Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-08-04 Info Packet� 5 i CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET CITY OF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org August 4, 2016 IN Council Tentative Meeting Schedule MISCELLANEOUS IP2 Article from City Manager: Alley, Alley, in Come Free IP3 Memo from City Attorney: Regulation of Unsolicited Newspapers IP4 City of Iowa City Quarterly Investment Report April 1, 2016 to June 30, 2016 IP5 Civil Service Entrance Examination — Mass Transit Operator IP6 Civil Service Entrance Examination — Special Projects Assistant / Cable TV IP7 Building Statistics (January thru July) I138 Garbage Grapevine 2016 Issue 3 DRAFT MINUTES IP9 Planning and Zoning Commission: July 21 r , City Council Tentative Meeting Schedule nT- i-oar Subject to change August 4, 2016 CITY OF IOWA CITY Date Time Meetina Location Tuesday, August 16, 2016 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, September 6, 2016 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, September 20, 2016 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, October 4, 2016 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, October 18, 2016 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Monday, October 24, 2016 4:00 PM Reception Johnson County Health 4:30 PM Joint Entities Meeting Human Services Bldg. Tuesday, November 1, 2016 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, November 15, 2016 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, December 6, 2016 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, December 20, 2016 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, January 3, 2017 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, January 17, 2017 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Alley, Alley, in Come Free I Sightline Institute From City Manager Slightline ,rrnvnr ALLEY, ALLEY, IN COME FREE A photo essay on urban lanes. koAuthor: Alyse Nelson On August 26, 2011 at 9:56 am Page 1 of 11 Editor's Note July 2016: We're bringing back this popular photo essay to highlight the hidden world of alleys. As cities grow, more people are transforming alleys into viable community spaces. Check out how alleys are becoming a bit brighter (and greener) below. And take a peak at City/ab's recent article for a look at more revitalized and repurposed alleys. Once a stinking strip of menace that was friendlier to rats and crime than to hummus and dancing, Seattle's Nord Alley is an urban place transformed. Cleared of dumpsters and filth, it now hosts art exhibits, blooming flowers, and a mobbed monthly party (pictured above). Nord is the leading edge of a trend just catching on in Cascadia: the reclamation of downtown alleys as lively, even lovely, public realms. Here's Nord Alley before its transformation... by Mira Poling, International Sustainability Institute http://www.sightline.org/2011 /08/26/alley-alley-in-come-free-2l?utm_content=bufferfU2ef... 8/2/2016 Alley, Alley, in Come Free I Sightline Institute Page 2 of 11 by Karen Davis Smith, courtesy of International Sustainability Institute ... and after. The dumpsters are gone, and the waste collector now visits twice a day, picking up sorted and bagged trash, compost, and recycling. Instead, there's a photography exhibit. Zeitgeist art in Nord Alley by Erika Schultz, courtesy of International Sustainability Institute Another before view ... http://Www.sightline.org/2011/08/26/alley-alley-in-come-free-2/?utm_content=bufferfD2ef... 8/2/2016 Alley, Alley, in Come Free I Sightline Institute Page 3 of 11 Garbage truck and dumpsters by Karen Davis Smith, courtesy of International Sustainability Institute ... and after, at one of many parties to watch high-stakes soccer games on a big screen. World cup viewing In Nord Alley by Jordan Lewis, courtesy of International Sustainability Institute Led by International Sustainability Institute's Todd Vogel, Nord Alleys change -over required limited physical improvement. Vogel and his neighbors removed the boards from the windows, and bought some yard furniture and plants from Craigslist. Seattle's Alley Art Project assembled business owners, artists, and the City of Seattle to hang a glass and metal sculpture over the Nord Alley (video, at 5:50). Most important, Vogel began hosting parties to coincide with the monthly art walk in Nord's Pioneer Square neighborhood. Here is the Seattle Latin Fusion band Manigua at a recent event: http://www. sightline.org/2011 /08/26/alley-alley-in-come-free-2/?utm_content=bufferfO2ef... 8/2/2016 Alley, Alley, in Come Free I Sightline Institute Page 4 of 11 Salsa band Manigua playing in Nord Alley, photo by Mira Poling, courtesy of International Sustainability Institute To Vogel, alleys are a neglected opportunity in the urban landscape: "Alleys are a huge wasted asset, but it won't require too much to reclaim them:' (More from Vogel and footage of the alley are here). University of Washington students Mary Fialko and Jennifer Hampton agree. They studied downtown Seattle's alleys and determined that laneways cover almost half as much space as all of the zone's parks, squares, and existing pedestrian -oriented streets. In other words, reclaiming alleys could increase by almost half the pedestrian area of downtown Seattle. Imagine a Seattle in which the half of downtown blocks with alleys have spaces more like Seattle's one truly great alley: Post Alley, pictured below at its south end... http://www. sightline.org/20l l /08/26/alley-alley-in-come-free-2/?utm_content=bufferfO2ef... 8/2/2016 Alley, Alley, in Come Free I Sightline Institute flickr, yo_tuco ... and its main north section. Page 5 of 11 Post Alley, Seattle, north end, flickr, Katherine_lynn But Post Alley is in the tourist -oriented Pike Place Market. That's why the transformation of the unremarkable Nord Alley could be such an important glimpse of the future: such workaday alleys have huge potential. In places across the urban Northwest and beyond, neighbors are beginning to reclaim their lanes, turning them into pedestrian passages, marketplaces, and even gathering places—car-free, human -scaled, edgy and intimate. The possibilities of these neglected urban courtyards are ample, and city -makers are taking note. http://www.sightline.orgl2O l l /08/26/alley-alley-in-come-free-2/?utm_content=bufferfO2ef.. 8/2/2016 Alley, Alley, in Come Free I Sightline Institute by Travis Martin, courtesy of Livable Laneways Vancouver Page 6 of 11 In Vancouver, BC, a non-profit called Livable Laneways has revamped an alley in the citys Mount Pleasant neighborhood. (Pictured above is its Hula -Hoop sculpture. More photos here). Working with community members and an arts group called Vancouver Design Nerds, and supported by the citys livability initiative VIVA Vancouver, Livable Laneways is transforming an underused alley into a pedestrian link. The group has added planter boxes, road barriers, and paint. It has also invited neighbors into the alley with markets, art installations, and other public events. Viva Vancouver, for its part, is watching closely, and hoping that success in Mount Pleasant will create a template it can replicate elsewhere, as called for in the city's Greenest City Action Plan. http://Www.sightline.org/20l l /08/26/alley-alley-in-come-free-2/?utm_content=bufferfO2ef... 8/2/2016 Alley, Alley, in Come Free I Sightline Institute flickr, m kasahara Page 7 of 11 In California, San Francisco's Mission District has stunning murals (excellent slideshow), some painted as early as the 1970s, that tell the social and political story of the Mission and its people. (Pictured above is one in Balmy Alley.) But it is San Francisco's Chinatown neighborhood—arguably the most densely settled neighborhood in the United States outside of Manhattan—that is home to the more -impressive re -do of its alleys. In 1998, San Francisco approved for Chinatown the only alley master plan then in force in the United States. The plan calls for renovating 31 alleys. The prime mover behind the plan was the non-profit Chinatown Development Commission, which saw reviving alleys as a way to reclaim community assets. Chinatown's alleys are integral to the neighborhood's pedestrian network (as illustrated by the photo below). So far, San Francisco has updated almost a dozen of Chinatown's alleys, installing new paving, street furniture, stormwater features, and public art. http://www. sight] ine.org/2011 /08/26/alley-alley-in-come-free-2/%tm_content=bufferfO2ef.. 8/2/2016 Alley, Alley, in Come Free I Sightline Institute flickr, bluewaikiki Page 8 of 11 Meanwhile, San Francisco architect David Winslow has been advancing the redevelopment of the Linden "living alley' (pictured below) in the Hayes Valley neighborhood. Winslow wrote in the San Francisco Chronicle: "Nearly 30 percent of urban space is given to streets, including alleys." On Linden, change proceeded in steps: a property owner fixed up a decaying building, a coffee shop moved in, the community developed a plan for the length of the alley, landscaping created green space and provided a place for rainwater to percolate into the soil, and finally the city repaved the alley so it would all be on one level, with no distinction between street and sidewalk. flickr, niallkennedy http://www. sightline.orgl20l l /08/26/alley-alley-in-come-free-2l?utm_content=bufferfO2ef... 8/2/2016 Alley, Alley, in Come Free I Sightline Institute Page 9 of 11 Concerted alley renovation efforts remain young in San Francisco, as they are in Cascadia, but they're far advanced in Melbourne, Australia, a city that has been working for two decades to create a pedestrian -friendly downtown. Melbourne's laneways are at the heart of the effort. The central city is built on a grid of large blocks, and alleys cut the blocks up into pedestrian - scaled pieces. Melbourne's initiative has advanced far beyond the plants -and -street -furniture phase of Seattle's Nord Alley. It has not only permitted but encouraged the remodeling of its alleys into outdoor caf6s, marketplaces, and other pedestrian Meccas. Melbourne also vigorously promotes street art projects in its alleys (good video). The results of these efforts, captured in this Streetfilms video, have been spectacular. Melbourne: A Pedestrian Paradise from STREETFILMS 09:54 Rob Adams, Melbourne's director of city design, says the change occurred as Melbourne began to require that every development in the city take a careful look at how buildings meet the street. The key to thriving pedestrian places, he says, is in the details of urban life (like the traffic -blocking bollards below in Melbourne's Hosier Alley). It's in the quality of the public art and paving, rather than in big architectural projects. Adams says, "We've got to rediscover the small." http://www.sightline.orgl2O l l /08/26/alley-alley-in-come-free-2l?utm_content—bufferfO2ef... 8/2/2016 Alley, Alley, in Come Free I Sightline Institute Page 10 of 11 flickr, Mimi -K In the alley renovation league, Melbourne has leaped into the global lead after commissioning a 1994 study by Danish architect and planner Jan Gehl of Gehl Architects. Instead of putting the study on the shelf as so many cities might have, Melbourne quickly set to work implementing its recommendations, with the kinds of happy results visible in the alley mural pictured below. flickr, ultrakml http://www. sightline.org/2011 /08/26/alley-alley-in-come-free-2/%tm_content=bufferfD2ef... 8/2/2016 Alley, Alley, in Come Free I Sightline Institute Page 11 of 11 It's a good sign, therefore, that Seattle hired Gehl Architects to perform a similar downtown study. Released in 2009, it includes recommendations to view alleys as "Blue -Green Lungs" of downtown—places to grow plants, perform water filtration, and provide back routes for people on foot and bikes. Downtown Seattle has alleys in about half of its blocks, but most only function as service ways and do not have the paving, lighting, or building details that are important to attracting pedestrians. As projects like Nord Alley and Vancouver's Livable Laneways spread in Cascadia, alleys will evolve from minuses—stinking service roads—to pluses. Melbourne's Rob Adams sums up the process:'To change cities will always be a slow process and cannot be achieved overnight through silver -bullet solutions of grand architecture. It is more about the slow incremental improvement of the most important piece of public space in the city—namely, our streets." That's a lesson that Todd Vogel and the creators of Nord Alley have already mastered. Livable Laneways has yet to schedule its next event, but the next Nord Alley party is on September 1, from 5:30 to 8:30 pm. Details here. Guest blogger Alyse Nelson is a city planner for a small town in Kitsap County, Washington. She spends some of her spare time researching for Sightline on topics such as pedestrian carts and cargo bikes. She last wrote for Sightline about Denmark's family friendly courtyard housing. Alan Durning also contributed to this post. We are a community -sponsored resource and we can't do this work without you! Please make a donation today and help keep us running. Tagged in: Alleyways, Public Health, Public space, Urban Growth, Urban Planning © 2016 Sightline Institute. All Rights Reserved. http://Www.sightline.org/2011/08/26/alley-alley-in-come-free-21?utm content=bufferfO2ef .. 8/2/2016 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: August 4, 2016 To: City Council From: Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attorne q�l Re: Regulation of Unsolicited Newspapers QUESTION Can the City, by ordinance, prohibit the delivery of unsolicited newspapers, in order to control litter, reduce waste and protect the privacy of residents from unwanted deliveries? CONCLUSION Government regulation of newspapers, including their delivery, raises constitutional issues because dissemination of information by the press is protected by the First Amendment. While there is no reported case law in Iowa or the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals directly on point, some case law in other jurisdictions and dicta by the Eighth Circuit suggests that a limited ordinance prohibiting a publisher from delivering unsolicited material that the tenant or homeowner has requested not be delivered likely would pass constitutional muster as in that instance the City is not controlling what is delivered, but simply enforcing the wishes of the tenant or homeowner. In the event the Council is interested in pursuing such an ordinance, in order to avoid constitutional infirmity, careful attention would need to be paid to: 1) the definition and specificity of the material the resident could ask not be delivered to his/her property; 2) the mechanism by which the resident would express his/her desire not to receive the material (e.g. posted sign, opt -out registry, documented request by resident). In addition, enforcement of such an ordinance would require the resident to testify in court that the material was unwanted; that the resident's wishes were communicated to the publisher and that the material was delivered notwithstanding the resident's communication. BACKGROUND The City Council asked the above question after receiving complaints from residents about the Iowa City Press -Citizen's delivery of free newspapers on Wednesday. Since that time, staff has requested and received from the Press -Citizen an outline of the paper's Wednesday newspaper distribution and this past spring the Neighborhood and Development Services (NDS) Department communicated the local customer service number for residents to call to stop Wednesday delivery to multiple neighborhoods through the City's Next Door social media application. The number is 319-688-4246. Based on the comments from that post, it was well received by several different neighborhoods. NDS continues to help residents as calls come in and Communications and NDS push out additional messaging based on the number of contacts they are getting about the issue. DISCUSSION A government's regulation of the time, place and/or manner of speech must be content - neutral, narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest and leave open ample August 4, 2016 Page 2 alternatives of communication. Perry Education Assn. v. Perry Local Educators' Assn., 460 U.S. 37, 45 (1983). Our research revealed no reported state or federal cases in Iowa or the Eighth Circuit addressing the regulation of the distribution of unsolicited newspapers or material. However, cases in the Eighth Circuit indicate that an ordinance which prohibits distribution to a resident who has declined to receive the paper would be found constitutional. The Eighth Circuit has held that residential privacy is a "significant" government interest and that an "opt -in provision" where the choice not to receive the message is made by the resident "limits the degree of government interference with First Amendment interests." Fraternal Order of Police, 431 F. 3d 591, 599-99 (81" Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1129 (2006)(holding constitutional North Dakota's law prohibiting certain telephone solicitations of residents who register with the state's "do -not -call list' and citing the Supreme Court's 1970 decision in Rowan v. United States Post Office, 397 U.S. 728 (1970) approving a statutory scheme giving sole discretion to a private person to determine whether material was "erotically arousing or sexually provocative" as it avoided "possible constitutional questions that might arise from vesting the power to make any evaluation of the material in a government official"). The significance of the decision being made by the resident rather than the government was also identified by the Eighth Circuit in its earlier decision in Krantz v. City of Fort Smith, 160 F.3d 1214 (8'h Cir. 1998) cert. denied, 527 U.S. 1037 (1999). The court held unconstitutional a city ordinance making it illegal for any person to place a handbill or advertisement on any other person's vehicle parked on public property within city limits. The court found the ordinance was not narrowly tailored to serve the governmental interest of preventing littering because it suppressed considerably more speech than was necessary to serve the government's interest. Id. at 1221. In doing so, the Eighth Circuit reviewed Supreme Court case law rejecting a government's prohibition on the distribution of literature to those who were willing to receive it and upholding a scheme allowing the Postmaster to enforce a household's notification to senders of pandering advertisements that future mailings were unwanted. The Eighth Circuit reasoned that the distinguishing factor in these Supreme Court cases was whether the prohibition was based on the desires of the recipient of the material being distributed. The Eighth Circuit stated: Similarly, in the present case, the ordinances suppress considerably more speech than is necessary to serve the stated governmental purpose of preventing litter. The ordinances prohibit the placement of any handbill on any unattended vehicle, regardless of whether the driver, owner, or an occupant might wish to receive the handbill and notwithstanding the fact that some, if not most, people would not throw on the ground papers left on their cars. While we have no difficulty concluding that the inconvenience of having to dispose of unwanted paper is an acceptable burden, at least so far as the Constitution is concerned, that minor inconvenience is not even necessary in the present case because, like the householders in Martin and Rowan, those who do not wish to be left with handbills can quite easily notify distributors of that fact. As the Supreme Court reasoned in Martin and Schneider, defendants' goal of preventing litter can be accomplished by punishing the handbill distributors who defy such notices, as well as the "litterbugs" who choose to throw papers on the ground. Id. at 1220-1221 (internal citations and quotations omitted). August 4, 2016 Page 3 This same sentiment was expressed by the court in American Cmty. Newspapers, LLC v. City of Plano, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70961 (E.D. Tex. 2008) when it found constitutional an ordinance that restricted the distribution of handbills to residences which displayed a "Do Not Solicit" or similarly worded sign. This was the only restriction on delivery in the ordinance, which allowed the newspaper several alternative methods by which to convey its message, including telephone solicitation and mailing of newspapers. The court concluded: "if the occupant still declines a free paper, there is no constitutional basis for shoving a paper down the resident's throat." Id. at *12. However, other authority demonstrates the limits of this type of governmental regulation. In Distribution Systems of America v. Village of Old Westbury, 862 F. Supp. 950 (E.D.N.Y 1994) the federal district court found unconstitutional an ordinance prohibiting the distribution of "any unsolicited print or other written material" upon the property of a Village resident who appears on the list of residents not wanting such material maintained by the City Clerk. The court was troubled with the amount of information that would be excluded from distribution to residents (all print and written material), and that the resident was not making an informed decision about what particular pieces of information the resident did and did not want to receive. The court concluded: The Court acknowledges that the present ordinance is much improved over the licensing scheme that was first enacted by the Village and subsequently struck down by this Court. Indeed, the Court commends the Village's efforts to attempt to arrive at an ordinance that serves the various Village interests without running afoul of the First Amendment. However, it is the Court's opinion that because the press' right to distribute information to the public is such a fundamental First Amendment right, and because door-to-door distribution of written material is an important aspect of public debate and essential to the communications of poorly financed causes, every attempt must be made to ensure that the government does not restrict from distribution any more information than is truly not wanted by the recipient. In this case, the ordinance enacted by the Village of Old Westbury would preclude Village residents from receiving printed and written material they have a First Amendment right to receive, on the basis of an uninformed decision by the resident that categorically applies to "unsolicited" printed or written publications. In doing so, the ordinance sweeps with a broad brush, and cuts away at the First Amendment's protection of a free press by precluding efforts to distribute information to Village Residents on important issues facing the community, such as the upcoming referendum on the Nassau County Legislature and the accompanying revisions to the Nassau County Charter. In light of the difficulties inherent in undertaking to restrict the distribution of newspapers to the public, the Court believes the more prudent approach is for the government to refrain from paternalistically acting on behalf of the community, and to put the decision for rejecting and discarding the unwanted newspaper or leaflet where it belongs, on the recipient. The short, though regular, journey from mail box to trash can . . . is an acceptable burden, at least so far as the constitution is concerned. August 4, 2016 Page 4 Id. at 961 (internal citations and quotations omitted); see also, Statesboro Publ'g Co. v. City of Sylvania, 271 Ga. 92 (1999)(Georgia Supreme Court holding an ordinance prohibiting the distribution of free and unsolicited newspapers in yards, driveways and porches unconstitutional); Dex Media West, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 696 F.3d 952 (9" Cir. 2012)(holding a Seattle ordinance requiring publishers of yellow pages directories to pay a fee to cover the cost of operating and promoting an "opt -out" registry through which residents can decline to receive directories unconstitutional as there were other less restrictive means to accomplish the City's objectives, including to support the Yellow Pages' companies own private opt out programs). Finally, in crafting such an ordinance the City must be mindful of the first prong of the constitutional test, that being the requirement that the regulation be "content neutral." In the cases cited above the courts determined that they were evaluating content neutral regulations. If a regulation is found to be content - based, the strict scrutiny rather intermediate scrutiny standard applies which is almost impossible to satisfy. The Supreme Court's recent decision in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 135 S. Ct. 2887 (2015) "clarified the content based inquiry and arguably expanded the universe of content discrimination." Traditionalist American Knights of the Ku Klux Clan v. City of Desloge, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21630 (E.D. Mo. 2016). In Reed the Supreme Court struck down a municipal code that applied differing restrictions to signs depending on whether they were "ideological", "political" or a "temporary directional sign." Prior to Reed a law was content based if it discriminated between viewpoints, i.e. if an ordinance regulated a particular subject matter but was neutral with respect to the ideas or viewpoint it was not content based. Norton v. City of Springfield, 806 F. 3d 411, 412 (7" Cir. 2015). Reed changed that analysis. After Reed a "regulation targeted at a specific subject matter is content based even if it does not discriminate among viewpoints within that subject matter." Id. at 412 (quoting Reed, 135 S. Ct. at 2230). "Any law distinguishing one kind of speech from another by reference to its meaning now requires a compelling justification." Id. at 413. "The majority opinion in Reed effectively abolishes any distinction between content regulation and subject matter regulation." Id. Therefore, assuming this interpretation of Reed is accurate, any ordinance prohibiting the delivery of material the resident has communicated is unwanted would have to apply to "any material" and could not be limited to newspapers. Of course, the breadth of such regulation subjects it to the argument found persuasive in the Distribution Systems of America v. Village of Old Westbury case that the resident has not made an informed decision about which material is or is not unwanted. 862 F. Supp. at 961. RECOMMENDATION I have shared this opinion with the City Manager. Staff does not recommend that the Council adopt such an ordinance given the legal and administrative implications of the City's involvement in what information its residents do and do not receive from the press. Staff believes that the City's efforts should continue to be directed to facilitating communication between the Press -Citizen and residents by providing interested residents with information about how to opt out of the Press -Citizen's Wednesday delivery and communicating with the Press - Citizen about residents' complaints. August 4, 2016 Page 5 Cc: Geoff Fruin, City Manager Marian Karr, City Clerk I P4 QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT April 1, 2016 to June 30, 2016 Finance Department Prepared by: Brian Cover Senior Accountant OVERVIEW The City of Iowa City's investment objectives are safety, liquidity and yield. The primary objective of the City of Iowa City's investment activities is the preservation of capital and the protection of investment principal. The City's investment portfolio remains sufficiently liquid to enable the City to meet operating requirements that cash management procedures anticipate. In investing public funds, the City's cash management portfolio is designed with the objective of regularly exceeding the average return on the six month U.S. Treasury Bill. The Treasury Bill is considered a benchmark for riskless investment transactions and therefore comprises a minimum standard for the portfolio's rate of return. Since the city's investments are mostly between the six month and twelve month range, the yield curve for the 12 month U.S. Treasury Bill has been added to the chart. The rolling average return on the six-month U.S. Treasury Bill for the prior 365 days was 0.33% and the 12 month rate was .48%. The investment program seeks to achieve returns above this threshold, consistent with risk limitations and prudent investment principles. The rate of return on the City's entire portfolio for the quarter was 0.538%. (See exhibit A) Investments purchased by the City of Iowa City for the fourth quarter of this fiscal year had an average return of 0.51%. Rates on new investment purchases in our operating cash portfolio for the fourth quarter were approximately 14 basis points higher than investments purchased at this time last year. The federal funds rate is the interest rate at which banks lend to each other. In the June le meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee, the decision was made to maintain the target range for the federal funds rate from % to %: percent. The Committee expects that economic conditions will evolve in a manner that will warrant only gradual increases in the federal funds rate; the federal funds rate is likely to remain, for some time, below levels that are expected to prevail in the longer run. However, the actual path of the federal funds rate will depend on the economic outlook as informed by incoming data. (See exhibit B) The quarterly investment report lists investments by fund, by institution, by maturity date, and investments purchased and redeemed. New official state interest rates setting the minimum that may be paid by Iowa depositories on public funds in the 180 to 364 day range during this quarter were 0.05% in April, 0.05% in May, and 0.05% in June 2016. City of Iowa City vs. 6 Month Treasury Bill A. 0.1 0.0 oaf' �a EXHIBIT A --*.--City of Iowa City —� 6 Month T-bill --o— 12 Month T-bill 0.5 c L m 0.4 L W O w 0.3 c m 0.2 CL 0.1 0.0 oaf' �a EXHIBIT A --*.--City of Iowa City —� 6 Month T-bill --o— 12 Month T-bill ✓42,08 O�a08 , 1140,09 4000, a09 ✓4n,70 Oec, 70 `✓47, 7;r � Obc,77 dirk 2 OL'a �2 70 Oea73 O 4 �a ZV 7S I )ec,7S ✓4k 176 Interest Rate 0 CL (DI N a rn CITY OF IOWA CITY INVESTMENTS ON HAND DETAIL LISTING BY MATURITY DATE 30 -Jun -16 INSTITUTION NAME INVESTMENT TYPE PURCHASE DATE MATURITY DATE INVESTMENT AMOUNT INTEREST RATE IPAIT IPAIT 27 -Sep -06 $ 1,500,000.00 0.01% HILLS BANK MONEY MRKT 30 -Mar -10 $ 9,000,000.00 0.20% WELLS FARGO SAV 25 -Jul -12 $ 5,416,694.17 0.15% WELLS FARGO SAV 14 -Apr -14 $ 24,000,000.00 0.25% UICCU CD 22 -Jul -14 24Jul-19 $ 2,600,000.00 2.01% MIDWESTONE BANK CD 29 -Apr -15 29 -Oct -17 $ 1,000,000.00 1.02% UICCU CD 2"un-15 25 -Jun -17 $ 844,150.00 0.95% CR BANK & TRUST CD 18 -Aug -15 02 -Sep -16 $ 2,000,000.00 0.52% CR BANK & TRUST CD 18 -Aug -15 09 -Sep -16 $ 2,000,000.00 0.52% CR BANK & TRUST CD 18 -Aug -15 16 -Sep -16 $ 2,ODO,OOD.00 0.56% CR BANK & TRUST CD 18 -Aug -15 18 -Aug -17 $ 775,000.00 0.68% MIDWESTONE BANK CD 30 -Sep -15 30Sep-17 $ 15,000,000.00 1.02% FARMERS & MERCHANTS BANK CD 16 -Oct -15 29 -Oct -16 $ 2,000,000.00 0.50% WELLS FARGO SECURITIES CD 16 -Oct -15 13 -Oct -16 $ 2,000,000.00 0.57% CBI BANK & TRUST CD 16 -Oct -15 05 -Nov -16 $ 2,000,000.00 0.62% CBI BANK & TRUST CD 16 -Oct -15 12 -Nov -16 $ 2,000,000.00 0.62% WELLS FARGO SECURITIES NOTE 20 -Nov -15 16 -May -18 $ 499,510.00 1.04% WELLS FARGO SECURITIES NOTE 08 -Dec -15 09 -Dec -16 $ 2,083,900.00 0.78% HILLS BANK CD 16 -Dec -15 13 -Jan -17 $ 2,000,000.00 1.00% MIDWESTONE BANK CD 11 -Jan -16 10 -Feb -17 $ 2,000,000.00 0.91% IPAIT CD O5 -Feb -16 01 -Nov -16 $ 5,000,000.00 0.66% CR BANK & TRUST CD 09 -Feb -16 08 -Aug -16 $ 2,000,000.00 0.82% CR BANK & TRUST CD 19 -Feb -16 24 -Aug -16 $ 2,0D0,000.00 0.78% MIDWESTONE BANK CD 04 -Mar -16 03 -Mar -17 $ 450,000.00 0.90% MIDWESTONE BANK CD 04 -Mar -16 03 -Mar -17 $ 2,030,221.00 0.91% MIDWESTONE BANK CD D4 -Mar -16 Dg -Sep -16 $ 2,000,000.00 0.71% TWO RIVERS BANK CD 18 -Mar -16 15 -Dec -16 $ 2,000,000.00 0.82% TWO RIVERS BANK CD 25 -Mar -16 29-1)ec-16 $ 2,000,000.00 0.82% UICCU CD 08 -Apr -16 07 -Oct -16 $ 2,000,000.00 0.750 UICCU CD O8 -Apr -16 14 -Oct -16 $ 2,000,000.00 0.750 CBI BANK & TRUST CD 05 -May -16 05 -May -17 $ 2,000,000.00 0.820 CBI BANK & TRUST CD 05 -May -16 12 -May -17 $ 2,000,000.00 0.620 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 10 -May -16 10 -Nov -16 $ 2,000,000.00 0.620 CR BANK & TRUST CD 24-MayA6 24 -May -17 $ 2,000,000.00 0.920 CR BANK & TRUST CD 10 -Jun -10 12 -Jun -17 $ 2,000,000.00 0.810 FARMERS & MERCHANTS BANK CD 17 -Jun -16 19 -Jun -17 $ 2,000,000.00 0.751 TWO RIVERS BANK CD 21 -Jun -16 21 -Dec -16 $ 2,000,000.00 0.610 US BANK MONEY MRKT 22 -Jun -16 $ 10,000,000.00 0.250 WELLS FARGO SAV 25 -Jul -12 $ 4,999,750.00 0.150 TOTAL $ 131,199,225.17 CITY OF IOWA CITY INVESTMENT ACTIVITY FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 2016 INSTITUTION INVESTMENTS ON HAND AT 03/31/16 PURCHASES 04/01116 TO 06/30/16 INVESTMENT PURCHASE MATURITY INVESTMENT INTEREST TYPE DATE DATE AMOUNT RATE $113,199,225.17 UICCU CD 08 -Apr -16 07 -Oct -16 $ 2,000,000.00 0.750 UICCU CD 08 -Apr -16 14 -Oct -16 $ 2,00D,000.00 0.750 CBI BANK & TRUST CD 05 -May -16 05 -May -17 $ 2,000,000.00 0.820 CBI BANK & TRUST CD 05 -May -16 12 -May -17 $ 2,000,000.00 0.820 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 10 -May -16 10 -Nov -16 $ 2,000,000.00 0.620 CR BANK & TRUST CD 24 -May -16 24 -May -17 $ 2,000,000.00 0.920 CR BANK & TRUST CD ID -Jun -16 12 -Jun -17 $ 2,000,000.00 0.810 FARMERS & MERCHANTS BANK CD 17 -Jun -16 19 -Jun -17 $ 2,000,000.00 0.761 TWO RIVERS BANK CD 21 -Jun -16 21 -Dec -16 $ 2,000,000.00 0.610 USBANK MONEY MRKT 22 -Jun -16 $ 10,000,000.00 0.250 WELLS FARGO SAV 25 -Jul -12 $ 4,999,750.00 0.150 TOTAL PURCHASES S 32,999,750.00 REDEMPTIONS 04/01/16 TO 06/30/16 WELLS FARGO SAV 20 -Apr -10 $ (10,000,000.00) 0.150 WELLS FARGO SECURITIES NOTE 13 -Jan -16 30 -Jun -16 $ (4,999,750.00) 0.510 TOTAL REDEMPTIONS $ (14,999,750.00) INVESTMENTS ON HAND AT 06/30/16 139,199,225,17 CITY OF IOWA CITY INVESTMENTS ON HAND SUMMARY BY FUND 6130/16 6/30/15 FUND INVESTMENT INVESTMENT TYPE AMOUNT AMOUNT ALL OPERATING FUNDS $123,000,344.17 $119,824,704.80 GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND FUND $ $ BOND RESERVE FUND $ 8,198,881.00 $ 7,424,371.00 TOTAL CITY OF IOWA CITY INVESTMENTS ON HAND LISTING BY INSTITUTION TOTAL $131,199,225.17 $127,249,075.80 6/30116 6/30/15 INSTITUTION INVESTMENT INVESTMENT DEPOSITORY NAME AMOUNT AMOUNT LIMIT BANK OF THE WEST $ $ $ 75,000,000.00 BANKER'S TRUST $ $ $ 20,000,000.00 CEDAR RAPIDS BANK & TRUST $ 14,775,000.00 $ 6,00,000.00 $ 20;000,00.00 FARMERS & MERCHANTS SAVINGS BANK $ 4,000,000.00 $ 2,000,000.00 $ 15,000,00.00 FIRSTAMERICAN BANK $ $ - $ 35,000,000.00 CBI BANK & TRUST $ 8,000,000.00 $ - $ 15,000,000.00 HILLS BANK & TRUST $ 11,000,000.00 $ 9,000,00.0 $ 25,000,000.00 IOWA PUBLIC AGENCY INVESTMENT TRUST $ 6,500,000.00 $ 7,500,000.0 N/A LIBERTY BANK $ - $ - $ 25,000,000.00 MIDWESTONE BANK $ 24,480,221.00 $ 40,305,071.63 $10,000,000.00 TWO RIVERS BANK $ 6,000,000.00 $ 4,000,000.0 $ 10,000,000.00 U OF I COMM CREDIT UNION $ 7,444,150.00 $ 9,444,150.0 $ 50,000,000.00 US BANK $ 10,000,000.00 $ - $ 65,000,000.0 WELLS FARGO SECURITIES $ 4,583,410.00 $ 6,515,468.14 WA WELLS FARGO BANK $ 34,416,444.17 $ 42,484,386.03 $ 50,000,000.0 WEST BANK $ $ S 35,000,000.0 TOTAL $131,199,225.17 $127,249,075.80 - IP5 I r � CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 522 40-1 82 6 (319) 356-5000 (319) 356-5009 FAX www.1cgov.org July 19, 2016 TO: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council RE: Civil Service Entrance Examination — Mass Transit Operator Under the authority of the Civil Service Commission of Iowa City, Iowa, I do hereby certify the following named person(s) as eligible for the position of Mass Transit Operator. Zachary Dresser Rene Postman Louis Anderson Sten Frangi Essono Ayman Elobeid IOWA CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION Jim Dickerson, PGA Golf 319-351-0596 p.1 - I r y �P6 CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East lvashinglon Street Imva City. linea 522x0-1926 13 1 9) 356-5000 13191 356-5009 FAX MM.-lcgov.org August 3, 2016 TO: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council RE: Civil Service Entrance Examination — Special Projects Assistant — Cable TV Under the authority of the Civil Service Commission of Iowa City, Iowa, I do hereby certify the following named person(s) as eligible for the position of Special Projects Assistant — Cable TV. Jack Brooks IOWA CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION u �+` Lyra IV. Dickerson, Chair IP7 City of Iowa City 2016 Building Statistics ValuelType of Construction January February March April May June July August September October November December TOTAL NON-TAXABL Single Family -$ 1,085,600 2,631,225 4,534.025 4,285,494 4.502.146 3,122,390 665,000 20,825,680 Number of Permits Duplex -$ 4 6 20 1,349,870 16 21 420,000 13 3 83 1,769,870 Number of Permits 2 1 3 Sororities & Fraternities - $ Number of Permits Multiple Units 3,863,333 1,564,850 4,060,000 1,000,000 13,252,114 23,740,297 Number of Permits 3 4 2 1 (foundatioi2 12 Number of Buildings 3 4 2 2 11 Number of Dwelling Units 27 17 28 78 150 Mix- CommercialfResidential 6,949,457 6,000,000 12,949,457 Number of Permits 2 (1-founda 1-foundafion 3 Number of Buildings 1 1 Number of Dwelling units 8 8 Motels, Hotels -$ 23,500,000 23,500,000 Number of Permits 1 1 Churches -$ 8,000,000 8,000,000 8,000,000 Number of Permits 1 1 Industrial -$ 10,700,000 470,000 119,540 11,289,540 Number of Permits 1 1 1 3 Service Stations - $ Number of Permits Hospitals & Institutions - $ Number of Permits Offices, Banks, Prof. -$ 188,000 9,500,000 1,500,000 1 1 11,188,000 Number of Permits 1(foundation). 1 1 3 Public Warks&Utilities -$ 7,619,000 7,619,000 7,619,000 Number of Permits 3 3 Schools -$ 14,000,000 14,000,000 14,000,000 Number of Permits 1 1 Stores & Customer Svc. -$ 1,916,418 1,100,867 3,900,000 6,917,285 Number of Permits 1 1 2 1 4 Misc. StructureslFences - $ 151,500 1,000 105,000 257,500 Number of Permits 7 1 1 9 Remodel, Residential -$ 414,212 895,942 929,851 686,030 6,252,798 5,714,583 1,215,083 16,110,499 Number of Permits 23 23 39 41 39 37 30 232 Remodel, Commercial -$ 1,295,54413,495,592 1,718,550 4,467,960 11,665,395 8,317,942 3,360,8261 1 44,321,609 13,887,008 Number of Permits 151 8 13 7 20 13 7 83 Remodel, Public Works -$ Number of Permits cessory Structures 4,000 222,000 25,000 179,000 3,000 433,000 Number of Permits 1 4 1 2 1 9 TOTAL VALUE 13,687,356 44,608,092 34,067,146 23,026,484 25,908,257 46,256,353 15,368,449 202,922,137 43,506,008 TOTAL PERMITS Ic 45 45 81 69 90 74 46 450 Marian Karr From: ECICOG <alicia.presto@ecicog.org> Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2016 11:13 AM To: Council Subject: Garbage Grapevine 2016 Issue 3 (f ECICM ( 2016 ISSUE 3 W,�W v..nacrn�a...a-m The Garbage Grapevine is a bimonthly newslett about solid waste ai recycling in the ECICOG Solid Waste Comprehensive Planning Area. This newsletter i sponsored by thel Solid Waste u , Commissions in Benton, Iowa, Jones, and Tama Counties. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN APPROVED An update of the Regional Comprehensive Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan for the ECICOG solid waste planning area was approved on July 6, 2016 by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources. ECICOG updated the plan through a yearlong process that involved public meetings with the solid waste commissions in Benton, Iowa, Jones, and Tama Counties STAFF CONTAC INFORMATIO An important measure of progress documented in the plan is the waste diversion rate. The ECICOG solid waste planning area is Jennifer Fencl currently diverting 38% more waste from the landfill than it's Solid Waste & comparison year, which is 1988. Since the State of Iowa's landfill Environmen1"diversion.l goal is 50%, the new plan includes strategies each solid Services Dire facility can pursue to increase their diversion rate. 319-365-99 Ext 131lan is available online on our Plans page at Email.ecicog.org/plans For more information, contact Jennifer Fencl Alicia Presnifer.fenclaa,ecicoe.ore or319-365-9941. Solid Waste PIDFILL COMPACTOR TRAINING & Iowa Waste q Exchange Resource Specialist 319-365-9941 ECICOG is hosting a landfill Ext 121 compaction training August 24 to 25 at Email the Benton County Landfill. The workshop includes both classroom and Nicole Van Nelson hands on training where participants Public Information . will learn efficient waste compaction Specialist & Med' techniques and safe equipment Contact operation. The training will be provided 319-365-9941 by Jason Todaro of Blue Ridge Ext 125 Services, which is an industry leader in Email landfill operation and safety. Because ECICOG was awarded a USDA education grant, landfill staff in Jason Todaro of Benton, Iowa, Jones, and Tama Blue Ridge Services Counties will attend the training free of charge. The training is open to other solid waste facilities for a fee. If you're interested, contact Alicia Presto at alicia.nrestoaa,ecicog.org or 319-365-9941 ext. 121. LOCAL GOVERNOR'S ENVIRONMENTAL EXCELLENCE AWARD WINNERS Congratulations to all the Governor's Environmental Excellence Award winners. The award winners in our region include Weikert Iron and Metal Recycling providing services to our local solid waste facilities, Price Creek Watershed Project and Iowa County Soil and Water Conservation District in Williamsburg, Quaker Oats in Cedar Rapids, Cedar Rapids/Linn County Solid Waste Agency in Marion, Hy -Vee Food Stores, and ITC Midwest in Cedar Rapids. For more information on the awards, visit www.iowadnr.pov/eeawards. ECICOG, 700 16th Street, NE, Suite 301, Cedar Rapids, IA 52402 SafeUnsubscribeTM councilCa,iowa-cit .ororg Forward this email I Update Profile I About our service provider Sent by alicia.prestoaecicog.org in collaboration with Cwsax*CoiiCJ *14:4 Ta it free today MINUTES PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 21, 2016 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL MEETING EMMA HARVAT HALL — CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Ann Freerks, Max Parsons, Mark Signs, Jodie Theobald MEMBERS ABSENT: Mike Hensch, Phoebe Martin STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Karen Howard, Bob Miklo OTHERS PRESENT: Glen Meisner, Bob Mitchell, Pam Michaud RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends sending a letter to the Johnson County Planning and Zoning Department recommending rezoning of 9.75 acres of property at the southwest corner of Prairie Du Chien Road and Westcott Drive NE, from County Agricultural (A) to County Residential (R) subject to 50% of the development being designated as outlets foropen space at time of plat approval. By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends approval of REZ16-00004, a rezoning from 1-1 to CI -1 for approximately 35,000 square feet of property located at 2114-2118 Riverside Drive and 103 Commercial Drive subject to a conditional zoning agreement specifying that that vehicle sales will be limited to the west side of the building at 2114-18 S. Riverside Drive, CALL TO ORDER: Freerks called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There were none COUNTY REZONING (CZ16-00002): Discussion of an application submitted to Johnson County by Robert and Roxanne Mitchel for a rezoning from County Agricultural (A) to County Residential (R) for 9.75 -acres of property located at 3055 Prairie Du Chien Road N.E. in Area A of the Iowa City/Johnson County Fringe Area. Miklo noted that this property is not within Iowa City but is within the Iowa City/Johnson County Fringe Area and therefore the State Code gives Iowa City the right to review and approve subdivisions to ensure that development is consistent with the City's goals, especially in those areas that may be annexed into the City in the future. The City also has an agreement with the County to review rezonings in addition to subdivisions within that same Fringe Area. The request is to rezone this area from agricultural to residential to allow a subdivision of one -acre lots. Miklo showed images that indicated the zoning patterns around this property. Much of the Planning and Zoning Commission July 21, 2016 — Formal Meeting Page 2 of 12 area around this property is already zoned residential. The Fringe Area Agreement indicates that this area north of the City is the growth area of the County where residential development is allowed. There are some guidelines in the Fringe Area Agreement that if residential rezoning is to be approved it should be clustered and 50% of the property should be set aside as open space or agricultural use or set aside for development if it is ever annexed into the City. Miklo showed a concept plan for this area that does contain a large outlot, which coincides with the wooded area in the middle of the property. There is also another outlot that coincides with the pipeline easement as well as other open space that would be set aside for common open space. Therefore the lot sizes would be smaller than one -acre lots, they would be closer to half an acre. The open space would be owned in -common by the homeowners association. With this subdivision there will be two new streets built to County design standards, which the City has agreed to with the Fringe Area Agreement. Staff recommends that the requested rezoning of 9.75 acres of property at the southwest corner of Prairie Du Chien Road and Westcott Drive NE, from County Agricultural (A) to County Residential (R) be approved with a letter of approval sent to the Johnson County Planning and Zoning Department. Signs asked about the parcel of agricultural that is to the south of this proposed subdivision and where access to that parcel will come from. Miklo said there is currently a private driveway there that leads from Prairie Du Chien, and that driveway will be converted to a private county residential road. With regards to the two parcels south of that Miklo is unsure about the access. Freerks opened the public hearing. Glen Meisner (MMS Consultants) noted that this parcel is a remnant of the Westcott Farms, he is not sure the ownership of the two parcels to the south but would guess it is the farmer that is in the area and the access is out to Prairie Du Chien. Hektoen noted that this is just a rezoning application at this point and the County will investigate parcel access and make sure that is clarified. Meisner stated that with this new subdivision they will either join Westcott Heights on their wells or will construct their own wells for the seven lots proposed. The subdivision and rezoning does meet the North Corridor Plan between Johnson County and Iowa City. Freerks note that the plat showed a barn on the property. She asked if it would be saved. Bob Mitchell (developer) commented on the barn that is on the property, noting it could be saved but it is in pretty rough condition currently. Freerks closed the public dicussion. Parsons moved that the Commission recommend sending a letter to the Johnson County Planning and Zoning Department recommending rezoning of 9.75 acres of property at the southwest corner of Prairie Du Chien Road and Westcott Drive NE, from County Agricultural (A) to County Residential (R) subject to 50% of the development being designated as outlets foropen space attime of plat approval. Planning and Zoning Commission July 21, 2016— Formal Meeting Page 3 of 12 Signs seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0 (Hensch and Martin absent). CODE AMENDMENT ITEM: Discussion of amendments to Title 14, Zoning Code, to establish standards for a new form - based code district, the Eastside Mixed Use District, to clarify and refine the language of certain provisions of the Riverfront Crossings form -based code, to adjust parking requirements and apartment mix standards to encourage student housing in areas abutting the University campus and to encourage housing for a broader mix of populations throughout Riverfront Crossings and the Eastside Mixed Use Districts; and to ensure that zoning requirements for exterior lighting are applied in the Riverfront Crossings and Eastside Mixed Use Districts. Howard noted that in May 2015 the Comprehensive Plan was amended to include a small area of the blocks between Van Buren and Johnson Streets, south of Jefferson Street and north of Burlington Street into the Central Planning District. When this change was approved it was recommended by the Commission and the Council to do something to make a better transition from the downtown to the residential areas and to establish zoning standards to ensure that if redevelopment occurs in this area is compatible with the character and scale of the surrounding neighborhoods. Howard noted that Staff felt like a form -based zoning code is a good tool to achieve those goals, similar to what was done in the Riverfront Crossings District. Part of the process of developing a form -based zoning code is to examine the neighborhood character and determine what the goals are for future development. Howard showed photos of the subject area, listing the characteristics (tree -lined streets, older residential buildings, landscaped front yards, and parking that is located behind buildings and accessed from mid -block alleys). The single family homes in this area were constructed about a hundred years ago, most with front porches facing the street. Many of these homes have been divided into apartments over the years since they are so close to campus and downtown. Many have retained their original building form, while some have been extensively remodeled so the building form is no longer recognizable. Some of the buildings have maintained their original single family building form but now contain small businesses. There are also some infill apartments in this area of more modern design that don't fit with the character of the neighborhood. There are also newer commercial buildings in the area that do not fit the original pattern of development, including the large mixed use building constructed on Washington Street built to the CB -2 standards, which is an example of what the current zoning will allow. The current zoning in this area is either CB -5 or CB -2 with two parcels zoned RSN-20. Howard noted that the current zoning is not a good fit for the area and is the reason that the Comprehensive Plan was amended and the goal established to consider changes to the current zoning to ensure that future development is a better fit for the neighborhood and as a transition from downtown. The current zoning forces developers to build commercial and mixed-use buildings in an area where demand for commercial is limited. Residential uses are not allowed on the ground floor, so that forces a bigger building than what the market might produce. It also forces buildings to be built lot line to lot line with little or no green space in an area where landscaped front yards are the norm. There is a maximum setback in the Central Business Zones that won't even allow new buildings to be setback similar to existing buildings in the neighborhood. The current zoning also allows buildings that are taller and larger than adjacent building. Lastly, most of the buildings in the area are non -conforming with the current zoning. For example, the University of Iowa Community Credit Union on the corner of Van Buren and Iowa Avenue is non -conforming Planning and Zoning Commission July 21, 2016—Formal Meeting Page 4 of 12 because of its setback and drive-through, which Central Business Zoning does not allow. Howard explained that form -based codes are structured around form and character rather than use and density. So looking at the Eastside Mixed Use District (EMU) the goal is to allow similar residential use densities that are allowed in the current zoning but in building forms that fit better into the character of the neighborhood. There would still be a mix of uses possible, but more fine-tuned to ensure there is a transition. The draft code is tailored to ensure the size and placement of the buildings and parking are consistent with the existing neighborhood. Howard pointed out that the zoning code already has some form -based standards that have improved the scale, placement and design of new multi -family buildings since the standards were adopted in 2005. She shared some images of more recent construction built to these standards. These examples show how higher density buildings can be designed in a form that fits better into the existing historic neighborhood. Howard emphasized that some of these same standards can be incorporated into the new form -based code district. She described the various elements of the proposed form -based code for the Eastside Mixed Use (EMU) District (a regulating plan, sub- district standards that would be specific to the EMU District, frontage type standards, building type standards, parking type standards, and general requirements. Howard noted that many of the standards in the Riverfront Crossings Code would be appropriate in this new district, so rather than trying to write a whole new code, the standards for the new EMU District have been incorporated into the Riverfront Crossings form -based code, but calibrated to the specific desired character of the area. Howard shared the regulating plan for the Eastside Mixed Use District, which was included in the Commissioner's packets. The east -west streets have been designated as primary streets, since most of the buildings are oriented to these streets and because the alleys run east/west as well. Van Buren Street has some buildings that front on it, but would be considered a secondary street. Howard highlighted the sections of the code that are unique to the Eastside Mixed Use District. Setbacks along primary streets will be 20 feet minimum and 30 feet maximum. This will allow for quite a bit of variation in the building form, similar to the older homes in the neighborhood. The setbacks would be measured from the fagade of the building, with any front porch or stoop allowed to extend into the setback. Along the secondary street the setbacks would be 10 feet minimum and 20 feet maximum. There is not a need for a large setback on this street since most of the buildings would not be oriented to this frontage and the setbacks of existing buildings along Van Buren Street tend to be shallower than what is found along the primary streets. Side setbacks would be 10 feet minimum, with the exception of townhomes where the setback would be zero or mixed-use or commercial buildings that might abut along side lot lines. Rear setbacks would be 10 foot minimum or 5 foot minimum from an alley. Howard stated with regard to building heights, Staff didn't feel like they could set the building heights lower than what is allowed in the residential zones, which is 35 feet, so that would allow for a maximum building height of three stories, but no bonus height would be allowed. Parking in this District must be placed behind the buildings with active building space required along primary streets. Along secondary streets, surface parking is allowed but must be setback behind the plane of the principal buildings. Parsons asked if the majority of the parking on the street in this District is metered. Another Commissioner stated that part of Iowa Avenue is, but the majority is not. Parsons noted that unmetered street parking, especially close to campus, can be very competitive when students are in town so that is perhaps something that should be reviewed if redevelopment occurs. Howard also noted a minor discrepancy between the code language and the graphic in the Planning and Zoning Commission July 21, 2016— Formal Meeting Page 5 of 12 form -based code for surface parking location along side and rear lot lines and recommended that the language be adjusted to match the graphic. The Code states "surface parking from the side lot line must be a minimum of 5 feet from the side property line". In this case if the building setback is 10 feet, the parking could be 5 feet closer to the lot line than the building and that was not the intention. The diagram represents the correct version, the code language should be amended. With regard to land uses allowed, Howard stated that in general the same land uses would be allowed as in a CB -5 Zone, which is consistent with what is allowed under the current zoning. This would allow for a mix of land uses in the area but Staff is recommending some additional restrictions be established given the desired residential character of the area. For example, drinking establishments and alcohol sales -oriented businesses would not be allowed; repair oriented retail would not be allowed, and quick vehicle services would only be allowed at the corner of Burlington and Van Buren Streets by special exception. Drive-through facilities would not be allowed (the bank is currently non -conforming in the CB -5 zone and is grandfathered in). Howard did say uses could be mixed both vertically and horizontally, however this is in reference to uses, not buildings. New mixed-use buildings and commercial buildings would only be allowed along Van Buren Street or Burlington Street, but commercial uses could also locate within residential building types. Mikio noted that with regards to building design and uses, a building could look residential on the outside but have a commercial use. Fired Up Iowa City was cited as an example. Howard explained that the residential density would be controlled by the building height, the setbacks, parking requirements, and the number of 3 bedroom units in multi -dwelling, apartment, and mixed use buildings may not exceed 20%. This standard is lower than what is allowed in the Central Business Zones, which is 30%, to encourage a broader mix of residents in the area. Howard then discussed the building types that would be allowed in the Eastside Mixed Use District. Cottage homes, row houses, townhouses, live/work townhouses, apartment buildings, multi -family dwelling buildings, mixed use buildings and commercial buildings (the last two types only allowed on Van Buren or Burlington Streets). All the building standards that apply in Riverfront Crossings District would also apply in the Eastside Mixed Use District, but Staff did add some specific language to the building articulation and modulation standards to tailor it to this specific district and also applied the Central Planning District architectural standards. Howard reviewed the reasons the City has those form -based standards in the current Code in the Central Planning District and other parts of the City are because of concerns of buildings out of scale with surrounding development, pedestrian unfriendly designs, blank street facing facades, long facades without any articulation or visual interest and safety concerns (entrances that are hidden and difficult to find, exterior stairways that are unsafe, particularly in winter conditions). Because those standards are working fairly well in the multi -family zones, Staff recommends using them in the Eastside Mixed Use District. Buildings are divided into modules with each module no greater than 30 feet, and no less than 10 feet. Additionally every module has to be differentiated by a variation in the wall plane. A larger building has to be broken into smaller segments for distinction and there is a maximum building width of 60 feet. Howard stated another standard that applies in the Central Business District is the architectural style standard. It makes it clear that a building needs to be designed to a style that is typical in early 20th century Iowa City, similar to existing buildings in the neighborhood. Howard discussed the parking requirements. Right now anything zoned CB -5 has parking requirements that are similar to downtown Iowa City. Standards in the CB -2 zone are similar to the Riverfront Crossings requirements so staff finds that these are most suitable for the Eastside Planning and Zoning Commission July 21, 2016 — Formal Meeting Page 6 of 12 Mixed Use District since it is a walkable area to downtown A useable open space requirement is not currently required in the Central Planning District or the multi -family standards. It is applied to the Riverfront Crossings District and will be applied to the new Eastside Mixed Use District. The minimum is 10 square feet of open space per bedroom. Freerks asked if the standards are strict on that or could a payment be made in lieu of having that open space. Howard said it would apply the same way it does in Riverfront Crossings, a developer could pay a fee for in lieu for up to 50% of the open space requirement. They could also use rooftop space and upper floor terraces to meet the open space requirement as long as it was designed for shared use by all the tenants of the building. Howard stated that along with inserting a new form -based district, similar to Riverfront Crossings, Staff wanted to make sure that all other standards will apply to the Eastside Mixed Use District. Staff inserted references to he Eastside Mixed Use District into the larger zoning code to address other general site standards, such as outdoor lighting, accessory uses, design review process, etc. as outlined in the Commissioner's packet. Finally Howard noted the list of proposed changes to the Riverfront Crossings Code that was included in the Staff report in the Commissioners' packets. She is happy to answer questions on any of those items, but was not going to discuss each one individually, she identified a few highlights: allow the student housing parking ratio for projects directly abutting the UI campus even if the project does not receive bonus heights; lower the percentage of three-bedroom units allowed in mixed-use and multi -family buildings in the southern portion of Riverfront Crossings to 20%, which is similar to what is being proposed in the Eastside Mixed Use District; clarify the Burlington Street setback requirements standards to ensure that the setback area is maintained at the same grade as the public sidewalk to ensure safe pedestrian movement along this high traffic corridor; establish safer balcony setback standards by clarifying that balconies shall not extend any closer than 8 feet to a side or rear lot line, unless the balcony abuts an alley or permanent open space; Specify that required street trees shall be over -story trees planted in the public right -of- way between the public sidewalk and the street curb at a ratio of 1 tree per 30 feet of frontage. This standard is consistent with the diagram in the code and with the Riverfront Crossings Plan; clarify the description of a Liner Building, mentioning that it is intended to provide for more active, pedestrian -oriented building uses along a street frontage with articulations to break up the building fagade; clarification to some of the building material standards; refine the minor adjustment provisions; and continue to allow freestanding signs in the West Riverfront District, but restrict the height to 15 feet. Freerks noted the provision to disallow "residential leasing signs" was a good addition to the Code. Signs asked the reasoning behind omitting the RSN-20 property on the south side of College Street from the new EMU District. Howard said the new district was established on all the remaining properties east of Van Buren that have inappropriate central business zoning as well as two RNS-20 properties where the current buildings do not fit well into the fabric of the neighborhood. Other RNS-20 properties have buildings that fit into the area, so we may not want to encourage their redevelopment. The new code would potentially allow densities that are not available now in RSN20 zone. Dyer noted that the Staff did not include a report on the neighborhood meeting. Howard stated who attended the neighborhood meeting and acknowledged that there was not a large turnout. Planning and Zoning Commission July 21, 2016—Formal Meeting Page 7 of 12 Nor have they received many phone calls about the proposed zoning. Howard believes it is because they are not taking away development rights, but rather adding more flexibility to develop in a manner that will fit into the neighborhood. Signs asked if there was any discussion about the Mercy Hospital area, since they have been acquiring properties in the neighborhood for potential growth. Miklo explained that this proposal is a specific response to a Comprehensive Plan Amendment the Commission requested. However, Council has asked Staff to look at a form -based code for the north side and to possibly hire a consultant to help with that effort, so that is within their future plans, but is not addressed in these code amendments. Signs asked where the fee in lieu money for parking goes. Howard said that goes into the City's parking fund to be used to fund additional City parking facilities. Freerks opened the public hearing. Pam Michaud (109 South Johnson Street) was unable to attend the neighborhood meeting but is very happy to see this form -based style come into the adjacent area to her College Green Historic District. It is a good move for many reasons but questioned why the two homes Signs questioned as to not be included in this area were left out. Howard noted it was because those buildings were already in keeping with the historic character of the neighborhood and have likely been developed to the maximum allowed density under the current zoning. Michaud said incorporating the idea of scale and form is very sensible in this area and this form - based code should be City wide and is there a way to regulate infill in residential neighborhoods so that there is not a monstrosity built next to a small house. Howard said that currently the multi -family house standards apply in any multi -family zone throughout the City. The Central Planning Districts Standards go a bit further because they are crafted specifically to ensure that new buildings that are built are built to a similar character and scale as the older neighborhoods. Michaud noted that the lighting in her neighborhood has been an issue ever since the parking ramp was built, there are very bright lights all night long from above the Washington Street parking ramp. Michaud has asked that those lights be put on a motion sensor or timer because it is unlikely that many people are parking on the top level of the ramp in the middle of the night. The response she received was that smaller LED bulbs were going to be used but that has never happened. Additionally there is an alley lamp that is at least 30 feet high that is very bright. These lights could be put on motion sensor or timers. So the new form -based code requirements for new development sound great but that doesn't solve some of the current lighting issues in the area. Howard noted that anything on private property is regulated by the zoning ordinance, and anything in the public right-of-way is not controlled by the zoning ordinance. Michaud also questioned that when a developer puts up a building with 125 apartments and has 50 parking spaces for that building, there are no regulations on who plows the snow from that alley that leads to that parking. Hektoen noted that the City's priority for plowing alleys is minimal, the adjacent property owners generally take care of the alleys. Hektoen stated that Michaud's comments are better conveyed to Council, the discussion tonight is not about Planning and Zoning Commission July 21, 2016— Formal Meeting Page 8 of 12 responsibility of alleys. Freerks suggested Michaud come to a meeting and speak during the time allotted for items not on the agenda if there are concerns she would like to address to the Commission. Freerks closed the public hearing Freerks noted perhaps to defer this item to give the Commissioners time to digest all this information. Dyer moved to defer the amendments to the Title 14, Zoning Code to establish standards for a new form- based code district, the Eastside Mixed Use District, to clarify and refine the language of certain provisions of the Riverfront Crossings form -based code, to adjust parking requirements and apartment mix standards to encourage student housing in areas abutting the University campus and to encourage housing for a broader mix of populations throughout Riverfront Crossings and the Eastside Mixed Use Districts; and to ensure that zoning requirements for exterior lighting are applied in the Riverfront Crossings and Eastside Mixed Use Districts. Martin seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. REZONING ITEM (REZ16-00006): Discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning of multiple properties encompassing portions of the 500 blocks of Iowa Avenue, College Street, Washington Street and Burlington Street from Central Business Support (CB -5), Central Business Service (CB -2) and Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-20) to Eastside Mixed Use (EMU) Howard said this item is to rezone all the properties located within the boundaries of the new Eastside Mixed Use District. Once the zoning code text amendments are adopted, the properties within the Eastside Mixed Use District must be rezoned in order for the new form - based standards to apply. Staff recommends rezoning all properties within the Eastside Mixed Use District to the new zoning designation to ensure that any future redevelopment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The City notified all property owners and surrounding property owners of the proposed rezoning and held a "good neighbor" informational meeting on June 22, 2016 to discuss the new form -based zoning and address questions from area property owners. Staff also met individually with some area property owners to discuss the proposed zoning. Staff is recommends deferral of this item until the Code Amendments creating the Eastside Mixed Use zoning district are recommended for approval. Freerks opened the public hearing. Pam Michaud (109 South Johnson Street) noted her appreciation that no alcohol sales business would be allowed in this area and would encourage shop hours to be controlled. Michaud stated she is glad to see this proposed form -based code is limiting the three bedroom units. However, she is concerned about new businesses in the area, having hours of operation that are disruptive to nearby residents, such as DP Dough restaurant that is open until 4 AM. She stated Planning and Zoning Commission July 21, 2016—Formal Meeting Page 9 of 12 that if the City wants to make these new form -based districts attractive for long term residents and not just students that these types of things need to be taken into account, such as hours of operation, lighting, etc. Hektoen clarified the Code Amendment does not say no alcohol sales (for example, restaurants can sell alcoholic beverages), but there are restrictions on drinking establishments and alcohol oriented retail uses. Howard added that the new EMU District would not allow any new drinking establishments or alcohol sales -oriented uses in this area. Hektoen clarified that restaurants that serve alcohol are distinguished from drinking establishments based on the hours of operation. Signs questioned why D.P. Dough is allowed to stay open until 4 a.m. Howard replied that they do not serve alcohol so they can set their business hours. Signs questioned why the code could have detailed standards such as the opacity of glass in the storefronts or other details that make buildings fit into the neighborhood, why couldn't it specify hours of operation so there is a better fit into character of the neighborhood. Howard noted that Staff would take a look at that issue and understands the concern. Freerks closed the public hearing. Parsons moved to defer REZ16-00006 an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning of multiple properties encompassing portions of the 500 blocks of Iowa Avenue, College Street, Washington Street and Burlington Street from Central Business Support (CB -5), Central Business Service (CB -2) and Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-20) to Eastside Mixed Use (EMU). Martin seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0. REZONING ITEM (REZ16-00004): Discussion of an application submitted by Larry Digman on behalf of Veterans Liberty Center for a rezoning from General Industrial (1-1) zone to Intensive Commercial (CI -1) zone for approximately 35,000 square feet of property located at 2114-2118 S. Riverside Drive and 103 Commercial Drive. Miklo showed an aerial photo of the location of the property and the two buildings that are on the property. It is somewhat unique that it is a commercial condominium regime, there are three condominiums in each building. Three are owned by the Veterans Liberty Center, a non-profit services organization for veterans. They currently lease out part of that space to an auto repair shop. The other three condominiums are owned by a contractor/cabinet maker, a construction company and the third one is owned by the contractor/cabinet maker but leased to a coffee roasting company. Miklo said that the auto repair shop moved in not knowing that their use was not allowed in an I- 1 zone. This came to the City's attention when the auto repair shop inquired about expanding the business to include car sales. Car sales are also not allowed in the 1-1 zone. Therefore the Veterans Liberty Center approached the City about rezoning the property. During that Planning and Zoning Commission July 21, 2016— Formal Meeting Page 10 of 12 discussion it was discovered they did not own the entire property, they only owned their condominiums. So the staff had discussions with the other two condominium owners and they did express some concern about car sales. With their business there is a lot of heavy truck traffic and they need to be assured the docks in the back of the business are accessible They were concerned that retail customers for a car sales lot would interfere with their use of the driveway to their buildings. There was a meeting of all the condominium property owners and they agreed to go along with the rezoning of their property subject to the car sales being limited to the front of the property and no retail traffic would come to the back of the property. Miklo also noted that a letter was received from an adjacent person who has a property to the east who is also concerned about the CIA zone and the outdoor storage that it allows. He noted that outdoor storage is also allowed by the current 1-1 zoning that applies to the property. Staff recommends approval of REZ16-00004, an application submitted by the Veteran's Liberty Center for a rezoning from 1-1 to CIA for approximately 35,000 square feet of property located at 2114-2118 Riverside Drive and 103 Commercial Drive subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement specifying that vehicle sales will be limited to the west side of the building at 2114-18 S. Riverside Drive. Vehicle sales display and customer parking will not be permitted on the eastside of the building. Miklo noted that Larry Digman, the applicant, called him this afternoon and was not able to attend the meeting this evening due to health concerns. He requested that if there are questions or issues that the application be deferred to the next meeting. Signs asked how many parking spaces would be required for this structure in either the current or proposed zone. Miklo was not sure exactly but has been to the site but in terms of the current uses it meets the standards. Howard noted that there is not difference in the parking ratios, parking is based on the use not the zone. Signs stated his concern was the parking seemed tight, and questioned if there was enough parking for auto sales plus customers of the auto repair shop and parking also for those visiting the veteran's center. Parsons asked how easy it would be for the City to enforce the vehicles for sale are in one portion of the lot. Miklo said they would have to rely on complaints from adjacent property owners. Freerks questioned the residential homes in the 1-1 zone. Miklo although the property to the south is zoned residential it currently contains residential uses which are grandfather in. Freerks opened the public hearing. Seeing no one, Freerks closed the public hearing. Theobald moved to approve REZ16-00004, a rezoning from 1-1 to CIA for approximately 35,000 square feet of property located at 2114-2118 Riverside Drive and 103 Commercial Drive subject to a conditional zoning agreement specifying that that vehicle sales will be limited to the west side of the building at 2114-18 S. Riverside Drive. Planning and Zoning Commission July 21, 2016 — Formal Meeting Page 11 of 12 Parsons seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: JULY 7. 2016 Parsons moved to approve the meeting minutes of July 7, 2016 with a minor edit. Theobald seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: None. ADJOURNMENT: Parsons moved to adjourn. Theobald seconded. A vote was taken and motion carried 6-0. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2015-2016 FORMAL MEETING KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member 8/6 8/20 9/3 9/17 10/1 10/15111/5 11/19 12/3 1/7 1/21 2/19 3/3 3/17 4/7 41211515 5/19 6/2 7/7 7/21 DYER, CAROLYN X X X X X X X X X I X X X X X X X X X X X X EASTHAM, CHARLIE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X FREERKS, ANN X X X X X X O/E X X X O/E X X X X X X O/E X O/E X HENSCH, MIKE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X O/E MARTIN, PHOEBE X X X OIE O/E X O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X X O/E PARSONS, MAX X X X X X X X O/E X X X X X O/E X X X X X X X SIGNS, MARK — X X X X X THEOBALD, JODIE O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member