King Jr. Day.
Coulter wished all happy holidays.
Cohen thanked Commissioners and staff. She has enjoyed her time on the Commission and hopes to
reapply in the near future. She wishes everyone a happy and healthy new year.
Townsend thanked Bowers for another year of her leadership to the Commission.
Ahmed discussed Human Rights Day in the Sudan and its historical significance.
Olmstead thanked Cohen for her service to the Commission. He also encouraged Commission members
to attend the upcoming community discussion on amending the City's Charter.
Staff
Bowers mentioned an upcoming meeting being held with the Police Department, Diversity Focus and The
Dream Center to help plan the upcoming Youth Police Academy.
Adjournment: 20:15
Next Regular Meeting — January 20, 2015 at 6:00 pm.
3
Human Rights Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
YEAR 2013/2014
(MPPtina n9tP)
NAME
TERM
EXP.
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
11/18
14
12/15
14
Ali Ahmed
1/1/17
X
X
O/E
O/E
O/E
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
Orville
Townsend, Sr.
1/1/17
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Paul Retish
1/1/17
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
O/E
X
O/E
X
O/E
O/E
X
Kim
Hanrahan
1/1/15
X
X
X
X
O/E
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Shams
Ghoneim
1/1/15
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Stella Hart
1/1/15
-
-
-
-
-
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
Jewell Amos
1/1/15
X
X
O/E
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
Joe D. Coulter
1/1/16
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
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
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
O/E
X
X
KEY: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
--- = No longer a member
R = Resignation
COPY
2014 Human Rights Breakfast survey
Convenience of
location for...
Convenience of
parking at t...
Quality of the
food
Quantity of
the food
Sound quality
in the room
Pace of the
Award Breakf...
Overall the
Award Breakf...
QI Please rate the following:
Answered: 30 Skipped:0
SurveyMonkey
0 1 2 3 4 5
Convenience of location for the breakfast
Convenience of parking at the location
Quality of the food
Quantity of the food
Sound quality in the room
Pace of the Award Breakfast program
Overall the Award Breakfast program was
Below average Fair
0.00%
43.33
'. 0
13
26.67%
40.00%
8
12
0.00%
26.67%
0
8
0.00%
10.34
0
3
0.00%
43.33%
0
13
0.00%
30.00%
0
9
0.00%
16.67%
0
5
Excellent
Total
56.67
17
30
33.33
10
30
73.33%
22
30
89.66
26
29
56.67%
17
30
70.00%
21
30
83.33%
25
30
Weighted Average
2.57
2.07
2.73
2.90
2.57
2.70
2.83
�p�
�W- J ���1
COPY
2014 Human Rights Breakfast survey
Yes
No
U2 Would you attend another Award
Breakfast program?
Answered: 30 Skipped:0
SurveyMonkey
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Answer Cholces Responses
Yes �,, 100.00
No 0.00
Total
30
0
30
COPY
2014 Human Rights Breakfast survey SurveyMonkey
Q3 Any suggestions for future Award
Breakfast programs or general comments?
Answered: 11 Skipped: 19
#
Responses _
Date
1I
The venue was great but only one door should be open to the meeting room and more signage available for
I
i 12/7/2014 12:51 PM
guests.
2
Good stuff.
1 12/6/2014 11:05 PM
3
It's always an inspirational event!
i 12/5/2014 3:12 PM
4
1 liked the new location at the union. Nicer room, parking was easy at that early hour. Program is always uplifting.
12/5/2014 1:53 PM
I even thought Mr. Leach was more compelling than usual. Guess he's a morning person! I don't remember that
all the recipients got to speak. That might be curtailed.
5
i The breakfast is always an inspiring event. The honorees are just wonderful. I liked the union this year.
12/5/2014 1:29 PM
6
1 always enjoy hearing about the accomplishments of the award winners..very interesting.
i 12/5/2014 12:36 PM
7
Turn up the volume on the mic, other than that, all good!
! 12/5/2014 11:32 AM
8
More dynamic speakers
12/5/2014 11:30 AM
9
1 would prefer the Sheraton or Hotel Vetro
iI 12/5/2014 11:27 AM
10
1 applaud the committe for moving this from the Sheraton to address past award winner concerns. Parking at the
12/5/2014 10:59 AM
Union however is always dismal at best.
11
Very enjoyable experience. Thanks for all that you do!
12/5/2014 10:57 AM
r
02-09-15
4�:.®4� C I T Y O F IOWA C I T Y 4b(6)
-�. MEMORANDUM
Date: February 2, 2015
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Bob Miklo, Planning & Zoning Commission
Re: Recommendations from Planning & Zoning Commission
At their January 15, 2015 meeting the Planning & Zoning Commission approved the December
18, 2014 minutes with the following recommendation to the City Council:
1. The Commission moved by a vote of 7-0 to recommend an application submitted by
Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission for a rezoning to designate the properties
located at 608, 610 and 614 S. Dubuque Street as Iowa City Historic Landmarks.
(REZ14-00024)
2. The Commission moved by a vote of 6-0 (Freerks absent) to recommend a rezoning to
amend an OPD- 12 plan to allow 72 multi -family condominium dwellings for property
currently zoned for single-family manufactured housing on 21.24 acres of property
located south of Paddock Circle and west of Heinz Road. (REZ14-00010) with
conditions.
3. The Commission moved by a vote of 6-0 (Freerks absent) to recommend approval of
SUB14-00022, a preliminary plat of Churchill Meadows, a 98 -lot, 39.6 -acre residential
subdivision located at 4701 Herbert Hoover Highway.
Additional action (check one)
No further action needed
Board or Commission is requesting Council direction
_X_ Agenda item will be prepared by staff for Council action - Done
MINUTES APPROVED
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 18, 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:
STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, John Yapp, Robert Miklo, Sarah Walz
OTHERS PRESENT: Alicia Trimble, Ginalie Swaim, Ted Pacha, Jim McCarragher, William
Ingles, Jen Allen, Kate Corcoran, Mary Bennett, Don Ancinux, Janice Fry,
Pam Michaud, Theresa Koppel, Steve Gordon, Jason Harder
The Commission moved by a vote of 7-0 to recommend an application submitted by Iowa City Historic
Preservation Commission for a rezoning to designate the properties located at 608, 610 and 614
S. Dubuque Street as Iowa City Historic Landmarks. (REZ14-00024)
The Commission moved by a vote of 6-0 (Freerks absent) to recommend a rezoning to amend an
OPD- 12 plan to allow 72 multi -family condominium dwellings for property currently zoned for
single-family manufactured housing on 21.24 acres of property located south of Paddock Circle and
west of Heinz Road. (REZ14-00010) with conditions outlined in the Staff report.
The Commission moved by a vote of 6-0 (Freerks absent) to recommend approval of SUB14-00022, a
preliminary plat of Churchill Meadows, a 98 -lot, 39.6 -acre residential subdivision located at 4701
Herbert Hoover Highway.
Freerks called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
71
There were none.
Comprehensive Plan Item
Set a public hearing for January 15, 2015 for discussion of amendments to the Comprehensive
Plan for the blocks generally bounded by Clinton Street, Jefferson Street, Bloomington Street and
Dubuque Street (AKA the North Clinton / Dubuque Street District): and the blocks generally bounded
by Gilbert Street, Burlington Street, Van Buren Street, and Iowa Avenue (AKA the Civic District).
Yapp explained to the Commission that upon setting up the hearing staff will notify all parties who
have expressed interest in being informed of this process (by providing email addresses), will place
the staff report on the City webpage, will update the public comment webpage, and will issue a
media release of the availability of the staff report for public review, and the date of the Planning
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 18, 2014 - Formal
Page 2 of 23
and Zoning Commission's public hearing. Yapp told the Commission they are allowed to set the
hearing for a date other than January 15, that date was chosen because it is the next regularly
scheduled meeting of the Commission.
Eastham moved set a public hearing for January 15, 2015 for discussion of amendments to
the Comprehensive Plan.
Martin seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and motion carried 7-0.
Rezoning Item (REZ14-00024)
Discussion of an application submitted by Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission for a
rezoning to designate the properties located at 608, 610 and 614 S. Dubuque Street as Iowa
City Historic Landmarks.
Yapp showed a map of the area and stated the Commission had received a rezoning application for
this block several months ago but that application has since been withdrawn. He showed images of
the buildings in question for the historic landmark application. Yapp described the background as
Alicia Trimble, Executive Director of Friends of Historic Preservation, has requested that the
properties at 608, 610, and 614 South Dubuque Street be designated as Iowa City Historic
Landmarks. The enclosed Iowa Site Inventory Form provides a detailed discussion of the buildings'
history and architecture. The Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission met on December 11,
2014 and conducted a public hearing where they reviewed and evaluated the historic significance of
the properties. The Commission determined that the properties meet the requirements for landmark
designation and voted 9-0 to recommend approval of the designation of 608, 610, and 614 South
Dubuque Street as Iowa City Historic Landmarks.
If approved by the City Council, designation of the properties as Iowa City Historic Landmarks will
require Historic Preservation Commission approval of any significant changes to the exterior of the
buildings. Landmark status will also make the properties eligible for transfer of development rights
according to the Riverfront Crossings Form Based Code, and special exceptions that would allow the
Board of Adjustment to waive or modify certain zoning requirements.
Yapp said that regarding Planning and Zoning Commission Review: Landmark Designation is a
zoning overlay and therefore requires a recommendation to the City Council from the Planning and
Zoning Commission. The Commission's role is to review the proposed designation based on its
relation to the Comprehensive Plan (the Riverfront Crossings area) and proposed public
improvements and plans for renewal of the area involved.
The Downtown & Riverfront Crossings Master Plan of the Comprehensive Plan applies to this
proposal. Beginning on page 51 the Plan discusses development opportunities throughout the sub
districts of Downtown and Riverfront Crossings. The introduction to the chapter states:
A key element of the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings District Master Plan
is the identification of future development opportunities. These opportunities
emerged from the Visioning Process, were tested during the Design Charrette,
and further refined and vetted during the refinement period following the
Charrette. They are grounded in the Market Analysis prepared for this plan, and
have been developed to the level of detail possible in a long-range plan.
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 18, 2014 - Formal
Page 3 of 23
Yapp explained that in the memo there are sentences in bold, and they are in bold in the memo
because they are bolded in the Riverfront Crossings plan.
It bears emphasizing — the Development Opportunities identified on the following pages are
conceptual in nature. Like their predecessors in previous planning efforts, their value is to
identify visions and ideas for specific areas. Successful visions will endure, but details will
change and evolve as projects are implemented. The plan is simply a vision, highlighting certain
areas. The decision to redevelop is ultimately up to the property owner.
Pages 66 through 69 of the Plan discuss the Central Crossings Subdistrict including the following on
page 69:
Cottage Preservation — Three historic brick cottages are located on the east side of
Dubuque Street between Prentiss Street and the Iowa Interstate Railroad line. Because they
are unique 19th century buildings, preservation of these structures should be a goal. In order to
encourage their preservation, it is recommended that a density bonus be granted for their
preservation and renovation.
The Historic Preservation Commission has recommended approval of the designation of 608, 610 and
614 South Dubuque Street as Iowa City Historic Landmarks, finding that the properties meet the
criteria for landmark designation, specifically criteria:
a. Significant to American and/or Iowa City history, architecture,
archaeology and culture;
b. Possesses integrity of location, design, setting, materials and workmanship;
Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to
the broad patterns of our history;
d. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past.
In summary The Riverfront Crossings Plan, in the'Development Opportunities' section, states
that preservation of these structures should be a goal and that it is recommended that density
bonuses be granted for their preservation. While it is a goal/opportunity, it is not a requirement,
and in this case the property owner has not sought a density bonus and the property owner has
submitted a formal protest for the requested rezoning.
Yapp also referred the Commission to some late handouts that were emailed just a few days prior to
the meeting and were not in the original packet. One was the minutes from the Historical Preservation
Commission, another was a statement written by Kelsey Pacha which was read to the Historical
Preservation Commission, and finally a copy of an online petition named "Tell Planning & Zoning
Commission to defer their vote until they have all the facts".
Freerks asked about the discussion at the August 12, 2014 Planning and Zoning meeting where they
discussed the Tate Arms building and its recommendation for historical preservation, and if staff
recommended the preservation of the Tate Arms building in their report, why do staff not state a
recommendation for the Cottages preservation in this report? Yapp stated the difference is with the
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 18, 2014 - Formal
Page 4 of 23
previous rezoning application for this property, staff had already made a recommendation that if the
structures (the cottages) were found to be structurally unsound and were not to be preserved, then
documentation of the structures should be required.
Eastham asked if because the Plan already encourages the preservation of the cottages, is there a
need for a historical status any more than already exists? Yapp stated the Plan would have to adhere
to the Code which states they need to be found eligible for historical preservation status to qualify for
transfer of development density. Eastham asked if the Tate Arms building had been designated as
historical status and Yapp stated it was designated as a historic landmark.
Eastham asked in reference to page one of the staff report, under Planning and Zoning Commission
review it is noted that the Commission's duty is to review the zoning overlay and questioned if
previous comprehensive plans applied to this area also indicated the desirability of some degree of
preservation for these properties. Miklo stated there was the Near South Side Plan which was before
Riverfront crossings, it wasn't adopted by the plan, but was adopted by resolution from the Council
and was put on a list of potential historic properties.
Eastham asked if there were objections by anyone during the considerations of the Riverfront
Crossings plan, and if there were objections on designating these particular properties as having a
goal of preserving them. Yapp could not recall any objections, and Miklo also stated he did not recall
any objections.
Freerks opened public hearing.
Alicia Trimble, Executive Director of Friends of Historic Preservation, stated that what the community
was asking for today is not extraordinary as a Planning and Zoning Commission's responsibility is to
make sure the City's Comprehensive Plan, in this case the Riverfront Crossings Plan, is followed and
since the cottages are in this plan the Friends of Historic Preservation ask that the Commission
forward the application. Trimble went on to say that Riverfront Crossings Plan is a great plan, it is a
beautiful vision for a sustainable neighborhood that contains both charming historic buildings as well
as significant new development. The cottages are specifically listed on page 69 of the Riverfront
Crossings Plan for preservation. Furthermore the Riverfront Crossings Plan area is supposed to have
a mix of housing with townhouses, condos, and small cottages because it is a central crossing area
specifically envisioned as a neighborhood. The retail and office space in this area should also be
conducive to neighborhoods, and we know that different types of buildings attract different types of
businesses. Right now the area is attracting businesses like bookstores, antique shops and martial
arts studios all beneficial to neighborhood development. However, based on the development on
Washington Street where the Red Avocado once stood, large buildings, as the one proposed, would
either be empty on the commercial floor or more likely be businesses that cater to college aged
students living above in the building. Trimble stated another large misconception that is going around
is that if these cottages are demolished the developer will be allowed to build a large four-story
building from the street to railroad track. However looking at the propose building and the
Comprehensive Plan, it doesn't appear the building design would pass the Commission because it
fails to meet the basic criteria of a building in a livable neighborhood.
Trimble pointed out that the Historic Preservation Commission found that the cottages were worthy
under landmark status criteria A, B, C and D. Trimble would also argue they are eligible under E and
F. Please note the Historic Preservation Commission had all available information to date on the
cottages when they cast their vote. The chair of the Commission will discuss their vote and the criteria
chosen later in the meeting.
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 18, 2014 - Formal
Page 5 of 23
Trimble also wanted to state that the cottages are structurally sound and safe, according to the
engineer report completed. That was the only criteria given by a member of the Planning and Zoning
Commission as to why the cottages would not be savable at the November 6 meeting. At the next
meeting, November 20, the developer's structural engineer found that all three cottages were
structurally unsound; however the decision today has nothing to do with the structural integrity of the
buildings, instead the Commission is deciding if the landmark application meets the Riverfront
Crossings Plan. Trimble would also like to reiterate what a small portion of this lot that the cottages
are a part of and showed a slide of the footprint of the area. She pointed out that even setting aside
the cottages there was ample area on the property to build upon. She pointed out that there was open
space shown on the plan that would make up for the square footage covered by the cottages.
Finally Trimble wished to address those that say this has been an eleventh hour move on the part of
the preservationists. She stated that if 22 years is eleventh hour then nothing would ever get done,
she joined the Historic Preservation Commission in 2006 and served until 2012 and in that time the
Commission took steps each year to try to get a survey done of this area and some attempts have
failed, but both the Commission and the Friends of Historic Preservation have never taken a break
from preservation of the near south side. Finally in October 2011 they were presented with an
opportunity to get this area surveyed, ironically after planning for that survey for three years, the
survey was to kick off today, December 18. Historic preservation does take time, what does not take
much time in Iowa City is demolishing a building that only has a seven day waiting period. Lastly
Trimble wanted to state one of the reasons preservation takes time is because it is a benefit to the
whole community and as part of that no individual goes it alone. The City of Iowa City offers transfer
of development rights for historic properties in this area, and in this case that means a four story
density bonus just as the developers of Tate Arms are receiving in addition to parking bonuses for the
preservation of another Iowa City landmark. As the more expensive steel and concrete building
supplies are only necessary for six stories and taller, a fifth floor could be added to the building without
the additional cost of more expensive building supplies. The state historic preservation office is also
available to help, when state historic status is received the owner will become eligible for bonus state
and federal tax credits as well as a number of grants. By not preserving these buildings, the
developer is losing some amazing opportunities from the preservationists.
In closing, Trimble stated the only decision before the Commission is if the application meets the
Riverfront Crossings Plan. As it is specifically mentioned and illustrated in the plan, it is requested
that the Commission help and act the community's vision today.
Eastham asked Trimble about the grants available from the state for historical preservation, and if
those monies could only be used for the three buildings under consideration, and that the owners
could not use part of the money to build a new building. Trimble confirmed grant money would only be
available to do work on the cottages.
Freerks asked if Friends of Historic Preservation had to initiate the Tate Arms landmark status.
Trimble stated they initiated the nomination as a landmark. When the City indicated to the developer
that they wanted the building saved, the developer contacted Friends of Historic Preservation and
asked to join in the landmark application.
Hektoen clarified for the record that the owner has withdrawn their request for rezoning of this area, so
there is currently no proposed development.
Ginalie Swaim, chair of the Historic Preservation Commission, spoke regarding their meeting of
December 11, 2014 where they discussed the application for landmark status of the cottages
submitted by Trimble and the Friends of Historic Preservation. The application detailed the cottages
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 18, 2014 - Formal
Page 6 of 23
architectural features, the history, and their significance with a multi -page document with several
sources cited. Also on December 11, 2014, Trimble submitted a written correction to one portion of
the application. The correction explained that three of the eight early settler families named in
association with the properties were actually not in association with those properties. It should be
noted however it is not unusual at all for such documents to evolve with additions and corrections
being made as applications move through the channels of approval, even to the point up to the
national level of approval. Like all historical research these documents are works in progress.
Copies of Trimble's corrections were distributed by hand to the Commission before the meeting was
called to order to inform commissioners of this minor change which in the end did not invalidate the
document or the conclusion of the Commission. Swaim stated the meeting began with a public
hearing and then the Commission's task was to decide if the cottages met the approval criteria as
spelled out in the zoning code, specifically:
The significance to Iowa or American history, architecture, archeology, or culture which the
Commission determined the cottages clearly are.
2. That the cottages possess integrity of location, designs, building materials and workmanship,
which they do.
Swaim stated the Commission also determined the cottages met two additional criteria:
1. That they are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past;
2. And associated with broad patterns in our history
Swaim stated in this case these worker cottages are a clear part of the story of the arrival of the
railroad in Iowa City on New Year's Eve in 1855 and subsequent changes as doubling of the
population of the town in a very short while, development of working class houses such as these
cottages, and growth of the surrounding neighborhood. The Commission's vote was unanimous to
designate the cottages as landmarks.
Swaim expressed that all along protecting these cottages have been in line with the City's
Comprehensive Plan and strategy. As early as 1992 the Near South Side Neighborhood
Redevelbpment Plan listed the three brick cottages as buildings considered for preservation. The
same plan recommended zoning as a preservation strategy as allowing the transfer of development
rights from historic properties to other sites and lowering parking requirements for uses in historic
structures. In 2009 the City's intentions concerning those cottages were further strengthened when
the City undertook a multi-year process to update the Comprehensive Plan and invited citizen input
through interviews and a very well attended visioning workshop. In 2013 the update was completed
and the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan was adopted. The pertinent sections of that
master plan state the buildings of historic significance are important to identify and actively protect.
So as plans for the area move forward, development incentives such as density bonuses and policy
options that encourage preservation should be implemented. An introductory map identifies the three
cottages as historic significance and the section of the Plan titled "Cottage Preservation" again signals
out those three brick cottages as unique 19th century buildings and recognizes a density bonus for
their preservation and renovation including additional height allowances.
Swaim concluded by saying City plans over the past 20 years or more have indicated that the
cottages are historically significant and spelled out ways to compensate their owners such as chance
for development rights according to the Riverfront Crossings form -based code and special exemptions
that would allow the Board of Adjustment waive or modify certain zoning requirements. The Historical
Preservation Commission clearly designated the cottages unanimously as local landmarks based on
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 18, 2014 - Formal
Page 7 of 23
criteria in the zoning code. The City has long recognized the importance of the cottages and thus
devised policy to protect them amid surrounding development. The Historical Preservation
Commission asks for the Planning and Zoning Commission's approval of this application.
Ted Pacha, owner of the property reiterated to the Commission that he first came in front of the
Commission in October 2014 with a simple rezoning application, nothing was mentioned about historic
landmarks nothing about demolitions, the application was just to rezone the property and meet the
Riverfront Crossings Plan. The vote on the application was deferred based on the City staff's
recommendation to defer at that time. Pacha came back in front of the Commission in November
2014 with the application for rezoning, this time with a recommendation from the City staff to approve
the application. The application did not come to a vote that evening as well due to two hours and
thirty minutes of public hearing opposing the rezoning. This meeting is the third time Pacha has been
before the Commission, however this time he is asking the Commission to not recommend rezoning
his property against his will. He has objected to the rezoning publically and is doing so again this
evening. Pacha stated it is hard to understand how some stranger can come into your life and
propose a rezoning of his property he has owned for 18+ years.
Pacha said he is not discussing whether the cottages are historic or not, but rather wants to discuss
the process. People have trespassed on his property to conduct a second structural study, telling the
tenants that the Planning and Zoning Commission requested that they do this study and that Pacha
has agreed to allow the engineers to have keys to those buildings. Pacha stated he was not aware of
this study and was not there when it was conducted as he should have been. There has been many
media stories, none telling his side of the story. Just last Saturday there was a huge story stating
"come to the Kung Fu Studio before it's torn down". That building was not being torn down, it's still
standing there tonight. Pacha is concerned about Alicia Trimble and the tactics taken working the
public into a frenzy over this issue.
Pacha stated the Freerks had spoken to him at the end of the November meeting, asking him to be a
good citizen and to try to work with John Yapp from the City to find perhaps a second structural
engineering firm to conduct a study of the cottages. After leaving the meeting, Pacha thought he
would be able to talk to the members of the Friends of Historic Preservation but rather read in the
paper just five days later that study had already been done in his buildings, on his property, without his
knowledge, stating the structures were sound two weeks before the report was written or was seen by
Pacha. Pacha had agreed to be the good citizen, despite the structural engineer report he had done
that he had to follow due to his liability for the properties, He feels the good citizenship has not been
returned.
Pacha said he did submit a demolition application, but that was just to have it in place in case the
liability didn't go away and so forth. The City states the signs must be placed on the buildings seven
days before a permit is issued. Pacha thought he would get the permit, pay the fees, and then post
signs and have to wait seven days, or up to six months, to actually do the demolition. He understands
how posting the signs can get everyone in turmoil, however the structures are still standing. This
whole situation has been difficult for him, his family and everyone involved. The justification given for
the inaccurate information in Trimble's letter is extraordinary circumstances has made a typical longer
process impossible. Pacha would like clarification on what circumstances are being referenced. The
fear Trimble has put out into the community that the buildings have gone down without a chance is
unfair.
Pacha stated he was astonished by the Historic Preservation Commission meeting minutes.
Questions like what difference does 18 years or 18 months or 18 days matter for these building being
declared historic. Pacha maintains that 18 months could have made a significant difference, 18 years
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 18, 2014 - Formal
Page 8 of 23
would have been phenomenal. Pacha is upset that no one said one word to him about this historic
situation, he was open to listen, but at that meeting it was stated it wouldn't have made any difference.
Pacha said that the notion of the eleventh hour was due to the demolition permits, however those
permits weren't obtained until a couple of weeks after the second time Pacha had been before this
Commission. That was never the original intention, all he ever wanted was to rezone the property to
see if a developer, who has now pulled out of the project, would be interested in redeveloping the
property. Pacha declared that crisis created clarity, however the only clarity he can see in this
process is that he has no say in this process regarding this rezoning request, his property he has
nurtured and been a good steward of for over 30 years. These delays have subjected him to city
citations and fines because two of the tenants will not leave their buildings even though the City has
said they are in violation. He and his family have been vilified in the media, the tenants are upset, and
it appears everyone has more rights in this situation than the property owner.
In closing, Pacha reiterated his son's written statement which says a vote for this request, a vote for
this last minute process, the scare tactics used with a memorial for the buildings without integrity, is
this the precedent this City, this P & Z group, wants to set. When a property owner tries to make a
decision about his property, is it permissible for an outside organization to apply for a rezoning without
the property owners consent or even talking to him. Do you want to allow this communication, all
these hearings to be a circus in the future, if not we need to vote against this rezoning. Pacha has
filed a formal protest and asks that the Commission vote not in favor of this application because it
does not make any sense.
Pacha also expressed that at the last meeting his tenants were asked if they were informed of the
neighborhood meeting and he was concerned about that question because as he understands it all
property owners within a 300 or 600 foot radius of the area proposed for rezoning should be invited to
the neighborhood meeting. His tenants are not property owners, he is the property owner.
Jim McCarragher, attorney for Ted Pacha, stated that as the Commission considers whether to
approve the rezoning application for historic preservation of the property owned by Pacha, he would
like to discuss several matters with the Commission. First, the property owner, when a property is
purchased people do so, rather than rent, so they can have a say in what is done with the property. If
a property owner's health is poor and wants to use the property for the best interest of his family, he
can do so. If someone would like you to consider something else for the property, the least that
should be expected is for the property owner to be consulted before a major decision is made.
Second, if it's claimed the buildings have historic value that did not happen just when the original
rezoning application came forward. What is concerning is that the property owner has made lawful
decisions on the use of his property and then at the last moment people come in with their ideas to
suddenly appear to frustrate the rights and the planning of the property owner saying no we have a
different opinion on what you can and cannot do with what they do not own. No one came to Pacha to
discuss the historical value until he sought to sell his property for the purpose he spend time and
money considering due to health reasons. If these buildings were thought to be historic landmarks
then Pacha should have been approached before he made the decision to spend the time and money
and working with City staff only to be confronted the first time of the subject at the prior Planning and
Zoning meeting. The historic overlay was only conceptual, not a requirement, under the
Comprehensive Plan. McCarragher declared to vote yes today would reward the last minute attack on
the property owner's decision, pitting his rights against a request that is conceptual and not a
requirement under the Comprehensive Plan.
McCarragher said for the record, the owner of the property is opposed to the proposed historic
landmark designation and overlay and has filed a protest with the City regarding his property. The
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 18, 2014 - Formal
Page 9 of 23
media has been focused on the tenants and their businesses rather than the property owner's rights.
This focus seems to place the tenants' rights above that of the owner. Their tenancies are conditioned
on the terms of their leases. 614 S. Dubuque Street tenant has already voluntarily left. 608's tenancy
terminates on December 31, 2014, and 610's written lease states if occupancy is not vacated due to
dangerous conditions prior to July 31 will not be renewed. In addition, when looking at property rights
of the owner affected, keep in mind the request before the Commission today for the historic planning
overlay is made on behalf of someone who does not own the building and would not be required to
pay the substantial costs associated with the requests. Liability; the criteria mentioned in the Friends
application for historic landmark designation that is not met in this case involving multiple buildings is
diverse ownership. The financial burden of landmark designation for not one, but three buildings, in
this case fall upon one owner unlike a normal situation where there would be diverse ownership.
Even if capable of repair, which based upon an opinion of a structural engineer does not believe is
possible, it would be a long process route with risk of injury and extremely expensive cost all again
falling upon the shoulder of the property owner, a person with little ability to ever recover what will
have to be expended let alone any change of yielding a reasonable return afterwards. In addition the
legal liability falls with one owner, not multiple owners, based upon the engineers report, the City's
violation notice and now multiple infractions. The buildings have been certified by a qualified
structural engineer and the City has declared the buildings dangerous and unsafe. The potential
liability is substantial. The certified structural engineer states the repair of the walls is not possible
because of the extent of the deterioration and risk of injury if repair is attempted. The liability exists
whether the buildings are occupied or no. This notice of municipal infraction filed by the City requires
the owner to vacate and then abate, repair or demolition. It first says it must be vacated because it
states dangerous conditions. The decision on how to abate should remain with the owner who would
have to incur the financial costs. To date the remaining tenants have refused to comply with the
owners request to vacate and now expense to him are incurred as civil expenses and court costs.
McCarragher said that there have been multiple conversations regarding the two reports and their
validity, however the owner and the City must take the conservative approach and not get into a battle
of the experts. If someone were injured by building declared to be unsafe, I doubt that an injured party
as a satisfactory reason that there is a second report. The liability will be based on the first report.
The combined effect exposes one owner to substantial liability. To vote yes today continues to delay
Pacha's ability to protect the safety of the people and remove the substantial risk of liability from the
shoulder of one person. Finally, these buildings are unsafe. Jim Jacob, a structural engineer with VG
Engineering, a long standing engineering firm in the community on which this Commission has seen
on many occasion has reviewed the buildings and discussed and examined and in Jim Jacob's
opinion strongly concluded many of the brick units are badly deteriorated, have little strength, the
masonry walls of the structures are badly deteriorated showing uneven settling with bowing and
cracking are beyond the useful life and are unstable. The buildings are essentially are in danger of
collapse. In Jim Jacob's opinion the structures pose real danger to the tenants, their guests, and
bystanders. Jim Jacobs previously gave a presentation before this Commission regarding the
buildings and its findings. After that the City issued their notice to the owner. Jim Jacobs has
reviewed the report from the MorningStar Studio and stands firmly in his opinion.
McCarragher concluded to vote yes today exposes the tenants who have not yet agreed to leave, their
guests and customers, and any person in the immediate vicinity of the buildings to risk of serious
harm. A vote of yes potentially poses a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars upon the property
owner if the buildings could even be repaired. It significantly reduces the value of the area and stifles
development in the entire area. The owner requests that you vote no to the historic zoning overlay
request for 608, 610, and 614 South Dubuque Street.
William Ingles, lives and works at 608 South Dubuque Street, and feels the last speaker spoke of
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 18, 2014 - Formal
Page 10 of 23
many things that misrepresented the truth and hopes to correct some of things the Commission just
heard. First is the Jacobs' inspection report, it is full of errors, misstatements and exaggerations
mistaking cosmetic injury for structural engineering problems. When Jacobs stood before the
Commission at the November meeting and stated that Ingles' place should have never been allowed
to have books in it because the floor was unsupported when actually this structural engineer missed a
40 foot beam that travels from the front to the back of the building and is supported by seven jack
posts. Jim Jacobs is called upon every time Hodge Construction needs to tear down a building in
order to make something new in its place. Hodge got just what he paid for when Jim Jacobs filed his
report. Many things have happened to Pacha unfortunately due to the Jacobs report including a
vacate and abate order issued by the City, and again to correct the previous speaker, it's not a vacate
and then abate, it's a vacate and abate so vacating does not need to happen before any abatement
needs to be performed. That is just an example of mistakes stated from the previous speaker.
Regarding the second inspection done by Shannon Duggan, Ingles said every single tenant allowed
Ms. Duggan to come in. We had no idea that Pacha had any qualms about that.. Last Ingles was
aware, a second inspection was discussed here at the last Commission meeting where Pacha had
stood up and said a second inspection was fine as long as he did not have to pay for it. That criteria
was met, there was a crowd funded second inspection, an inspector from Cedar Rapids, not Iowa
City, so there would be no conflict of interest. Many things have descended from that first report. A
vacate and abate order, the allowance of a demolition permit request, and now Pacha has to
apparently make an appearance on January 8 regarding his violations. All of that stems from an
inaccurate report which for some reason the City is tied to despite the second report clearly refuting
point by point in exhaustive detail every mistake made by the first report. Ingles is unaware if any of
this information is even germane to the topic before the Commission tonight, whether the property is
historic or not, but hopes the decision the Commission makes be flavored by such poor information
that was heard by the previous speaker.
Jen Allen, lives in a 100 year old historic house and declared she has insurance for liability. She
asserted that these lovely buildings, if torn down, the whole block will go which would be a shame.
Allen also acknowledged that no one has said, in media or otherwise, while there is sympathy for the
property owner thank God there is allowance for public input and a zoning commission.
Kate Corcoran, an at -large member of the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission, would like to
attest to the fact that the Historic Commission had correct and thorough information at the December
11 meeting last week when it considered the Friends of Historic Preservation's application for
designation of 608, 610, and 614 South Dubuque Street as historic landmarks. All members of the
Commission had sufficient time prior to the meeting to review the 28 pages of documents and 16
pages of photos that were in the meeting packets. The Commission also received a memo from Alicia
Trimble, director of the Friends of Historic Preservation, submitted prior to the meeting, and then
during the meeting they listened to the testimony of Ms. Trimble, Mr. Pacha and his son Kelsey, Mr.
McCarragher, two tenants with businesses in the cottages, and a number of Iowa City residents. That
public comment probably took at least an hour. After the public comments, the Commission had a
serious discussion regarding the merits of the application and a thoughtful consideration of the criteria,
and then decided unanimously by a vote of 9-0 that the properties met more than the minimum criteria
for the landmark designation. Corcoran just wanted to assure the Planning and Zoning Commission
that her colleagues and she take their responsibilities serious and exercise them properly last week
when they voted to approve this application.
Mary Bennett (1107 Muscatine Ave) wished to speak about the intangibles, and looks to this
Commission as giving the citizens of Iowa City a recourse against all this rampant development that is
happening around us and how we are so easily erasing the memory of those who came before us.
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 18, 2014 - Formal
Page 11 of 23
The people that built this town, that gave us the stories we want to tell over and over again, and she
feels it is very disrespectful to the Old Capital Building and the history of Iowa when we disregard it
and build high buildings around it. She feels it is disrespectful that we don't understand the location of
that depot created the development of the small businesses and cottages around it which is an
integral part of all our history. Bennett declared she does believe when a property owner buys
property they do have right, but if they target their purchase as a older building they have added
responsibilities to the citizens of this community. They should be stewards of that land, not just
looking at it as opportunist for profits. If this plan was in place as early as the 1990's, or in the time
period when the owner was buying the property, he should have been aware, just looking at them one
can see they are historic and date back 150 years. So it is somewhat naive to come here tonight and
say gee I didn't know these were important buildings because they have been that way forever.
Bennett believes the owner has a responsibility to the citizens of Iowa City, the Commission has a
responsibility to the citizens, and the Friends of Historic Preservation and the Historic Preservation
Commission have done their duty. They are not just looking at things from an economic point of view,
the Planning and Zoning Commission is not to look only at things from an economic point of view, the
Commission's duty is to restore balance in the community and allow voices to be heard. The purpose
of the Comprehensive Plan, and the workshop with 300 people, and the progression of this plan over
time which of course has to adapted and revised, everything is pointed in a direction that these are
truly significant buildings. Therefore it is very dismissive to stand here tonight and say they would
harm economic development because she feels they can help economic development. Bennett urges
the Commission to adopt this application for landmark status, so even if ultimately the buildings are
torn down, some mitigation efforts might be taken to document them in the most thorough and
accurate manner.
Don Anciaux (2119 Russell Drive) stated he used to serve on the Iowa City Planning and Zoning
Commission and remembers several of these rezoning for historic preservations on buildings. The
main one he recalls is the Carnegie Library, where again at the last minute they came in and said they
wanted the library preserved. He doesn't understand, that after that was accomplished, the library
was "saved", Anciaux spoke with the Historic Preservation Commission chairman after that and told
him he did not want to see one of those last minute situations again. If it is to be decided a building is
historic and need preservation, the commission needs to get going as soon as possible and get it in
progress. This waiting until the last minute to come up with the historic preservation needs of some
buildings is ridiculous. The preservation folks need to inventory what is in Iowa City, decide what is
important, and have the process done in a thorough manner and in a comprehensive manner. These
people that come in the eleventh hour and say this is historic, these are historic buildings, but they
should have been on the historic register or whatever years ago. They did not become historic last
week, not six months ago, they were historic about 50-60 years ago. Unfortunately 50-60 years ago
we didn't pay as much attention to historic buildings, as seen by the buildings that were demolished
for the Old Capitol Mall, it's sad, but again it needs to be done in a timely manner and it needs to be
done comprehensively and then hopefully it would avoid all this confusion in the future.
Janice Fry (922 N. Dodge St.) is very concerned with the fact that everyone seems to be talking about
the timing of this and if these buildings are demolished there is no issue anymore. She believes we
need to do what we can to save them from that fate so there can be more public input. There are a lot
of stories behind these cottages and there are people still alive in the city who know those stories and
they should have an opportunity to speak to that. She hopes the Commission does vote to approve
the rezoning.
Pam Michaud (109 S. Johnson St) has been a member of the Iowa City Historic Preservation
Commission for 12 years and lives behind where the Red Avocado used to be adjacent to a block long
four story building. Her neighborhood as totally been transformed from gentile Victorian, when she
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 18, 2014 - Formal
Page 12 of 23
bought her house she was not aware it was CB -2, she should have done her homework, she assumed
the neighborhood would stay as was. Michaud is from Chicago and her neighborhood there, as well
as much of the north side, has not been touched. There is a no -tear down rule in the many
contiguous ethnic neighborhoods. Today, Michaud was at the public library and looked at the historic
photos, she went to the Heirloom restaurant and looked at historic photos, and all were
unrecognizable. There was nothing looking down Dubuque Street that we should recognize today.
The Sheraton Hotel is there and the new high rises, funded by public funds in spite of other funds
being available from private developers. It is easy to knock things down, however hindsight is always
20/20. In the 12 years Michaud has been involved with the Historic Preservation Commission they
have reviewed numerous neighborhoods, they've added the Jefferson Street Historic District, they
have address issues having to do with the University and buildings that were flooded out and
destroyed, that was time consuming. The Commission also dealt with the tornado damage in 2006,
particularly on Iowa Avenue. Her point is the Historic Commission has not been idle, there are more
things on their backburner than they have time for. Michaud stated that the budget for the Historic
Preservation Commission's staff has been cut. So if people want historic preservation to move
forward there should be City funding for a full-time historic preservation assistant. Michaud expressed
that they are a volunteer organization, that put in three or four hour meetings at times, the discussion
at last week's meeting was well over two hours. Please bear in mind that there is not enough City
Staff support to push these things forward to designation.
Theresa Koppel (1701 Flatiron Ave.) wished to speak on behalf of accepting this application for
landmark status. She feels the Friends of Historic Preservation have done a marvelous job putting
together the package they did in the amount of time they had available to them. They had plans to
push though historic preservation for this property in the next year, they didn't know there was going to
be the urgent desire to all of a sudden change the zoning and tear these building down before there
was a chance. The fact that they were able to come such a comprehensive and thorough plan
analysis of the situation and their historic designation is evidence that they had planned to do this.
The fact that this was done at the "last" minute is not on any fault of the Friends of the Historic
Preservation but rather because they had no idea that this was going to go through in such a rapid
rushed urgent manner and they would have to act that quickly. It has been said that it is not a surprise
that these buildings are historic in nature that we've known that for 50 or 60 years and Koppel would
put forward that the owner also knew these buildings were historic when he purchased the property.
There has been a lot said, both at the City Council meeting last week, and again tonight, about
owners' rights, there is also a concept as owner responsibility. First of all, the owner had a
responsibility to maintain those properties in a way that the tenants and passersbys would not be at
risk from being in or near those buildings. And yet the engineers report suggests those properties
have been allowed to deteriorate to the point that those tenants who had leases and paid rent, and ran
business in those buildings were at risk. That is not an appropriate way to be a responsible property
owner. Secondly when one owns a property that has historic landmarks status potentially, they should
act as stewards of the property, that although they own the property legally that history belongs to
every resident of Iowa City and they are stewards of that history. And to think we would lose that
history for the sake of a new development, there is nothing that says a developer cannot develop that
property, what is being said is to develop that property in light of the fact that there are three important
cottages that are an important part of our heritage to the residents of Iowa City. We just recently
celebrated Iowa City's 175 anniversary, the mayor had some wonderful fine remarks about the
importance of acknowledging our history and remembering where we come from and who we are.
Then immediately a week later voted against holding a public hearing to take a little more time to
discuss the historic significance of these buildings and Koppel finds these two statements and actions
to be in total opposition. All that was asked for was the time to develop this application, this
application was put through the Historic Preservation Commission who agreed unanimously that these
buildings have historic landmark status and should be preserved and she urges the Planning and
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 18, 2014 - Formal
Page 13 of 23
Zoning Commission to uphold that.
McCarragher rebutted a couple of points brought up this evening. With regards to the point that one
does not have to vacate in order to abate, it is in the Commission's packet the notice that specifically
states vacate the premise and abate. If there are structural problems with the buildings, and in both
reports structural problems are identified, there is no way to repair structural problems with anyone
living in the buildings. Secondly, McCarragher stated he was not at the Commission meeting last
week, an earlier testimony identified him as being there. Finally all the owner expects is if someone
(City or Friends of Historic Preservation) thinks a building is historic, talk to the owner. Talk to the
owner, they don't have to get a designation that it is historic, let the owner know so if decisions are to
be made on the future of the building, the owner has all the information.
Freerks closed public hearing.
Eastham moved that the Commission approve an application submitted by Iowa City Historic
Preservation Commission for a rezoning to designate the properties located at 608, 610 and
614 S. Dubuque Street as Iowa City Historic Landmarks. (REZ14-00024)
Theobald seconded the motion.
Freeks began the discussion saying that while there was lots of discussion about lots of different
topics related to these structures about what the past has held and what the future might hold, the
charge to the Commission this evening is very concise and clear, simply to review the designation
based on its relation to the Comprehensive Plan and proposed public improvements and plans for
renewal of the area involved.
Eastham asked Hektoen for clarification on the Historic Preservation Commission and their
recommendation that these buildings qualify as Iowa City Historic Landmarks, and if the Planning and
Zoning Commission does not have to review their recommendation. Hektoen confirmed that the
Historic Preservation Commission's recommendation to Council is separate from Planning and
Zoning's recommendation to Council. They are separate entities.
Eastham also discussed the immense information the Commission received about the structural
conditions of the buildings, and questioned how that information is to pertain to the Commission's
discussion and decision this evening. Hektoen stated that information is for City Council, a memo to
City Council has been written by the City Attorney stating it is not the Council's, or the Commission's,
place to get involved deciding which engineer's study is more or less accurate. As Mr. McCarragher
indicated there are liability issues associated with taking a less conservative approach.
Freerks stated she has looked through the Riverfront Crossings Plan carefully and already there are
two structures there, the water treatment plant and Sabin School, which are headed for the wrecking
ball and the City has something to do with that. She believes the City can now have something to do
with extending the conversation of what occurs in this situation with the cottages. She believes these
are historic buildings, that has been clear for some time, and agrees it would be nicer to work on these
historic designations in a more efficient timeline however there really is a resource crunch and there
are times where just letting something be will be okay. Freeks does think it is clear that this
designation does meet the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, it is called out specifically in a paragraph
with an illustration, and does also show that perhaps it is not best for the area to have block long multi-
story buildings. The Plan provides a vision and gives one an idea what is really expected for the
future of this area. Freerks believes this whole situation is all one unfortunate circumstance after
another and hopes that something can occur that is the best for the public and the owner.
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 18, 2014 - Formal
Page 14 of 23
Eastham reviewed the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan again today and noticed as the Staff points
out there is a specific illustration in the planning document that was approved within the last year, after
a two-year long public hearing process, that shows these three buildings specifically have a potential
historic significance. Therefore in his mind, these buildings have been identified publically as
potentially having historic significance for quite some time now. There is also a sentence in the Staff
report that is taken from the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan on page 9 that reads "these buildings
provide character and ambiance to the study area and as such are important to identify and take
measures to actively protect". The phrase Eastham is most moved by is the "contribution of these and
other buildings in the Riverfront Crossings area establish the area as a unique place in Iowa City".
Therefore the Plan does not contemplate preserving just specific buildings, the Plan contemplates
preserving the specific kind of area within the city and these buildings help establish that area.
Eastham stated he is happy that the Historic Preservation Commission has gone through the process
to recommend designation of these buildings as Iowa City Historic Landmarks
Thomas acknowledged that clearly the Riverfront Crossings Plan highlights the cottages and some of
the findings of the Historic Preservation Commission gave support and narrative to the Riverfront
Crossings Plan. One thing the Commission's findings identified was the contribution of the buildings
to the setting. There is a relationship to those cottages, the depot, to the development of a
neighborhood commercial zone there, which is precisely the kind of mixed-use commercial
development we are trying to support and sustain in the downtown area. Thomas believes this
particular block is crucial to the development of the Central Crossings sub district.
Martin stated she agrees with her fellow Commissioners and shares a great deal of respect for the
history of Iowa City, particularly this neighborhood. However, what leaves her uncomfortable is how
this process happened and understands that is not relevant to the vote tonight. It brings the question
that now that these buildings are being deemed structurally unsound and notices have been placed on
the buildings, if the owner doesn't want them historic, do they become abandoned, do they become
completely dilapidated, was this all for not. The answer is are they deemed historic, probably yes, but
the process does not sit well.
Freerks stated there was a plan to survey this area, which was to start today, in the works before any
of this was an issue. The speed by which all this happened was due to an action of an application to
rezone the area.
Martin expressed it is not the speed that is concerning to her, it is the overall process.
Eastham asserted that Martin is concerned of what happens if a building is designated historic, what
happens if the owner ignores the building. What happens then? Martin confirmed that is what her
concern is. Freerks declared that in the past when buildings were designated as historic that needed
a great deal of work, it takes time to complete the work and there is not an easy or quick answer.
Eastham also reiterated that a previous speaker mentioned there is state and federal grants available
for preserving historic landmarks. Freerks believed there is some responsibility to the owner to try to
maintain the historic landmark buildings. Hektoen stated there are provisions in the code that seek to
prevent demolition by neglect.
Theobald declared that she agreed with all that has been said.
Swygard agreed everyone has pretty much summed up everything, but would also like to thank Mr.
Pacha for his endurance while the City has worked through this process in this very public forum and
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 18, 2014 - Formal
Page 15 of 23
also want to thank him for using the good neighbor policy in good faith at the very beginning of the
original process and application which is voluntary and only requires property owners within 300 feet
be notified. Swygard also wanted to thank the community members who have been part of this
process. She feels it is very clear to her that these are historic buildings and secondly the Riverfront
Crossings Plan calls them out for preservation, so she will be supporting this application.
Dyer stated for the record she agreed with all that has been said and had nothing to add.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0.
The Commission took a five minute recess, when reconvened Freeks had to leave so Eastham took
over as chair of the meeting.
Rezoning Item (REZ14-00010)
Discussion of an application submitted by Steve Gordon for a rezoning to amend an OPD- 12
plan to allow 72 multi -family condominium dwellings for property currently zoned for
single-family manufactured housing on 21.24 acres of property located south of Paddock
Circle and west of Heinz Road.
Eastham stated he had a conversation with the applicant several days ago and in that conversation it
was discussed how Eastham goes about making decisions, which is he looks at the Comprehensive
Plan, the zoning, and ordinances and try to reconcile those in regard to a specific application. Eastham
also noted he prefers to see if there are any gray or unclear areas in the application with regard to the
zoning code or Comprehensive Plan and to advise applicants to pay specific attention to that.
Walz began by showing the location map of the area, and the area is served now by a private drive that
circles through the manufactured housing area that is constructed. She pointed on the map the portion
of the development that remains undeveloped, and it is stated in her report that the factory built housing
zoning district no longer exists in the zoning code. So at the time the zoning code rewrite took place
the designation was changed to RS -12 with a Planned Development Overlay and now the applicant is
wanting to amend that overlay to allow for alternative ownership condominiums. In 2008 the crisis in
the housing market caused a change in manufactured housing, the market for that type of housing is
greatly diminished due to requirements for mortgages, so in Staff's view it seems prudent to consider
what is an appropriate alternative in this location. Walz showed a view of the larger development area,
pointing out the other mobile home park in the area, Bon Aire, which is not part of this planned
development, and it is not under the ownership of this organization that is proposing for this rezoning.
Walz pointed out Heinz Road and stated it is the only public road for this development, the other public
outlet to a street through Paddock Circle is to Pinto Lane. Heinz Road will eventually extend down to a
future arterial street, the extension of McCollister Blvd, other future streets not yet built but part of
another future development are Mustang Lane and Shire which are both private streets. So the only
public streets in this area are the eventual extension of McCollister to connect to Heinz Road.
Walz pointed to the larger South District Plan and showed that this is an area that is fairly cut off from
the rest of the community. She pointed out the Saddlebrook area, the manufactured home area, some
multi -family homes, some townhomes, and the future areas of duplexes and townhomes. What the
applicant is proposing with this development to create the extension of Shire Lane to public street
standards, and to extend Mustang Lane to public street standards so they would have the street width,
sidewalks, and tree requirements to public standards. In order to construct the development Shire
Lane would be built down to the end of the development and Staff is recommending if that is approved
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 18, 2014 - Formal
Page 16 of 23
it is approved with the condition it comes all the way down to the right-of-way line. Because at this time
it is not connected to a public street Staff would recommend that the applicant maintain the street until
such time as Mustang Lane is built as a public street and that will occur as a condition of the rezoning
that occurs before any further development occurs along Heinz and before any further development
happens south of Mustang.
Under the current zoning the applicant would be allowed to do 73 units of manufactured housing,
however what the applicant is proposing to do with that density is to provide 72 units (one less) in four
multi -family buildings, they are proposing to do one and two bedroom apartments. In terms of intensity
and traffic that would probably be less traffic and fewer people living on the property than if you had the
manufactured housing. The applicant is agreeing to provide half of the required parking in garages and
proposed to put those around the perimeter of the parking area to screen views of the parking from the
public street and adjacent areas. They have also proposed to keep the area along Paddock Circle as
open space and the area along the development and the stormwater pond as open space and to
provide trail connections to that area. Staff suggested that buildings be of a higher quality and you'll
see in the recommendations Staff is asking for higher quality materials.
Walz showed an aerial view of the area and discussed when the property was annexed into the city
and rezoned for the manufactured housing that a large area of wetlands was set aside. She showed
that is the stormwater pond area, and the overall development has done a good job of providing trails
and providing other amenities.
The application today is due to the changes in the housing market, and the question is if this is an
appropriate level of density of housing, it is no more than would have been allowed under
manufactured housing, but in the Comprehensive Plan there is some cautionary language about the
amount of multi -family housing in large concentrations in the South District. Walz discussed various
multi -family areas in the South District and stated the applicant here has addressed Staff concerns and
is making a conscious effort to integrate the new development into the neighborhood with the
greenspace and trail connectivity. The other benefit to the community is the eventual extension of the
public streets.
Thomas questioned the Heinz Road extension and connectivity and future development. Walz replied
that the applicant can better explain the development, but it is a concern that needs to be addressed.
Staff recommends approval of REZ14-00010, an amendment to the OPD -RS 12 development
plan to allow the establishment of 72 units of housing under alternative ownership/condominium on
property located south of Paddock Circle and west of Heinz Road subject to the following
conditions:
1. Any development shall be in substantial compliance with the site plan and elevations
submitted (including the use of masonry and cement board siding) and shall be limited to
one- and two-bedroom units as proposed by the applicant;
2. Prior to issuance of a building permit for any of the 72 units, the following must occur:
a. The Subdivider's Agreement for Part Two of Saddlebrook must be amended to
require Mustang Lane west of Heinz Road and the extension of Heinz Road to
Mustang Lane to be built and dedicated as a public improvement prior to any
development east of Shire Lane;
b. Shire Lane and Mustang Lane shall be platted as public streets;
c. The applicant will provide a statement from his engineer indicating that the
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 18, 2014 - Formal
Page 17 of 23
stormwater detention pond is adequate to handle the proposed development
and that all necessary modifications due to the extension of McCollister
Boulevard can be constructed on site.
3. Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for any of the 72 units, Shire Lane shall
be extended to the McCollister Blvd. right-of-way with a temporary turnaround
constructed at the south end of Shire Lane. The cost of removing the temporary turn-
around improvement shall be deposited in an escrow account to ensure that it is
removed when McCollister Boulevard is extended;
4. The City will accept dedication of Shire Lane as a public improvement concurrent with the
dedication of Heinz Road and Mustang Lane. Prior to dedication, Shire will be inspected
by the Public Works Department. Any repairs deemed necessary must be made by the
developer before the city will except dedication; and
5. The applicant will receive written notice from the City at the time funding for the extension
of McCollister Boulevard is approved and will have 6 months from that date to make all
necessary modifications to the stormwater detention pond. A letter of credit will be
required to backup the applicant's guarantee.
Eastham questioned if the proposed rezoning and preliminary plat would have access via Paddock
Circle only. Walz confirmed that is correct until Heinz and Mustang are constructed. Eastham
asked if the City has the ability to require a developer to construct the roads prior to development so
there would be collector street access to this area. Walz stated the Heinz extension is part of a
separate development, and conditions are placed on the recommendation to discuss the street
developments. Yapp stated if there is a public need for the street infrastructure to allow for the
rezoning it can be requested, however the application before the Commission today is not an increase
in the number of units that would be allowed under the current zoning. Eastham recalled at another
preliminary plat there was a considerable amount of concern from residents in the area of traffic going
through Paddock Circle to Whispering Prairie. Walz stated traffic could take that route, however in her
opinion the convenience for all would be to use Heinz Road. Eastham asked if once Heinz Road
extension and Shire are constructed there is no possibility to get bus service to the development.
Walz confirmed that bus service does pick up near the Heinz Road/Hwy 6 interchange but believes
eventually when McCollister is extended there will be the potential to bring bus service all the way into
the development.
Eastham opened public hearing.
Steve Gordon, as applicant addressed the Commission beginning with answering Thomas' question
regarding the development and Heinz Road. Gordon explained that the development will be
developed in the area where Heinz Road currently dead ends, he explained that on the map what
looks like undeveloped area along Heinz Road is actually purposely maintained green space for the
area. Thomas stated he felt the development being proposed tonight would benefit from extending
Heinz Road to Mustang Lane which would then connect to Shire. Gordon agreed with Thomas that
from a traffic circulation standpoint that would be ideal, but economically it is not feasible to extend
Heinz Road at this time. Gordon also addressed Eastman's concern stating that one of the
requirements of Saddlebrook initially was a secondary access, they were able to build a certain
number of units and then needed to add a secondary access before more could be built, and the best
solution at that time was to extend Pinto Lane to Whispering Meadows. Eastham asked if McCollister
Boulevard were built from Highway 6 now to where Heinz Road would intercept it, would that be
considered the access needed for them to finish Heinz Road and connect to this multi -family
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 18, 2014 - Formal
Page 18 of 23
development. Gordon stated it would provide an additionally third access but is unsure if that would
spur the economic interest to fund Heinz Road and the units to go along with it. He feels McCollister
extension to the west is more beneficial to potential homeowners.
Gordon continued with his presentation, reminding the Commission he was before them over a year
ago with a different site plan which was not approved by the Commission and then withdrawn from
City Council consideration. They have worked diligently with City Staff since that time taking all the
comments received by the Commission to heart, and believe the current application does address
substantially if not all the concerns voiced. He believes this is an important project for the residents of
Saddlebrook as well as the city. Saddlebrook has been a large project that has spanned many years,
may be the single largest annexation in the city's history, with a project of this magnitude there are
changes along the way. The planning of Saddlebrook began in 1991 when 420 acres came into
common ownership over the next three years the owners worked closely with the City and in 1994 the
area was annexed into the city. Zoning, infrastructure, and wetland mitigation issues were discussed
and approved at that time in and in 1997 the first home was built in Saddlebrook Addition Part One. In
2001 Saddlebrook Addition Part Two was platted and approved, this area was zoned RFBH for
residential manufactured housing and the site plan was approved. That completed the initial plan of
Saddlebrook. Since then other areas have been developed and rezoned for duplexes and condos,
and the area being discussed this evening is the last undeveloped area from the original plans. Since
1997 142 manufactured housing units have been placed and either sold or rented, the eastern edge of
the park was rezoned for attached single-family townhomes and two small multi -family buildings and
to date 43 of these units have been built and sold. That rezoning was supported by City Staff and
approved by this Commission and the Council as it provided a greater diversity of housing types within
the development. In the northern section of the subdivision there are 144 condominiums which have
been built and sold and 94 apartments, which Saddlebrook development owns and rents. As of today
the owners of Saddlebrook have been planning, developing and selling homes to people for 25 years.
They have made a huge investment of their capital into the Saddlebrook community including original
purchase of the land, dedication of 200 acres to a conservation easement. There are now wetlands
and trails, open spaces, parks and a clubhouse, and they purchased and developed additional land to
allow secondary access into the development. Saddlebrook is ready and the infrastructure is in place
to move to the next phase of the development.
The next phase of the development is currently platted and approved for 73 manufactured homes on
land -leased lots. An upscale land -leased manufactured home is not financially viable in today's
market. There is a lack of affordable financing for purchasing a manufactured home on a leased lot
leading to this situation. As discussed a year ago, Gordon is seeking approval to amend the current
site plan to build a high quality garden style condominium project with the intention to lease the units
as apartments. There is a need for quality rental units in Iowa City evidenced by consistent low
vacancy rates and addressed in recent market studies and City Steps reports. Gordon stated for
many years the market has been dominated by high priced student housing and not much for the non-
student renter looking for a quality apartment unit with amenities as the Saddlebrook development
has. The major concerns about the application of a year ago were density, design, and connectivity.
Taking the Commission's comments from a year ago they worked closely with City Staff, their
architect, and land planner and come forward today with a plan City Staff supports. Density is
reduced with one less unit than it is currently platted for, the units are smaller with less bedrooms than
the manufactured homes, it would actually reduce traffic in the area. They chose a court -yard design
as recommended by City Staff which gives the project a more open feel as you drive down the street.
The buildings were designed by an architect, adding garages to the site plan reducing the amount of
parking lot parking, and added landscaping in critical areas all which give the area a residential feel.
Lastly they agree to build and maintain Shire Lane as a City street and replat Mustang Lane the same.
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 18, 2014 - Formal
Page 19 of 23
Gordon confirmed they are aware there is concern from some of the compatibility of this plan with the
Comprehensive Plan. If this were a separate piece of land, un -zoned and un -platted, that would be a
viable concern, however there are two critical factors with this particular application that need to be
considered. First, this piece of land is already zoned and platted and the amendment being sought
improves on what could be built there today. It improves it for Saddlebrook and its current residents
as it gives them less density, less traffic, public streets where there are none today, better design,
more pleasing aesthetics and more useable greatly enhanced greenspace. For the city as a whole it
provides a needed housing type, it provides construction dollars spent locally where manufactured
housing does not, and it provides a property tax base where manufactured does not. Second, if taken
as a whole, Saddlebrook has done a tremendous job brining the type of housing desired in the
Comprehensive Plan to southeast Iowa City. Last month the Commission approved a plat of 115
single-family and townhome lots, also Gordon's group finished the 70 lot development that granted the
secondary access point to Saddlebrook, of which 21 homes have been built and sold, and they are in
the process of building 6 more. They have an additional 48 acres zoned RS -8 (medium density,
single family) to the west. Saddlebrook is a model development with a large diversity of housing, open
space, affordability, and amenities. It has been over three years ago they started this process of
planning what will be of the best use for this part of the Saddlebrook community, many options were
reviewed, but what they feel is the best is a well-developed, low density apartment condominium
complex.
In closing, Gordon addressed some of the recommendations Staff made. The first that Shire Lane be
built all the way to the parkway, Gordon states they have been waiting a long time for the parkway,
hoping it will be built, but are fearful there is no guarantee it will ever be built, and thus would propose
that Shire Lane not be extended all the way to the parkway because if the parkway is never built it
would be a misuse of allocations with a street serving no purpose. They will agree to guarantee the
completion of Shire Lane once the parkway is completed with a letter of credit. Secondly Staff has
recommended cement board siding for the buildings, no other buildings in Saddlebrook use cement
board siding, and of course the manufactured homes that would be built under the current zoning
would not have cement board siding. He feels the buildings are a quality design and the traditional
vinyl siding is used elsewhere in the development and should be an appropriate material for this
project as well.
Gordon presented a petition from the residents of Saddlebrook supporting the proposal.
Martin asked if the condominium buildings would be owner -occupied or if Saddlebrook would rent
them. Gordon answered they will be built as condominiums, which is a legal description for quality of
construction with the possibility of being sold as individual units, but the intention at this point is to
maintain ownership of the units and rent them as apartments. Martin also questioned how Shire Lane
will serve this development. Gordon explained Shire would end at the parking lots of the buildings.
Eastham questioned if a fire truck turnaround would be needed at the end of Shire Lane, and Gordon
explained that the turnaround is the parking lot. If Shire Lane is extended all the way to the future
parkway, it would then be a dead-end street and they would be required to add a fire truck turnaround
at the end of Shire.
Thomas asked about the use of the area at the top of the drawing and Gordon explained that was
open space, and would remain a neighborhood open space.
Eastham asked if there were any way to influence or control traffic to inhibit the number of vehicles
that will go down Pinto Lane over into the housing developments to the west. Gordon doesn't believe
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 18, 2014 - Formal
Page 20 of 23
travelers will use that access point unless they are going specifically to Grantwood School as it is
quicker and easier to go up Heinz Road to the stop light on Highway 6.
Thomas asked if the buildings were being built all at once or in phases. Gordon believes two buildings
will be built a year, so a two-year project or maybe just one building per year so a four-year project
depending on feasibility. Gordon stated they would begin with the northern most building and work
towards the south.
In response to a question whether Shire Lane would be built all the way down to the fourth building on
the outset of construction, even if the fourth building isn't built for 2-4 years, Gordon responded that
he believed so. While the engineering has not been done, Shire Lane would be completed at the
outset of the project because it would be needed for access to parking for all the buildings and the fire
truck turnaround.
Eastham closed public hearing.
Dyer moved to approve for a rezoning to amend an OPD -12 plan to allow 72 multi -family
condominium dwellings for property currently zoned for single-family manufactured housing
on 21.24 acres of property located south of Paddock Circle and west of Heinz Road. (REZ14-
00010) with conditions outlined in the Staff report.
Swygard seconded the motion.
Martin stated she was excited for this development seeing a lot of need for housing in this area, the
look of the buildings is nice as are the open spaces. She also drives that area frequently and does not
like winding through Whispering Prairie so believes that will be a deterrent for increased traffic in that
direction. Martin asserted that she believes it is not up to the Commission or City to state what type of
siding a builder uses, so long as it fits the rest of the development, and doesn't see the need for that
condition. Additionally she feels the applicant is correct on completing Shire Lane only to the project
at this time, not requiring it to go all the way to a future road (McCollister).
Dyer agreed it is a nice looking development, a good solution to an economic problem.
Swygard declared she is in favor of the type of siding recommended by staff as it leads to ensuring a
quality development and it looks nice with the style of buildings proposed. Theobald agreed.
Thomas agrees with respect to the siding, it really contributed to the quality of the Peninsula
development as well, it adds value to the project. Thomas also acknowledged he liked that the plan
upgrades the streets to City standards, however the street connectivity is an ongoing issues. The trail
connectivity between developments is a positive as is all the open space.
Eastham stated he feels this is a well thought out concept for multi -family homes, with the courtyard
and parking behind, there is an abundance of open space in this whole general area. In terms of not
increasing costs, he would be in favor or not requiring the cement based siding but will not press that
issue. The street connectivity has some disadvantages obviously, it would be much better if Heinz
was extended and Mustang Lane was built, but Staff has decided not to require that and he will not
oppose that recommendation. Eastham did question Staff if there has been any systematic study of
traffic patterns because it was an issue for residents of Whispering Meadows area. Walz did not
believe there has been any study comparing number of cars using Pinto Lane or Heinz Road to
access Saddlebrook, but observationally it is believed a lot more cars are using Heinz Road because
it is much easier access.
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 18, 2014 - Formal
Page 21 of 23
A vote was taken and motion carried 6-0 (Freerks absent for vote).
Development Item (SUB14-00022)
Discussion of an application submitted by Build to Suit Inc. for a preliminary plat of
Churchill Meadows, a 98 -lot, 39.6 -acre residential subdivision located at 4701 Herbert Hoover
Highway.
Miklo stated this this property was annexed into Iowa City in June, 2014 and rezoned to Low
Density Single Family Residential (RS -5) for 32.34 acres and Low Density Multifamily (RM -12) for
7.26 acres. Tonight before the Commission is the preliminary plat which includes three multi -family
lots along Herbert Hoover Highway, some smaller single family lots that will have alley access and
then the majority of the remainder of the land would be single family units, with some being attached
units at the corner lots. Staff reviewed the plat for compliance with the subdivision regulations,
conditional zoning agreement, zoning ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan and found it meets all
those with one exception.
One area does exceed the 600 foot block length requirement in the subdivision code but staff agreed
it is an acceptable waiver because there is a stream corridor that runs through the area to the east
and the county subdivision next to this area has a large storm water easement which would result in
no development the area to the east. Staff is recommending that the outlot be retained as a potential
future right -a -way or access to the east as it is planned to be park land.
Staff believes this subdivision has good street connectivity with access in three locations to the west,
two to the east, two to the south, and two to the north. The developer has maintained some open
space in the center of the development, which will also be used for stormwater management. This
design follows the district plan which states open areas should be included in subdivisions.
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. There is a
possibility that in the future a gravity flow sewer will be constructed across the property located to the
south east to connect to the trunk located in Stonebridge Estates south of Lower West Branch Road.
This would eliminate the need for the lift station. There is also a pedestrian connection back to the
city via Herbert Hoover Highway.
A revised plat has been submitted and the City Engineer has reviewed it and signed off on it.
Therefore Staff recommends approval of SUB14-00022, a preliminary plat of Churchill Meadows, a
98 -lot, 39.6 -acre residential subdivision located at 4701 Herbert Hoover Highway.
Eastham asked about Outlot A and Outlot C don't appear to have any trail access, is that something
Staff considered. Miklo stated it was thought of as a possibility but due to the number of sidewalks in
the area there is not a need for trail access. Eastham also questioned the stormwater drainage being to
the southeast will cause water drainage into a future subdivision that may cause future flooding issues.
Miklo stated that in discussions with the engineer they felt the water would be contained and not be an
issue. Any future subdivisions would design their stormwater drainage in connection.
Thomas asked if the open space in the center of the development qualifies as open space for the
development. Miklo answered it would not. Miklo said because of the stormwater management
facilities, the Parks and Recreation Department did not want to take that area. So fees will be paid in
lieu of open space.
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 18, 2014 - Formal
Page 22 of 23
Eastham asked then for confirmation that this subdivision will not have a city maintained park and Miklo
confirmed that was true.
Eastham opened public hearing.
Jason Harder, representing Build to Suit, said they have worked closely with City Staff on over a dozen
revisions of this plat working together to come up with the best solutions.
There were no questions for the applicant.
Martin moved approval of SUB14-00022, a preliminary plat of Churchill Meadows, a 98 -lot,
39.6 -acre residential subdivision located at 4701 Herbert Hoover Highway.
Thomas seconded the motion.
Eastham commented he was happy to see a number of townhome and multi -family lots in this
development and is delighted that Staff and the developer have worked together to also add in lots that
could be used as duplexes throughout the subdivision. Eastham did share his concern for a need for
paved access for persons with disabilities to open spaces within subdivisions.
A vote was taken and motion carried 6-0 (Freerks was absent).
Consideration of Meeting Minutes: November 20, 2014
Swygard moved to approve the minutes of November 20, 2014. Theobald seconded the motion. A
vote was taken and motion carried 6-0. (Freerks was absent.)
Planning & Zoning Information
Cancellation of the January 1, 2015 meeting due to holiday.
Adjournment
Martin moved to adjourn, seconded by Theobald, a vote was taken and motion carried 6-0. (Freerks
was absent)
Z
0
U)
Uo
OU
u ww
Z (W ::!
O Q N
N0
06 W
(7 1�-
Z
za
Z
J
a
M.
z
p
w
W
J
0
LL
co
N
X
X
x
X
X
x
X
NO
X
x
x
x
x
x
N
x
x
x
x
x
X
x
°xX
LL,
Xxxx
N
x
x
x
x
x
X
x
Clf)xxxoxxx
o
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
v-XXXXXXX
N
oxxxxXxo
gwcocowr-0MLo
ZXXxxxxx
0)
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
a-XXXXXXo
r
N
x
x
x
x
x
X
x
Z
t-
XxxxXox
=
Z
w
a
�
=
;Xxxxxxx
Ooua=ao0
P-
J
Ixx
-
0
XXXX
to
w�00�
wo
==
ZaWILLtnF-
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
L,XXXXXXX
�XXXXXXX
:4xxxxxx0
MX
x
X
X
�
X
X
N
�wcflcoaotiUnaoU-)
�Xoo0oo00
W
W
W
Z
aZ
w
'�
a
p
0
Z
J=Z0
n
00
004=
a�JN
�=oYczama
LU
U)
�0
==
a
W
U-
2
U)
-
I -
z
r -
w
W
OC
0
Z
V°Xxxxxx
X
N
x
x
x
x
x
X
x
N
N
x
x
x
x
x
X
x
Clf)xxxoxxx
v-XXXXXXX
gwcocowr-0MLo
X
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
w
w
WJo
Z
J
=
Z
w
a
�
=
Ooua=ao0
J
w
araIx4
w�00�
wo
==
ZaWILLtnF-
H
_
x E
�N
in
vii N O
aQQZ�
n ii u n n
XOw
0
w
Y
4b(7)
IOWA CITY TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION APPROVED
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24,2014--5:30 P.M.
CITY CABLE TV OFFICE, 10 S. LINN ST.-TOWER PLACE PARKING FACILITY
MEMBERS PRESENT: Alexa Homewood, Nick Kilburg, Matt Butler
MEMBERS ABSENT: Bram Elias, Laura Bergus
STAFF PRESENT: Mike Brau, Ty Coleman
OTHERS PRESENT: Josh Goding, Emily Light
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION
Coleman reported the city is trying to figure out the next step to take with regard to the Alliance
Technology franchise. Alliance is not providing service as promised as of Feb. 1, 2014 and the
timeframe before the franchise can be revoked expired on Oct. 30, 2014. On an annual basis the
difference in franchise fees collected by the city under a state -issued franchise rather than a municipal
franchise is about $60,000. Coleman said the matter is in the hands of the city administration.
Coleman distributed a copy of some documents distributed by Metronet at the presentation they gave
to city officials and selected community members. Metronet currently has field engineers exploring
existing infrastructure. The process is in the very early exploratory phase. Brau reported the local
access channel survey is active and available to the public but has yet to be publicized. The publicity
campaign will start the first week in December and include a press release, water bill stuffers, and
social media. Brau requested Commissioners forward any ideas for how they would like to have the
data analyzed.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Homewood moved and Kilburg seconded a motion to approve the October 27, 2014 minutes. The
motion passed unanimously.
ANNOUNCEMENTS OF COMMISSIONERS
None.
SHORT PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.
CONSUMER ISSUES
Homewood noted the report in the meeting packet. All complaints have been resolved.
MEDIACOM REPORT
Coleman said he had nothing to report.
LOCAL ACCESS CHANNEL REPOR
Homewood noted that the library and the City Channel had written reports in the meeting packet.
Light reported Senior Center Television would be recording a number of concerts. The SCTV
volunteer group will soon hold their annual meeting to discuss their goals for the coming year. Goding
reported PATV would hold their next guidelines workshop on Dec. 4. A high definition camera
workshop will be offered Jan. 8. PATV will be closed Nov. 27-30 and Dec. 21 -Jan. 2. PATV hosted
three high school students participating in the Work Places job -shadowing program. A fund raising
mailing will be sent to PATV members in the near future.
CITY CABLE TV OFFICE REPORT
Coleman reported the city is trying to figure out the next step to take with regard to the Alliance
Technology franchise. Alliance is not providing service as promised as of Feb. 1, 2014 and the
timeframe before the franchise can be revoked expired on Oct. 30, 2014. On an annual basis the
difference in franchise fees collected by the city under a state -issued franchise rather than a municipal
franchise is about $60,000. Homewood asked if the city has the legal right to request the Alliance
Technologies franchise be revoked. Brau said the city had that right as of Oct. 30. provided Alliance
was not offering service. The Iowa Utility Board may, but is not compelled, to revoke a franchise
upon request. Coleman said the matter is in the hands of the city administration.
Coleman distributed a copy of some documents distributed by Metronet at the presentation they gave
to city officials and selected community members. Metronet currently has field engineers exploring
existing infrastructure. The process is in the very early exploratory phase. Coleman discussed the
issues with customer service he has experienced and provided Metronet representatives information on
the Commission's broadband survey.
MEDIACOM INTERNET PROPOSAL AND LIBRARY CHANNEL CHANGE
Coleman said the transition went smoothly. The biggest problem was when a digital -ready television
is connected directly to the coax cable, the channels that were migrated to digital transmission were not
received on the channel numbers they had been on. Those channels can be found on the QAM channel
assignments in the 118 range. Coleman contacted Mediacom about this problem and noted that
Mediacom's own ad in the newspaper indicated that the channels would be available at their original
assignments. Mediacom ran an additional ad to clarify the situation. Mediacom said they would also
insert some text in subscriber's bills. Mediacom did not update their advertised channel line-up until
Nov. 1. Mediacom had originally told the city that the change would affect about 1,100 analog -only
subscribers. This turns out not to be true given this additional problem.
LOCAL ACCESS CHANNEL SURVEY
Brau reported the survey is active and available to the public but has yet to be publicized. The city
decided they also wanted paper copies to be available. Paper copies will be available at the public
library, the Senior Center and City Hall. Questions were added to include the University of Iowa
channel. The publicity campaign will start the first week in December and include a press release,
water bill stuffers, and social media. Brau requested that Commissioners forward any ideas for how
they would like to have the data analyzed.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORT
Kilburg moved and Homewood seconded motion to approve the Iowa City Telecommunications
Commission FY 2014 annual report. The motion passed unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
Homewood moved and Kilburg seconded a motion to adjourn. The motion passed unanimously.
Adjournment was at 6:03 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
�vl---\
Michael Brau
Cable TV Administrative Aide
TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
12 MONTH ATTENDANCE RECORD
(X) = Present
(0) = Absent
(O/C) = Absent/Called (Excused
Elias
Ber us
Kilburg
Butler
Homewood
12/30/13
O/C
X
O/C
X
X
1/27/14
X
X
X
X
X
2/24/14
X
X
X
0
0
3/24/14
X
X
X
X
X
6/2/14
0
X
X
X
X
6/23/14
0
X
X
X
X
7/28/14
0
x
x
x
0/c
8/25/14
X
X
X
X
X
9/22/14
X
X
X
X
o/c
10/27/14
X
X
o/c
o/c
X
11/24/14
O/C
O/C
X
X
X
1/26/15
X
X
X
X
x
(X) = Present
(0) = Absent
(O/C) = Absent/Called (Excused